Brief argument(s) for cessationism?

[Contra_Mundum]

I just need to know:
Where are the present-day Apostles, who can lay the hands, by which sign-gifts were given in the New Testament to those who were not Apostles?

People who so received the gifts from the Apostles were not themselves distributors again... So, in the absence of Apostles, it seems that we cannot have (nor should we try to find) the signs of the Apostles.

Of course, there are plenty of people around today who happen to have "selective" signs under their power, the "subjective" signs; some of whom also claim to have raised people from the dead, and some of whom even claim to be modern Apostles. Some of them are even women (because now we've made so much progress).

There is a reason why people who claim extraordinary gifts also claim revelatory authority. It is in order to validate their own claims to authority--exactly as the Apostles of old did. It really doesn't matter to me that Joe Six-Pack says that his "revelation" is just for him. He's asserting illegitimate authority over himself at that point, precisely when he should be listening to his ordinary pastor, who's telling him to stop listening to that "voice," and start paying attention in church.

They were called "fanatics" in the 16th century, and our Reformed fathers wrote their claims right out of accord with their Confessions. "Bye bye; you have another spirit." Today, they're called "charismatics." And the same criticism applies.

All the anecdotes about modern-day miracles are as significant as the anecdotes about the 3rd century saints for whom there are also miracles claimed. They are totally worthless from the standpoint of attestation to the truth. Perhaps they happened, perhaps God actually intervened contrary to nature and did a miracle. How does that have anything to do with the truth of Scripture? It doesn't.

There is absolutely NO difference between a glossalian who proclaims Buddha and the one who proclaims Christ. Someone replies: "But the former is a lie, and the latter is truth and is accompanied by the Spirit!" Well, pointing at converts or other metrics of "success" is bogus; how much could be the result of the Spirit and Word overcoming foolish and unauthorized behavior?

Furthermore, in what way exactly is this miracle "of the hour" superior to the miracles actually performed by Christ and his Apostles? This is how the Reformers answered the papists' claims because of all their successes and miracle-workers. Rome had the Bible AND miracles! The poor Reformers only had the Bible. They answered by preaching the miracles OF the gospel.

They didn't need the papists' miracles or the fanatics' glossalia, and we don't either.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

I just need to know:
Where are the present-day Apostles, who can lay the hands, by which sign-gifts were given in the New Testament to those who were not Apostles?

People who so received the gifts from the Apostles were not themselves distributors again... So, in the absence of Apostles, it seems that we cannot have (nor should we try to find) the signs of the Apostles.

Of course, there are plenty of people around today who happen to have "selective" signs under their power, the "subjective" signs; some of whom also claim to have raised people from the dead, and some of whom even claim to be modern Apostles. Some of them are even women (because now we've made so much progress).

There is a reason why people who claim extraordinary gifts also claim revelatory authority. It is in order to validate their own claims to authority--exactly as the Apostles of old did. It really doesn't matter to me that Joe Six-Pack says that his "revelation" is just for him. He's asserting illegitimate authority over himself at that point, precisely when he should be listening to his ordinary pastor, who's telling him to stop listening to that "voice," and start paying attention in church.

They were called "fanatics" in the 16th century, and our Reformed fathers wrote their claims right out of accord with their Confessions. "Bye bye; you have another spirit." Today, they're called "charismatics." And the same criticism applies.

All the anecdotes about modern-day miracles are as significant as the anecdotes about the 3rd century saints for whom there are also miracles claimed. They are totally worthless from the standpoint of attestation to the truth. Perhaps they happened, perhaps God actually intervened contrary to nature and did a miracle. How does that have anything to do with the truth of Scripture? It doesn't.

There is absolutely NO difference between a glossalian who proclaims Buddha and the one who proclaims Christ. Someone replies: "But the former is a lie, and the latter is truth and is accompanied by the Spirit!" Well, pointing at converts or other metrics of "success" is bogus; how much could be the result of the Spirit and Word overcoming foolish and unauthorized behavior?

Furthermore, in what way exactly is this miracle "of the hour" superior to the miracles actually performed by Christ and his Apostles? This is how the Reformers answered the papists' claims because of all their successes and miracle-workers. Rome had the Bible AND miracles! The poor Reformers only had the Bible. They answered by preaching the miracles OF the gospel.

They didn't need the papists' miracles or the fanatics' glossalia, and we don't either.

1. Your assumption that an apostle has to directly lay hands on someone for them to have a miraculous gift is conjecture from descriptive text, not teaching from prescriptive. I would think that God would have made it clear that the gifts were to cease as opposed to going into detail about the proper use of them if they were supposed to cease.

2. I agree with your practical criticisms. I do not attend charismatic services and I have never healed anyone. I have never seen anyone speaking in tongues that I thought was legit. Though you may have an argument that the charismatic use of tongues is unbiblical and invalid that still doesn't say tongues has ceased but that they are calling something the gift of tongues when it isn't.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 06:20:08 EST-----

Hi:

TimO and Meanly:

Situational revelation? Why the Scriptures speak about prophets of whom we know little or next to nothing concerning their prophecies - such as the Daughters of Philip, Acts 21:9. Were their prophesying "situational" and, if so, would you argue that we can have "situational propheysing" going on today? And, if so, then are our consciences bound by such "situational prophesying"? And, if our consciences are bound by such prophesyings, then how is it different from canonical revelation? Canonical Revelation has spoken to situations, 1 Kns 22:8.

Chuck Smith may have abandoned Wimber's ministry, but he has not abandoned the idea that the "gifts are for today." Not a very good argument there, TimO.

Paul, in saying that tongues are a sign to the Jews, is writing post-Pentacost. In this situation the gift is no longer necessary, because throughout the whole world there are men, women and children giving thanks and praise to God in many different tongues: Germans, Italians, Russians, Chineese, Koreans, Japaneese, Sudaneese, Kenyans, Nigerians, and Brazilians to name a few.

I am in the midst of finals here - sorry for the brevity.

Blessings,

Rob

Meanly? Is this a Freudian slip?

 

[timmopussycat]

I just need to know:
Where are the present-day Apostles, who can lay the hands, by which sign-gifts were given in the New Testament to those who were not Apostles?

Where does Scripture say that Paul laid hands on every Corinthian who had a sign gift? Yes, it did happen by laying on of hands some of the time (Timothy and Stephen are examples that come to mind) but Scripture is clear the gifts came both ways. Certainly Peter nor the other Apostles laid hands on the 120 or those in Cornelius' house who found themselves gifted with tongues. One cannot prove the claim that sign gifts necessarily require Apostolic laying on of hands against these counter examples.

People who so received the gifts from the Apostles were not themselves distributors again... So, in the absence of Apostles, it seems that we cannot have (nor should we try to find) the signs of the Apostles.

Since God can sovereignly bestow the gifts apart from the laying on of hands by Apostles they may sovereignly be bestowed anywhere anytime. (I have some observations about why I don't expect to see them widespread in North America right now but that's another question.) The signs don't just mark the presence of an apostle, Paul's regulation of Corinthian practice demonstrates that he expected them to continue in his absence.

Regarding what follows: I don't know if you have read my previous posts or not but I am hoping that you haven't, because if you have, you clearly haven't read them carefully.

(Also keep in mind that I can provide equally tough discussion challenges to a doctrinare charismatic continuationist as I can to insuffiently thoughtful cessationists.

To my mind the whole debate is proves Jonathan Edwards' observation in the first part of Religious Affections that a common Christian response to theological error is overreaction in the opposite direction.)

Of course, there are plenty of people around today who happen to have "selective" signs under their power, the "subjective" signs; some of whom also claim to have raised people from the dead, and some of whom even claim to be modern Apostles. Some of them are even women (because now we've made so much progress).

Neither Manley or I are referring to any modern "apostles" and you don't define "selective" nor "subjective" signs which I had not mentioned. About raising from the dead, since the possibility of divine miracles is also recognized by cessationists, the question more properly - should such an event occur - is whether the event would be an example of the sign "gifts of healings" or whether the event was a non continuist divine miracle.

There is a reason why people who claim extraordinary gifts also claim revelatory authority. It is in order to validate their own claims to authority--exactly as the Apostles of old did. It really doesn't matter to me that Joe Six-Pack says that his "revelation" is just for him. He's asserting illegitimate authority over himself at that point, precisely when he should be listening to his ordinary pastor, who's telling him to stop listening to that "voice," and start paying attention in church.

I am very well aware that all those who recognize the contemporary possibility of the Corinthian spiritual gifts will be tempted to claim extraordinary authority sooner or later - I saw it happen in one case. But anybody commenting on this subject has no excuse for not not being aware that not all fall victim to the trap. There are, to take but one example, some within the English & Canadian Charismatic Anglicans who regulate those gifts by Scripture without going into the dark side of putting their own experience above Scripture and I spent several years in that community. In addition, your Joe Six-Pack scenario simply does not match either the biblical example I alluded to to which contemporary "parallels" must be expected to conform if prophecy occurs in a service, nor to the biblical criteria I gave by which all claimed prophecies must be judged, which must be applied before JoeSP could exercise such authority.

They were called "fanatics" in the 16th century, and our Reformed fathers wrote their claims right out of accord with their Confessions. "Bye bye; you have another spirit." Today, they're called "charismatics." And the same criticism applies.

All the anecdotes about modern-day miracles are as significant as the anecdotes about the 3rd century saints for whom there are also miracles claimed. They are totally worthless from the standpoint of attestation to the truth. Perhaps they happened, perhaps God actually intervened contrary to nature and did a miracle. How does that have anything to do with the truth of Scripture? It doesn't.

There is absolutely NO difference between a glossalian who proclaims Buddha and the one who proclaims Christ. Someone replies: "But the former is a lie, and the latter is truth and is accompanied by the Spirit!" Well, pointing at converts or other metrics of "success" is bogus; how much could be the result of the Spirit and Word overcoming foolish and unauthorized behavior?

Not necessarily. Incidents in which what appears to be a sign gift functioning within the biblical parameters and producing biblical results cannot be differentiated from the biblical sign gifts unless we know for certain that God has withdrawn them in the post-Apostolic era.

Whatever one may think of the Smith story I cited, there is no denying that if it occured it is an exact parallel to the biblical tongues operating under biblical rules and leading to a biblical result of (raising a question in the hearer that when asked led to an opportunity for witness and subsequent conversion).

There is a fundamental difference betweeen some Buddhist spouting nonsense syllables proclaiming Buddha and a Christian who somehow finds himself or herself recognizably praising God in a language he or she has not been previously taught. The one is glossolalia; the other at Pentecost and possibly today, is the gift of tongues.

There are very serious reasons why the conventional cessationist arguments do not convince informed charismatics and I have alluded to some of them. I have yet to see the point established by good and necessary consequence that the sign gifts died with the apostles and, as I said earlier, if all the gifts that are linked to the apostles died out, why do we allow pastors and teachers in the present day church? They are "gifts" too.

Furthermore, in what way exactly is this miracle "of the hour" superior to the miracles actually performed by Christ and his Apostles? This is how the Reformers answered the papists' claims because of all their successes and miracle-workers. Rome had the Bible AND miracles! The poor Reformers only had the Bible. They answered by preaching the miracles OF the gospel.

They didn't need the papists' miracles or the fanatics' glossalia, and we don't either.

I agree we don't need the fanatics glossolalia, but if we encounter exact parallels of biblical sign gifts operating in the church, we must be absolutely certain that the theology that rejects the contemporary possibility theref has no holes in it before we reject the possibity that God wants to use those gifts again.

 

[MW]

The problem we need to work through here is this: since God has in some way "revealed" both the canonical documents of Old and New Testaments which are foundational to the gospel and church, and the situational revelations not included in the canon, we cannot limit the term "revelation" to the former content and exclude the latter unless we can show he used a different communications methodology in each case.

The difficulty you face is the fact that these so-called situational revelations functioned in the same way as the canonical revelation until the canonical revelation was complete. Inscripturation, according to the reformed understanding of it, is simply the plenary committing to writing of what God had revelaed at sundry times and in divers manners. It is impossible to create a practical difference between the revelation as given and the revelation as written.

 

[MW]

They are standing with me on the issue being discussed related to them; the interpretation of "the perfect" being heaven not the completion of the scripture. And though Edwards isn't totally there he certainly isn't against my position on that text but seems pretty unsure.

No, they are only being called to your assistance with respect to the interpretation of one verse of Scripture. Their statements clearly indicate cessationism -- namely, that God makes His will known by the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures, and that men are not to seek any other revelation from Him.

 

[Scott1]

Not to sidetrack discussion here, only to understand in the direction the thread is now going:

Can anyone answer this:
For purposes of the question, let us assume:

1) "speaking in an unknown tongue," as part of corporate worship is not taken as new revelation of biblical doctrine of any kind

2) "speaking in an unknown tongue" requires an immediate "gift of interpretation" to follow it immediately in corporate worship

What would be the corporate worship purpose now?

and

armourbearer
God makes His will known by the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures, and that men are not to seek any other revelation from Him.

This sounds right.

My question is how would we classify it when we pray and ask God for direction, for example, this isn't revelation in the sense of doctrine... but how do we classify what God does for us?

 

[MW]

My question is how would we classify when we pray and ask God for direction, for example, this isn't revelation in the sense of doctrine... but how do we classify what God does for us?

As prayer must be agreeable to His will, we can be sure the answer to prayer shall be agreeable to His will also. That will can only be learned from holy Scripture. The voice of the Holy Spirit can only be discerned because it accords with holy Scripture. The holy Scripture therefore is always the medium for learning what we are to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man.

 

[Scott1]

armourbearer

As prayer must be agreeable to His will, we can be sure the answer to prayer shall be agreeable to His will also. That will can only be learned from holy Scripture. The voice of the Holy Spirit can only be discerned because it accords with holy Scripture. The holy Scripture therefore is always the medium for learning what we are to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man.

Yes, prayer must be according to His will and will be answered according to His will. Scripture informs us what to believe about God. It is sin to imagine God to be something other than what His will reveals. The Holy Spirit illuminates our understanding as we read Scripture.

In the case of praying something like, for example, which job to accept- if we ask God for discernment or to confirm by circumstances, what might we call this? Or is this a way we ought not pray?

 

[MW]

In the case of praying something like, for example, which job to accept- if we ask God for discernment or to confirm by circumstances, what might we call this? Or is this a way we ought not pray?

Scripture will provide the moral parameters for such a decision, e.g., does it transgress a commandment, is it serviceable to others; while ordinary providence might make one job look more desirable than another, e.g. pay, time, travel consideration. But I think all would agree that such a decision is a fallible preference of the individual, not one for which divine authority can be claimed.

 

[KMK]

In the case of praying something like, for example, which job to accept- if we ask God for discernment or to confirm by circumstances, what might we call this? Or is this a way we ought not pray?

Scripture will provide the moral parameters for such a decision, e.g., does it transgress a commandment, is it serviceable to others; while ordinary providence might make one job look more desirable than another, e.g. pay, time, travel consideration. But I think all would agree that such a decision is a fallible preference of the individual, not one for which divine authority can be claimed.

How would Heb 13:17 play into this, Rev Winzer?

 

[MW]

How would Heb 13:17 play into this, Rev Winzer?

I think a church ruler might counsel one who is under him as to the moral and practical considerations, but when it comes to earthly actions which are indifferent he would be wise to follow our Lord's example and refuse to decide such matters for others.

 

[KMK]

How would Heb 13:17 play into this, Rev Winzer?

I think a church ruler might counsel one who is under him as to the moral and practical considerations, but when it comes to earthly actions which are indifferent he would be wise to follow our Lord's example and refuse to decide such matters for others.

Would such counsel be a means of the HS 'speaking' to a congregant? (Assuming that the counsel was in accordance with the Bible)

 

[MW]

Would such counsel be a means of the HS 'speaking' to a congregant? (Assuming that the counsel was in accordance with the Bible)

Certainly; in the same sense as when the Jerusalem council said it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.

 

[timmopussycat]

The problem we need to work through here is this: since God has in some way "revealed" both the canonical documents of Old and New Testaments which are foundational to the gospel and church, and the situational revelations not included in the canon, we cannot limit the term "revelation" to the former content and exclude the latter unless we can show he used a different communications methodology in each case.

The difficulty you face is the fact that these so-called situational revelations functioned in the same way as the canonical revelation until the canonical revelation was complete. Inscripturation, according to the reformed understanding of it, is simply the plenary committing to writing of what God had revelaed at sundry times and in divers manners. It is impossible to create a practical difference between the revelation as given and the revelation as written.

That the two kinds of revelation functioned in the same way is not in dispute. What is at issue from the OP is their relative authority for the church. As Greg Bahnsen once correctly noted, Scripture contains “…localized imperatives to the Jews — commands for specified use in one concrete situation … " which do not apply outside those situations. (Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics 3rd ed. p. xxvi). When the content of a situational revelation is not recorded in Scripture, that revelation is no part of the church's "foundation of the apostles and prophets" which is canonical Scripture and it will not apply outside those situations for which it was given.

Now although genuine situational revelation functioned in the same way as canonical revelation, we must never forget that God's people (outside of the apostles, prophets, and situational prophets such as Agabus or Philip's daughters) have never, (with the exceptions of those at Sinai and Christ's hearers), experienced either canonical or situational revelation directly. We do not hear the voice of God directly ourselves, what comes to us is a word delivered by men. And that word has to be tested before it is recognized. So if today someone claims to speak a word from the Lord it is up to us to test that claim by the biblical criteria previously mentioned. If it does not pass the biblical criteria, we are in no bondage to it.

Canonical revelation however is different. It does not come to us as the word of man that we must test to discern whether or not it is a divinely given situational prophecy. Scripture comes as the word of God that we must obey. We know that Jesus said Scripture cannot be broken and that the writings of the apostles and the documents they recognized as Scripture are the final authority for the church. When Scripture gives a non-situational command, we have Christ's own authority for saying that this is God speaking and not man.

A foundation once complete needs no additions by definition. And as Paul notes, no other foundation can be laid save the apostolic revelation of Christ as the fulfillment of the OT prophetic messianic promises.
But the situational revelations Scripture either mentions or details, never contained material that is a foundational requirement for the church at all times in all places. And because situational revelation is not part of the the "foundation of the apostles and prophets" which is canonical revelation, one cannot use Eph 2:20 in an attempt to disprove the possibility that situational revelation continues today.

 

[MW]

So if today someone claims to speak a word from the Lord it is up to us to test that claim by the biblical criteria previously mentioned. If it does not pass the biblical criteria, we are in no bondage to it.

This is where your theoretical foundation is falling apart. You have created a "test" for your continuing revelation, which would have formed no part of the revelation given during the canonical process. You are testing an ongoing revelation on the basis that God will not provide new information concerning faith and life, and therefore can require that it conforms to a closed biblical canon; but during the canonical process there was not only a possibility but an expectation of new information. Quite obviously, then, what you espouse is not a continuing revelation at all, but a revelation of a whole new nature, never before seen in the history of redemption.

 

[timmopussycat]

So if today someone claims to speak a word from the Lord it is up to us to test that claim by the biblical criteria previously mentioned. If it does not pass the biblical criteria, we are in no bondage to it.

This is where your theoretical foundation is falling apart. You have created a "test" for your continuing revelation, which would have formed no part of the revelation given during the canonical process.

Flat wrong. And you should know better.

During both the OT and the NT eras, believers were SPECIFICALLY required to test not only situational revelation but CANONICAL REVELATION for its conformity to the OT Scriputure. As early as Deuteronomy, the Israelites were warned of the possiblility of false prophets and how they were to be discerned. Two conditions they were given were, that genuine prophets would not contradict the Sinaitic covenant revelation and that their prophecies would come true. Jesus himself tells the diciples that what he was doing was the fulfillment of all that was written about him in the Law and the Prophets. The Bereans were commended for testing Paul's teaching against Scripture and Peter tells his readers that Scripture is more certain than even apostolic testimony.

You are testing an ongoing revelation on the basis that God will not provide new information concerning faith and life, and therefore can require that it conforms to a closed biblical canon; but during the canonical process there was not only a possibility but an expectation of new information.

And Scripture provides tests for anything claiming to be new revelation. Now with the Apostolic testimony inScripturated the canon is complete. As Paul says "no other foundation" can be laid. If any genuinely new revelation occurs, it will not add to or contradict the foundation. By elimination, if any genuine revelation occurs today, it can only be situational guidance for particular people in particular times and places.

Quite obviously, then, what you espouse is not a continuing revelation at all, but a revelation of a whole new nature, never before seen in the history of redemption.

Again flat wrong. And I am at al loss understand how you could so misunderstand what is at issue here. Because I have repeated defined the kind of situational revelation that may or may not be occuring today, showing that what is at issue is the timing and not the nature of the communication. Has God decided to discontinue using a particular method of guiding his people, or is he still using it on occasion?

The situational revelation I suggest may occur is contemporary instances of the situational revelations that did occur during the canonical period. If parallels to Agabus' famine prophecy or the revealing of the secrets of visitors to the Corinthian meetings, do continue past the close of the canon, it is not something of a new nature, never before seen in the history of redemption, but a continuation of something that has been well known since Sinai and repeatedly documented in Scriputure.

Whatever God is or is not doing, claims that that He does employ situational revelation and claimed examples of it are still found. Where such occur, unless one can first prove by GNC that God has retired situational revelation, (and the OP provided a text which is not sufficient as proof), the church must employ the criteria Scripture provides for testing such claims. It is Scripture that requires believers to test ANYTHING and EVERYTHING in the realm of situational prophecy that claims to come to them in the name of the Lord. And it is Scripture that tells us the conditions by which such claims are to be tested. And it is Scripture that tells us that if the claimed revelation fails the tests, it is not from the Lord and we are not to be in bondage to it.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

Manley: Sorry for the typo - it was not freudian at all. I think you are a godly and gracious man - moreso than myself.

TimO writes: (I hope you don't mind me calling you TimO?)

(talking about Chuck Smith): It's not conclusive, but it is suggestive because it breaks a pattern of what often happens to deceivers. Scripturally they go from bad to worse being ever more deceived. Yet Smith broke from Wimber over the latters non Scriptural abuse of the gifts, something one would not have expected him to do if he had put forward a deception in the area himself.

If Chuck Smith had abandoned "the gifts are for today" teaching, then I would feel the weight of this argument. However, he did not. Therefore, I do not.

I am a bit unsure about this type of "situational revelation" in which you are investing much time and energy on in your posts. What makes me unsure is that all Christians have a living, true, and vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ. This relationship is not simply intellectual, but experimental as well. Consequently, the Holy Spirit relates with us on a day by day through the Word of God on a "situational" level. If this is all you mean, then we agree with each other more than we may think.

However, you are linking this idea of revelation with the Biblical idea of "Gifts." As I understand it - not all the Christians in the first century were endowed with the Gifts. In fact, even those who had the Gifts did not have all of them, "some prophets, some evangels, some teachers..."

As I look at the operation of the Gifts in the Bible I see that they always seem to work. They even work when the owner of the Gifts was not cognizant that the Gift was working - napkins from Paul's body healing people, for example. However, the operation of those who claim the Gifts are for today does not seem to run so smoothly. In fact, I believe that when their Gift fails to work (prophecy, tongue, translation, healing, whatever) they blame those around them with a "lack of faith." They will even quote Jesus, "Your faith has made you well." Or, they will cite that other passage in the Gospels where Jesus did not do many miracles, because of the unbelief of the people.

As Reformed and Calvinistic I think we both know that such teachings are an abuse of Scripture. If you disagree, then we must discuss this as well.

Is there Scriptural proof that the idea of "situational prophecy and tongues" have ceased? I think so. We have, for example, the New Testament telling us that the Ceremonial laws of Moses have expired. Does the New Testament list every single law in order for us to know that they are all expired? No. It does not. If the greater has passed away, i.e. the ceremonial sacrifices, then we can construe that the lesser has passed away as well, i.e. two types of threads in clothing.

Consequently, if the greater has passed away - Canonical Revelation - then we can conclude that the lesser has passed away with it as well - Situational Revelation.

Grace and Peace,

Rob

 

[Scott1]

timmopussycat

During both the OT and the NT eras, believers were SPECIFICALLY required to test not only situational revelation but CANONICAL REVELATION for its conformity to the OT Scriputure. As early as Deuteronomy, the Israelites were warned of the possiblility of false prophets and how they were to be discerned. Two conditions they were given were, that genuine prophets would not contradict the Sinaitic covenant revelation and that their prophecies would come true. Jesus himself tells the diciples that what he was doing was the fulfillment of all that was written about him in the Law and the Prophets. The Bereans were commended for testing Paul's teaching against Scripture and Peter tells his readers that Scripture is more certain than even apostolic testimony.

Good exchanges, all.

What do we mean by "apostolic testimony"?

Wasn't the "apostolic testimony" canon, that is, Scripture?

Also, when we say testing canonical revelation by the Old Testament, what do we make of, for example, the Old Testament civil law to Israel to not eat pork, whereas in the New Testament, Peter receives revelation that it is okay?

 

[timmopussycat]

Hi:

Manley: Sorry for the typo - it was not freudian at all. I think you are a godly and gracious man - moreso than myself.

TimO writes: (I hope you don't mind me calling you TimO?)

Timmo would be better; the family ancestry is Scotch English not Irish.

[Timmo quote](talking about Chuck Smith): It's not conclusive, but it is suggestive because it breaks a pattern of what often happens to deceivers. Scripturally they go from bad to worse being ever more deceived. Yet Smith broke from Wimber over the latters non Scriptural abuse of the gifts, something one would not have expected him to do if he had put forward a deception in the area himself.

If Chuck Smith had abandoned "the gifts are for today" teaching, then I would feel the weight of this argument. However, he did not. Therefore, I do not.

I am a bit unsure about this type of "situational revelation" in which you are investing much time and energy on in your posts. What makes me unsure is that all Christians have a living, true, and vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ. This relationship is not simply intellectual, but experimental as well. Consequently, the Holy Spirit relates with us on a day by day through the Word of God on a "situational" level. If this is all you mean, then we agree with each other more than we may think.

What is at issue is whether or not God is, after the time of the apostles, continuing to inform and guide his church by means of prophetic guidance to future events (the famine prophecied by Agabus) or empower evangelism (by revealing the heart secrets of visitors as in Corinth). The entire point I am trying to make in this thread is that one cannot derive a GNC demonstrable proof from Eph. 2:20 that God has retired the spiritual gifts in the post-Apostolic age. All Paul is saying in Eph 2:20 is that Gentiles and Jews are brought together into the church which has for its foundation the church's foundation is the OT prophetic testimony to the coming Messiah, fulfilled in Christ and announced and explained by the Apostles. He is saying nothing whatsoever about whether or not the voice gifts or other gifts cease after such a terminus ad quem; in fact he isn't even mentioning them.

However, you are linking this idea of revelation with the Biblical idea of "Gifts." As I understand it - not all the Christians in the first century were endowed with the Gifts. In fact, even those who had the Gifts did not have all of them, "some prophets, some evangels, some teachers..."

I agree that not all Christians had any or all of the sign gifts. Paul's entire point in 1 Cor 12 is that whatever gift one has is for use in the church. But I think we are forced to link the idea of revelation within the gifts in at least the prophetic gift because the NT recognizes prophecy as one of the gifts as then current in the church. I don't think we can get away from the idea that revelation will be involved in the prophetic gift because the NT puts uses the labels prophecy and prophet for the gift. Also if we postulate that the NT gift is of prophecy is not revelatory then we encounter the practical problem: by what criteria does the church judge claimed "prophecies" something the NT commands us to do. If NT prophecy is not the same as OT prophecy than how were the believers to judge it?

As I look at the operation of the Gifts in the Bible I see that they always seem to work. They even work when the owner of the Gifts was not cognizant that the Gift was working - napkins from Paul's body healing people, for example. However, the operation of those who claim the Gifts are for today does not seem to run so smoothly. In fact, I believe that when their Gift fails to work (prophecy, tongue, translation, healing, whatever) they blame those around them with a "lack of faith." They will even quote Jesus, "Your faith has made you well." Or, they will cite that other passage in the Gospels where Jesus did not do many miracles, because of the unbelief of the people.

As Reformed and Calvinistic I think we both know that such teachings are an abuse of Scripture. If you disagree, then we must discuss this as well.

Here I entirely agree with you. As I said earlier I can and do ask equally hard questions of unthinking Charismatics as I ask of unthinking Cessationists. This is one of the big ones: why do your so-called "gifts" not conform to the NT patterns?

Is there Scriptural proof that the idea of "situational prophecy and tongues" have ceased? I think so. We have, for example, the New Testament telling us that the Ceremonial laws of Moses have expired. Does the New Testament list every single law in order for us to know that they are all expired? No. It does not. If the greater has passed away, i.e. the ceremonial sacrifices, then we can construe that the lesser has passed away as well, i.e. two types of threads in clothing.

Consequently, if the greater has passed away - Canonical Revelation - then we can conclude that the lesser has passed away with it as well - Situational Revelation.

Keep in mind that logic can be nothing more than a way to err with confidence. Your syllogism depends on the premise that God always acts in accordance with human logic but he does not always do so. Whether he is doing so or not in this case is what is at issue. And God has shown a consistent pattern to put shepherding his people at a higher priority level than human deductions from his law. If he believes it necessary to guide his people by situational prophecy after the apostolic age, he is not likely to refrain on the grounds that is spoils the syllogism.

Finally let me say that I am much impressed the more I read of those Christians in earlier ages who recognized that "odd" things sometimes occured either to them or in their circles without making any claim that the Corinthian spiritual gifts had been returned to the church. By framing the discussions in these terms, they were able to recognize the reality of God's freedom of operation in the realm of the miraculous, experience it without guilt, and not make too much of it. I often wish our age had done likewise.

-----Added 2/28/2009 at 08:29:36 EST-----

timmopussycat

During both the OT and the NT eras, believers were SPECIFICALLY required to test not only situational revelation but CANONICAL REVELATION for its conformity to the OT Scriputure. As early as Deuteronomy, the Israelites were warned of the possiblility of false prophets and how they were to be discerned. Two conditions they were given were, that genuine prophets would not contradict the Sinaitic covenant revelation and that their prophecies would come true. Jesus himself tells the diciples that what he was doing was the fulfillment of all that was written about him in the Law and the Prophets. The Bereans were commended for testing Paul's teaching against Scripture and Peter tells his readers that Scripture is more certain than even apostolic testimony.

Good exchanges, all.

What do we mean by "apostolic testimony"?

Wasn't the "apostolic testimony" canon, that is, Scripture?

Also, when we say testing canonical revelation by the Old Testament, what do we make of, for example, the Old Testament civil law to Israel to not eat pork, whereas in the New Testament, Peter receives revelation that it is okay?

The Jews were told in Deuteronomy that the false prophets would seduce them away from their covenantally required obedience to God and his laws. "let us worship other Gods" an invitation God required them to reject in the strongest terms.

In the gospel of Mark at one point "Jesus declared all foods clean". God can amend any law he chooses at any time and the lawgiver did so. Had Jesus not declared all foods clean, had Peter as Christ's Apostolic delegate, not seen the vision and acted accordingly, the church would have had no warrant to change the dietary laws.

 

[Scott1]

Good exchanges, all.

What do we mean by "apostolic testimony"?

Wasn't the "apostolic testimony" canon, that is, Scripture?

Also, when we say testing canonical revelation by the Old Testament, what do we make of, for example, the Old Testament civil law to Israel to not eat pork, whereas in the New Testament, Peter receives revelation that it is okay?

The Jews were told in Deuteronomy that the false prophets would seduce them away from their covenantally required obedience to God and his laws. "let us worship other Gods" an invitation God required them to reject in the strongest terms.

How are you differentiating "apostolic testimony" from "canon [of scripture]?

In the gospel of Mark at one point "Jesus declared all foods clean". God can amend any law he chooses at any time and the lawgiver did so. Had Jesus not declared all foods clean, had Peter as Christ's Apostolic delegate, not seen the vision and acted accordingly, the church would have had no warrant to change the dietary laws.

So, in a sense, we are not saying the "revelation" of new testament canon had to be substantiated by the same old testament "revelation"? (e.g. though the Bereans were noble for checking what the apostle Paul said against Old Testament scripture, what the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture in the New Testament says might supersede, in its own right, Old Testament Scripture)

 

[Anton Bruckner]

You may be equating continuationism with a belief in the canon being open. Though that may be one of the errors of the pentecostals it is not the error of Grudem, Piper, or any who are more orthadox.

The passage in Hebrews cannot disprove the gift of prophesy since the gift is claimed to exist in other passages. Though you may feel that pentecostals have erred in what this gift is, you can't argue that the gift is nonexistant.

if the gift of prophesy exists (if we define prophecy as strictly the telling of future events) it follows that the canon is not closed.

Thus saith the Lord when spoken today has to be strictly a pronouncement of the application of a specific moral law to a specific case. In such an instance it is not prophesy but mere judgment, education, edification and counsel. An eg. of this is a non christian woman considering abortion who perchance comes into contact with a Christian Pastor. The Pastor has to say and is commanded to say, "Thus saith the Lord, thou shalt not kill". If the Pastor speaks presumptuously and says that, "The Lord reveals to my spirit that you shouldn't have this abortion, and if you do have this abortion such and such specific evil will befall you", this is a blatant lie and going outside of the bounds of scripture. Why? For if it is valid why not add his experience to scripture, since scripture in a large part involves the life experiences of men of God. How about Epistles of Prophet Brown from Sweet Holy Spirit Pentecostal Church?

Anyway my point is Cessationism is valid and is the only course to take. Do miracles happen? A blind man got kicked in his head by a horse and regained his sight. Another suffering from chronic schizoprenia snaps out of it and becomes more sane than the psychiatrist that treats him. A man with terminal cancer sees the cancer go into remission. All valid and plausible cases, but what is common in such cases is that the prerogative is strictly of God and does not manifest in an ordered commonality as found in scripture. Cessationism still holds, hence don't go to Prophet Brown's delivery service at Sweet Holy Spirit Pentecostal Church.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hello Timmo!

Thank you for that kind reply. You wrote:

What is at issue is whether or not God is, after the time of the apostles, continuing to inform and guide his church by means of prophetic guidance to future events (the famine prophecied by Agabus) or empower evangelism (by revealing the heart secrets of visitors as in Corinth). The entire point I am trying to make in this thread is that one cannot derive a GNC demonstrable proof from Eph. 2:20 that God has retired the spiritual gifts in the post-Apostolic age. All Paul is saying in Eph 2:20 is that Gentiles and Jews are brought together into the church which has for its foundation the church's foundation is the OT prophetic testimony to the coming Messiah, fulfilled in Christ and announced and explained by the Apostles. He is saying nothing whatsoever about whether or not the voice gifts or other gifts cease after such a terminus ad quem; in fact he isn't even mentioning them.

It seems to me that you are justifying a practice today by examples given in the First Century. If these "situational Gifts" were continuing, then would we not have testimonies to it through all of Church History? Can you provide an unambiguous example of a person exercising the "situational Gift of prophecy" today? - One that follows the criteria of the Scriptures?

1) Is he/she willing to stake his life on the prophecies?

2) Are these prophecies of a specific kind - such as the prophecies of Agabus? Acts 11:28; 21:10.

3) Are they fulfilled within a specific and limited timeframe?

4) It is the Gift of "situational prophecy" that we are discussing. We are not discussing extraordinary times where God may have used Providence in order to guide the Church.

Give us a clear, unambiguous, examples of the "Gift of situational prophecy," and let us consider it. Until then, you are simply postulating a theoretical.

You wrote:

Keep in mind that logic can be nothing more than a way to err with confidence. Your syllogism depends on the premise that God always acts in accordance with human logic but he does not always do so. Whether he is doing so or not in this case is what is at issue. And God has shown a consistent pattern to put shepherding his people at a higher priority level than human deductions from his law. If he believes it necessary to guide his people by situational prophecy after the apostolic age, he is not likely to refrain on the grounds that is spoils the syllogism.

Again, I think that this is a weak argument on your part. First, because you cannot exclude the fact that God does work within the framework of logic. In fact, I think we should expect God to work logically unless there is an indication of something different. Second, you will have to prove that God is working outside of logic when it comes to your views of "situational gifts." Where is the exception in the Bible that "situational gifts" do not come under the auspices of "canonical gifts"? - that they are not a subcategory of the "Canonical Gifts" and should be treated differently? You have made a distinction by definition, but you have not shown that the Gifts given to the "daughters of Philip" have continued in Church History.

Blessings,

Rob

PS: I hope you don't classify me as one of the "unthinking Cessationists"!

 

[MW]

During both the OT and the NT eras, believers were SPECIFICALLY required to test not only situational revelation but CANONICAL REVELATION for its conformity to the OT Scriputure.

I fail to see how this extricates you from your difficulty. What you call situational revelation and canonical revelation both required the SAME test. Deuteronomy and other biblical passages make no such distinction as you have made between situational and canonical. The test which was required for ALL revelation left open the possibility of NEW information concerning faith and life. Your distiinctive position, however, has maintained that any testing of ongoing revelation leaves NO possibility of new information concerning faith and life. It is as plain as day that your concept of revelation and the tests you require for it have no precedent in the history of revelation, therefore it is a misnomer to call your position continuationist.

 

[Roldan]

For those who want to hold to sola scriptura and to a continuing "different kind of revelation", in my opinion, you guys have allowed yourselves to agree to the exegetical treatments of what a NT prophet was and how it functioned from Grudem and Piper. Yeah I know theres others but these two seem to be the more popular ones since they hold to the Five Points and all.

But that is where the real problem lies when discussing continuism with cessationism within our OWN reformed camp. I am fully persuaded that Grudems re-defining of the NT prophet is extremely untenable by taking passages like the Agabus account out of context and playing semantics. Grudem and Pipers main error is that they equate the Apostles with the NT prophets so that the reading of Eph. 2:20 would say according to Grudems greek, "built on the foundation of the Apostle/prophet" or "being built on the foundation of his holy apostles who are also prophets".

This would be an incorrect reading of the text and I would suggest a violent eisegesis of the passage. Even Grudem admits that he could be wrong and his interpretation not concrete, Grudem asserts "I am not implying here that it is necessary to translate Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5 this way, for other examples can be found where this construction does refer to two separate persons or items but it is certainly a legitimate translation, and, in the absence of contextual or other indications to the contrary, it may even be a preferable translation" (Grudem, Gift of Prophecy pge. 51)

Does Grudem have warrant to his assertion that there is lack of contextual or other indications to the contrary? You can't just make a mere assertion that "hey this is a legitimate translation" and just leave it at that and then saying there is an absence of context to the contrary of his view and on that basis say he has a legitimate translation. I mean honestly, to me that is not very scholarly of him. Not only that but in one breath Grudem admits to a norm to Paul's usage and context then right after denying it by claiming an absence of Contextual indications ummmmmmmm...............

So back to the question, does Grudem have a legitimate argument as to the absence of context with regard to Paul's context? Of course not. Its one thing to just merely claim an absence and its another thing to just IGNORE the clear presence of the context that speaks to the contrary. You take this arguments away from Grudem and this so called "different forms of revelation" argument fails unanimously, just go right to the throat LOL, and like I said this is a discussion within our own reformed camp since even the pentecostals don't even agree with Grudem on this, lol.

Paul mentions three times "apostles and prophets" in his epistle and a very short one at that. In Eph. 4:11 Paul DOES use separate articles and also distinguishing particles (men and de) "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelist, and some as pastors and teachers".

Note what Ken Gentry states concerning this in his book "The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy, a reformed response to Wayne Grudem" and I quote....

"It would seem to require something of an anti-contextual leap of logic to suggest that at Ephesians 4:11 Paul is writing of an altogether different group than that of which he just had spoken by using the same exact terms in Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5."

Sure there are some other so called arguments that Grudem attempts to use and again out of context but this one concerning Ephesians is his main argument and again in my studies and taking into account the PRESENCE of Paul's context, equating apostles to prophets here is untenable and to make it worse Grudem's logic for this interpretation is that there is lack of contextual evidence to contradict his view so therefore his interpretation is a valid one, WOW!! Talk about break rules of hermeneutics

Anyways this I believe with Gentry, Reymond to name a couple that this is the main issue at hand when discussing the continuing or ceasing of the gifts WITHIN the reformed camp. Deal with this and the rest will either crumble or stand

Seems to me that this re-defining of revelation is an attempt to reconcile the contradiction of those who want to hold to the view of gifts without compromising their view of Sola Scriptura and therefore have went to an extreme as always the case with those who would like to unite views together.

 

[timmopussycat]

Hello Timmo!

Thank you for that kind reply. You wrote:

What is at issue is whether or not God is, after the time of the apostles, continuing to inform and guide his church by means of prophetic guidance to future events (the famine prophecied by Agabus) or empower evangelism (by revealing the heart secrets of visitors as in Corinth). The entire point I am trying to make in this thread is that one cannot derive a GNC demonstrable proof from Eph. 2:20 that God has retired the spiritual gifts in the post-Apostolic age. All Paul is saying in Eph 2:20 is that Gentiles and Jews are brought together into the church which has for its foundation the church's foundation is the OT prophetic testimony to the coming Messiah, fulfilled in Christ and announced and explained by the Apostles. He is saying nothing whatsoever about whether or not the voice gifts or other gifts cease after such a terminus ad quem; in fact he isn't even mentioning them.

It seems to me that you are justifying a practice today by examples given in the First Century. If these "situational Gifts" were continuing, then would we not have testimonies to it through all of Church History? Can you provide an unambiguous example of a person exercising the "situational Gift of prophecy" today? - One that follows the criteria of the Scriptures?

1) Is he/she willing to stake his life on the prophecies?

2) Are these prophecies of a specific kind - such as the prophecies of Agabus? Acts 11:28; 21:10.

3) Are they fulfilled within a specific and limited timeframe?

4) It is the Gift of "situational prophecy" that we are discussing. We are not discussing extraordinary times where God may have used Providence in order to guide the Church.

Give us a clear, unambiguous, examples of the "Gift of situational prophecy," and let us consider it. Until then, you are simply postulating a theoretical.

If God ever guided someone to a supernatural knowledge of future events during an extraordinary time, the process by which he did so cannot be proven not to be the same process by which he revealed truth to the apostles and prophets of the canon, nor the situational prophets of the NT. What distinguishes such extraordinary events from the gifts is the theology employed to understand and explain what has happened. Historically, during an extraordinary time, if an extraordinary "intimation" was given to someone and later proven accurate, no claims were made that this was a charismaic sign gift.

I don't personally know of anyone with a documented record of predictive prophecies made and fulfilled since the apostles, but then I don't have God's knowledge of church historyl

If the gifts cannot be proven by GNC to have expired with the age of the Apostles, then the issue is far from theoretical. For one thing, if cessationists had been content to argue biblical regulation of the gifts rather than asserting that the gifts had ceased based on unsound arguments I suspect that abuses of charismania would be fewer and tragedies less. In my later years in charismatic circles, I found that challenging clearly non-biblical "charismatic events" was effective in causing people to think through the issue and no subsequent abuses occured.

You wrote:

Keep in mind that logic can be nothing more than a way to err with confidence. Your syllogism depends on the premise that God always acts in accordance with human logic but he does not always do so. Whether he is doing so or not in this case is what is at issue. And God has shown a consistent pattern to put shepherding his people at a higher priority level than human deductions from his law. If he believes it necessary to guide his people by situational prophecy after the apostolic age, he is not likely to refrain on the grounds that is spoils the syllogism.

Again, I think that this is a weak argument on your part. First, because you cannot exclude the fact that God does work within the framework of logic. In fact, I think we should expect God to work logically unless there is an indication of something different.

This argument is actually very strong. If God had limited himself to the framework of human logical expectations, Jesus would never have healed on the sabbath - to give but one examaple. The law says don't work on the sabbath, the Pharisees deduced that healing was work. The NT says that canonical revelation is foundational for the church, cessationists deduce that situational revelation must therefore expire at the end of the canonical era. It is that conclusion that must be proved by GNC

Second, you will have to prove that God is working outside of logic when it comes to your views of "situational gifts." Where is the exception in the Bible that "situational gifts" do not come under the auspices of "canonical gifts"? - that they are not a subcategory of the "Canonical Gifts" and should be treated differently?

When something has a different function from something else it must be treated differently. From the material in the NT describing canonical revelation we learn that its purpose was to act as the foundation of the church and that it cannot be supplimented or changed once given. From the NT material derscribing situational revelations we learn that it was given to guide the founded church to prepare for and address particular situations and to empower evangelism by exposing secrets. A completed foundation needs no additions so long as the building stands, but the church still may profit from being prepared to address particular situations and it still must obey the command to evangelize and still requires divine action in one form or another if that command is to result in success.

You have made a distinction by definition, but you have not shown that the Gifts given to the "daughters of Philip" have continued in Church History.

Even if I had God's knowledge of church history, I could offer no proof that a cessationist would accept.

PS: I hope you don't classify me as one of the "unthinking Cessationists"! [/QUOTE]

Only in that you presumed that Eph. 2:20 proves that God has retire the gifts!

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 09:58:16 EST-----

During both the OT and the NT eras, believers were SPECIFICALLY required to test not only situational revelation but CANONICAL REVELATION for its conformity to the OT Scriputure.

I fail to see how this extricates you from your difficulty. What you call situational revelation and canonical revelation both required the SAME test. Deuteronomy and other biblical passages make no such distinction as you have made between situational and canonical. The test which was required for ALL revelation left open the possibility of NEW information concerning faith and life. Your distiinctive position, however, has maintained that any testing of ongoing revelation leaves NO possibility of new information concerning faith and life. It is as plain as day that your concept of revelation and the tests you require for it have no precedent in the history of revelation, therefore it is a misnomer to call your position continuationist.

The last sentence once again is flat wrong.

We know the canonical revelation is complete because it is Scripture that provides explicit statements that tell us so. It makes no direct statements that tell us, or (As far as I know) any statements from which by GNC we may conclude whether situational revelations, given for different purposes have or have not ceased. If God is in fact guiding some members of his church at some times with situational revelations, such action will be, by definition, a CONTINUATION of a practice that he begun in the OT and continued in the NT. Thus the position is properly called "continuationist"

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 10:03:45 EST-----

For those who want to hold to sola scriptura and to a continuing "different kind of revelation", in my opinion, you guys have allowed yourselves to agree to the exegetical treatments of what a NT prophet was and how it functioned from Grudem and Piper. Yeah I know theres others but these two seem to be the more popular ones since they hold to the Five Points and all.

But that is where the real problem lies when discussing continuism with cessationism within our OWN reformed camp. I am fully persuaded that Grudems re-defining of the NT prophet is extremely untenable by taking passages like the Agabus account out of context and playing semantics. Grudem and Pipers main error is that they equate the Apostles with the NT prophets so that the reading of Eph. 2:20 would say according to Grudems greek, "built on the foundation of the Apostle/prophet" or "being built on the foundation of his holy apostles who are also prophets".

I don't accept G&P's redefinition of prophet. Nor do I accept that NT prophets are mentioned in Eph 2:20 for the only prophets whose role was "foundational" for the church, (the context of the verse), were the OT prophets including Moses.

 

[Scott1]

A couple thoughts and a question

timmopussycat

This argument is actually very strong. If God had limited himself to the framework of human logical expectations, Jesus would never have healed on the sabbath - to give but one examaple. The law says don't work on the sabbath, the Pharisees deduced that healing was work.
Yes, but neither premise was correct according to God's Word as it existed at that time- Healing, as an action, was not "work" ever prohibited by the forth commandment and, Jesus was in fact the Son of God with authority to heal.

So Pharisees had simply made up laws pertaining to righteousness, there was no problem with God's original revelation through Scripture, nor any limitation imposed by it.

The NT says that canonical revelation is foundational for the church, cessationists deduce that situational revelation must therefore expire at the end of the canonical era. It is that conclusion that must be proved by GNC

It is difficult to understand this because, based on discussions about it, "cessationism" seems to be understood in different ways. Nobody really asserts miracles have ceased, or that God is in any way limited in causing them.

Can anyone answer this:
For purposes of the question, let us assume:

1) "speaking in an unknown tongue," as part of corporate worship is not taken as new revelation of biblical doctrine of any kind

2) "speaking in an unknown tongue" requires an immediate "gift of interpretation" to follow it immediately in corporate worship

What would be the corporate worship purpose now?

 

[Roldan]

I don't accept G&P's redefinition of prophet. Nor do I accept that NT prophets are mentioned in Eph 2:20 for the only prophets whose role was "foundational" for the church, (the context of the verse), were the OT prophets including Moses.

While I thoroughly disagree that Eph. 2:20 is speaking of OT prophets and I will demonstrate exegetically why here in a minute but I must first state Sir that being that you then you have no other means or source as to a different form of revelation which would entail that there is only but one kind of a revelatory function and that Tongues, Prophecy, and the Gift of Knowledge served as this revelatory process and function then these revelatory gifts have ceased less you continue to leave an open cannon that we can continue to add whatever God has revealed to someone in direct form either by tongues or prophecy, remember tongues became prophecy when interpretated according to 1 Cor. 14 and prophecy was not only foretelling but also forthtelling. Therefore if tongues and prophecy are revelational and still do exist then the revelational process is still active and the Church would have a second authoratative rule to doctrine etc....Holy Writ and Verbal revelation and Sola Scriptura goes right out the window along with its counterpart the Sufficiency of Scripture hence Holy Writ is not our Sole source of revelation and is not sufficient for our everyday practice, life and doctrine etc...

Timmo you stated.....

As Paul says "no other foundation" can be laid. If any genuinely new revelation occurs, it will not add to or contradict the foundation. By elimination, if any genuine revelation occurs today, it can only be situational guidance for particular people in particular times and places.

Who says that it won't add to the foundation? Seems to me that your are implying two different forms of Revelation, and if so, from where in scripture do you get this impression?

Doesn't really matter in my opinion that you call it situational revelation or not, its still some sort of revelation that you must account for and AGAIN if there are "situational revelation" then scripture is NOT sufficient, bottom line and therefore out of accord with the doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture and Sola Scriptura no matter how you wanna look at it.

And I think that you and others are mistaking or confusing the inward guidance of the ILLUMINATION of the Holy Spirit with revelation.


BUT......since the NT prophet IS foundational and Eph. 2:20 is speaking of these prophets and not OT prophets then it follows that these NT prophets gave revelation and these NT prophets are foundational therefore revelation ceased hence prophesy ceases with them.

Allow me to demonstrate 3 exegetical reasons that Eph. 2:20 is speaking of NT prophets despite what some have argued for OT prophets(Calvin and few others)

1. Very simply, the apostles are mentioned first. This would be unlikely if OT prophets, who PRECEEDED the apostles in history, were in view here. As a matter of fact as I already noted in the other post, the two offices are grouped together three times and in each of those times we see this order: apostle first then prophets (2:20;3:5;4:11). This strongly counters to the view that the OT prophets are in view.

2. We would all agree that context is vital to the proper exposition of any verse. Ken Gentry better explains...."we should note that in the very next sentence in the Greek (a mere eight verses later in the English) Paul again refers to "the apostles and the prophets". In Ephesians 3:5 his reference is unquestionably speaking of the New Testament prophets: "which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His Holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit".

He continues...."The Greek word nun ("now") in Ephesians 3:5 speaks of a present reality, not one from antiquity. The fact that this truth was not "made known" to "other generations" to the same degree ("as"), is significant, as well. The freshness of the revelation strongly supports the contemporaneous nature of the ones to whom it was made: the prophets, as well as the apostles. Hence, they are New Testament era prophets, not Old Testament ones."


3. Again in Ephesians 4:11 Paul mentions again the apostles and prophets but this time he mentions them as "gifts" given to the Church since Christ's ascension which is referred to in verses 8-10. Verse 7 states: "to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift." Verse 11 Paul continues " And He(Christ) gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers". Therefore since prophets are given as gifts along with the apostles, as a consequence of Christ ascension, they must be NT prophets.

So it is no doubt, taking into account the whole context of this theme in Ephesians, Paul had NT prophets in mind not the OT prophets. Therefore NT prophets were foundational, the foundation was laid hence prophecy ceased.

 

[timmopussycat]

A couple thoughts and a question

timmopussycat

This argument is actually very strong. If God had limited himself to the framework of human logical expectations, Jesus would never have healed on the sabbath - to give but one examaple. The law says don't work on the sabbath, the Pharisees deduced that healing was work.
Yes, but neither premise was correct according to God's Word as it existed at that time- Healing, as an action, was not "work" ever prohibited by the forth commandment and, Jesus was in fact the Son of God with authority to heal.

So Pharisees had simply made up laws pertaining to righteousness, there was no problem with God's original revelation through Scripture, nor any limitation imposed by it.

The NT says that canonical revelation is foundational for the church, cessationists deduce that situational revelation must therefore expire at the end of the canonical era. It is that conclusion that must be proved by GNC

It is difficult to understand this because, based on discussions about it, "cessationism" seems to be understood in different ways. Nobody really asserts miracles have ceased, or that God is in any way limited in causing them.

Can anyone answer this:
For purposes of the question, let us assume:

1) "speaking in an unknown tongue," as part of corporate worship is not taken as new revelation of biblical doctrine of any kind

2) "speaking in an unknown tongue" requires an immediate "gift of interpretation" to follow it immediately in corporate worship

What would be the corporate worship purpose now?

Revelaing the secrets of a visitors heart could be done by this means to give one example. Or encouraging the faith of a Jewish convert as may have happened in the Smith case previously mentioned.

 

[Scott1]

Can anyone answer this:
For purposes of the question, let us assume:

1) "speaking in an unknown tongue," as part of corporate worship is not taken as new revelation of biblical doctrine of any kind

2) "speaking in an unknown tongue" requires an immediate "gift of interpretation" to follow it immediately in corporate worship

What would be the corporate worship purpose now?


timmopussycat
Revelaing the secrets of a visitors heart could be done by this means to give one example. Or encouraging the faith of a Jewish convert as may have happened in the Smith case previously mentioned.

Are you saying something like, in a corporate worship service, a tongue and interpretation would be used to disclose:

1) possible sin of someone there (like Ananias and Sapphira)?
2) exhort (encourage) with God's Word a new believer in the faith?

 

[ManleyBeasley]

Hi:

Manley: Sorry for the typo - it was not freudian at all. I think you are a godly and gracious man - moreso than myself.

TimO writes: (I hope you don't mind me calling you TimO?)

(talking about Chuck Smith): It's not conclusive, but it is suggestive because it breaks a pattern of what often happens to deceivers. Scripturally they go from bad to worse being ever more deceived. Yet Smith broke from Wimber over the latters non Scriptural abuse of the gifts, something one would not have expected him to do if he had put forward a deception in the area himself.

If Chuck Smith had abandoned "the gifts are for today" teaching, then I would feel the weight of this argument. However, he did not. Therefore, I do not.

I am a bit unsure about this type of "situational revelation" in which you are investing much time and energy on in your posts. What makes me unsure is that all Christians have a living, true, and vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ. This relationship is not simply intellectual, but experimental as well. Consequently, the Holy Spirit relates with us on a day by day through the Word of God on a "situational" level. If this is all you mean, then we agree with each other more than we may think.

However, you are linking this idea of revelation with the Biblical idea of "Gifts." As I understand it - not all the Christians in the first century were endowed with the Gifts. In fact, even those who had the Gifts did not have all of them, "some prophets, some evangels, some teachers..."

As I look at the operation of the Gifts in the Bible I see that they always seem to work. They even work when the owner of the Gifts was not cognizant that the Gift was working - napkins from Paul's body healing people, for example. However, the operation of those who claim the Gifts are for today does not seem to run so smoothly. In fact, I believe that when their Gift fails to work (prophecy, tongue, translation, healing, whatever) they blame those around them with a "lack of faith." They will even quote Jesus, "Your faith has made you well." Or, they will cite that other passage in the Gospels where Jesus did not do many miracles, because of the unbelief of the people.

As Reformed and Calvinistic I think we both know that such teachings are an abuse of Scripture. If you disagree, then we must discuss this as well.

Is there Scriptural proof that the idea of "situational prophecy and tongues" have ceased? I think so. We have, for example, the New Testament telling us that the Ceremonial laws of Moses have expired. Does the New Testament list every single law in order for us to know that they are all expired? No. It does not. If the greater has passed away, i.e. the ceremonial sacrifices, then we can construe that the lesser has passed away as well, i.e. two types of threads in clothing.

Consequently, if the greater has passed away - Canonical Revelation - then we can conclude that the lesser has passed away with it as well - Situational Revelation.

Grace and Peace,

Rob

Thanks, that's very kind! I knew it was a typo and thought it was hilarious!