tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post113108389129865170..comments2023-05-27T03:17:19.681-07:00Comments on PyroManiac: Rubber propheciesPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131420568514520872005-11-07T19:29:00.000-08:002005-11-07T19:29:00.000-08:00First of all, there is a difference between Pentec...First of all, there is a difference between Pentecostals and Charismatics but many today want to group them all together.<BR/>Unfortunately, some Pentecostals, like the Word of Faith people are not very accountable, while the denominational ones (i.e. Foursquare, A/G, COGIC)) are more so.<BR/>As for the Charismatics, the movement started out fairly well in the 1970's but got hijacked IMO by the Vineyard and then that opened Pandora's box which has led now to just bizarreness with Peter Wagner, the Toronto "experience" and so forth.<BR/><BR/>The BIG problem of course is one of accountability. I was a member of Jack Hayford's church for eight years and prophecy was responsible and not flaky.<BR/><BR/>The Charismatics and independent Pentecostals on the other hand often play what I call "the good old boy game." They often make a big show of submission to authority when the "authority turns out to be none other than "good 'ole boys" like themselves. It's a real "I will scratch your back if you scratch mine" state of affairs.<BR/><BR/>Believe me, this is terribly wrenching and embarrassing to all of us true Pentecostals and some Charismatics.Diane Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02442757505452061995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131412535449480382005-11-07T17:15:00.000-08:002005-11-07T17:15:00.000-08:00One things confuses me about all of this. Are we ...One things confuses me about all of this. Are we to conclude, on the basis of these "rubber prophecies" that other aspects of these people's "ministries" are invalid? I am thinking particularly of the healings during Benny Hinn's crusades. Surely this is not <I>all</I> psychosomatic excitement on the part of the audience. (Although I'm sure there are plenty who would argue that it is).<BR/><BR/>I suppose I have always found that Benny Hinn, in particular, strikes me as more genuine than other Christian TC personalities. Obviously at least <I>some</I> of his prophecies have turned out to be rubber (and we debate over whether or not this means that <I>all</I> his prophecies are suspect by implication) but I feel almost as if I would lose some of my youthful innocence to cynicism is it were to turn out that the apparent healings on his show are as rubber as the prophecies.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18158489239232718909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131390427289605532005-11-07T11:07:00.000-08:002005-11-07T11:07:00.000-08:00Rob Casey: Wow. Thanks for illustrating so poignan...<B>Rob Casey:</B> Wow. Thanks for illustrating so poignantly what's wrong with inventing "prophecies" out of subjective impressions. I don't think it's an overstatement to say the sort of thing you experienced at the hands of those false prophets was <I>evil.</I><BR/><BR/><B>Jim Crigler:</B> I agree that tripartitism is a sinkhole that sucks people directly into the morass of gnostic tendencies. Carey Hardy led a great seminar in which he made that very point at last year's Shepherds' Conference.<BR/><BR/><B>Regarding Gothard, Ezzo, and other popular teachers whose dogmatism is always most pronounced, it seems, when they are exegeting their own extrabiblical fantasies:</B> All those things are in my list of blogtopics I eventually hope to get to. It's a big pile of stuff, and I just can't manage them all at once. So please be patient; I'm not finished with Gothard yet.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131390134048535812005-11-07T11:02:00.000-08:002005-11-07T11:02:00.000-08:00Pastor Casey,I'm pained by your experience, and it...Pastor Casey,<BR/><BR/>I'm pained by your experience, and it hurt just to read it. Three thoughts come to mind. First, if anything it shows the necessity of a prophecy to be examined just as the Scriptures teach. Second, these folks were presumably well-meaning folks who probably genuinely loved you and wanted a child for you...though they manifested it in unbiblical ways. Third, this bad experience was undoubtedly a turn-off to the charismatic, but a bad apple that doesn't have to ruin the whole batch.<BR/><BR/>Praise God that you are receiving the care and guidance you need through more substantial and Scriptural means. And thank you for bearing your soul in the comment section of a blog! What humility this demonstrates to us.Rob Wilkersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10404594581498610110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131387958680809522005-11-07T10:25:00.000-08:002005-11-07T10:25:00.000-08:00I want to second candleman98's request for more cr...I want to second candleman98's request for more critique of the Big Red Notebook (tm). <BR/><BR/>Bill Gothard's rejection of all the music he doesn't like as being unspiritual is laminated to his belief in the tripartite nature of man. Could you deal with that at some point as well? RC Sproul said that tripartite-ism (some of the terminology philosophers use should gag a maggot) is a route to all kinds of serious error. And Kim Riddlebarger called it a "beachhead for gnostic influences." Or do you <B>believe</B> in the tripartite nature of man? Or is that bit of theology more esoteric than you want to deal with here?Jim Criglerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11437189788683651969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131320440633056232005-11-06T15:40:00.000-08:002005-11-06T15:40:00.000-08:00Phil,What is the most significant, consequential t...Phil,<BR/>What is the most significant, consequential truth God has revelealed to you or "spoken to you" beyond Scriptural text?Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04859259996035017464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131312422345194372005-11-06T13:27:00.000-08:002005-11-06T13:27:00.000-08:00Hi,I've been interested to see the comments regard...Hi,<BR/><BR/>I've been interested to see the comments regarding the question of apostolic vs. post-apostolic prophecy. I've done some thinking about the subject. If you'd like, please feel free to read my thoughts <A HREF="http://inscrutableobserver.blogspot.com/2005/11/two-tiers-of-inspiration.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. In this post, I explain my concerns with one of the prime implications of a universe with two kinds of prophecy: a two-tier system of inspiration and divine authority. I hope my thoughts will help to shed light on this issue without causing unnecessary heat. :-)<BR/><BR/>Davetheinscrutableonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00918928202965884076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131307860743347572005-11-06T12:11:00.000-08:002005-11-06T12:11:00.000-08:00Phil,You raise a fantastic point that is incredibl...Phil,<BR/><BR/>You raise a fantastic point that is incredibly and easily missed. The theological conclusion rest upon a theological argument rather than a 'proof text' or exegetical argument, don't they? <BR/><BR/>If I have no single text to say that the apostolic type gifts ceased with their death, but rather reasonably argue from there that when they 'died off' so did their category and giftings, then the same reasonable arguments should apply to the continuationist arguments. This whole thing can't be about proof-texting, and that's why I'll never ask for any. <BR/><BR/>From my viewpoint, the textual considerations for the continuation of the miraculous gifts - some of which are comparable to the apostolic-quality gifts, and some of which are not - are simply found in the various giftings passages - 1 Cor. 11-14; 1 Peter 4; Eph. 4; etc. I see nothing inherently stated within those texts to suggest that the gifts mentioned there have or ever will cease.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, for me at least, the fact that the apostles died, while necessarily pointing to a cessation of their office and category of giftings, doesn't necessarily point to a cessation of the similar giftings ascribed to other believers...who are even encouraged to earnestly desire them.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for continuing to point out to my fellow charismatics here the absolute folly of asking for proof-texts. All this ends up doing is becoming a biblical lightsaber duel. It is only by a reasoned piecing together of these textual puzzle pieces that we can come to any conclusion. So I'd say to my charismatic brothers that the arguments either for or against must go deeper than looking for a text that says the gifts have ceased, or looking for one that says they'll continue past the apostles and the close of the canon. While some are content to argue on that superficial level, it is truly not that easy, clearcut, black and white.Rob Wilkersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10404594581498610110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131289950511758722005-11-06T07:12:00.000-08:002005-11-06T07:12:00.000-08:00I understand fear and misunderstanding of the gift...I understand fear and misunderstanding of the gifts, but not utter denial. I find myself, in some ways, wishing cessasionism were teh case, but I cannot think it is. See my full comments <A HREF="http://blogotional.blogspot.com/2005/11/big-debate-brewing-its-as-old-as.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>John Schroederhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917037602880789273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131263921521194212005-11-05T23:58:00.000-08:002005-11-05T23:58:00.000-08:00And not just Mike, but several other non-cessation...<I>And not just Mike, but several other non-cessationists here have already made it clear here that they don't want to hear historical or theological arguments for cessationism.</I><BR/><BR/>I would appriciate either a quotation or a retraction. I have had made no such claim and to suggest otherwise is bear false witness. I have simply said that Spurgeon's beliefs are not a trump card. Since you hold to Sola Scriptura, you agree with me. This, however, obviously does not mean that the great saints of old have nothing to add to the discussion. So again I would ask that you do not misrepresent me.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I><BR/>They will be satisfied with nothing less than a purely exegetical argument in favor of strict cessationism. </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, when it comes to creating doctrines that specifically go against what the bible teaches, I would like at least one verse that says something. Then again, I can hear the Romans saying something similar to Luther: "That Luther fellow, he will settle for nothing less than an exegetical argument in favor of works righteousness".<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>They want a Bible verse that says the gifts have ceased—a single proof-text.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, in order to form a doctrine then I think you ought to be able to point to at least one verse or better yet a thematic strand throughout the bible that points in a given direction. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I><BR/>why would those verses not also be sufficient grounds for believing the apostolic gifts have ceased? </I><BR/>There is nothing to suggest that the gifts we see in the New Testament correspond the the apostles. If you gave any sort of biblical reasoning that suggests, implies, or states that when Apostles leave the scene so do gifts ... then I will hand this argument to you and join you in promoting cessationist belief. However, I suspect you cannot do this.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I><BR/>This habit(?) cheapens God's Word when they attribute most any whim to God's direct will without regard to the Bible's teachings on prophecy.</I> <BR/>When their actions contradict a command or principle set forth in scripture then you are absolutely correct. However, you will note there are many people who have already been mentioned (piper for example) who would never be listed in this category. So, again, while there may be SOME that err on this point, it is not necessary and is certainly not a reason to create a non-biblical doctrine like cessationism.<BR/><BR/><BR/>In Christ alone<BR/>... and maybe for this thread:<BR/>Sola Scriptura,<BR/><BR/>mikeMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05447965246351592556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131261542011684082005-11-05T23:19:00.000-08:002005-11-05T23:19:00.000-08:00Phil,Thanks for tackling this topic! (Even though ...Phil,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for tackling this topic! (Even though it's taking more of your time to manage than a standard comic book cover post. :-)<BR/><BR/>People around me often attribute personal decisions to "God told me to do x..." I think that it's their way of squashing / trumping any discussion over their potentially unpopular choice. Because it wasn't <I>their</I> decision, it was "God speaking to them."<BR/><BR/>This habit(?) cheapens God's Word when they attribute most any whim to God's direct will without regard to the Bible's teachings on prophecy.<BR/><BR/>I'm really looking forward to the rest of this series!<BR/>DanDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18298743468218412280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131258622097475762005-11-05T22:30:00.000-08:002005-11-05T22:30:00.000-08:00Phil-Have you read Robert Thomas' comments on Reve...Phil-<BR/>Have you read Robert Thomas' comments on Revelation 22:18-19 (Exegetical Commentary Vol. 2) as signifying the end of the revelatory gifts? Curious to know what you think. Obviously not an indisputable passage, but interesting nonetheless.MSChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05419145542442539462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131251821385759272005-11-05T20:37:00.000-08:002005-11-05T20:37:00.000-08:00Rob:What I really had in mind when I used the expr...Rob:<BR/><BR/>What I really had in mind when I used the expression "apostolic-quality gifts" is just the ability to exercise the powers of healing, prophecy, and signs and wonders <I><B>as gifts</B></I>—repeatedly, controlled (to some degree) by the gifted individual, without any embarrassing failures, just the same way the gifts are described in the early chapters of Acts.<BR/><BR/>I wasn't deliberately making any distinction between miracles done by apostles and those done by their close associates. "Apostolic gifts" in the sense I intended it refers to all the miraculous gifts that were operative in the early apostolic era—not just the gifts possessed by the apostles themselves, but those exercised by their associates as well.<BR/><BR/>Tacitly, you have acknowledged that you yourself believe the office and sign-gifts that pertain to apostleship are no longer operative. <B><I>So you yourself are a cessationist of sorts.</I></B> That's what my earlier post was pointing out. I believe Mike would probably hold to a similar kind of cessationism, though he brushed this point off without any serious response to it.<BR/><BR/>My question is simply this: What <I>exegetical</I> considerations lead you to the conclusion that the canon is closed, the office of apostleship is no longer open, and <I>any</I> of the apostolic sign-gifts have ceased?<BR/><BR/>Notice Mike's whole argument just above. He claims <I>"that there is no justifiable biblical reason to be a cessationist."</I> The problem with the way he is so narrowly defining this is that by the very same standard, there is no "justifiable biblical reason" to insist that the canon is closed or that apostleship isn't a viable office for today.<BR/><BR/>And not just Mike, but several other non-cessationists here have already made it clear here that they don't want to hear historical or theological arguments for cessationism. They will be satisfied with nothing less than a purely exegetical argument in favor of strict cessationism. They want a Bible verse that says the gifts <B><I>have ceased</I></B>—a single proof-text.<BR/><BR/>So where is <I>your</I> verse that proves the apostolic office has ceased and new portions of Scripture are not still being written?<BR/><BR/>Because it seems to me that the issues are the same. How can you believe in the cessation of apostleship and the closure of the canon without an indisputable proof text, and then demand an indisputable proof text for the cessation of other miraculous features of the apostolic era? And if you can point to Scriptures (as I suspect you will) implying that the apostolic office was temporary, why would those verses not also be sufficient grounds for believing the apostolic <I>gifts</I> have ceased?Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131247508699669192005-11-05T19:25:00.000-08:002005-11-05T19:25:00.000-08:00My argument is going to be that all true Christian...<I>My argument is going to be that all true Christians are cessationists to one significant degree or another. No one really believes that everything that happened in the apostolic era is truly, genuinely, and demonstrably happening today. (The out-and-out charlatains are the only ones who pretend to believe that, and—for example—command diseases to depart in the style of Acts 3:6.)</I><BR/><BR/>I think I would definitely agree. In fact, you will soon learn that my view is not necessarily that Any, much less all, of these things happen. My argument will be that there is no justifiable biblical reason to be a cessationist. Furthermore, I will argue that the very finger that cessationists point (namely that other's are creating doctrine to suit experiences) is exactly what most cessationists do. <BR/><BR/>In any event, we will begin to look at Spurgeon whenever you decide to post regarding him. However, I think that it is important to remind everyone that Spurgeon's views are not a trump card (certainly not one that trumps scripture). I think you made the same point on another blog.<BR/><BR/><BR/>In Christ alone,<BR/>mikeMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05447965246351592556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131245014549109242005-11-05T18:43:00.000-08:002005-11-05T18:43:00.000-08:00Phil,A quote, then a question or two (or three).Fi...Phil,<BR/><BR/>A quote, then a question or two (or three).<BR/><BR/>First, to quote you: "That's why I think there is indeed a burden of proof on contemporary charismatics to demonstrate that someone, somewhere is actually practicing apostolic-quality gifts, and seeking to exercise them in a biblical fashion. I reject the notion that the burden of proof lies entirely on cessationists, and that it must be shown by pure exegesis, without recourse to any other kind of evidence."<BR/><BR/>Now the question. What are 'apostolic-quality gifts'? Is this a reference to 2 Corinthians 12:12? If so, what are signs and wonders? In your view, were signs and wonders only performed by the apostles? If so, what is the significance of this? <BR/><BR/>My point in asking the questions is the part about 'someone, somewhere' practicing these gifts. If the apostolic-quality gifts were signs and wonders, and if these signs and wonders were only performed by apostles, then yes the argument is air-tight that such apostolic quality signs and wonders cannot be practiced today. <BR/><BR/>I'd be one of those you'd describe as a 'mild charismatic' (a Sovereign Grace Ministries kind of 'mild charismatic'). And we would agree that 'apostolic-quality' gifts you refer to, if you and I mean the same thing by them, are not in operation today. That is to say that there were only a certain number of apostles who performed these signs and wonders. They are dead. Thus, there have been on others who have the same authoritative position to work such miracles and speak/write Scripture.<BR/><BR/>However, and you knew it was coming, if the Scriptures demonstrate that <I>some</I> apostolic-type gifts were also commended in ordinary Christians, say in 1 Corinthians 12-14 (e.g. healing, prophecy, etc.) then what other proof must the contemporary, reformed, biblically-based, 'mild' charismatics provide as to the continuation of some of these <I>similar</I>giftings other than what the text already says, and the practices and experiences already existing in these churches? <BR/><BR/>(P.S. Through this subject, your famous tenacity finally pulled me from being just a reader and occasional commentor to one who interacts with you with fear and trembling!)Rob Wilkersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10404594581498610110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131234916494693582005-11-05T15:55:00.000-08:002005-11-05T15:55:00.000-08:00I will try to sum up what I struggle with as a cha...I will try to sum up what I struggle with as a charismatic/reformed Christian. I will give an example using Jonathan Edwards (hopefully I have this info correctly in a nutshell). When he wrote A Treatise Concerning the Religious Affections, he was trying to strike a balance betweeen Chaucey, a pastor who centered on a intellectual understanding of Christianity and Davenport who was all about emotions and experiences. He addressed the excesses of Davenport more than anything else. He did want to state that we do need to have an intellectual understanding of our Christianity but that we need to have a passion for God as well. I don't miss the tongues weirdness. I don't miss false prophecy. I don't miss the flash. What I do miss is the freedom to worship/praise/sing to God. I have a hard time with....Turn. To. Page. 431. We. Will. Now. Sing. Nearer. My. God. To. Thee. Now don't misunderstand...I love hymns. I also love to lift my hands in praise to God. I love to sing contemporary songs and hymns. Jonathan Edwards did not seem to see a problem with a passionate Christianity, just with the same things we struggle with on TBN and other avenues of weirdness.candyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06088593538648596769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131231933858937602005-11-05T15:05:00.000-08:002005-11-05T15:05:00.000-08:00Mike: "I'm confident that he will not try to claim...<B>Mike:</B> <I>"I'm confident that he will not try to claim that he was a cessationist."</I><BR/><BR/>It's not a matter of "trying" to claim that Spurgeon was a cessationist. He was. It's a matter of fact. His belief that the Spirit of God often led him in remarkable ways is not to be confused with any claim that he possessed miraculous gifts. Spurgeon, together with every other significant Christian figure in his generation, and virtually all theologians for centuries before, regarded it as self-evident that the miraculous gifts described in Scripture were apostolic signs that have ceased, rather than permanent possessions of the church for all time.<BR/><BR/>In his sermon #75, for example, Spurgeon speaks of "miraculous gifts, which are denied us in these days...." See also the quotation Lycaphim cited (above), where Spurgeon clearly designates the miraculous gifts as "departed"—i.e., belonging uniquely to the primitive church.<BR/><BR/>You'd have to look pretty hard to find any authentic non-cessationists from Spurgeon's era.<BR/><BR/>As a matter of fact, this whole debate over cessationism is one that would never have arisen at all except for the claims of the pentecostals and charismatics of the 20th century. Practically no one (certainly no one with any significant degree of credibility) in the 19th century seriously believed the sign-gifts had continued unabated since the apostolic era. That such a notion exists today is owing only to a willful naivete, buttressed by a historical revisionism that demands that we gullibly accept almost every purported miracle in church history (including some highly superstitious Roman Catholic ones, some by quasi-Christians, and others from gnostic sources) as if they were all unquestionably genuine.<BR/><BR/>That's why I think there is indeed a burden of proof on contemporary charismatics to demonstrate that someone, somewhere is actually practicing apostolic-quality gifts, and seeking to exercise them in a biblical fashion. I reject the notion that the burden of proof lies entirely on cessationists, and that it must be shown by pure exegesis, without recourse to any other kind of evidence.<BR/><BR/>If that were the standard, I frankly can't see how any non-cessationist could accept the reality that the canon of Scripture is closed.<BR/><BR/>My argument is going to be that all true Christians are cessationists to one significant degree or another. No one <I>really</I> believes that everything that happened in the apostolic era is truly, genuinely, and demonstrably happening today. (The out-and-out charlatains are the only ones who <I>pretend</I> to believe that, and—for example—<I>command</I> diseases to depart in the style of Acts 3:6.)<BR/><BR/>But if you're prepared to argue otherwise, I hope you are ready to meet a reasonable standard of proof.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131229149618090392005-11-05T14:19:00.000-08:002005-11-05T14:19:00.000-08:00I'm resonating very much with the implications of ...I'm resonating very much with the implications of the hypercalvinism arguments. Hypercalvinism doesn't make Calvinism wrong. Calvinists who don't evangelize their children give a bad name to Calvinists, yet do not prove, by their actions, that Calvinism is erroneous. There are various forms of 'ugly' Calvinism that do not make Calvinism biblically erroneous.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure everyone sees where this argument goes. The errors in the charismatic movement, and more particularly the ones Phil refers to here (false or 'rubber' prophecies) give charismatics a bad name, but do not prove that the charismatic movement is erroneous, nor that their view of prophecy is unbiblical. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps the biggest error we make in our logic and reason, often times (especially me included) is to presume that an error in someone's thinking or living means their whole mindest or lifestyle is erroneous. That is fallacious thinking. I don't like it when people 'write off' the good I do because of the sin I commit. One of the beauties of the cross and implications of justification is the emphasis on the good that we do perform, even amid our foibles, foul-up, and fumbles.<BR/><BR/>The charismatics I know are especially grateful for justification and propitiation! And while they are ashamed of their sinfulness, and deeply aware of their humanity and of the noetic effects of sin, they also seek to throw themselves, in an uninhibited form, into all the gifts God has given His church, including prophecy. <BR/><BR/>(And again, I'd point out in passing the biblically-based charismatic's understanding of predictive prophecy as compared to that of the 1 Corinthians 14:2 kind. Both are biblical, but we tread with fear and trembling when one thinks he or she has been given a predictive prophetic word.)Rob Wilkersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10404594581498610110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131228842780522232005-11-05T14:14:00.000-08:002005-11-05T14:14:00.000-08:00Lycaphim,Phil is apparently going to do an entire ...Lycaphim,<BR/>Phil is apparently going to do an entire post about Spurgeon's beliefs on this issue. I'm confident that he will not try to claim that he was a cessationist. However, if he does, then you will be able to read my response in that thread.<BR/><BR/>mikeMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05447965246351592556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131196410894515112005-11-05T05:13:00.000-08:002005-11-05T05:13:00.000-08:00bradmeyer:Not in my theology either. However, you ...bradmeyer:<BR/><BR/>Not in my theology either. However, you were the first one to say "in love with dead guys." The theologians and post-apostolic fathers of the church you were sneering at in your comment are not "dead" either.<BR/><BR/>That's what I was pointing out.<BR/><BR/>The anger simmering in your comments should lead you to examine whose theology is "dead." <BR/><BR/>Pay attention to how the other non-cessationists here are responding. They're doing a far better job representing your position than you are.<BR/><BR/>Back to everyone else:<BR/><BR/>There's been some great discussion on this thread between adherents of both sides that has NOT degenerated into name-calling and ad hominem. Let's heed their example, and perhaps we can all learn something here. As a guy who finds himself sitting very uncomfortably on the fence here and is desperate to jump off it to safety, I can say that there are some of us who have a stake in this discussion. <BR/><BR/>Heated comments are distracting and unwelcome...Jeff Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13371095557455961706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131195232890794182005-11-05T04:53:00.000-08:002005-11-05T04:53:00.000-08:00C.H. Spurgeon on cessationism:"These works of the ...C.H. Spurgeon on cessationism:<BR/><BR/>"These works of the Holy Spirit which are at this time vouchsafed to the Church of God are every way as valuable as those earlier miraculous gifts which have departed from us"<BR/><BR/>(Met. Tab. Pulpit, 1884, Vol. 30, 386 ff)<BR/><BR/>As for John Edwards:<BR/><BR/>"Since the canon of the Scripture has been completed, and the Christian Church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased." <BR/><BR/>(Charity & Its Fruits, 29)lycaphimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14310741279438676739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131173047801520972005-11-04T22:44:00.000-08:002005-11-04T22:44:00.000-08:00Habitans in Sicco, did you search the blog for cha...Habitans in Sicco, did you search the blog for charismatic leaders, concepts, etc. na- wouldn't help you deflect my point.<BR/>Yup, a little angry that people who would be embarassed to admit that God "spoke" to them, want to speak for Him. Here's where all the lovers of dead guys say "Scripture speaks to us." No, Scripture introduces us to Christ and His Spirit guides or "speaks" to us. And in response to someone earlier who said "Hey, dead guys wrote the bible"- not in my theology.<BR/>Sorry folks, yeah I get a little angry at those spreading lifeless theology who routhinely mock those who say nothing to them.<BR/>Hanegraff's heard in all 50 states.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04859259996035017464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131171608743441392005-11-04T22:20:00.000-08:002005-11-04T22:20:00.000-08:00Coming from a background of the Pentecostal/Charis...Coming from a background of the Pentecostal/Charismatic side of things...Being a musician in the CCM industry...<BR/><BR/>THANKS!<BR/><BR/>I seem to do better with a direct/confrontational(scripturally) approach....but hey, I imagine Pyro is having the effect a sovereign God wants HIM to have on some too!!<BR/><BR/>Thanks Dave(theinscrutableone), I couldn't have said it better. TRUTH MATTERS!<BR/><BR/>grateful for grace,<BR/>The DOGpreacherdogpreacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14126765017002042276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131164705735590642005-11-04T20:25:00.000-08:002005-11-04T20:25:00.000-08:00Phil,Regarding the all-too-common lapses of judgme...Phil,<BR/><BR/>Regarding the all-too-common lapses of judgment shown by some of the best charismatics, I'm reminded of a comment that was once made to me by the pastor of one of the Pentecostal churches I attended. I started attending his church a year or so after my ORU adventure came to an end. A sermon he preached against the WoF movement was instrumental in directing me to exercise spiritual discernment. However, when I confronted him one Sunday regarding a blatantly false prophecy that had been given in the morning service, he commented, "Sometimes we have to allow a little wildfire in order to let the true fire burn," and went on to caution me about having a critical spirit. I think such a statement is most revealing. In the charismatic world in which I once moved, the fear of possibly missing out on what God might be doing was so great that a considerable degree of error was often overlooked.<BR/><BR/>In contrast, the notion that the church ought to tolerate error in order that the truth would have its way is utterly alien to Scripture. Far from being something that is to be tolerated lest the church "miss God", error ought to be refuted and rebuked wherever and whenever it is found. If God has commanded the church to stand steadfast against false doctrine and practice, it is absurd to fear that He will accuse us of "quenching the Spirit" if we strive to obey His commandment. God is not so weak that we will be able to "miss Him" so easily as many fear. Remember that the NT contains only one warning against quenching the Spirit compared with many warnings against false prophets and teachers. Is it right to fear "quenching the Spirit" so much that we neglect our duty to beware of false prophets? <BR/><BR/>As you rightly say, Phil, those who hold to the perpetuity of spiritual gifts ought to be the _most_ diligent to rebuke the false prophets in their midst. That so many are so negligent in their duty to guard their flocks against spiritual wolves is tragic.<BR/><BR/>Davetheinscrutableonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00918928202965884076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1131162441814922102005-11-04T19:47:00.000-08:002005-11-04T19:47:00.000-08:00Phil said: If interest in this subject is sustaine...Phil said: If interest in this subject is sustained long enough, I may also point out some examples of how subjective impressions "from God" are the basis for some of Bill Gothard's most questionable teachings.<BR/><BR/>Just wondering which ones you may be thinking of ... how one must rid their homes of Cabbage Patch dolls so you don’t give Satan a foothold into your home, or perhaps one of his more recent rhemas on the brightness of ones eyes is the key to ones spiritual state.<BR/><BR/>I for one would love to see your take on some of Gothards subjective impressions, since it seems not very many people are willing to take on many of his false teachings that have <A HREF="http://xatiguy.blogspot.com/2005/02/exiting-matrix.html" REL="nofollow">left thousands of people in a state of quasi spiritual waste land.</A><BR/><BR/><BR/>And while your at it (like you have so much time on your hands) I believe you promised TulipGirl months ago a blog or two on Ezzo;)<BR/><BR/>{{{Candleman}}}Candlemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07264663139231007870noreply@blogger.com