Charismatic and reformed?
- Thread starter Romans922
- Start date
- Status
mybigGod
Puritan Board Freshman
Here is the problem i am having in this discussion. First the books that i want to access are not availible on line so i have a choice between typing them out myself or just going back and forth here. My problem is that i do not agree with you on what is essential and what is non essential. Nor do i agree with you on your view of historical revivals. I can understand you saying that you preferr singing Psalms only ,but when in making them mandatory you are placing yourself above scripture. You also make the world you live in a very small one.
Now you will argue that the road is narrow and you are only obedient to the confession. I could argue that point on any thing i think is essential! I accept your convictions as your personal convictions but i think your insisting that everyone else follow the singing of Psalms is where you are wrong. There is obviously more people in America singing hymns than Psalms.This is confusing the essentials and non essentials historically.
I hold to the confession also. My problem with some of the modern day covenant theologians is that they major on the minors and minor on the majors. In doing this they have shut out most of America because the message is not alive.
You guys read baptism in every confessional statement. The reformers saw the problem with trusting in the "outward " and not focusing on the inward.
The central truth message of the gospel is that not one of us deserves new life and that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. God takes the foolish things of this world and confounds the wise. Understanding this first is incombant on being a strick confessionalist. Any one who thinks hes got this figured out will have his world turned upside down. I might add that revival is the paradigm for uprooting the tear system of man centered institutions.
I do not believe you about the strict confessionalist because there is a difference between signing a statement and actually working it out in the class room. Plus to you being a strick confessionalist is singing Psalms only and i know that is not practiced by the majority of professors.
You say revival was just an emotional movement.Then you say that the carismatic movement in america is spreading false teaching and is just an emotional movement. Yet they have the majority of the americians. Obviously there is a place for excitement. You can be like an ostrach and use the narrow arguement or you can read Owen on Unity. Now, are all carismatic leaders who have wrong concepts of the Trinity unsaved? Are all of those who sit and listen to them unsaved?
Obviously what we lack today is acknowleging that God could use people outside our denomination even with us having differences in doctrines and being able to publically disagree with one another but acknowleging that God is using these foolish things to get the gospel spread. Also we should be working to persuade others to bring more into our fold. (This has nothing to do with sabbath worship.) M L Jones was a master at this.
[Edited on 1-17-2006 by mybigGod]
[Edited on 1-17-2006 by mybigGod]
Now you will argue that the road is narrow and you are only obedient to the confession. I could argue that point on any thing i think is essential! I accept your convictions as your personal convictions but i think your insisting that everyone else follow the singing of Psalms is where you are wrong. There is obviously more people in America singing hymns than Psalms.This is confusing the essentials and non essentials historically.
I hold to the confession also. My problem with some of the modern day covenant theologians is that they major on the minors and minor on the majors. In doing this they have shut out most of America because the message is not alive.
You guys read baptism in every confessional statement. The reformers saw the problem with trusting in the "outward " and not focusing on the inward.
The central truth message of the gospel is that not one of us deserves new life and that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. God takes the foolish things of this world and confounds the wise. Understanding this first is incombant on being a strick confessionalist. Any one who thinks hes got this figured out will have his world turned upside down. I might add that revival is the paradigm for uprooting the tear system of man centered institutions.
I do not believe you about the strict confessionalist because there is a difference between signing a statement and actually working it out in the class room. Plus to you being a strick confessionalist is singing Psalms only and i know that is not practiced by the majority of professors.
You say revival was just an emotional movement.Then you say that the carismatic movement in america is spreading false teaching and is just an emotional movement. Yet they have the majority of the americians. Obviously there is a place for excitement. You can be like an ostrach and use the narrow arguement or you can read Owen on Unity. Now, are all carismatic leaders who have wrong concepts of the Trinity unsaved? Are all of those who sit and listen to them unsaved?
Obviously what we lack today is acknowleging that God could use people outside our denomination even with us having differences in doctrines and being able to publically disagree with one another but acknowleging that God is using these foolish things to get the gospel spread. Also we should be working to persuade others to bring more into our fold. (This has nothing to do with sabbath worship.) M L Jones was a master at this.
[Edited on 1-17-2006 by mybigGod]
[Edited on 1-17-2006 by mybigGod]
I agree with Dr. Clark here. I would like to chime in and say there is a cessation of the Apostolic office I believe. The proof in the pudding is that in Revelation 21:14 there are only twelve Apostles who are identified by there names in the walls. Thus rendering anyone afterwards not a true apostle in the biblical sense.
Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
There is cessation. I also do believe that ones trust in Christ and the ability to approach the Throne of Grace do give us who belong to him an ability to petition God for the miraculous. But it is along the lines of James.
(Jam 5:14) Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
(Jam 5:15) And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
(Jam 5:16) Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
I have seen this happen. I will testify to this.
[Edited on 1-17-2006 by puritancovenanter]
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
But there were 13 Apostles.
Are you considering Judas....I don't think so. Or Matthias in Acts which was done chosen by lot, unlike Paul who was chosen by Christ. Paul was Chosen by Christ and not by lot, thus rendering him the true Apostle of the twelve. Just my humble opinion.
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
I am not considering Judas, but his vacant office. Matthias was selected to fulfill scripture and took over the office left by Judas. So we have to assume Matthias is left out because of a technicality? His calling was not a true Apostolic calling?
Unlike Paul, Matthias accompanied the other Apostles all the time that Jesus went in and out among them -- beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up -- and became a witness of the resurrection.
I agree with you that the office is no more, but it is easy for someone to respond by saying that the twelve hold a special office of those who were with Jesus since the beginning of His ministry, and after them more Apostles were indeed appointed (like Paul). Revelation 21 does not conclusively resolve the argument that the office of Apostle is no more.
Interesting nonetheless...
Could Peter have been premature in his leadership concerning Judas' replacement?
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
The Psalm doesn't give any command on who is to appoint or how it would be appointed. Peter makes up the guidelines. Are they found in scripture anywhere else? Apostles are strictly chosen by Jesus and not by guidelines or lots. I am not so sure that Matthias is the twelvth Apostle. Acts is not a book to pull much doctrine or practice out of as it is more of an Historical account.
In other words I think Peter could have acted Prematurely. He is not infallible. He usually did react and act rather rashly.
[Edited on 1-18-2006 by puritancovenanter]
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
The Psalm doesn't give any command on who is to appoint or how it would be appointed. Peter makes up the guidelines. Are they found in scripture anywhere else? Apostles are strictly chosen by Jesus and not by guidelines or lots. I am not so sure that Matthias is the twelvth Apostle. Acts is not a book to pull much doctrine or practice out of as it is more of an Historical account.
In other words I think Peter could have acted Prematurely. He is not infallible. He usually did react and act rather rashly.
[Edited on 1-18-2006 by puritancovenanter]
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
Possible I suppose. The text does not say, "At this time Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit (cf: Acts 4:8), stood up in the midst of the brethren, and said...."
This took place before the Joel Prophecy was fulfilled. We know from the gospels that Peter was quite rash at times prior to Pentecost.
That would be the only conclusion that can be made as far as I can see.
Peter also made other blunders such as going back to the circumcision which Paul confronted him about. Being an Apostle didn't make one perfect in all ways. I also believe that Pauls attitude toward John Mark may have been rather harsh. Thank God for Barnabas the Encourager who took Mark and separated from Paul. The Apostles didn't see all things perfectly but the written word of God is perfect. It reveals frailty in them and soundness, pureness, infallibility, and no error in all of the Scripture. We have a sure footing we can rely on.
[Edited on 1-18-2006 by puritancovenanter]
[Edited on 1-18-2006 by puritancovenanter]
A2JC4life
Puritan Board Freshman
I find the arrogant attitudes of some of the posts in this thread offensive. 
Is it really necessary to be sarcastic toward those brothers with which we disagree, simply because we disagree with them? If you are going to scoff at those of us (yes, I am one) who believe the gifts have NOT passed away, it is only fair that you be able to produce a compelling SCRIPTURE-BASED argument for your own position. Otherwise, is it too much to ask that you be RESPECTFUL in your discussion with/of us?
My husband and I believe that the typical "charismatic" church today is in error - usually the same errors addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians. However, we believe that cessationists are just as out-of-balance as those who abuse the gifts. If we could ever, even once, hear a rational, Scriptural argument for the cessationist position, perhaps we would change our minds but, so far, that hasn't happened. The response we get is usually either a) I'm not going to talk about it, because it causes division (makes us wonder if they have anything to talk ABOUT), b) 1 Cor. 13 says prophecy will cease, and it's talking about the canon of Scripture (Do you still KNOW anything? Do you know EVERYTHING? Has KNOWLEDGE ceased? Among other things, this is a serious flaw in this particular application of this verse/passage.), or c) an emotional response that says that because I haven't experienced the gifts or because I have experienced an abuse of the gifts, I would rather just claim cessationism than actually deal with a Scriptural balance as described at length in 1 Corinthians.
I would love to see a cessationist sincerely and respectfully answer any or all of the following questions:
1) On what basis are you a cessationist? (Can you provide SCRIPTURE, or just opinion?)
2) On what basis do you assume that the only purpose for prophecy is/was the production of Scripture? (I can provide Scripture that asserts, or at LEAST strongly implies, the contrary. There are those we KNOW prophecied in NT times, because the Bible tells us so, but we do not have any of their prophecies in Scripture. The Corinthians were given specific instructions regarding how they were to properly use the gift of prophecy, but none of their prophecies are part of the canon of Scripture, nor were they given any instructions about passing these along to other local fellowships. There appears to be a clear distinction between God's Word for all Christians of all places and times, and God's word for a specific person or people at a particular time - which must, of course, line up with Scripture, what we know of the character of God, etc. God loves us individually as well as corporately.)
3) How is it consistent with covenant theology to say, in effect, that "that was only for THAT dispensation"?
4) (For many...) Why does it make you so upset to have to present a rational Scriptural argument for your position on this particular teaching, when you are well-acquainted with making similar arguments for other teaching in other areas (such as, for example, predestination)?
If cessationism really is SO obviously the more biblically-correct teaching, it should be very, very easy to present a rational, compelling argument with a Scriptural foundation.
Is it really necessary to be sarcastic toward those brothers with which we disagree, simply because we disagree with them? If you are going to scoff at those of us (yes, I am one) who believe the gifts have NOT passed away, it is only fair that you be able to produce a compelling SCRIPTURE-BASED argument for your own position. Otherwise, is it too much to ask that you be RESPECTFUL in your discussion with/of us?My husband and I believe that the typical "charismatic" church today is in error - usually the same errors addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians. However, we believe that cessationists are just as out-of-balance as those who abuse the gifts. If we could ever, even once, hear a rational, Scriptural argument for the cessationist position, perhaps we would change our minds but, so far, that hasn't happened. The response we get is usually either a) I'm not going to talk about it, because it causes division (makes us wonder if they have anything to talk ABOUT), b) 1 Cor. 13 says prophecy will cease, and it's talking about the canon of Scripture (Do you still KNOW anything? Do you know EVERYTHING? Has KNOWLEDGE ceased? Among other things, this is a serious flaw in this particular application of this verse/passage.), or c) an emotional response that says that because I haven't experienced the gifts or because I have experienced an abuse of the gifts, I would rather just claim cessationism than actually deal with a Scriptural balance as described at length in 1 Corinthians.
I would love to see a cessationist sincerely and respectfully answer any or all of the following questions:
1) On what basis are you a cessationist? (Can you provide SCRIPTURE, or just opinion?)
2) On what basis do you assume that the only purpose for prophecy is/was the production of Scripture? (I can provide Scripture that asserts, or at LEAST strongly implies, the contrary. There are those we KNOW prophecied in NT times, because the Bible tells us so, but we do not have any of their prophecies in Scripture. The Corinthians were given specific instructions regarding how they were to properly use the gift of prophecy, but none of their prophecies are part of the canon of Scripture, nor were they given any instructions about passing these along to other local fellowships. There appears to be a clear distinction between God's Word for all Christians of all places and times, and God's word for a specific person or people at a particular time - which must, of course, line up with Scripture, what we know of the character of God, etc. God loves us individually as well as corporately.)
3) How is it consistent with covenant theology to say, in effect, that "that was only for THAT dispensation"?
4) (For many...) Why does it make you so upset to have to present a rational Scriptural argument for your position on this particular teaching, when you are well-acquainted with making similar arguments for other teaching in other areas (such as, for example, predestination)?
If cessationism really is SO obviously the more biblically-correct teaching, it should be very, very easy to present a rational, compelling argument with a Scriptural foundation.
5solasmom
Puritan Board Freshman
I find the arrogant attitudes of some of the posts in this thread offensive.
My husband and I believe that the typical "charismatic" church today is in error - usually the same errors addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians. However, we believe that cessationists are just as out-of-balance as those who abuse the gifts. If we could ever, even once, hear a rational, Scriptural argument for the cessationist position, perhaps we would change our minds but, so far, that hasn't happened. The response we get is usually either a) I'm not going to talk about it, because it causes division (makes us wonder if they have anything to talk ABOUT), b) 1 Cor. 13 says prophecy will cease, and it's talking about the canon of Scripture (Do you still KNOW anything? Do you know EVERYTHING? Has KNOWLEDGE ceased? Among other things, this is a serious flaw in this particular application of this verse/passage.), or c) an emotional response that says that because I haven't experienced the gifts or because I have experienced an abuse of the gifts, I would rather just claim cessationism than actually deal with a Scriptural balance as described at length in 1 Corinthians.
I would love to see a cessationist sincerely and respectfully answer any or all of the following questions:
1) On what basis are you a cessationist? (Can you provide SCRIPTURE, or just opinion?)
2) On what basis do you assume that the only purpose for prophecy is/was the production of Scripture? (I can provide Scripture that asserts, or at LEAST strongly implies, the contrary. There are those we KNOW prophecied in NT times, because the Bible tells us so, but we do not have any of their prophecies in Scripture. The Corinthians were given specific instructions regarding how they were to properly use the gift of prophecy, but none of their prophecies are part of the canon of Scripture, nor were they given any instructions about passing these along to other local fellowships. There appears to be a clear distinction between God's Word for all Christians of all places and times, and God's word for a specific person or people at a particular time - which must, of course, line up with Scripture, what we know of the character of God, etc. God loves us individually as well as corporately.)
3) How is it consistent with covenant theology to say, in effect, that "that was only for THAT dispensation"?
4) (For many...) Why does it make you so upset to have to present a rational Scriptural argument for your position on this particular teaching, when you are well-acquainted with making similar arguments for other teaching in other areas (such as, for example, predestination)?
If cessationism really is SO obviously the more biblically-correct teaching, it should be very, very easy to present a rational, compelling argument with a Scriptural foundation.
Rachel!!!
Welcome to PB! Fancy seeing you here!
Dawn from HK
gwine
Puritan Board Sophomore
You need to consider the fact that this thread is a year old and doesn't even have some of the players on the PB anymore You might want to read some of the other threads from the time period as well. People sinned, people repented, and we moved on. And today, people are still sinning and people are still repenting. And, by God's grace, we will become more like Him as we learn how to interact here.
Just read the newer threads and compare them to the older ones. I've been here long enough that I can say that, even though we are still not like-minded (and never will be this side of heaven) and we still have a stubborn streak, there is more civility now than in the past, even with the newer members who have joined.
- Status
