Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Well, then like I said, if the 'missionary' doesn't have some special 'powers' then they don't have the gift of evangelism. There is no SPIRITUAL gift given. They would simply have the gift of pastor/teacher.
How do we explain apparent use of gifts today?
- Thread starter Bern
- Start date
- Status
Well, then like I said, if the 'missionary' doesn't have some special 'powers' then they don't have the gift of evangelism. There is no SPIRITUAL gift given. They would simply have the gift of pastor/teacher.
rpeters
Puritan Board Freshman
It seems like the general idea here is that one could not be reformed and non-ceasationalist. We need to be very Careful now I do not agree with the abuses with carismatic circles and I do not believe we can any way add to scripture. I do believe toungues is a gift for today, but it as an evengilistic gift. I would also say it has noplace in a church where people know the language. I do believe the gift of toungues is speaking a known language. And many on this board would disagree with me. I want to reiterate there are guys who are alot reformed than I am who have help this view. One being D. Martyn Lloyd Jones. I do not agree with him on everything but he brings valid points. As for demons enhabiting I believe this isvery shaky ground to walk on. Can the same place house God and a demon. I think not. I think that a christian can be influenced by demonic forces but never inhabited.
Bern
Puritan Board Freshman
historyb: I'm referring to tongues and prophecy, and healing as a spiritual gift. I believe God can do, and does miracles in many ways, but does not give this gift to people like he did with the apostles, after all you don't see people in wheelchairs passing through someones shadow and standing up do you? 
I've never witnessed a "healing" so can't really comment on that, but have seen many examples of the use of tongues and interpretation and prophesy. I guess what I'm really wondering is what makes people believe they are experiencing something from God and that they aren't just making it up? How do they "know"?
There are many evangelicals who practice use of the gifts and would still condemn the obviously unbiblical practices of many pentecostals. Not all "charismatic" churches are like pentecostal churches, or seeker friendly churches with loud music etc, and whacky preachers who shout all the time. Many are quiet little village churches that strive to be faithful to the bible, that still believe the gifts are for today... though they do all seem to have one thing in common.... in my experience they are by and large Arminian.
I've never witnessed a "healing" so can't really comment on that, but have seen many examples of the use of tongues and interpretation and prophesy. I guess what I'm really wondering is what makes people believe they are experiencing something from God and that they aren't just making it up? How do they "know"?
There are many evangelicals who practice use of the gifts and would still condemn the obviously unbiblical practices of many pentecostals. Not all "charismatic" churches are like pentecostal churches, or seeker friendly churches with loud music etc, and whacky preachers who shout all the time. Many are quiet little village churches that strive to be faithful to the bible, that still believe the gifts are for today... though they do all seem to have one thing in common.... in my experience they are by and large Arminian.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Quote from Andrew
Are you just saying then that we should not call evangelists "evangelists" but maybe peripatetic or itinerant preachers? I think the word "evangelist" expresses the fact that this person has a gift for preaching to the unsaved and whose ministry is focussed on evangelism.
Do you believe their should be itinerant preachers, in e.g. America or Britain whose ministry is focussed on evangelism rather than preaching to or teaching believers/the converted?
Do you believe that such men have a place in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches?
-----Added 10/5/2009 at 08:27:19 EST-----
Quote from rpeters
I believe - and Palmer Robertson's analysis of I Corinthians 14 would bare this out - that the individual speaking a revelation in a tongue (foreign language) knew/understood what he/she was saying himself
This is another thing that is different from the modern tongues. The modern tongues speakers do not claim to be able to understand what they themselves are saying.
I'll explain in a later post why I believe that the first century tongues-speakers themselves were able to understand what they were saying.
Why, according to I Corinthians 14 were interpreters of tongues needed then, if the tongues-speakers themselves were unable to understand what they were saying?
(a) To confirm the accuracy of the revelation in a known tongue
(b) The translation of the revelatory message in the known tongue also had to be revelatory and prophetically accurate.
What are some of the purposes of these passages on this rather obscure, to us, and enigmatic gift of the Spirit that we no longer have?
Three suggestions. No doubt there are others.
(a) To tell us what was happening in the early church.
(b) The extended and sometimes rather opaque discussion of this gift of tongues (unknown languages) and the interpretation of tongues in I Corinthians is further confirmation from God's Word to the modern Christian, if it was needed, of the supernatural activity of God and the presence of the miraculous in the early church.
(c) It shows that God's word merits careful study and not just the assumption or presumption that what belongs to a particular administration e.g. the Old Covenant administration or the Apostolic administration is for today. The Word of God was first addressed to the original hearers and then to us. This has implications for the study and application of of the Old Testament e.g. just because the Jews shouted, danced, clapped and used musical instruments in their worship, doesn't necessarily mean it's for New Covenant worship; just because Israel civil governors were commanded to execute people for certain crimes, doesn't necessarily mean that New Covenant civil governors should.
Are you just saying then that we should not call evangelists "evangelists" but maybe peripatetic or itinerant preachers? I think the word "evangelist" expresses the fact that this person has a gift for preaching to the unsaved and whose ministry is focussed on evangelism.
Do you believe their should be itinerant preachers, in e.g. America or Britain whose ministry is focussed on evangelism rather than preaching to or teaching believers/the converted?
Do you believe that such men have a place in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches?
-----Added 10/5/2009 at 08:27:19 EST-----
Quote from rpeters
I believe - and Palmer Robertson's analysis of I Corinthians 14 would bare this out - that the individual speaking a revelation in a tongue (foreign language) knew/understood what he/she was saying himself
This is another thing that is different from the modern tongues. The modern tongues speakers do not claim to be able to understand what they themselves are saying.
I'll explain in a later post why I believe that the first century tongues-speakers themselves were able to understand what they were saying.
Why, according to I Corinthians 14 were interpreters of tongues needed then, if the tongues-speakers themselves were unable to understand what they were saying?
(a) To confirm the accuracy of the revelation in a known tongue
(b) The translation of the revelatory message in the known tongue also had to be revelatory and prophetically accurate.
What are some of the purposes of these passages on this rather obscure, to us, and enigmatic gift of the Spirit that we no longer have?
Three suggestions. No doubt there are others.
(a) To tell us what was happening in the early church.
(b) The extended and sometimes rather opaque discussion of this gift of tongues (unknown languages) and the interpretation of tongues in I Corinthians is further confirmation from God's Word to the modern Christian, if it was needed, of the supernatural activity of God and the presence of the miraculous in the early church.
(c) It shows that God's word merits careful study and not just the assumption or presumption that what belongs to a particular administration e.g. the Old Covenant administration or the Apostolic administration is for today. The Word of God was first addressed to the original hearers and then to us. This has implications for the study and application of of the Old Testament e.g. just because the Jews shouted, danced, clapped and used musical instruments in their worship, doesn't necessarily mean it's for New Covenant worship; just because Israel civil governors were commanded to execute people for certain crimes, doesn't necessarily mean that New Covenant civil governors should.
Last edited:
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
Many are thinking through this and it is quite understandable given the experiences many have had, and the good doctrinal basis many are new to.
We all know God can and does miracles, and we don't want to be in a position of saying He can't.
But to believe that new special revelation of God ordinarily comes today through speaking in unknown tongues, interpretation and prophecy (foretelling sense) today, in light of the completion by the prophets and apostles and the giving of His Word is quite another.
It seems like the general idea here is that one could not be reformed and non-ceasationalist.
If by "cessationalist" one means that special revelation equal to that of Scripture does not come through speaking in unknown tongues, interpretation of unknown tongues, and prophecies (foretelling sense) now that our faith has been established and God's revealed Word for this age has been revealed, you are correct.
Reformed understands the Holy Spirit to speak through Scripture, to illuminate our understanding as we read it, not ordinarily to inspire special revelation outside of Scripture now that Scripture has been established until He returns.
Whether they can see this clearly or not, this is what standard charismatic/pentecostal practice assumes or teaches explicitly (the latter), which is not biblical. This is why there is such disorder in their communions. It's really about the Word for reformed!
That does NOT mean reformed believes all miracles have ceased.
The operative and administrative gifts still function in line with their purpose.
My understanding is, some may not agree, that some of the charismatic gifts (I Cor. 12) might continue in a non-revelatory sense or might even operate "extraordinarily." That means especially what we call "miracles." But even allowing for this, it is not an ordinary means of grace or center of corporate worship as charismatic/pentecostal communions treat it as.
The key point here is that God is not giving new revelation in the apostolic or unknown tongues/interpretation or prophecy sense
We need to be very Careful now I do not agree with the abuses with carismatic circles and I do not believe we can any way add to scripture. I do believe toungues is a gift for today, but it as an evengilistic gift. I would also say it has noplace in a church where people know the language. I do believe the gift of toungues is speaking a known language.
In Acts, they were known languages. In I Corinthians 12, unknown languages. The latter is what charismatic/pentecostal communions rely on and center their identity on as a means of revelation.
And many on this board would disagree with me. I want to reiterate there are guys who are alot reformed than I am who have help this view. One being D. Martyn Lloyd Jones. I do not agree with him on everything but he brings valid points. As for demons enhabiting I believe this isvery shaky ground to walk on. Can the same place house God and a demon. I think not. I think that a christian can be influenced by demonic forces but never inhabited.
We all know God can and does miracles, and we don't want to be in a position of saying He can't.
But to believe that new special revelation of God ordinarily comes today through speaking in unknown tongues, interpretation and prophecy (foretelling sense) today, in light of the completion by the prophets and apostles and the giving of His Word is quite another.
discipulo
Puritan Board Junior
I think no one puts it as clear in the terminus of progressive revelation as B B Warfield, another important Reference for this debate,
B B Warfield – Counterfeit Miracles – chapter: the Cessation of the Charismata
page 27 here he is also quoting Bavinck and Kuyper.
"Special revelation has been delivered in the form of a historical process, which reaches its end point in the person and work of Christ. When Christ had appeared and returned again to heaven, special revelation did not, indeed, come at once to an end. There was yet to follow the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, and the extraordinary working of the powers and gifts through and under the guidance of the Apostolate. The Scriptures undoubtedly reckon all this to the sphere of special revelation, and the continuance of this revelation was necessary to give abiding existence in the world to the special revelation which reached its climax in Christ—abiding existence both in the word of Scripture and in the life of the church. Truth and life, prophecy and miracle, word and deed, inspiration and regeneration go hand in hand in the completion of special. revelation. But when the revelation of God in Christ had taken place, and had become in Scripture and church a constituent parts of the cosmos, then another era began. As before everything was a preparation for Christ, so afterward everything is to be a consequence of Christ. Then Christ was being framed into the Head of His people, now His people are being framed into the Body of Christ. Then the Scriptures were being produced, now they are being applied. New constituent elements of special revelation can no longer be added; for Christ has come, His work has been dope, and His word is complete."
Counterfeit Miracles: Amazon.co.uk: B.B. Warfield: Books
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
The ceasing of special revelation via tongues and their interpretation and prophecy ties in with the fact that Christ is our king, priest and prophet and sole mediator. Christ speaks to His people as prophet through the inscripturated Word, illuminated by the Holy Spirit.
We do not need kings over the church, or priests or prophets (or tongues-speakers and their interpreters) to intermediate between us and Christ.
Christ is mediatorial prophet, priest and king between the Church and God, and believers are all spiritually prophets, priests and kings under Him.
Let us beware of those who would set themselves up as kings, priests and prophets in God's New Covenant Church-Nation.
I don't disagree that miracles can and do still occur in answer to prayer e.g. sometimes a healing in answer to prayer may be miraculous. I just think that miracles are by their very definition rare occurences.
We do not need kings over the church, or priests or prophets (or tongues-speakers and their interpreters) to intermediate between us and Christ.
Christ is mediatorial prophet, priest and king between the Church and God, and believers are all spiritually prophets, priests and kings under Him.
Let us beware of those who would set themselves up as kings, priests and prophets in God's New Covenant Church-Nation.
I don't disagree that miracles can and do still occur in answer to prayer e.g. sometimes a healing in answer to prayer may be miraculous. I just think that miracles are by their very definition rare occurences.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
The speaking in unknown tongues and an interpretation of unknown tongues in I Corinthians 12-14 is really that revelation.
The WCF says that Scripture alone (sola fide) has this place now that the faith has been delivered to the prophets and apostles and the Scripture has been received in the language of the people.
Miraculous healing, through a particular gifted person, as an extraordinary case, might still occur. God might use many means- remote prayers, laying on of hands by elders, medicine, etc.
As I understand it, an extraordinary miracle of healing is not the same as the special revelation of God (unknown tongues/interpretation) as was occurring before the Word was delivered as was happening in Corinthians 12-14.
Last edited:
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
But as Robert L. Reymond shows in his book, which shouldn't be out of print, "What about continuing revelations and miracles in the Presbyterian Church today?", the large number of healings done by Christ and the Apostles didn't just have as their intent to heal the particular people, or to put doctors out of business, but to teach in a visible way about the spiritual healing power of the Gospel, and to attest that a Prophet was here with new revelation along with His Apostles and Prophets.
This applies to the gift of miracles as well as healing. These were given to show the people that a true prophet was in their midst; see e.g. Moses' rod and leprous hand miracles, given to him to help him attest he was a true prophet from God.
This aspect is also dealt with to an extent in Walter Chantry's, "Signs of the Apostles"
Last edited:
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
Many of you here seem convinced that cessationism is CLEARLY taught in scripture, 1 Cor 13 being the go-to passage that CLEARLY teaches it.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
If by "Perfection" Paul is referring to the close of the canon, am I the only one that does not find the argument THAT obvious?
here's why I don't think the canon is what he means. The key is in noting that it is Paul saying, now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known
Does this mean that he himself is in need of the full canon of Scripture?
Does that mean that he expects canonization in his own lifetime?
Is he aware that he is writing scripture and others too and that it will be finished soon?
I'm just not sure that we can assert these things with certainty from scripture.
Come, let us exegete together.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
If by "Perfection" Paul is referring to the close of the canon, am I the only one that does not find the argument THAT obvious?
here's why I don't think the canon is what he means. The key is in noting that it is Paul saying, now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known
Does this mean that he himself is in need of the full canon of Scripture?
Does that mean that he expects canonization in his own lifetime?
Is he aware that he is writing scripture and others too and that it will be finished soon?
I'm just not sure that we can assert these things with certainty from scripture.
Come, let us exegete together.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
E.g. The Apostle says in in I Corinthians 14:2 that the unknown tongues-speaker speaks mysteries
A mystery is something previously unknown and which could not be known except by divine revelation.
-----Added 10/5/2009 at 11:40:14 EST-----
Well for a start if the Apostle is talking about prophecies, tongues and supernatural words of knowledge ceasing at the end of the world, or when we go to see Christ why does he say that faith and hope will remain then, when elsewhere he says that faith and hope will cease then and be taken up by sight and possession of the hoped for thing? (See e.g. II Corinthians 5:7; Heb. 11:1; Rom. 8:24,25) Evangelical hope and faith cease rather than abide when we go to be with Christ and at the end of the world. Only love remains, which is another reason why it is the greatest.
More later on I Cor 13.
-----Added 10/5/2009 at 11:52:14 EST-----
Also - just for starters - the Apostle in his argument is trying to emphasise to the Corinthians that tongues, prophecy and words of knowledge aren't as important as other gifts because they have a temporary shelf-life.
Which argument is more effective? The pentecostal one that says these revelatory gifts will cease at the end of the world or the cessationist one that says that these gifts will end in a few short years, at the most decades, because the Bible will be complete?
Also why does the Apostle focus here on the revelatory speech/verbal gifts of prophecy, tongues and words of knowledge. After all many of the other gifts will cease at the end of the world will they not?
The reason is that the revelatory gifts (that which is "in part" or rather "piecemeal") will be replaced by the complete Bible (that which is "perfect" or rather "complete").
We believe the Bible is both complete and perfect i.e. just the way God wants it to be.
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not sure if these passages above teach that faith and hope will CEASE at the coming of Christ (although this may be logically defendable, it does not seem positively asserted). What is sure is that they are the marks of the Christian life now. Isn't it still true that one who reads the Bible must employ faith? Hope and faith does not cease at the closing of the canon, it remains in and through our reading of the Bible and is essential in our Christian walk until Christ comes. At any rate, my question does not concern the timing of "perfection" but its essence.
Is that his argument? In my reading, Paul is subordinating these gifts because of the un-loving way it is being practiced in the Corinthian church as per the flow of his entire argument from chapters 12-14. In the end, his main aim is that the Corinthians lovingly seek the edification of the church, rather than flaunt their own abilities. He does not subordinate it because of its temporary nature. I think you've read 'shelf-life' into his argument.
Again, the question comes back to whether tongues and prophecy are necessarily revelatory in the same manner as scripture. I think Grudem rightly argues: no. Also, the process of canonization ended up taking a lot longer than a few short years. If Paul "prophesied" about the closing of the canon in this text and expected it in his own lifetime, then he was both wrong and disappointed.
Caroline
Puritan Board Sophomore
They don't. There IS no way to know. They attempt to discern based upon a feeling--a warm peaceful feeling usually. Pente/Charis people often refer to this as 'having peace' about something.
But people are not taught to be very skeptical. Generally, they tell you to clear your mind of all thoughts and wait for God to speak, and then whatever goes through your mind is from God as long as you feel peace about it.
Likewise, if you open your mouth and babble something, then it certainly is tongues--Pentecostals don't usually doubt that. In fact, one of the main weapons in my arsenal in proving Pentecostalism fake is to show Pentecostals that I can still speak in tongues. They don't realize that it is possible to do that except under the influence of the HG. Shandala meshoredo hapizebeh. It's easy, and you do get better at it with practice. Some people sound repetitive, but it helps if you hold an image of the alphabet in your head to make sure you hit a lot of varying consenants and vowels. That's what I always did.
Well, generally, the logic goes like this: (1) The Bible is authoritative because it is the Word of God. (2) 'Prophets' claim to be speaking also a word from God (and tongues is 'the HG speaking through you in a heavenly language, which is essentially the same thing). (3) If they are speaking a word from God, then how is that different from the Bible? Why would we be any less bound to heed a word from God spoken through a prophet than we would be to obey the Bible? If it's a word from God, then it's a word from God, and we are bound to obey. (4) If it isn't a word from God, then why do people say that it is?
In fact, MOST people who practice prophecy and tongues/interpretation do NOT treat it as a word from God. They listen, smile, say, "Oh, that's a lovely sentiment", and then go on their way. Or if the prophecy tells them to go be a missionary in Mongolia or something, they may think about it for a bit and decide whether or not they think that's really a good idea, and if it isn't, then they say, "Well, maybe that part wasn't really from God."
To the extent that they do this, prophecies are not as dangerous as they could be. But it is very inconsistent, because mostly it translates as 'I believe it is MAYBE sort of a word from God IF I think it is a good idea'.
Things become very dangerous indeed when people believe that prophecies really are a word from God, because then they obey them no matter how crazy they are. I could tell a lot of horror stories.
But, to be fair, most people don't really view them that way. Which really says to me that they don't believe it is a word from God at all. But in that case, they shouldn't say that it is. That's a violation of the third commandment.
PS Edited to add that in the long run, this is very dangerous to people's view of the Bible as well. Once you become accustomed to hearing 'words from God' that turn out to be wrong and leaning on your own feelings to decide whether or not to obey it, it's not a big leap to take the same view of Scripture. People start to reason after a while that, if these things are 'words from God', then God never seems to come through on much that He says and you can't really trust Him very much.
Last edited:
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
Even when prophecy, tongues and interpretation was in full operation in the Corinthian church, Paul exhorted them: 29 "Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged."
It seems clear that Paul does not think that every instance of prophecy is to be received as divine revelation, hands down. Notice that they are called "prophets" and yet, their words need to be carefully weighed. This was not the case in OT prophecy, which was authoritative and infallible from the beginning. Also, in Paul's mind, the main purpose of prophecy is for instruction and encouragement - nothing is mentioned of doctrine-producing revelation.
Another interesting thing to note in Acts 21: 10 As we were staying there for some days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’”
It turns out: 33 Then the commander came up and took hold of him, and ordered him to be bound with two chains;
So, we have Agabus, speaking of the "Holy Spirit", and he is wrong about who ends up binding Paul.
But this we can conclude that NT prophecy did not function in the same way or have the same nature as scripture or OT prophecy. There was a looseness and fallibiity to it.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Quote from steadfast7
Quote:
You seem a bit confused. I'm not saying that hope and faith ceased with the closing of the canon. The Pentecostalists are effectively saying that hope and faith will continue into the heavenly realm, when the Apostle says in writings elsewhere in Scripture that evangelical faith and hope will not continue in the eternal realm because they will be so radically altered by sight and possession of what was hoped for. Hope and faith as we exercise them now will not be marks of the Christian in the eternal realm but love will.
Quote from steadfast7
His argument is that the Corinthians shouldn't put much store by these gifts because they are passing away and temporary. But if he is saying that they will pass away at the end of the world, he is not saying they are very temporary at all and he is not saying that they are passing away shortly.
Quote from steadfast7
If Paul expected the end of the world iin his lifetime he was disappointed. I don't believe he did. I also don't believe he necessarily expected the close of the canon in his lifetime, although that might have been a possibility, and this passage doesn't teach that he expected the close of the canon in his lifetime.
What is prophecy if it's not revelatory? Grudem teaches that it is revelatory but that true prophecy can have error in its transmission by the true prophet.
Quote:
You seem a bit confused. I'm not saying that hope and faith ceased with the closing of the canon. The Pentecostalists are effectively saying that hope and faith will continue into the heavenly realm, when the Apostle says in writings elsewhere in Scripture that evangelical faith and hope will not continue in the eternal realm because they will be so radically altered by sight and possession of what was hoped for. Hope and faith as we exercise them now will not be marks of the Christian in the eternal realm but love will.
Quote from steadfast7
His argument is that the Corinthians shouldn't put much store by these gifts because they are passing away and temporary. But if he is saying that they will pass away at the end of the world, he is not saying they are very temporary at all and he is not saying that they are passing away shortly.
Quote from steadfast7
If Paul expected the end of the world iin his lifetime he was disappointed. I don't believe he did. I also don't believe he necessarily expected the close of the canon in his lifetime, although that might have been a possibility, and this passage doesn't teach that he expected the close of the canon in his lifetime.
What is prophecy if it's not revelatory? Grudem teaches that it is revelatory but that true prophecy can have error in its transmission by the true prophet.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
The I Corinthians 12 gifts of speaking in an unknown tongue, and then interpretation to a known tongue was a "Word from God." That is how it was received (and is received today). It is taken authoritatively as revelation from God the Holy Spirit coming for that moment to that group of people.
And think of this also today in light of the completed special revelation of God through Scripture, why would God now give an unknown tongue to a body of believers in corporate worship, then translate it back to their known tongue when the Word is already in their language? (This was not true at the time of the Corinthians)
Caroline
Puritan Board Sophomore
Agabus was not wrong, and I am always mystified by this argument. The Jews were clearly the ones that brought about the binding of Paul. Had they not risen up against Paul, the commander would not have bound him at all. That's like if the governor orders a reprieve on an execution and people might say, "The governor halted the execution of Fred". And someone else says, "It wasn't the governor. The guy at the prison got the phone call and walked down the hall and stopped the execution, so it wasn't the governor at all." But no, we do say THE GOVERNOR stopped the execution, even if there was a midde man involved. So also I think Agabus was very correct about who was responsible for the binding of Paul.
I have to go to work, so I'll leave the detais of other question to some others here ... but I'll merely say for the moment that I see no evidence in Scripture that there was any practice of 'let's sort through this ... this piece if from God and that piece isn't ... and if you misspoke, that's ok, better luck next time'. Even in the OT, in Deut. 28, people were told to evaluate prophets ... and execute them if what they said didn't come to pass. Not that I'm advocating killing anybody, but I've never even seen someone excommunicated for false prophecy, despite the fact that it is so serious a sin all through the Bible that God usually advocated the death penalty for it.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
But they do.
In fact, many go to corporate worship specifically seeking this. It is after all, a means of identification of charismatic/pentecostal communions and their corporate worship is centered on it.
They may rationalize that "it must be in accordance with the Scripture" (in which case, positionally they make it equal) or, in the case of prophecy, "it must come to pass."
Setting aside the fact charismatic/pentecostal communions often have no testing mechanism to evaluate either of these, the congregation hovers quietly for "a Word from the Lord." They say the Holy Spirit is miraculously speaking, first through a language known, then interpreted to their language.
Many are in denial this is what they are doing, but it is what they are doing- whether they say they are "taking it seriously" or "equal to scripture," whatever.
In my understanding of this, it's not that miracles have ceased (they haven't), it is what is the place of the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture. Reformed says the authority of the Word is pre-eminent.
Last edited:
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
anyways guys, I do agree with you that charismatic practice often disobeys Paul's teaching; the "words" are often trite; there are no checks and balances in place; there is no certainty; there are lots of abuses and excesses; and there probably isn't much need for its modern use today in light of a finer revelation of God's will and word in the Scriptures. But, to dismiss it completely, as some do, even in this very thread, as demonic? wow, that's quite a charge, and for their sakes I hope they are right. But if even one case were found to be real and authentically from the Holy Spirit ... I shudder to think further. Half of all Protestants in the world are charismatic, and it is arguably the most influential ecclesiastical phenomenon in Christendom today, even though most of us here do not belong to it. If so many Christians are operating in the DEMONIC ?... again, i shudder.
Perhaps what the Holy Spirit would have us do is to educate them on the proper and biblical operation of the gifts, rather than condemn them outright. This seems like a loving act.
-----Added 10/5/2009 at 02:11:07 EST-----
From Caroline:
As Luke records it, the subject of the verb "bind" was the Roman Commander. As Agabus said it, the subject was the Jews, who THEN would deliver Paul to the gentiles. It's a small discrepancy, perhaps, but I think it's significant. Luke was detailed and wrote inerrantly.
From Richard:
I think we need to assert that he DID believe in the close of the canon in his own lifetime ( if "the perfect" refers to the Bible) for this is what he says, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known" (13:12).
Paul, writing inerrantly, says that he WILL know fully. If he is indeed talking about the completed Scriptures, he expects it completed before his death. This is simply the natural reading, given that the mirror/glass motif refers to the canonized bible, which I don't think it is. Perhaps the interpretation of "perfect" as the parousia is also flawed. Perhaps "perfection" is not inerrant perfection, but a completeness, wholeness in Christ, demonstrated through love. Maybe that was all he wanted to convey? it is entirely possible that we eisegete our idea of "perfection" into Paul's concept when he is actually speaking more broadly.
I guess I am confused. How is this an argument against the present exercise of the gifts? I don't see the impossibility for faith, hope, and the gifts to remain until the parousia. I thought you were arguing that faith and hope would cease at the same time as the coming of the "perfect" which you believe is the Bible. That seemed to be the logic of your argument, no? Please do elaborate, if not. Thanks.
Last edited:
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Does the Bible mention a gift of evangelism? It does mention the office of evangelist.
I believe that some pastor/teachers are gifted at evangelism. They should function as itinerant or peripatetic preachers of the evangel mainly to the unchurched and unsaved. We don't need to call them evangelists if you want to distiguish them from the associates of the apostles, who had special powers.
I don't believe in the continuing function of evangelist as the divines define it. If you think the word evangelist for peripatetic gospel preachers is confusing we could find another word.
Last edited:
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Quote from Dennis
Paul is using the metaphor of the Church moving from its Old Covenant childhood state to adulthood and adolescence through the Apostolic period in the first century. When he was a child he was unselfconscious in a way he wasn't when he became an adult. when he became an adult he knew himself and his childhood past in a new and more self-aware way than when he was a child. He indicates that this will be the progress the Church makes once it moves out of childhood because it has the Scriptures. When the Church was a child, and didn't have the complete faculties that the Scriptures give us, it spoke as a child with other tongues, it understood as a child with the help of prophets, it thought as a child through the use of supernatual words of knowledge. Now the church has become a man it is time to put away such childish things and learn to be mature through learning to use Scripture properly. With the completed revelation of the Bible, the church has all she needs to know herself as fully as she needs to until she reaches full maturity before the Parousia.
Paul also uses the metaphor of a darkened mirror in which the Church sees its face. The Church will see herself clearly in the mirror of God's Word when that mirror is no longer darkened as it was in the first century before the canon was complete. See also James 1:23-25.
When Paul talks about himself in this way he is talking as a representative of the universal Church. He didn't expect to see the completed canon, although if the canon was completed before A.D. 70 as some believe, he wasn't far away from the point at which all the books had been inscripturated.
Re the Parousia, the charismatic argument is that prophecy, tongues and supernatural knowledge will cease then, according to this passage. But Paul here says that faith, hope and love will remain after these gifts are gone. So according to the charismatics argument, faith, hope and love, will persist after the Parousia.
But we know from other parts of Scripture that faith and hope will not remain after the Parousia. So this passage must be talking about prophecy, tongues and words of knowledge ceasing at some point before the Parousia. The Pentecostalists are wrong according to Scripture's own and Paul's own use of the words faith and hope. These revelatory gifts will cease according to Paul, sometime between when he was writing and before the end of the world.
Paul is not arguing that faith and hope (and/or love) will cease before the end of the world.
Paul is using the metaphor of the Church moving from its Old Covenant childhood state to adulthood and adolescence through the Apostolic period in the first century. When he was a child he was unselfconscious in a way he wasn't when he became an adult. when he became an adult he knew himself and his childhood past in a new and more self-aware way than when he was a child. He indicates that this will be the progress the Church makes once it moves out of childhood because it has the Scriptures. When the Church was a child, and didn't have the complete faculties that the Scriptures give us, it spoke as a child with other tongues, it understood as a child with the help of prophets, it thought as a child through the use of supernatual words of knowledge. Now the church has become a man it is time to put away such childish things and learn to be mature through learning to use Scripture properly. With the completed revelation of the Bible, the church has all she needs to know herself as fully as she needs to until she reaches full maturity before the Parousia.
Paul also uses the metaphor of a darkened mirror in which the Church sees its face. The Church will see herself clearly in the mirror of God's Word when that mirror is no longer darkened as it was in the first century before the canon was complete. See also James 1:23-25.
When Paul talks about himself in this way he is talking as a representative of the universal Church. He didn't expect to see the completed canon, although if the canon was completed before A.D. 70 as some believe, he wasn't far away from the point at which all the books had been inscripturated.
Re the Parousia, the charismatic argument is that prophecy, tongues and supernatural knowledge will cease then, according to this passage. But Paul here says that faith, hope and love will remain after these gifts are gone. So according to the charismatics argument, faith, hope and love, will persist after the Parousia.
But we know from other parts of Scripture that faith and hope will not remain after the Parousia. So this passage must be talking about prophecy, tongues and words of knowledge ceasing at some point before the Parousia. The Pentecostalists are wrong according to Scripture's own and Paul's own use of the words faith and hope. These revelatory gifts will cease according to Paul, sometime between when he was writing and before the end of the world.
Paul is not arguing that faith and hope (and/or love) will cease before the end of the world.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
I meant evangelist. It is not me who wants to distinguish them, Scripture is clear, it speaks for itself.
Eoghan
Puritan Board Senior
Jonathan Edwards would In my humble opinion have been very hesitant to label things a work of Satan for this could come very close to blasphemy against the holy spirit.
One of the interesting things he drew my attention to was that Judas was among those preaching and casting out demons. He also explained that the Corinthian church although gifted was a huge problem and lacked the graces. (I am paraphrasing here)
You also have to be aware that in a different context a jazz club for example - someone exercising "tongues" would quite likely be accepted as scats singing! (I learned that one from James Packer when he spoke at the Tron in Glasgow) Modern charismatic churches can get almost 99% of their congregation speaking in tongues. In my experience this is far more likely to be a human (i.e. natural) phenomenon getting hyped up to be something spiritual.
As for miracles James Randi has debunked many of the modern faith healers. What he should have said was that Jesus set the bar a lot higher than modern miracle workers.
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
Wow, that's quite a lot that you have gleaned from this passage! So, when Paul uses "I", he means the Church, childhood to adolescence is the progression from Old Covenant to the apostolic Christianity, and adulthood implies post canonization. Is this the universal position of Reformed thought, or a carry over from Alexandrian interpretation?
i'm sorry, but this seems like a very fancy form of exegesis going on - the conclusions are simply not obvious, and I have never heard this interpretation before (but then, I'm no NT scholar, so i could very well be wrong). to me, the interpretation need not mean anything further than, "hey guys, all this bickering and focus on the gifts and who's better, that's all childish stuff. When you learn to love, then you're grown up, you're perfect, you see things as they really are, through God's eyes." I realize how "The Message" this seems, and I don't necessarily believe this, but the interpretation could very well be as simple as that.Also, if I could add, although the scriptures were probably written before AD 70, there was a much longer process of recognizing the scriptures, which went all the way into the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Whatever canon Paul would have recognized may not have been precisely what the church eventually recognized, so he may have had another idea of "perfect" altogether.
One question, if tongues/prophecy are to cease before the parousia, how does it follow that it MUST be during or shortly after the apostolic era? Is it not possible that the parousia is not for another 500 years, and what we've witnessed in the early 1900s was an authentic re-expression of the gifts in the church?
Last edited:
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Well is that last suggestion appropriate or likely? What is the complete thing that we're waiting for in history then?
Re the way Paul is speaking of himself, in I Thessalonians 4:17 he talks as if he is going to be alive at the time of the Parousia, if you take him literally, and yet he says that the Parousia can't happen until the antichrist comes.
Do you not believe the church was in a childhod state before it received the New Testament Scriptures and while it was still having its New Covenant foundations laid by the New Covenant Apostles and Prophets. What is foundational is what is early in a building's construction, and the writings of the New Covenant Apostles and Prophets, along with Jesus Christ as chief corner stone, together with the Old Covenant Scriptures which had been already provided by God, are the foundation of the New Covenant Church. See e.g. Ephesians 2:19-22.
Re the church growing into maturity from OT and Apostolic times to now, see e.g. Ephesians 4:11-16. Re the OT Church being like a child see e.g. Galatians 3:22-24 and Galatians 4:1-7.
What about other passages in co-ordination with this one (I Corinthians 13) that point to the revelatory gifts ceasing e.g. Daniel 9:24 and Revelation 22:18-19 ?
I could add that if there were still true apostles and prophets around with revelatory gifts, giving out new revelations in the Church, things would have been a whole lot more difficult for those that were bringing the New Testament canon together! If there were such people after the death of the first century apostles and prophets when did the canon close? Is it closed now?
Re the way Paul is speaking of himself, in I Thessalonians 4:17 he talks as if he is going to be alive at the time of the Parousia, if you take him literally, and yet he says that the Parousia can't happen until the antichrist comes.
Do you not believe the church was in a childhod state before it received the New Testament Scriptures and while it was still having its New Covenant foundations laid by the New Covenant Apostles and Prophets. What is foundational is what is early in a building's construction, and the writings of the New Covenant Apostles and Prophets, along with Jesus Christ as chief corner stone, together with the Old Covenant Scriptures which had been already provided by God, are the foundation of the New Covenant Church. See e.g. Ephesians 2:19-22.
Re the church growing into maturity from OT and Apostolic times to now, see e.g. Ephesians 4:11-16. Re the OT Church being like a child see e.g. Galatians 3:22-24 and Galatians 4:1-7.
What about other passages in co-ordination with this one (I Corinthians 13) that point to the revelatory gifts ceasing e.g. Daniel 9:24 and Revelation 22:18-19 ?
I could add that if there were still true apostles and prophets around with revelatory gifts, giving out new revelations in the Church, things would have been a whole lot more difficult for those that were bringing the New Testament canon together! If there were such people after the death of the first century apostles and prophets when did the canon close? Is it closed now?
Caroline
Puritan Board Sophomore
And Agabus, speaking by the Holy Spirit, also spoke inerrantly.
It is not a discrepancy. It is a perspective, and a very accurate one--the Jews were responsible for the binding of Paul. Even in Acts 23, the centurion wrote to Felix that the Jews had seized Paul.
If we are going to take the view that these things are 'errors' ... well, then, there are MANY such 'errors' in the Bible.
I Kings 6:14 reads very clearly that Solomon built and completed the Temple. And yet, in the previous chapter, it speaks of many workman building the Temple. Is that a mistake? In I Kings 6:14, the subject of the sentence is 'Solomon'. Solomon built it and completed it. But does it really mean that Solomon was responsible for the building of it? Or is that a mistake?
There are many such examples, but we can look at one more. In Matthew 2, it records very clearly that the angel said, "Herod is going to search for the child to kill him". And yet, a few sentences later, Herod gave orders to others to kill all the male children in Bethlehem under a certain age, implying that it was actually Herod's soldiers that searched and killed. Was the angel mistaken?
If we believe all of those things are 'errors', then the only logical result is that the Bible is full of errors.
But I'm starting to get the feeling that some of this is becoming repetitive. I'll sum up here a few other points and then move on to other threads (but really, these are things already stated)...
This proves nothing. In Martin Luther's time, most of Christendom were Catholic. In certain countries, most of the population is Muslim. Doctrine and truth are not determined by majority opinion.
I disagree. The loving thing to do is to tell people the truth, and that is what God would have us do. I don't condemn them. I was one of them once. I wish people would have pointed out the error of my ways more than they did.
If you are swimming in a shark tank, the loving thing to do is tell you that you should get out, not give you tips on improving your swimming. It's a mistake to be in the shark tank at all. That's how it is with these 'gifts' ... don't try to 'improve' them, but rather just get out of the shark tank.
- Status
Similar threads
