Where was that said? I seem to have missed it.
Is the Westminster Confession and the Baptist Confession of 1689 Cessationist?
- Thread starter Eoghan
- Start date
- Status
Read posts #3 and #4.
Of course I agree. I just haven't seen it stated that a belief in continued revelation is wrong because it's a papist thing.
Still not seeing it.
I see that certain dangers are being pointed out, but I do not see any statement that the a thing is wrong because so-and-so does it.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
The OP didn't actually make a logical argument. I think he intended it to be such, but that's probably why you didn't see it. He brought out the dangers of papism as a reason to reject continued revelation.
Read the 3rd post, first paragraph.
Really? Post #3 is nothing but a list of bad things that people have done with continuationist theology, from Roman Catholics to Mormons, apparently as a logical base for why pastors should "immunise the church membership against charismatic delusions and heresy." If you're looking for a quote where someone commits the fallacy in the form of a nice and neat syllogism, you're not going to find it. But, as I'm sure you know, arguments do not have to be explicit to exist. It seems rather clear to me, anyway.
Be careful you're not putting words (or neat syllogisms) in someone's mouth.
All I saw, after all, was a list of the dangers of continuationism. But so far that connection ("continuationists bad; therefore continuationism bad") has not been made.
I am unwilling to assume another's argument, and thus I cannot judge whether it is fallacious or no.
Correct.
I cannot pretend to know his intent.
Not necessarily. Perhaps you are assuming his argument here. Why not press him on it instead? ("Are you saying that continuationism is to be rejected on the grounds that...?")
I suspect part of the problem here may be the question "Does continuationism have within itself the checks and balances to prevent abuses"?
I’m not assuming anything. I’m reading what was said, and it seemed plain to me. Just because you don’t see what I and others have seen doesn’t mean we are putting words into others’ mouths.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Yes. Both the Westminster and Baptist Confession state:
Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
OP asked a perfectly honest and valid question and his supposed logic on an example gets analyzed to death - how is that edifying?
I came to post the same thing Christopher did to get back on track.
I came to post the same thing Christopher did to get back on track.
As well as the Reformed confessions, it is worth reading Calvin's Institutes I:IX. Calvin addresses the issue of the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Word. Steve Lawson also addressed this in the 2013 Strange Fire conference.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
I understand why you wish not to do such.
Now would this be a "standard" on par with scripture? If not why not, if you say these writings convey what you believe to be true events of God's immediate work in creation. In other words, you are saying Keener's work, being the standard, ought to be morally binding to every Christian to believe.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I understand why you wish not to do such.
Of course not. As Reformed we believe in the distinction between ministerial and magisterial authority. Only Anabaptists and EO ignore that distinction.
Example: are your words on the same level of Scripture? If no, why should I believe you?
That's not how epistemology works.
Last edited:
I don’t understand this comment. Is not the point of discussions like these to get to razor’s edge precision? Are Christians supposed to be against logical rigor? The thread’s title asks about a confession, yet at several points the OP brought up irrelevant material that, to some of us, detracted from the question itself. In analyzing the logic there, are we not actually trying to keep the thread on track? Again, this is a strange comment.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Logical fallacies make Christians look bad. In any case, I did suggest ways he could reframe his position without committing logical fallacies. For example, I have some concerns with charismatic excesses. That is certainly legit.
However, pointing out horror stories when we are examining the truth claim of a position is a logical fallacy and we should avoid it.
Let's put it this way: if this were a formal debate I would have automatically won. All I had to do was point out that he failed to prove his position because he relied on fallacies.
However, pointing out horror stories when we are examining the truth claim of a position is a logical fallacy and we should avoid it.
Let's put it this way: if this were a formal debate I would have automatically won. All I had to do was point out that he failed to prove his position because he relied on fallacies.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
And for the record, my position is roughly that of Poythress's. I think many charismatics looked silly after the Deep State stole the election. They got tied in with QAnon. Michael L. Brown, whom I have referenced numerous times, was quick to call them out.
thelineoffire.org
That said, I will hold people to logical rigor. That's how we grow in intellectual virtue.
Debunking the March 4 Conspiracy Theories - The Line of Fire
[Download MP3] Dr. Brown focuses on the latest date set by QAnon conspiracy theorists for the reemergence of Donald Trump as president – and then urges us to move on. Watch live here 3-4 pm EST, and ...
thelineoffire.org
That said, I will hold people to logical rigor. That's how we grow in intellectual virtue.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
So if one believes the writings of someone who attests to a miracle, outside of scripture, why would you not say it is morally binding? That is exactly how epistemology works in how one defines justified belief from opinion.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I don't see how it would be morally binding. You haven't given any reason why there would be some deontic operator within the belief system. Paul told the Thessalonians to test and evaluate prophecies. That meant they weren't automatically false or correct.
And that isn't really how epistemology works. Whether I have satisfied all epistemic duties for a personal belief is irrelevant whether I believe someone else is morally obligated in believing what I believe.
I believe I have a wallet in my back pocket. I have reasonably good evidence for the belief. I don't see how the man in the street is morally obligated to also believe I have a wallet in my back pocket.
Now, if I have because x miracle, you are obligated to change your life, that is a completely different claim. But no one is making that claim.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
To return to the OP:
He asked a good question: is the WCF cessationist? I think for all practical and functional purposes it is. His actual post had nothing to do with that. That's where a study of dialectic and rhetoric comes into play.
He asked a good question: is the WCF cessationist? I think for all practical and functional purposes it is. His actual post had nothing to do with that. That's where a study of dialectic and rhetoric comes into play.
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
He asked a question and then gave examples how non-cessationist practices were damaging in other Christian denominations based on his experience as a charismatic and from what he has read. Those were examples that supported his initial question and concern and were not fallacies.
This is discussion forum, not a formal debate. OP was asking for information and help yet the two of you jump all over him. Give me a break. Just take a look at Jacob's comments about "if this was a debate I would have won" to get a bit more insight into his thinking. Is that why you post here, to win a debate?
And "razor's edge precision"? Is that a requirement for posting on this board? Do you want your every comment to be evaluated by this standard? Do you treat Christians at your church this way? Do you talk to your spouse this way, analyzing her every comment and example to see if it meets your standard of logical rigor and razor's edge precision? Try that offline and see how well that goes.
Frankly, a few of you come across as unnecessarily argumentative, unkind, and uncharitable in your answers and your speech is worthy of rebuke. Many here answer the same kinds of questions with charity, kindness, and helpfulness and set a good example for the rest of us at the same time using precision and carefulness in their answers without coming across as jumping down someone's throat and arguing about things that don't need to be argued about.
Jacob, you really think God expects every Christian to have the same level of study in dialectic and rhetoric that you do in order to make a comment on a Christian discussion forum? Sometimes I wonder by your posts what your purpose really is in quoting your extensive learning as sometimes it comes across as anything but edifying (hence your comment about winning a debate). And you think logical fallacies make Christians look bad...
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
No. They didn't support his initial question. His question was whether the WCF was cessationist. The answer to that question is to actually appeal to the WCF, what it actually says. Not once in his OP did he do that.
No he wasn't. Not in the actual post.
Perhaps that might have been uncharitable on my part.
I think that is probably directed at Taylor.
I never once said that.
I want people to think I am really smart.
Whether I am being mean or not, logical fallacies do make Christians look bad.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
My comment about dialectic was on how to lead people to the truth. Dialectic searches for the assumptions and logical implications of a position. Once we take those to their conclusion, we arrive at truth. I just thought Christians wanted to love God with their minds and be relentless in the search of truth. I know, I know, you didn't actually say that. It's not fun when people put words in your mouth.
This comment is extreme.
Where have I been unkind, uncharitable, or argumentative? Please provide examples, and I will be quick and sincere to repent. You say this is a discussion forum, yet you seem very intent on policing the types of discussion that are allowed, according to some unwritten standard imposed arbitrarily by yourself. Brother, discussion presupposes dialogue between different people with different perspectives. If a couple of us are geared more toward fine-tuned speech and argumentation, then who are you to say we are not allowed to engage from that angle? I must ask, am I really being argumentative, or do you just not like or agree with my particular contribution? Because there is a marked difference between the two.
I cannot speak for Jacob, but the thing that bothers me the most is that you rebuke me for allegedly unkind speech, providing no specific examples (at least not yet), and then you have the gall to ask me such ridiculous questions, such as if I "treat Christians at our churches this way." How dare you. If you do not see the irony in the tone, content, and force of your post here, then there isn't much else I can say. Perhaps some plank removal is in order.
Last edited:
Moderating— please stick in future posts to answering the poll and the OP. All the analyzing of whether or not logical fallacies were committed is straying far from the topic.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Pointing out the abuses that have emerged from Charismatic beliefs is not necessarily a logical fallacy if it can be demonstrated that there is a logical connection between aberrant beliefs and aberrant conduct. A tree is to be judged by its fruit, after all. The Reformers were willing to cite the abuses of monasticism to demonstrate that, whatever the good intentions of early monastics, these things were the inevitable fruit of a corrupt system. So, no, I do not think that citing examples of Charismatic extremism to demonstrate the dangers of such a system of thought is a fruitless enterprise. The Westminster Confession states that with the completion of Holy Scripture "those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased." (1.8) What is likely to be the practical results when people believe that those former ways of God's revealing himself have not ceased after the completion of the biblical canon?
Eoghan
Puritan Board Senior
Having studied the American Constitution I was surprised that it was designed with fallen human nature in mind. There are inherent (or were) checks and balances.
I believe the confessions are Cessationist both in wording and intent. If we agree with them is it too much to ask why we agree with them?
If we concede that special revelation still can happen I cannot see there being any checks and balances to restrain speculation and feelings. Many ministers unwittingly (?) cultivate the expectation of special revelation when they start a sermon by saying, "God spoke to me this week..." A charismatic sitting in the congregation interprets this as the audible voice of God - the Bath Kol! A reformed Christian thinks the wording unfortunate and interprets the statement to mean the Holy Spirit giving insight into scripture.
I recall attending a charismatic church where a prophetic word was given. Taking away the claim to special revelation it would have passed as a normal sermon elsewhere but the "God told me" elevated it and made people pay attention. For me it had the opposite effect I felt the emphasis was human rather than divine. When a sermon is based and argued from scripture it may run counter to my thinking and feelings but it is spoken with authority and requires obedience and submission. I am struck by Paul's personal encounter which is not part of his preaching. Rather he expounds scripture, reasoning from scripture for three days.
My concern that once the camel's nose is in the tent, the rest will follow is genuine. If my minister can permit special visits and words of knowledge how do you judge it. As one minister put it if we test it against what God has already said in scripture and it agrees with it - what does it add to scripture?
The answer of course is that God is using a highlighter to draw our attention to what is relevant. How do you counter that? I go back to what I said earlier: I want this door firmly closed, locked and bolted. We need to be proactive rather than reactive. When Krabbendam agreed to pray over the adulterers who claimed God wanted them married he was letting the camels nose in.
The Biblical truths I feel are REALLY important in this regard are
* Christ's finished work and His seated posture in heaven (Jesus doesn't do housecalls)
* Angels mediate all revelation after the ascension (Paul only heard Christ's voice from heaven)
* Christ's going and absence now is replaced by the Holy Spirits coming (changing of the guard)
* The sufficiency of scripture (this is the nub of the argument)
* The purpose of miracles in authenticating the person of Christ and the message of the Apostles
* The role of the Holy Spirit in conversion (as distinct from human reasoning or miracles)
* Biblical accounts of entering God's presence - fear & awareness of sin (in contrast to the "coffee shop" anecdotes of charismatics)
What other Biblical truths come to your mind?
I believe the confessions are Cessationist both in wording and intent. If we agree with them is it too much to ask why we agree with them?
If we concede that special revelation still can happen I cannot see there being any checks and balances to restrain speculation and feelings. Many ministers unwittingly (?) cultivate the expectation of special revelation when they start a sermon by saying, "God spoke to me this week..." A charismatic sitting in the congregation interprets this as the audible voice of God - the Bath Kol! A reformed Christian thinks the wording unfortunate and interprets the statement to mean the Holy Spirit giving insight into scripture.
I recall attending a charismatic church where a prophetic word was given. Taking away the claim to special revelation it would have passed as a normal sermon elsewhere but the "God told me" elevated it and made people pay attention. For me it had the opposite effect I felt the emphasis was human rather than divine. When a sermon is based and argued from scripture it may run counter to my thinking and feelings but it is spoken with authority and requires obedience and submission. I am struck by Paul's personal encounter which is not part of his preaching. Rather he expounds scripture, reasoning from scripture for three days.
My concern that once the camel's nose is in the tent, the rest will follow is genuine. If my minister can permit special visits and words of knowledge how do you judge it. As one minister put it if we test it against what God has already said in scripture and it agrees with it - what does it add to scripture?
The answer of course is that God is using a highlighter to draw our attention to what is relevant. How do you counter that? I go back to what I said earlier: I want this door firmly closed, locked and bolted. We need to be proactive rather than reactive. When Krabbendam agreed to pray over the adulterers who claimed God wanted them married he was letting the camels nose in.
The Biblical truths I feel are REALLY important in this regard are
* Christ's finished work and His seated posture in heaven (Jesus doesn't do housecalls)
* Angels mediate all revelation after the ascension (Paul only heard Christ's voice from heaven)
* Christ's going and absence now is replaced by the Holy Spirits coming (changing of the guard)
* The sufficiency of scripture (this is the nub of the argument)
* The purpose of miracles in authenticating the person of Christ and the message of the Apostles
* The role of the Holy Spirit in conversion (as distinct from human reasoning or miracles)
* Biblical accounts of entering God's presence - fear & awareness of sin (in contrast to the "coffee shop" anecdotes of charismatics)
What other Biblical truths come to your mind?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Simple. Use your reason. Paul said to evaluate, not accept blindly. I am a fairly cynical and hard to manipulate person (and not necessarily for good reasons). If someone tells me that God said to do x, I would probably ignore them.
If someone said x will happen, and it does happen, and it does correspond to the bible, I would probably say, "That's neat. Cool." And that's the end of the story. Everyone has this strange idea that if someone prophecies something or sees an angel, then the church is obligated to do....something or other. I don't know. One doesn't logically follow from the other.
Of course, that's moot for me since I go to a cessationist church.
- Status
Similar threads
