Charismatic and reformed?

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by LawrenceU

I'm just a little frustrated that this thread has gone on this long without anyone bothering to point out cessationism in the Bible. If it is a correct doctrine, then it should be founded on the Bible, not on loud opinions.

I am still waiting for somebody to demonstrate cessationism from the Scriptures.

And therein lies the crux. It is not a clear teaching. It is an inference.

It is an inference, indeed - but I disagree that something being "an inference" and being "a clear teaching" is a true dichotomy. There are plenty of thing we all agree are clear as day, and yet are derived from Scripture inferentially, such as the doctrine of inerrancy and the canon, Sola Scriptura, the Trinity and Limited Atonement.

Joseph, regarding the Scriptural basis for cessationism, normally I would want to freshly discuss it here, but I don't have the time to at the moment. I have commented and argued somewhat extensively on the matter elsewhere though, and you can find some of my thoughts on the issue from Scripture here, here, here, here, here, here and here. In each of those threads, I deal with Scripture directly and with systematic issues as well, the balance between those two varying between each thread. While I don't have enough time right now to get into an entire debate with several people via this thread, feel free to e-mail me if you have comments or questions regarding any of my points (exegetical, systematic, or just general) and I'll be glad to discuss it.

Also, as you will see me mentioning in a few of those threads, I would strongly recommend you get a copy of O. Palmer Robertson's The Final Word. It is extremely short (just over 100 pages if memory serves me) yet very exegetically-focused and to-the-point. It was the book that finally convinced me of cessationism when I was planning to join a Sovereign Grace church.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Okay, I was asked to join in the conversation.

Let me first say that I believe the scripture is finished. It is complete. There is nothing to be added to it. Everything is to be evaluated by the Holy scriptures. We are to test the spirits by it. No other words are to be added to scripture.

Peter says that the scriptures are more sure than the voice of the Father in 2 Peter 1:16-19.

Let me ask you a question. Do you all pray for guidance? Do you all pray to understand the will of the Lord in specific areas sometime. Do you expect God to give you wisdom in understanding what to do in these situations. Does God still communicate through situations that arise in our lives.

I believe that God does give wisdom and discernment. In order for him to answer some of our prayers he can communicate to us outside of the scripture. He can also reveal himself through Creation.

The Holy Spirit does bear witness with our spirit somehow. Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

In an earlier post someone was bashing healing and saying that if someone can heal they should go to the hospitals and heal. That is totally uncalled for. That isn't what the Apostles and people did. People came to the Apostles and Jesus. I'm not even sure Paul had the gift of healing. And calling Baptists heretics and the ones with the new doctrine. Credo's contend that Paedo's brought in new doctrine. This is still being debated. Baptism in the Early Church

Sounds like we all know for sure what is going on. BTW. I don't believe the scriptures are perfect in and of themselves. Can anyone present a perfect manuscript. The court is still out on that one. We are still debating whether we like the eclectic Alexandrian text or the Majority text. Even the heavens are unclean before the Lord. He is the only Holy Perfect thing.

The tone of this thread is terrible. There are Charismatic Confessional Presbyterian's as well as there are Charismatic Baptists also. So quit slinging mud and look at the issues. We are all looking for God to communicate to us. We are all trying to communicate with Him.

I believe that the Charis of God still can influence people and even possess them to do things that are supernatural. Do I speak in tongues. No. Do I heal. Well maybe not the way that you may be thinking but everytime I share the Gospel and someone is awakened i have been used to heal someone. That is the greater work. It is even more miraculous to me. Do I always use exact scriptures to do it. No. Sometimes I just tell truths and God works. God does speak through us. As Paul mentions that in 2 Corinthians 5:20.... Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Does God use us to give wisdom to others sometimes. Maybe. If he does it won't be anything that goes against the Canon of Scripture. That is for sure. More later.

Just popping in briefly - I have discussed this at length elsewhere, so I will leave it to others here - to say that there is a difference between revelation and illumination.

Randy, I think you may be conflating the two.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Joseph, why is the Eastern church wrong on Sola Scriptura?

I am the wrong guy to ask. I don't know what the Eastern Church believes about Sola Scriptura. Nor do I have any idea why that would be relevant to our conversation.

Well if you do not know what the Eastern Church believes about Sola Scriptura then of course you wouldn't understand the question's relevance.

Your view on God, revelation and scripture would not be met with much objection by the Eastern Orthodox church. Discover the errors of the EOC´s stance on Sola Scriptura and you will discover the errors of the reasoning´s you have expressed in this thread.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Your view on God, revelation and scripture would not be met with much objection by the Eastern Orthodox church. Discover the errors of the EOC´s stance on Sola Scriptura and you will discover the errors of the reasoning´s you have expressed in this thread.

Sorry, I'm not too interested in studying the Eastern Orthodox church's stance on Sola Scriptura. I happy enough with the Reformed view of it, and I think I will just stick with taht.

I would prefer that someone have the courtesy to simply point out a good Scriptural argument, instead of sending me on a wild goose chase with the EO church. Why don't *you* explain to me what you think is wrong with my view of Sola Scriptura?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Joseph, regarding the Scriptural basis for cessationism, normally I would want to freshly discuss it here, but I don't have the time to at the moment. I have commented and argued somewhat extensively on the matter elsewhere though, and you can find some of my thoughts on the issue from Scripture here, here, here, here, here, here and here. In each of those threads, I deal with Scripture directly and with systematic issues as well, the balance between those two varying between each thread. While I don't have enough time right now to get into an entire debate with several people via this thread, feel free to e-mail me if you have comments or questions regarding any of my points (exegetical, systematic, or just general) and I'll be glad to discuss it.

Also, as you will see me mentioning in a few of those threads, I would strongly recommend you get a copy of O. Palmer Robertson's The Final Word. It is extremely short (just over 100 pages if memory serves me) yet very exegetically-focused and to-the-point. It was the book that finally convinced me of cessationism when I was planning to join a Sovereign Grace church.

Thank you very much for these resources!

I look forward to going through your threads, and also to reading that book.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
There are two recorded instances of extraordinary Spirit baptism with accompanying evidences of extrordinary endowment in the NT. Acts 2:1-4 (Jews inauguration), and 10:44-46 accompanied by gospel preaching (Gentiles inauguration). Beside these two instances, there are no other examples of extraordinary Spirit baptism such as comes apart from the laying on of hands of the apostles.

I agree.

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum

The remainder of instances (e.g. 8:17; 19:6) included preaching the gospel and the laying on of hands by the apostles (not even Phillip could do it). The power to bestow Jesus' gifts (Eph. 4:8) was a power delegated only to apostles (see 8:19ff). Likewise, it was the apostles' duty as eyewitnesses (Acts 1:8) to the Christ's majesty and teaching to superintend the inscripturation of Jesus' Revelation--both his person and doctrine. But until that word was perfected (complete), prophets were necessary and valuable, primarily to teach NT doctrine when as yet it was not all written down. In other words, they fit the need of the hour.

Questions:
Has the Holy Spirit been poured out in the same way, inaugurally, again, any time in the last 2000 years? No.

I agree.

But it does not therefore follow that miracles are utterly a thing of the past. God did lots of miracles prior to Pentecost, and God did lots of miracles prior to Pentecost. So it is a fallacy to suggest that the lack of Pentecost (inauguration) is an argument for the lack of miracles.

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum

Have there been any additional apostles? No.

I agree.

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum

Could anyone but an apostle perform the "signs of an apostle", except those to whom the apostles had been permitted to share the gifts? No.

I'm not sure I would agree here. Were all the people speaking in tongues in Acts 2 given that ability through the apostles, or directly from the Holy Spirit? I would argue that the ability came directly from the Holy Spirit, not passing "through" the Apostles first.

(By the way, I completely recognize that what goes on in modern charismatic churches is more "Corinthian" than "Pentecostal" . . . the people in Acts 2 were not speaking gibberish. To the contrary, everyone UNDERSTOOD what they were saying.)

I personally have not experienced or seen "speaking in tongues" as in Acts 2. But I have read about a number of cases in which foreign missionaries have come to a place where they don't speak the native language, and then suddenly started preaching the Gospel in the native tongue, without having learned it. This shocks the natives, sometimes keeps them from going hostile, and invariably brings about new converts. Mind you, what is being said is NOT new revelation; it's just the simple gospel presented in a foreign tongue. And, it is NOT some "ability" given to anyone that can be called up at will. God just does what He wants, when He wants, to spread the Gospel and glorify Himself. So, what . . . am I supposed to say these missionaries are all liars?

I am NOT suggesting that God gives anyone the ability to heal indescriminately, or speak in tongues to bring about new revelation, etc. I frankly don't even think Agabus had the ability to forsee the future at will in Acts. So I'm not talking about people being given special Apostolic "sign gifts". I'm just talking about God acting whenever, wherever, and however He wants.

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum

Could the power to "grant the Holy Spirit" (i.e. the signs) be given to any (see example of Simon Magus above). No, the gift could be shared, but not the power/authorization to share the gift. So for example, Corinthian tongue-speakers couldn't give anyone else the gift.

I agree.

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum

Anomalies, or non-patterned occurences--whatever may be made of them, and they have been discussed here on the PB before--they cannot overthrow a Scriptural doctrine if it is true. No one denies God can work miracles, or do what he pleases.

This is exactly what I am getting at, Bruce. If God wants to cause a foreign missionary to speak the Gospel in a language he didn't know, then God can certainly do that. If God wants to cause a cancer tumor to disappear, baffling doctors, then God can certainly do that. If God wants to grant someone foreknowledge of an impending drought or famine, God can certainly do that.

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum

God works when, where, and how he pleases. He has also told us what we can expect, and so we shouldn't look expctantly for other things . . .

I agree. I like the way you put it. On the one hand, "God works when, where, and how he pleases." Thus, a miracle directly from God is not an impossibility today. Nevertheless, you are also correct that "we shouldn't look expectantly" for things like that. Therefore, I don't go seeking for a gift of tongues, prophecy, healing, etc. Nevertheless, there are some isolated cases where I would have a really hard time calling a person a liar, unless some very solid Scriptural groundwork could be laid, which rules out the possibility of the miraculous in these days.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Your view on God, revelation and scripture would not be met with much objection by the Eastern Orthodox church. Discover the errors of the EOC´s stance on Sola Scriptura and you will discover the errors of the reasoning´s you have expressed in this thread.

Sorry, I'm not too interested in studying the Eastern Orthodox church's stance on Sola Scriptura. I happy enough with the Reformed view of it, and I think I will just stick with that.

I would prefer that someone have the courtesy to simply point out a good Scriptural argument, instead of sending me on a wild goose chase with the EO church. Why don't *you* explain to me what you think is wrong with my view of Sola Scriptura?

I did. I believe scripture is sufficient and every word of God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. I understand you affirm such as well, but your view stated here is cloudy in regards to the sufficiency of scripture and leans more eastward. If God speaks, then His words are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. Now is scripture alone sufficient for such, or is scripture plus the church´s prophecies? If both, then we should abide by them equally. So are you bound by all seven eceumenical councils?

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
... I'm looking for a good Scriptural argument for cessationism. I would like to be able to tell my pentecostal brother that cessationism is true, and I would LIKE to be able to demonstrate it Biblically. But so far, I don't know how to do that.

From what I can tell, God has said many things to men, and revealed many things to men, and done many things in front of men, since the beginning of time. And yet MANY of those things God did/said/revealed were never recorded in Scripture. ... Why can God not continue to do such things after the canon is closed?

Joseph, I've been thinking about your situation....

Many of my teachers say that countering classic, charismatic pentecostal assertions is very difficult. Why? Certainly not because Scripture is inadequate - but because of the intense emotional investment on their part. Their worldview is so entrenched in feeling and seeing God (which isn't trusting the Word, btw.)

One way to meet the challenge is first to assess the relationship. If it's one you value and can be allowed to TEACH what Scripture really does teach....how wonderful! Yet, this takes time and effort - now falling into the "gentle teacher" of Timothy category.

The best way to teach is to stop yanking verses out, playing the useless game of "verse ping-pong" (doing violence to the Text.) Instead, read whole books/chapters intact and let them speak for themselves. What does the whole book/letter say and (then) mean?

The book of Acts has roughly 14 moments where the Holy Spirit said/did things to/for someone to do XYZ. Each event related to establishing the Gospel. None were individualistic (Paul finding his car keys...) And all the events stem from the information in the first 2 chapters (yes, the D o P matters!!! -- it is the reversal of the Tower of Babel, btw. It's related to Ezekiel 37.) Get it? Then discussion should include the OT because it is part understanding why/how God speaks and acts in (the Church) a certain way, different but related to what happened before. God is not schizophrenic. He's progressively unfolding His Story in human history.

You asked for "a verse" stating cessation. But, where in the Bible is the word "trinity?" Why do we believe God is triune? Where does it say THAT? (you see the point?)

Jesus warns about the evils of looking for signs. Don't neglect Christ's whole counsel on the matter. This should trouble any "professing Christian" involved in expressions of signs/gifts, Etc.

Instead of speculating about what God might have done outside of Scripture.....deal with what we know God did reveal. Yes, God obviously has done things far beyond His written Word. But we have a Book for a very important reason. A library of 66 books, of God speaking to man, isn't enough?! Oy!

God has put His Promise in writing -- in a Book -- God likes books; He's got a few of them....which He will refer to on the Last Day. (Revelation 20:11-15)



r.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Robin

You asked for "a verse" stating cessation. But, where in the Bible is the word "trinity?" Why do we believe God is triune? Where does it say THAT? (you see the point?)

Robin, now you are parroting MY point that I already made earlier in this thread. Cessationism should be no harder to demonstrate than the Trinity, or infant baptism.

If you ask me to prove the doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture, I can do it. It will take me more than one single verse, but I can do it.

If you ask me to prove infant baptism from Scripture, I can do it. It will take me several passages to do so, but I can do it.

So, why can't you do the same thing with the doctrine of cessationism? Even if it takes you multiple texts, why can't you clearly lay out for me where the Bible teaches it? I CAN do that for both the Trinity and paedobaptism.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Why don't *you* explain to me what you think is wrong with my view of Sola Scriptura?

I did.

Then please point out where you did so. I obviously missed it.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

I believe scripture is sufficient and every word of God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

I agree wholeheartedly. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is an excellent passage that I rely on heavily.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

I understand you affirm such as well,

Thank you.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

but your view stated here is cloudy in regards to the sufficiency of scripture and leans more eastward.

Please explain why you think this is so.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

If God speaks, then His words are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. Now is scripture alone sufficient for such, or is scripture plus the church´s prophecies?

I have two things to say in answer to this question:

1) Of course Scripture is sufficient. But since when does God stop with merely "sufficiently" meeting the needs of His people? For example, is Scripture sufficient for someone to be saved? Of course. Just silently hand a person a Bible, and God could save them during their reading. But God goes past what is sufficient, and piles on blessings. He sends preachers to verbally share the gospel. God draws people to Himself by showing sinners how godly people live . . . which can be very attractive to people. Is Scripture alone sufficient? Of course. But that doesn't mean that God uses no other means to drawing people to Himself.

2) Think about when 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was written. It was primarily written concerning the OLD TESTAMENT. And frankly, it is TRUE even if it is applied only to the OT. The Old Testament is sufficient to bring a person to salvation (cf. the Ethiopian in Acts 8), and to instruct people in righteousness. --- Just think about it: The Book of Revelation wasn't even WRITTEN yet when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16-17. And it was true regarding all Scripture that had been written. Thus, all Scripture written prior to 2 Timothy was "sufficient". --- Does it therefore follow that God had no reason to write the book of Revelation? Of course not. But your logic would require us to answer "yes" to this question. When Paul wrote 2 Timothy, Scripture was quite "sufficient", even though Revelation had not been written yet. Nevertheless, God, in His superabounding graciousness, had even more to give to the church. So, your argument proves way too much, and would necessitate a trimming of the canon if taken to its logical conclusion.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

So are you bound by all seven eceumenical councils?

Nope. In fact, I reject the conclusions reached by the 7th.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Joseph, regarding the Scriptural basis for cessationism, normally I would want to freshly discuss it here, but I don't have the time to at the moment. I have commented and argued somewhat extensively on the matter elsewhere though, and you can find some of my thoughts on the issue from Scripture here,

First of all, I want to thank you for all the good links you gave me back to previous discussions on this issue.

Second, I want to quote something you said in one of those discussions, and then respond to it:

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

One also cannot escape the fact that if God still reveals today, His Word in the Bible is insufficient for our instruction and living today, by the very definition of the word "sufficient."

I respectfully disagree. I think there is a fallacy in your definition of "sufficient".

Here is an accurate definition:

suf·fi·cient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-fshnt)
adj.
Being as much as is needed.
Archaic. Competent; qualified.

suf·ficient·ly adv.
Synonyms: sufficient, adequate, enough
These adjectives mean being what is needed without being in excess: has sufficient income to retire comfortably; bought an adequate supply of food; drew enough water to fill the tub.

You see, the correct definition for "sufficient" is "as much as needed" or "adequate".

But you are using the word quite differently. You are assuming that "sufficient" means "so high that nothing can be added to it" . . . superabundantly supplying not only all needs, but also going as far beyond that as is possible.

According to your definition of "sufficient", I would agree with your statement. "if God still reveals today, His Word in the Bible is insufficient for our instruction and living today".

But, your implied definition for "sufficient" is incorrect. God's Word is sufficient, but that does not mean there is nothing else He can say/do/reveal/etc.


Let me illustrate:

Suppose I give you 1000 pounds of potatoes, carrots, and peas. And then suppose I give you a freezer full of chicken. Then suppose I lock you up in your house for 2 months. Have I given you a sufficient amount of food to sustain your life during that time? Yes, of course I have.

Nevertheless, just because you have sufficient sustenance, does that mean that there is nothing more I could do for you if I wanted to? Wouldn't you appreciate it if I brought you an ice cream cone once in a while? Or how about a nice juicy steak?


My point is most emphatically NOT to say that the Bible just has the bare essentials, and no more. That is certainly NOT true. It is a veritable smorgasboard, and I LOVE it. It is certainly sufficient for all we need. In fact, as I pointed out in one of my posts above, the Bible was sufficient for our needs before it was even all written. 2 Tim. 3:16 was written before Revelation was penned, so the Bible WAS sufficient before its last book even existed.

My point IS to demonstrate your errant use of the word "sufficient". Even if something is sufficient, it does NOT follow that nothing more can be added.

God's Word is sufficient for all we need. Even if all preachers were abolished, even if all Christians quit living outwardly righteous lives, even if God never did any miracles under any circumstances whatsoever, just silently handing out Bibles would still be sufficient to bring people to Christ. But God is gracious, and even though we don't need more than the Bible, God is still happy to supply more than we could even ask or think.

Thus, when I hear a story about a foreign missionary suddenly preaching the gospel in a foreign language without having learned it first, I tend to believe it. As superabundantly gracious as our Lord is, why wouldn't He do things like this to bring glory to His name?

I have never personally seen what I would call a "miracle". But I have no trouble believing that God still performs them in certain cases. I don't go looking for them. The Bible is sufficient for me, and so I don't need to see any miracles. But it doesn't bother me if God still wants to do them anyway, to suit His own purposes.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Okay, I was asked to join in the conversation.

Let me first say that I believe the scripture is finished. It is complete. There is nothing to be added to it. Everything is to be evaluated by the Holy scriptures. We are to test the spirits by it. No other words are to be added to scripture.

Peter says that the scriptures are more sure than the voice of the Father in 2 Peter 1:16-19.

Let me ask you a question. Do you all pray for guidance? Do you all pray to understand the will of the Lord in specific areas sometime. Do you expect God to give you wisdom in understanding what to do in these situations. Does God still communicate through situations that arise in our lives.

I believe that God does give wisdom and discernment. In order for him to answer some of our prayers he can communicate to us outside of the scripture. He can also reveal himself through Creation.

The Holy Spirit does bear witness with our spirit somehow. Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

In an earlier post someone was bashing healing and saying that if someone can heal they should go to the hospitals and heal. That is totally uncalled for. That isn't what the Apostles and people did. People came to the Apostles and Jesus. I'm not even sure Paul had the gift of healing. And calling Baptists heretics and the ones with the new doctrine. Credo's contend that Paedo's brought in new doctrine. This is still being debated. Baptism in the Early Church

Sounds like we all know for sure what is going on. BTW. I don't believe the scriptures are perfect in and of themselves. Can anyone present a perfect manuscript. The court is still out on that one. We are still debating whether we like the eclectic Alexandrian text or the Majority text. Even the heavens are unclean before the Lord. He is the only Holy Perfect thing.

The tone of this thread is terrible. There are Charismatic Confessional Presbyterian's as well as there are Charismatic Baptists also. So quit slinging mud and look at the issues. We are all looking for God to communicate to us. We are all trying to communicate with Him.

I believe that the Charis of God still can influence people and even possess them to do things that are supernatural. Do I speak in tongues. No. Do I heal. Well maybe not the way that you may be thinking but everytime I share the Gospel and someone is awakened i have been used to heal someone. That is the greater work. It is even more miraculous to me. Do I always use exact scriptures to do it. No. Sometimes I just tell truths and God works. God does speak through us. As Paul mentions that in 2 Corinthians 5:20.... Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Does God use us to give wisdom to others sometimes. Maybe. If he does it won't be anything that goes against the Canon of Scripture. That is for sure. More later.

Just popping in briefly - I have discussed this at length elsewhere, so I will leave it to others here - to say that there is a difference between revelation and illumination.

Randy, I think you may be conflating the two.

Conflating...... Mixing the two together. I learned a new word.

Revelation of Christ is already set. We need illumination on the revelation.

Does that sound better Fred?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Why don't *you* explain to me what you think is wrong with my view of Sola Scriptura?

I did.

Then please point out where you did so. I obviously missed it.

I simply affirm the Protestant position of Sola Scriptura that God is done speaking to His Church until the second advent. You are taking a contrary position that states the canon is closed but God still speaks through the Church. Which is the anti-sola scriptura position and why the EOC is bound by not only scripture but also by eceumenical councils. If we can not agree with this sola stance then there is no point in debating anything else.

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

but your view stated here is cloudy in regards to the sufficiency of scripture and leans more eastward.

Please explain why you think this is so.

You state that the canon is closed but the church can still receive God´s word through prophetic utterance but that in such cases we could not add those words to Holy Scripture. To which I ask is it or is it not God´s word, if not where does it come from? Perhaps we should define prophecy.

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

If God speaks, then His words are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. Now is scripture alone sufficient for such, or is scripture plus the church´s prophecies?

I have two things to say in answer to this question:

1) Of course Scripture is sufficient. But since when does God stop with merely "sufficiently" meeting the needs of His people? For example, is Scripture sufficient for someone to be saved? Of course. Just silently hand a person a Bible, and God could save them during their reading. But God goes past what is sufficient, and piles on blessings. He sends preachers to verbally share the gospel. God draws people to Himself by showing sinners how godly people live . . . which can be very attractive to people. Is Scripture alone sufficient? Of course. But that doesn't mean that God uses no other means to drawing people to Himself.

I have no problem with this, but we are talking about divine utterance. God uses other means, but we do not declare those means alone to be sufficient for instruction, reproof, etc. When God speaks, those words are words of eternal life, words man can live by alone. If God speaks through a eceumenical council or a gifted congregant, then we can either say thus says the Lord or attribute the council or congregant´s knowledge of scripture as "œprophecy."

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
2) Think about when 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was written. It was primarily written concerning the OLD TESTAMENT. And frankly, it is TRUE even if it is applied only to the OT. The Old Testament is sufficient to bring a person to salvation (cf. the Ethiopian in Acts 8), and to instruct people in righteousness. --- Just think about it: The Book of Revelation wasn't even WRITTEN yet when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16-17. And it was true regarding all Scripture that had been written. Thus, all Scripture written prior to 2 Timothy was "sufficient". --- Does it therefore follow that God had no reason to write the book of Revelation? Of course not. But your logic would require us to answer "yes" to this question. When Paul wrote 2 Timothy, Scripture was quite "sufficient", even though Revelation had not been written yet. Nevertheless, God, in His superabounding graciousness, had even more to give to the church. So, your argument proves way too much, and would necessitate a trimming of the canon if taken to its logical conclusion.

As an interesting aside, again the EOC would applaud you with such an argument. I have talked with Westminster Philly students and even had some email exchanges with Michael Horton about the lack of attention given to the EOC. As far as WTS - Philly goes, they do not address the EOC much at all. I am not sure about Dallas, but it appears you have heard little about the East in your training as well. I will simply say be careful, you are toeing the line between sola scriptura and it´s antithesis.


Scripture is sufficient precanon and post canon. When 2 Timothy was written the Church had the OT AND the Apostles until the revelation was complete (the perfect comes). We no longer have Apostles, but we do have what God saw good to maintain in the canon. The timing of 2 Timothy is irrelevant. Paul´s point is that scripture is sufficient. The churches in those days ask as well as us, what is scripture? Peter affirmed, precanon, that Paul´s words were scripture (2 Peter 3:16). We affirm the same today as those early churches did who may not have had all of Paul´s letters at the time of 2 Timothy.

So scripture was sufficient even during the day when 2 Timothy was written and Revelation was not. The difference is, those churches had Apostles and gifts available to them that we no longer need now that we see face to face with God´s complete revelation.

But again, why am I defending sola scriptura?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

You state that the canon is closed but the church can still receive God´s word through prophetic utterance but that in such cases we could not add those words to Holy Scripture. To which I ask is it or is it not God´s word, if not where does it come from? Perhaps we should define prophecy.

1) Just because something is a word from God, does not mean that it can be added to Scripture. How many miracles did Jesus do that were never recorded in the Bible? How many words did Jesus speak that were not recorded in Scripture? Jesus even wrote something on the ground with His finger, and we don't know what it was. God spoke to people both in the OT and the NT, and in various cases, we do not have a written record of what God said.

2) By "prophecy", I am not talking about Moses being a prophet of God and writing Scripture, or Isaiah being a prophet of God and writing Scripture. Rather, I am talking about the likes of Agabus, to whom God gave prophetic knowledge of the future. Agabus correctly prophecied a famine (Acts 11:28), and he also correctly prophecied the binding/imprisonment of Paul (Acts 21:10-11). Now, according to 1 Cor. 12, Agabus wasn't the only prophet around in those days. Thus, others were prophets, and yet their prophecies were not recorded in Scripture. Not all prophecies are Scripture! I have never experienced predictive prophecy. I don't know whether God does that anymore or not. But why shouldn't I leave the "door open", so to speak? Why couldn't there be another Agabus? This is the question to which I am waiting to hear an answer.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

As an interesting aside, again the EOC would applaud you with such an argument. I have talked with Westminster Philly students and even had some email exchanges with Michael Horton about the lack of attention given to the EOC. As far as WTS - Philly goes, they do not address the EOC much at all. I am not sure about Dallas, but it appears you have heard little about the East in your training as well. I will simply say be careful, you are toeing the line between sola scriptura and it´s antithesis.

I am being careful to remain true to Scripture, and not to go dogmatically beyond what it teaches. Cessationism certainly fits my personal experience. But according to what I see in Scripture, I cannot make a Biblical case for cessationism (at least not yet).

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

But again, why am I defending sola scriptura?

I don't know why you are defending it, since I too affirm it. I believe that Scripture is sufficient for us today. We don't need anything else.


But just because we don't need anything else, doesn't mean that God won't still graciously give us anything else.

Lasagna & broccoli may be sufficient for your health and nutrition.
But that doesn't mean that your wife can't go above and beyond the call of duty, and also bake you some nice chocolate chip cookies once in a while. Do you need them? No. Is the lasagna and broccoli sufficient? Yes. But do you still appreciate the cookies? Of course.





[Edited on 1-12-2006 by biblelighthouse]

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Joseph, a response would involve reiteration of what I have already said.

I do not have the time to repeat myself. Hopefully someone will give you the answer you are looking for. Perhaps it is contained in the numerous threads discussing the same topic, let us know when you find it.

Until then grace and peace brother.

[Edited on 1-12-2006 by ChristopherPaul]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Joseph, a response would involve reiteration of what I have already said.

A reiteration would not help, because your arguments seem to be lacking.

You seem to have a faulty definition for the word "sufficient". (See my related reply to Christopher Blum above.)

Also, you have failed to demonstrate that cessationism has anything to do with sola scriptura. You have asserted it loudly, but have not produced any Scriptural argument to that effect.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

I do not have the time to repeat myself. Hopefully someone will give you the magic answer you are looking for. Perhaps it is contained in the numerous threads discussing the same topic, let us know when you find it.

That is a low blow, and I would appreciate an apology.

I'm not looking for a "magic answer". I'm simply looking for a Scriptural answer.

I can explain the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture, even though I have to consult a number of passages to do so.

I can explain the Biblical doctrine of infant baptism from Scripture, even though I have to consult a number of passages to do so.

Likewise, if cessationism is true, then I expect you to be able to make your case from Scripture, even if you have to put together a number of passages to do so. If you're ever willing to do this, then please be my guest.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Until then grace and peace brother.

Grace and peace to you, too, Chris. I am disappointed that you have chosen to bow out of the conversation, instead of simply presenting Scriptural evidence to back up your assertion. But that is your call. If you don't have time to engage this discussion from a Scriptural standpoint, then you don't have the time. I run out of time from time to time too, and do not always have time to discuss things on the PB. So if time is the issue, then I can understand.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
That is a low blow, and I would appreciate an apology.

I apologize, apparently my sarcasm gets out of control at times. I am sorry.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
That is a low blow, and I would appreciate an apology.

I apologize, apparently my sarcasm gets out of control at times. I am sorry.

Thank you, Chris!! I very much appreciate it. Too rarely do I actually see apologies around here. (Though I see them more often here than on any other board!)

Whether you can see it or not, I am genuinely trying to wrestle with this issue via the Scriptures, and so I am really not looking for some "magic fix". So thank you for retracting that comment.

I too have a big problem with sarcasm, and my attitude gets out of control at times. I really hope I didn't say anything to personally offend you, Chris. If I did, I apologize . . . and please point it out to me so I can apologize specifically.


In any case, thank you for your apology. It is greatly appreciated.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

The typical Pentecostal argument is that the phenomena of Acts and 1 Cor are distinct. I reject this claim. I find no evidence in 1 Cor that the phenomena are distinct at all. They are a part of the same apostolic, revelational, covenantal package.

The Ascension culminates the saving work of Christ. He is raised, he is ascended, he fulfills Ps 110. He is the King to whom king David bows and he is the Adon who fulfilled the terms of the covenant contracted (yes, I said contracted) with Yahweh from all eternity (see the book of Hebrews).

Pentecost, in its own way, is the culmination of redemptive-historical work of God the Spirit. The Glory-cloud who hovered over the temple and who lead us out of Egypt has now descended upon and subsequently (1 Pet 4) hovers over the church-temple.

What was confused at Babel is reversed at Pentecost. The gospel is going forth to every tribe, tongue, and nation. Jews are being baptized/circumcised into the covenant community in the New Covenant as if they were Gentile converts and Gentile converts are being baptized/circumcised as if they were Jews.

Pentecost is about the objective work of the Spirit in advancing the kingdom through the foolishness of preaching and about confirming that message with displays of apostolic Holy Spirit power, not about private religious experience or ecstasy. Glossolalia means "œnatural languages." Full stop.

Pentecost has nothing to do with two kinds of Christians, a higher life or a second blessing. Pentecost has nothing to do with having enough faith to do anything. Pentecost is about the saving work of the Triune God in history.

Pentecost is about the development of revelation, not setting a pattern for contemporary church life any more than the Noahic flood is a pattern for neighborhood evangelism. We are not called to open the fire hydrants, and plug the storm drains during a thunderstorm in order to call our neighbors to Christ. Neither are we called to try to replicate raising folk from the dead, healing them, or speaking in foreign languages without training.

Pentecost is meant to be Pentecost just as the Passover is meant to be the Passover. It wasn´t meant to be replicated. Observed, yes, but we never (under Moses, before the incarnation) went about slaughtering the firstborn of the nearest Gentile town on Pascha.

So Pentecost should be remembered, not replicated, as if that were possible.

These phenomena (speaking in known foreign languages under the direct inspiration of the Spirit etc) are apostolic phenomena in the same way that seeing chariots of fire or being taken into the heavenly courts or being divinely transported are part of the OT prophetic office and revelation. Some of these phenomena occur in the NT also as part of the canonical revelation.

If we allow the biblical phenomena to be as wonderful as they really were, and if we're honest about what passes for "Pentecostal" phenomena today, the discrepancy is quite large. I don´t see ANY of them doing ANYTHING like what the Apostles did. If they´re bit by a poisonous snake, they get sick. Paul didn´t. If they get stoned, they die, Paul didn´t (but Stephen did! "“ maybe he didn´t have enough faith? That´s what Luke wants to think, right? If Stephen had enough faith, he could have walked right through the stones? Well, that´s what Wayne said at ETS 15 years ago or so; if he´d had enough faith, he could have healed his neighbor"¦.)

As to the demand for a biblical proof text or argument for cessationism, I reject the premise, namely, that the burden of proof is on cessationists. The scripture was written in the period of prophetic and apostolic revelation. The NT is full (although the epistles have relatively less reflection on or narrative concerning the charismata) of discussion about and narrative about the charismata. The NT was written to folks living in those circumstances.

To say, "œshow me where the NT says that in the post-apostolic era these things won't happen," is a false test. Show me where the NT says unambiguously that anything on this order will or won't happen in the post-apostolic age. What we´re meant to be doing is preaching the law and the gospel (if we could get this right, we´d be ahead of where we are now), administering the sacraments faithfully, administering discipline faithfully and loving one another. That´s it. That´s as "œSpiritual" (note the upper case S) as it gets in the inter-regnum, until Jesus comes.

Cessationism is better called "œcanonism" or "œcovenantalism" or some such. The reason that Reformed folk (see the quotations from G. de Bres above) do not expect or ask for extra-canonical or non-canonical revelations or other canonical gifts is because of the relation between covenant and canon. This has been sketched out by Ridderbos, Kline, and Gaffin in several books.

The outline is this: Scripture is a covenantal document. It is, as a whole, a the history, the promises, and the stipulations (i.e., the law and the gospel) of the covenant and kingdom. The king has entered into a covenant with his people. He has narrated his saving acts for us (the gospel) and announced it to us, and imposed on us the condition (faith) of benefiting from his covenant and the consequent stipulations of his covenant (the moral obligations of the Christian life). As a treaty document then, Scripture is inviolable. Paul makes this point in Gal 3;15. See Kline, Treaty of the Great King for a treatment of the entirety of Deut as just such a treaty document. This explains the warnings in Deut and Rev about not tampering with the books. Do they apply to the entire canon? Not directly, but indirectly. Directly, they apply to the books in question, but they witness to the structure of Scripture and the intent generally not to open the canon.

Ok, so let´s say that we accept a closed canon. Grudem does as does M L-Jones. I take these as the strongest proponents of extra-canonical revelation.

I read this stuff years ago when I was tempted by Pentecostalism (yes, I was tempted quite seriously). As I recall, Grudem appeals to Agabus (Acts 11:28) as a precedent for non-canonical revelation that can be false or falsified.

I respond: so what? What´s the point of extra-canonical revelation that is false or falsified? I can do that without the Spirit! Where does one derive from Scripture an expectation that the Spirit can inspire prophets to err? Does anyone really want to build a case for Spirit-inspired, extra-canonical prophecy that is potentially false on the example of Agabus? Is that why God included Agabus in the canon? As an example for us on how to get prophecy wrong?

This is just silly.

Wayne is a baby-boomer who is conservative but wants the sort of religious intensity and ecstasy the Pentecostals have, but he wants it in a respectable, predestinarian, middle-class sort of way.

This isn´t about theology or exegesis. It´s about psychology and emotions. It´s about the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience. Whoever mentioned revivalism is close.

This is a long discussion "“ I try to make the case in an upcoming book (not even finished yet) but some Reformed folk have felt "œleft out" for a long time.

That´s why Modern religion, even in many confessional churches, is not about the objective or the historical or the doctrinal, it´s about the subjective, the personal, and increasingly the ontological (Plato or Plotinus is making a huge comeback. The Creator/creature distinction is being chucked right out).

We live in the time between the advents. The signs that Jesus left are Word, water, bread, and wine. That´s it. Not enough? Too bad. I´m sorry. Jesus is risen. The tomb is empty. That´s all we get until he comes back. Barren? Really? "œLo I will be with you always"¦" is not barren! Boring? That´s just the problem, the cross has become boring. I fear that the real reason is because the theology of the cross won´t sell.

I have an idea. Let´s be Christians instead of predestinarian enthusiasts.

It´s worth a try.

rsc

 

[Semper Fidelis]

:APPLAUSE:

 

[BrianBowman]

Originally posted by Contra_MundumNo more apostles = no more extraordinary gifts. ---> The church doesn't need another founding. <--- We do not need either one, so we don't have either one

What we as the Church do need is to build on the foundation already laid by the Apostles and Prophets, namely our crucified, rised, and ascended Lord "who has abolished death and brought light and immortality to light through the Gospel".

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
.....This isn´t about theology or exegesis. It´s about psychology and emotions. It´s about the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience. Whoever mentioned revivalism is close.

This is a long discussion "“ I try to make the case in an upcoming book (not even finished yet) but some Reformed folk have felt "œleft out" for a long time. ...
rsc

Dr. Clark,

Are you going to title the new book: "Left-Out" ?

Robin

 

[Robin]

We live in the time between the advents. The signs that Jesus left are Word, water, bread, and wine. That´s it. Not enough? Too bad. I´m sorry. Jesus is risen. The tomb is empty. That´s all we get until he comes back. Barren? Really? "œLo I will be with you always"¦" is not barren! Boring? That´s just the problem, the cross has become boring. I fear that the real reason is because the theology of the cross won´t sell.

I have an idea. Let´s be Christians instead of predestinarian enthusiasts.

rsc




Thank you, Jesus, for leaving us with what we need....not what we want!

r.

 

[mybigGod]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
The typical Pentecostal argument is that the phenomena of Acts and 1 Cor are distinct. I reject this claim. I find no evidence in 1 Cor that the phenomena are distinct at all. They are a part of the same apostolic, revelational, covenantal package.

The Ascension culminates the saving work of Christ. He is raised, he is ascended, he fulfills Ps 110. He is the King to whom king David bows and he is the Adon who fulfilled the terms of the covenant contracted (yes, I said contracted) with Yahweh from all eternity (see the book of Hebrews).

Pentecost, in its own way, is the culmination of redemptive-historical work of God the Spirit. The Glory-cloud who hovered over the temple and who lead us out of Egypt has now descended upon and subsequently (1 Pet 4) hovers over the church-temple.

What was confused at Babel is reversed at Pentecost. The gospel is going forth to every tribe, tongue, and nation. Jews are being baptized/circumcised into the covenant community in the New Covenant as if they were Gentile converts and Gentile converts are being baptized/circumcised as if they were Jews.

Pentecost is about the objective work of the Spirit in advancing the kingdom through the foolishness of preaching and about confirming that message with displays of apostolic Holy Spirit power, not about private religious experience or ecstasy. Glossolalia means "œnatural languages." Full stop.

Pentecost has nothing to do with two kinds of Christians, a higher life or a second blessing. Pentecost has nothing to do with having enough faith to do anything. Pentecost is about the saving work of the Triune God in history.

Pentecost is about the development of revelation, not setting a pattern for contemporary church life any more than the Noahic flood is a pattern for neighborhood evangelism. We are not called to open the fire hydrants, and plug the storm drains during a thunderstorm in order to call our neighbors to Christ. Neither are we called to try to replicate raising folk from the dead, healing them, or speaking in foreign languages without training.

Pentecost is meant to be Pentecost just as the Passover is meant to be the Passover. It wasn´t meant to be replicated. Observed, yes, but we never (under Moses, before the incarnation) went about slaughtering the firstborn of the nearest Gentile town on Pascha.

So Pentecost should be remembered, not replicated, as if that were possible.

These phenomena (speaking in known foreign languages under the direct inspiration of the Spirit etc) are apostolic phenomena in the same way that seeing chariots of fire or being taken into the heavenly courts or being divinely transported are part of the OT prophetic office and revelation. Some of these phenomena occur in the NT also as part of the canonical revelation.

If we allow the biblical phenomena to be as wonderful as they really were, and if we're honest about what passes for "Pentecostal" phenomena today, the discrepancy is quite large. I don´t see ANY of them doing ANYTHING like what the Apostles did. If they´re bit by a poisonous snake, they get sick. Paul didn´t. If they get stoned, they die, Paul didn´t (but Stephen did! "“ maybe he didn´t have enough faith? That´s what Luke wants to think, right? If Stephen had enough faith, he could have walked right through the stones? Well, that´s what Wayne said at ETS 15 years ago or so; if he´d had enough faith, he could have healed his neighbor"¦.)

As to the demand for a biblical proof text or argument for cessationism, I reject the premise, namely, that the burden of proof is on cessationists. The scripture was written in the period of prophetic and apostolic revelation. The NT is full (although the epistles have relatively less reflection on or narrative concerning the charismata) of discussion about and narrative about the charismata. The NT was written to folks living in those circumstances.

To say, "œshow me where the NT says that in the post-apostolic era these things won't happen," is a false test. Show me where the NT says unambiguously that anything on this order will or won't happen in the post-apostolic age. What we´re meant to be doing is preaching the law and the gospel (if we could get this right, we´d be ahead of where we are now), administering the sacraments faithfully, administering discipline faithfully and loving one another. That´s it. That´s as "œSpiritual" (note the upper case S) as it gets in the inter-regnum, until Jesus comes.

Cessationism is better called "œcanonism" or "œcovenantalism" or some such. The reason that Reformed folk (see the quotations from G. de Bres above) do not expect or ask for extra-canonical or non-canonical revelations or other canonical gifts is because of the relation between covenant and canon. This has been sketched out by Ridderbos, Kline, and Gaffin in several books.

The outline is this: Scripture is a covenantal document. It is, as a whole, a the history, the promises, and the stipulations (i.e., the law and the gospel) of the covenant and kingdom. The king has entered into a covenant with his people. He has narrated his saving acts for us (the gospel) and announced it to us, and imposed on us the condition (faith) of benefiting from his covenant and the consequent stipulations of his covenant (the moral obligations of the Christian life). As a treaty document then, Scripture is inviolable. Paul makes this point in Gal 3;15. See Kline, Treaty of the Great King for a treatment of the entirety of Deut as just such a treaty document. This explains the warnings in Deut and Rev about not tampering with the books. Do they apply to the entire canon? Not directly, but indirectly. Directly, they apply to the books in question, but they witness to the structure of Scripture and the intent generally not to open the canon.

Ok, so let´s say that we accept a closed canon. Grudem does as does M L-Jones. I take these as the strongest proponents of extra-canonical revelation.

I read this stuff years ago when I was tempted by Pentecostalism (yes, I was tempted quite seriously). As I recall, Grudem appeals to Agabus (Acts 11:28) as a precedent for non-canonical revelation that can be false or falsified.

I respond: so what? What´s the point of extra-canonical revelation that is false or falsified? I can do that without the Spirit! Where does one derive from Scripture an expectation that the Spirit can inspire prophets to err? Does anyone really want to build a case for Spirit-inspired, extra-canonical prophecy that is potentially false on the example of Agabus? Is that why God included Agabus in the canon? As an example for us on how to get prophecy wrong?

This is just silly.

Wayne is a baby-boomer who is conservative but wants the sort of religious intensity and ecstasy the Pentecostals have, but he wants it in a respectable, predestinarian, middle-class sort of way.

This isn´t about theology or exegesis. It´s about psychology and emotions. It´s about the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience. Whoever mentioned revivalism is close.

This is a long discussion "“ I try to make the case in an upcoming book (not even finished yet) but some Reformed folk have felt "œleft out" for a long time.

That´s why Modern religion, even in many confessional churches, is not about the objective or the historical or the doctrinal, it´s about the subjective, the personal, and increasingly the ontological (Plato or Plotinus is making a huge comeback. The Creator/creature distinction is being chucked right out).

We live in the time between the advents. The signs that Jesus left are Word, water, bread, and wine. That´s it. Not enough? Too bad. I´m sorry. Jesus is risen. The tomb is empty. That´s all we get until he comes back. Barren? Really? "œLo I will be with you always"¦" is not barren! Boring? That´s just the problem, the cross has become boring. I fear that the real reason is because the theology of the cross won´t sell.

I have an idea. Let´s be Christians instead of predestinarian enthusiasts.

It´s worth a try.

rsc

Isnt the doctrine of the cross and how it applies to the believer full of subjective workings?
Are you saying that the post reformation revivals were just emotional and not a work of the Spirit?
If a person wants to preach a sermon on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit or any other doctrine other than the cross ,should the greater percentage of the message focus on Christ?

[Edited on 1-13-2006 by mybigGod]

[Edited on 1-13-2006 by mybigGod]

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Isnt the doctrine of the cross and how it applies to the believer full of subjective workings?
Are you saying that the post reformation revivals were just emotional and not a work of the Spirit?
If a person wants to preach a sermon on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit or any other doctrine other than the cross ,should the greater percentage of the message focus on Christ?

[Edited on 1-13-2006 by mybigGod]

[Edited on 1-13-2006 by mybigGod]

Absolutely the application of the cross has subjective elements. We call that the application of redemption and the ordo salutis.

The subjective element of Christianity is not in question. What is in question is the claim of ongoing Pentecostal/Apostolic power.

I have grave doubts about the 1st and 2nd great awakenings. The confessional folk of the time were deeply concerned about both for different reasons. I share their concerns.

A minister should preach the text of Scripture. Every text is either law or gospel or may contain both words. Every text is located in the history of salvation and must be so preached and every text, in some way or other, points us to Christ. We can't set arbitrary rules a priori. The sermon arises from the text.

When I speak of the "cross" I mean both the historic fact of the cross and a theological orientation. See
http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Suffering.html

rsc

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I want to pass on a testimony I heard in 1985. I can not testify to its truth but can only relate what was said by the testifier.

I cannot remember the name of the gentleman who shared this but remember his testimony because it left an impression that God can act according to what he has had written down. I dont think it is a norm but I don't have any reason to doubt the gentleman was lying.

He was raised in New York as a young Jew. He abandoned his faith and later married a woman who was Cuban if I remember correctly. She became a believer and was very burdened for her husbands salvation. One night as they were in bed she sat up and started speaking in the jewish dialect that he was raised with. He said that she wasn't familiar with it and that he hadn't used it since his youth. She didn't know it nor had heard it according to him. As she started speaking the words testified about how Jesus was the Messiah and Saviour of His people. It resulted in his conversion and walk with God. The gentleman didn't seem to be promoting a pentecostal life style even though the setting was of that sort.

I don't find that to be out of sorts from what the scriptures tell. I couldn't refute the testimony. I didn't feel it was my place. If God choses to do that for one person or three thousand I am not going to dispute what He wants. If he choses to call on one soul by this method I have no problem with it. He calls us all by diverse workings but always by illumination of His written word.

[Edited on 1-13-2006 by puritancovenanter]

 

[BrianBowman]

Originally posted by Robin

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
.....This isn´t about theology or exegesis. It´s about psychology and emotions. It´s about the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience. Whoever mentioned revivalism is close.

This is a long discussion "“ I try to make the case in an upcoming book (not even finished yet) but some Reformed folk have felt "œleft out" for a long time. ...
rsc

Dr. Clark,

Are you going to title the new book: "Left-Out" ?

Robin

How about "Please Leave Me Behind" (which implies an obvious pique on the pre-Trib Rapture lunacy) ?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Dr. Clark,

First of all, I want to applaud you for your excellent refutation of what passes as "Pentecostalism" today. I fully agree with your arguments that refute the practices of modern "charismatic" churches.

I completely agree with you that glossolalia means "œnatural languages." There is no question that the hearers in Acts 2 *understood* what was being said. People were speaking languages they had not learned, publically proclaiming the glory of God.

I fully agree with you that "Pentecost is about the objective work of the Spirit in advancing the kingdom through the foolishness of preaching and about confirming that message with displays of apostolic Holy Spirit power, not about private religious experience or ecstasy."

I also totally agree that "Pentecost has nothing to do with two kinds of Christians, a higher life or a second blessing. Pentecost has nothing to do with having enough faith to do anything."

I also agree that "Pentecost is about the development of revelation, not setting a pattern for contemporary church life".

We also agree that we are NOT "called to try to replicate raising folk from the dead, healing them, or speaking in foreign languages without training."

As you said, "Pentecost should be remembered, not replicated". --- And this is precisely the error I think modern pentecostal churches have fallen into. They are trying to replicate Pentecost. It is an example of MAN trying to INITIATE Petecostal power, wheras Pentecost itself was initiated by GOD, not man.

And just as you said regarding modern charismatic churches, I fully agree that we "don´t see ANY of them doing ANYTHING like what the Apostles did." The discrepancy IS quite large.



Now, having laid out our agreements (which are many), I want to thank you for making your case as clearly as you have. --- I also want to point out that my position is NOT that of modern pentecostal churches. Thus, I agree with your refutation of them. But my position is quite different, and you were refuting their position, not mine. So thank you for giving me this chance to clearly distance myself from what passes as "pentecostalism" these days.

I do not believe man can initiate any duplication of Pentecost.
I do not believe we should be seeking out prophecy, tongues, healers, etc.

So what DO I believe?

I believe that God can still do whatever He wants to do.
And I see nothing in Scripture that suggests God is finished with miracles . . . nothing in the Bible which suggests that there is some cosmic shift that magically took place after the death of the last apostle.

If you want to say that a man cannot muster up enough faith to become a faith-healer, or to become a predictive prophet, or to speak in foreign languages without learning them, then I agree with you.

But if you want to say that God cannot (or will not) sovereignly cause someone to speak in a foreign language under certain circumstances, or if you want to say that God cannot (or will not) sovereignly give some piece of predictive knowledge to someone under certain circumstances, or if you want to say that God cannot (or will not) miraculously heal people under circumstances, then the burden of proof is on you. --- All of your arguments are very effective at refuting the silly man-initiated stuff that goes on in today's "pentecostal" churches. But your arguments do not even begin to show a Scriptural warrant for saying that God lacks the prerogative to do whatever He wants, whenever He wants.

Just as an isolated case in point, I have no problem at all with what Randy shared in a previous post:

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
I want to pass on a testimony I heard in 1985. . . . God can act according to what he has had written down. I dont think it is a norm but I don't have any reason to doubt the gentleman was lying. . . . He was raised in New York as a young Jew. He abandoned his faith and later married a woman who was Cuban if I remember correctly. She became a believer and was very burdened for her husbands salvation. One night as they were in bed she sat up and started speaking in the jewish dialect that he was raised with. He said that she wasn't familiar with it and that he hadn't used it since his youth. She didn't know it nor had heard it according to him. As she started speaking the words testified about how Jesus was the Messiah and Saviour of His people. It resulted in his conversion and walk with God. The gentleman didn't seem to be promoting a pentecostal life style . . . I don't find that to be out of sorts from what the scriptures tell. I couldn't refute the testimony. I didn't feel it was my place. If God choses to do that for one person or three thousand I am not going to dispute what He wants. If he choses to call on one soul by this method I have no problem with it. He calls us all by diverse workings but always by illumination of His written word.

Now what, pray tell, is wrong with that? Whether this one particular instance is accurate or not, who is to say God never works this way? Why should we automatically assume that such people are lying?

Please notice what is MISSING in the story above:

1) The Jewish man and his wife were not LOOKING for some awesome manifestation of the Spirit. They were not seeking miracles.

2) The "tongue" here was an understandable, natural language, just as we see in Acts 2. There is no gibberish here.

3) There is no new revelation here. When the wife spoke in a tongue that was unknown to herself, her husband simply heard her speaking the Gospel. In his own language, he was hearing that Jesus is the Messiah and the Saviour of His people.

4) This was not a permanent "gift". The wife did not retain any ability to "speak in tongues" at will. To the contrary, God Himself simply performed something miraculous that got the husband's attention, and got him to listen seriously to the Gospel message. This was a one-time event, sovereignly performed at God's own discretion.

5) The husband and wife never leapt to the conclusion that this is how God normally works. They simply seemed to recognize that God chose an interesting way to bring the Jewish man to faith in Christ. But they weren't going about telling everyone that "everyone else can do it to if they just have enough faith."


In other words, the story above looks NOTHING like what we see in run-of-the-mill "charismatic" churches. This was NOT a case of men seeking supernatural manifestations. To the contrary, this was simply a case of God sovereignly choosing to lead people to Himself in whatever manner He pleases.



Dr. Clark, you said, "What we´re meant to be doing is preaching the law and the gospel . . . administering the sacraments faithfully, administering discipline faithfully and loving one another. That´s it." --- And I totally agree with you. I do not think we should be seeking anything "more spiritual" than what you have just said. But again, I am not talking about MAN seeking a "higher spiritual life", or anything of the sort. Rather, I am simply arguing for the FREEDOM of GOD to do what He wants, when He wants.


You said, "Wayne [Grudem] is a baby-boomer who is conservative but wants the sort of religious intensity and ecstasy the Pentecostals have, but he wants it in a respectable, predestinarian, middle-class sort of way. This isn´t about theology or exegesis. It´s about psychology and emotions. It´s about the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience. Whoever mentioned revivalism is close."

Again, I totally agree with you. I don't care at all about reviving revivalism, or about seeking religious ecstasy. I'm not looking to stroke my psyche and emotions. Again, I am merely arguing for the freedom of God to do what He wants.


Now, what Scriptural argument is there against *that*?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by biblelighthouseAgain, I am merely arguing for the freedom of God to do what He wants.


Now, what Scriptural argument is there against *that*?

None.

However, ask yourself does God have the "freedom" to contradict Himself? If revelation is done until the second advent, then we are to expect no new revelation in form of miraculous tongue or prophecy. Do you agree with that? Why couldn't Joseph Smith (Founder of Mormonism) be another Prophet or Apostles appointed much like Paul?

Did God say there will be no more Apostles, no more revelation after the Apostles and the Canon?

In these last days has God already spoken through Jesus or not?

I do not want to go around the horn again Joseph, but I believe you are allowing God to speak still, but nothing new in addition to Holy Scripture. Is this a fair statement summarizing your hypothetical conclusion?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Originally posted by biblelighthouseAgain, I am merely arguing for the freedom of God to do what He wants.


Now, what Scriptural argument is there against *that*?

None.

Thank you.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

However, ask yourself does God have the "freedom" to contradict Himself?

Certainly not.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

If revelation is done until the second advent, then we are to expect no new revelation in form of miraculous tongue or prophecy. Do you agree with that? Why couldn't Joseph Smith (Founder of Mormonism) be another Prophet or Apostles appointed much like Paul?

I agree that there will be no more Apostles/Prophets of the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, etc. Thus, Joseph Smith being a true Prophet is out of the question.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Did God say there will be no more Apostles, no more revelation after the Apostles and the Canon?

I agree that there will be no more Apostles, and no more Scriptural revelation.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

In these last days has God already spoken through Jesus or not?

Certainly. But what does that have to do with this conversation? As far as I know, there were still miracles after Hebrews 1 was written. In fact, there was even Scripture still left to be written (i.e. Revelation). So if Heb. 1:1-4 didn't stop miracles from being continued then, why should Heb. 1:1-4 keep miracles from happening now, if God wants to initiate them?

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

I do not want to go around the horn again Joseph, but I believe you are allowing God to speak still, but nothing new in addition to Holy Scripture. Is this a fair statement summarizing your hypothetical conclusion?

Yes, this is a fair statement. I think we are starting to understand each other.

I do NOT believe that there are any people walking around today like Moses, Isaiah, Peter, or Paul.

I do NOT believe that there is any Scripture left to be written. The canon is closed until Jesus physically returns.

I DO believe that God can still sovereignly cause someone to speak the Gospel in a foreign language, under certain circumstances that He sovereignly chooses. This is not new revelation. This is simply the Gospel being preached under unusual circumstances.

I DO believe that God can still sovereignly cause miraculous healings to occur. But I do NOT believe that we should be looking for "faith healers" like Benny Hinn. I'm not talking about God giving men the ability to heal whomever they want. But I am talking about God healing whomever HE wants. If God wants to make a tumor miraculously disappear, then that is just what He will do, even today.

If there is any miraculous thing that I think may have ceased, it would be predictive prophecy. I certainly DO NOT believe that God will add anything to the canon of Scripture, or that there is any new revelation to be given to the church to tell us what to believe about God, how to live, how to worship, etc. Nevertheless, if there is any exception to this, I would think it would look something like Agabus. He did not give new revelation to the church about God, worship, eccesiology, etc. God simply gave him foreknowledge about an impending famine, so that he could warn his fellow Christians. I do not know if anything like this happens anymore or not. I certainly have not experienced it. And I am not seeking to experience it. But I would have trouble ruling it out as a possibility. It seems to me that God could give miraculous foreknowledge of a famine, drought, etc., without adding anything to the canon, and without adding anything to our Scriptural knowledge of God, worship, ecclesiology, etc. So, with a carefully restricted view, I could be persuaded that there could still be some God-initiated prophecy. But it would certainly NOT be of the ilk of Isaiah, Peter, Paul, etc. Agabus was not comparable to Moses or Paul.


Chris, I think we are getting somewhere here, and are beginning to understand each other a bit better. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.