Comments on PyroManiac: You're probably a cessationist, too

Phil, I dont really know what your point is in thi...

2007-02-26T13:45:00.000-08:00

Phil, I dont really know what your point is in this article. Are you arguing that all miraculous gifts have ceased. If you are, that's hilarious. I laugh at anyone who says that. As someone who has been touched miraculously by God, its silly, ludicrous. For someone to make that claim is to call liars the testimony of hundreds of thousands of christian brothers and sisters from all over the world.

However, if that's not your point, why did you write this article? I dont know if we can prove anything about apostles, whether everytime they prayed somebody was healed, or whether there are still people who operate in the gifts at a similarly high level somewhere in this world. Nor did all of the apostles write scripture, yet many were recorded with supernatural gifting.
I wouldnt really argue that there are people who operate at teh same level as apostles in the new testament, but i cant argue against it either. How can I with so little evidence either way. Furthermore, not everything the apostles said was scripture, or totally correct. All you need to do is read about Paul's rebuke of Peter or his own treatise on his flesh to know that. Or through others, perhaps his refusal to accept John Mark.

Anyway, I just hate how good academics and teachers who claim to think according to logical systems of thought, can so blatently overlook its principles when it encounters theology that they ardently exposit. We are all prone to these errors, but we should be open to acknowledging and seeking them out when pointed out by others

Great post!I have translated this article!http://w...

2006-01-19T10:12:00.000-08:00

Great post!
I have translated this article!

http://www.monergismo.com/textos/dons_espirituais/voce_cessacionista_phillip.htm

"If you believe any of the miraculous spiritual g...

2006-01-15T09:36:00.000-08:00

"If you believe any of the miraculous spiritual gifts were operative in the apostolic era only, and that some or all of those gifts gradually ceased before the end of the first century, you are a cessationist.

If you believe all the spiritual gifts described in the New Testament have continued unabated, unchanged, and unaltered since the initial outpouring of tongues at Pentecost, you are a continuationist."

So I guess that makes me a partial continuationist or a partial cessationist. In a nutshell, setting up this dichotomy is the reason why many have missed the point of the blog to begin with and why there is so much dust been kicked up. The moment that I become "partial" is a negation of both the definitions in quote. And of course, the continuationists will call me a partial continuationist, whereas cessationists will align me with partial cessationism...as the blog implies.
Point being: labels can be greatly misused or misapplied. In cases like this, it can also lead to a form of discreet ad hominem. The cessationist definition quoted above can be used to accuse those of putting God in a box, whereas the continuationism definition can be used to imply a denial of sola scriptura. Both of these are unfair. So can one hold to the points that Phil Johnson sets forth, without being labelled outright by any of the definitions he outlines from the beginning?

Well, it looks like I'm one of those rare "absolut...

2006-01-14T15:30:00.000-08:00

Well, it looks like I'm one of those rare "absolute non-cessationists" (I believe all the spiritual gifts in the NT are still in operation today.) But I am definately not "at the bizarre fringe of the charismatic movement" (I am not even a charismatic), and I certainly have never even met an apostle, nevermind declared sometime to be one.

We really must get away from this notion that apostleship is a spiritual gift, and therefore all continuationists must believe in apostles today in order to be consistent.

But even if the gift of apostleship was around today, Phil's argument would make no sense. He accuses continuationists to actually be cessationists because they believe that some miraculous gifts have ceased. But by exactly the same logic I could describe him as a continuationist because he believes that some spiritual gifts do continue. You can't have it both ways (and 'spiritual gifts' is much more of a biblical term than 'miraculous gifts', and is therefore preferable.)

I've posted about this very recently here and here, so if you want read more, head over there and I won't clog up this blog!

I could spend hours tearing apart your arguements ...

2006-01-13T10:04:00.000-08:00

I could spend hours tearing apart your arguements for cessationism, especially because there is not an ounce of Biblical evidence for it. However, I will just say this. True continuationist are not on the fringe. They are mainline evangelical believers who believe the Bible is completely true. The closing of the canon also has nothing to do with cessationism. Also, just because some continuationists say the gifts are of lesser quality today, does not mean most believe this. It is actually another arguement with no Biblical basis. I challenge anyone to take the Bible and use it to prove cessationism.

(david van essen) They don't have the time to figu...

2006-01-12T22:12:00.000-08:00

(david van essen) They don't have the time to figure out whether or not the gifts are for today, they are just praying in faith for God to move on their behalf and in the work of spreading His gospel!

Well, perhaps they'd have more time to pray if they didn't have to worry about weighing each and every spurious "prophecy" they encounter.

Really, I don't understand this attitude at all. If it makes the positive difference in the church that the charismatic camp claims, or the negative difference which cessationists claim, then it's important to figure it out. Most especially for evangelism!

I read this entire thread with some interest. My ...

2006-01-12T21:10:00.000-08:00

I read this entire thread with some interest. My background is that I spent the first 28 years of my life in a cessationist church, and the past 5 years in a "reformed charismatic church."

One thing that strikes me as odd about all of the posts here is the lack of any references to the persecuted church in other parts of the world, like Southeast Asia (India and China), the Middle East (Muslim world), and elsewhere where the work of God is happening in a powerful way.

Perhaps the most powerful impact of the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer's life is in Acts 1 where it says that "You will receive power after the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and will be witnesses unto me..." So the work of the Holy Spirit is to give us boldness in proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. So our expectation with regards to the work of the Spirit is boldness in proclaiming Christ. That's for here and now in 2005. Whether that expresses itself in charismatic gifts or not, we should all be much more concerned about the boldness or lack thereof that we display in our personal lives for Christ than whether miracles do or don't occur today.

All I can say is, we need to look to the example of the persecuted church in Asia, where believers are praying on their knees, for fear of their lives, for hours at a time, and witnessing powerful miracles. They don't have the time to figure out whether or not the gifts are for today, they are just praying in faith for God to move on their behalf and in the work of spreading His gospel!

Ellen,God knows the future and at times has chosen...

2006-01-12T13:11:00.000-08:00

Ellen,

God knows the future and at times has chosen to speak through Prophets. In any event, the main thrust of prophecy is not the predictive element.

Exactly - so why do we flock to the so-called "prophets" of today, wanting to know the future?

As for the passages in Acts, okay, they referenced the future - and it wasn't telling the people that it was going to be rosy.

I blogged about that ib my blog yesterday.

before someone does a gotcha:see 1 Cor 5 for the "...

2006-01-12T10:50:00.000-08:00

before someone does a gotcha:

see 1 Cor 5 for the "missing" letter of Paul to the Corinthians. It would, of course, be the "first" and not the second, making ours the second and third. If, that is, the Lord had chosen to preserve it for us.

Apparently, He didn't. And I see no reason to expect that to change.

Cheers,
PGE

Well, this is interesting.If we believe in the suf...

2006-01-12T10:28:00.000-08:00

Well, this is interesting.

If we believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, and that the final word on any matter which comes up among the body is what the Spirit is speaking throughout the Scriptures, then it would seem to follow--as Libbie will have it--that truly foundational doctrines will be found in the Scriptures already revealed.

However, those Scriptures do not reveal anything about the scope of the canon, whatsoever. They testify to the plenary, verbal inspiration, infallibility, authority, perspicuity, and preservation of Scripture, and to many features of its nature, but at no point do the Scriptures tell us precisely which writings will be in it.

Rather, from what the Scriptures tell us, and in keeping with the instructions of Christ to the Apostles, and the Apostles to the first-century churches, we know that the Spirit's work was recognized and received in the canon we have.

My point is that the deduction goes from Scripture to each individual case, but from each individual case to the canon of Scripture is an inductive process.

I think it misrepresents the sufficiency of Scripture to argue deductively from the canon, because the canon is built *up* from the testimony of the Scriptures being received in the churches, but the "closing" of the canon is strictly a churchly judgment call. Good one, but not axiomatic.

I cannot think of any argument I would advance, or any entailment I avoid, by taking this position. I simply don't wish to lead others to stumble when they discover that "canon" is an entirely extrabiblical notion. Better if their teaching has proper foundations.

My objection to strict cessationism is the same; it is seeking to buttress an induction (all the charismata that are not the same as the apostolic gifts) by finding a principle with deductive force (there will be no gifts like those again). The principle of the sufficiency of Scripture requires that any such axiom be, itself, founded in Scripture. Cessationism isn't.

I remain a non-charismatic, not-expecting Paul's-second-letter-to-Corinth to-show-up, definitely not interested in any new revelations unless they can be recognized as God-given by the *entire* visible church (fat chance), but also unwilling to teach "God will never do that again," believer in what the Spirit speaks in Scripture...

Cheers,
PGE

There are some looney charasmatics out there, the ...

2006-01-12T06:09:00.000-08:00

There are some looney charasmatics out there, the Benny Hinn's of the world. There are also some pretty high and dry reformed cessasionists types, most of the examples of which I can think of right now, you would not know. You know who they are though. People more or less afraid of the Holy Spirit.

I think everybody in this thing has been arguing against those archetypes, when few, if any, of us actually fit the bill.

Read the rest of my post here.

Link was too long to take you straight to the chap...

2006-01-11T23:02:00.000-08:00

Link was too long to take you straight to the chapter. This should be fine:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_books.htm#symphonictheology

Chapters 9 & 10 were what I was referring to.

Hi everyone,I have been really blessed and refresh...

2006-01-11T22:57:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone,
I have been really blessed and refreshed today, by reading a couple chapters out of Vern Poythress' book, "Symphonic Theology". They addressed "miracles" which I realise is not quite "prophecy", but then again, we haven't managed to stick to prophecy anyway! No doubt a reading (even a skim read) of the early part of the book would help for context (as miracles are merely a test case for what he has been talking about), however, the chapters are worthy of your attention. I think a lot of us would come away from those chapters as "cessationist-continuatists", at least in regards to miracles. Why? Because it is all dependant on what we mean by miracle. For example: we are cessationists with regards to the resurrection of Christ (it was a one-time event). Yet we are resurrection continuationists - we live in the power of his resurrection now. Our own glorification and resurrection is based on (and therefore a continuity of) Christ's resurrection. This is just one example.

I think these two chapters would bless many of us with perspective in discussing cessationism and continuationism.

I also believes it affirms my own (as a continuationist) slight disagreement with Grudem's view (or at least how I have understood his wording, which may not be his actual view!). That is, that I don't like this idea of so called "modern gifts" being of a "lesser quality. No, they all stem from the same source - God! So, I can say as a continuationist (with Fee and in opposition to Grudem as far as I can tell), that miracles, healings, and YES, prophecy, revelation etc. are "in line" with not only NT, but OT prophecy etc. It is all from God working in us and through us to His glory. BUT that does not mean that I cannot affirm the "unique acts of God in which he accomplished salvation" such as the exodus, the cross, pentecost etc. and that those events are described in God breathed words in Holy Scripture.

Key quote (for me) from these 2 chapters:

"The Bible itself indicates both continuity and discontinuity between foundational acts of God in Bible times and the present day. In our teaching we want to say everything that the Bible says and help people who are one-sided to come to grips with their imbalance."

.....Anyway, read them for yourself - chapters 9 and 10. Free online!
http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/Symphonic_Theology/bst9.htm

Cheers
Steve

Brad Meyer:Why do you mention the Third Person of ...

2006-01-11T22:45:00.000-08:00

Brad Meyer:
Why do you mention the Third Person of the Godhead. By your reasoning, there shouldn't be a Trinity, there is no Prooftext. Scripture is full of passages that logically infer the truth from the creation week to Revelation.

Mike,Masterful!

2006-01-11T22:35:00.000-08:00

Mike,
Masterful!

Phil hasn't finished presenting the cessationist v...

2006-01-11T22:34:00.000-08:00

Phil hasn't finished presenting the cessationist view yet, so it's a bit premature to ask, "Where's the Scripture support?"

I would be more inclined to follow that except for he has tried to use some Scriptures (2Cor 12:12 is the most obvious example) but has used them entirely unappropriately. Furthermore, the key issue that Cessationists have thrown out is that people like Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts, and company are unbiblical. When they point to these folks they are quick to cite every reference that they have. Unfortunately, when it comes to examining our own views, often we grant ourselves more lattitude than we do with others.

In Christ alone,
mike

If a debate arises over whether or not dinosaurs s...

2006-01-11T22:29:00.000-08:00

If a debate arises over whether or not dinosaurs still roam the earth, I, for one, would have no problem with the man who begins the discussion by asking if anyone has seen one lately.

If we had verses in the bible that told us that they existed and gave no hint that they had died out, then told us to seek the dinosaurs, and then told us not to forbid such dinosaurs, I would want some sort of evidence beyond "I haven't seen any dinosaurs lately" to conclude that we ought not look for them. This would only be amplified when we had many Christians claiming that they had seen dinosaurs.

In Christ alone,
mike

It boils down to, "Hey, every claim to miraculous ...

2006-01-11T22:02:00.000-08:00

It boils down to, "Hey, every claim to miraculous events I see, appears to be a hoax. Therefore, the Bible must say somewhere that the gifts would end at the end of the apostolic era." Chuck Schumer believes the Constitution has a right to an abortion in it. That doesn't make it so. Where exactly does the Bible define the term "APOSTOLIC ERA?"
This is majority rules on the basis of our experience- cynical unbelief. We are not called to lower the level of expectation from the All-Powerful God of the universe. We are called and mortally challenged to BELIEVE.

Mat 17:19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
Mar 9:24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine UNBELIEF.

Shane said:"there still hasn't been a scripture gi...

2006-01-11T21:49:00.000-08:00

Shane said:

"there still hasn't been a scripture given that states that the gifts have ceased."

If it were that simple, someone would have discovered that "one verse" by now and saved us from all this protracted discussion. :)

I find it interesting that some sharp minds on both sides of the issue didn't arrive at well-formulated opinions until after a lot of intensive study of Scripture and consideration of the arguments and evidence on both sides. That should tell us something.

Phil hasn't finished presenting the cessationist view yet, so it's a bit premature to ask, "Where's the Scripture support?" But here's one thought to consider: A good student of God's Word can draw conclusions on an issue by using the biblical standard as his starting point, and examining modern-day phenomena and seeing if it matches up to the biblical standard. For example, God's standard for prophets was 100 percent accuracy. That standard is "set in stone" for us, and has not changed. No one since the apostolic era has matched that standard. The so-called manifestations today most definitely do NOT match the biblical standard. So when cessationists arrive at their conclusions about the gift of prophecy (100 percent accuracy), they are basing their conclusion on the pattern originally set in the Bible. In this sense, the cessationist perspective IS based on Scripture.

Ellen,Check Acts 11:27-28 amd 21:9-11 -Jacob

2006-01-11T21:42:00.000-08:00

Ellen,
Check Acts 11:27-28 amd 21:9-11
-Jacob

If a debate arises over whether or not dinosaurs s...

2006-01-11T21:22:00.000-08:00

If a debate arises over whether or not dinosaurs still roam the earth, I, for one, would have no problem with the man who begins the discussion by asking if anyone has seen one lately.

Ellen,God knows the future and at times has chosen...

2006-01-11T20:36:00.000-08:00

Ellen,

God knows the future and at times has chosen to speak through Prophets. In any event, the main thrust of prophecy is not the predictive element.

Also, the hope is about our Glorified bodies (when we are no longer in this fallen world with our fallen bodies). And again, the role of the prophet is not to satisfy curiosities about the future.

-mike

Okay...when was the last time you heard a modern d...

2006-01-11T20:17:00.000-08:00

Okay...

when was the last time you heard a modern day prophet use Ecclesiastes 8:7 “Since no man knows the future, who can tell him what is to come?” (Are we supposed to be asking "prophets" about our future?)

or Romans 8:24 “For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?” (If a "prophet" does manage to get our future right, does it interfere with our hope?)

What I'm getting from this discussion is the need ...

2006-01-11T20:14:00.000-08:00

What I'm getting from this discussion is the need to make sure that we all start with the same working definitions of terms.

Also, there still hasn't been a scripture given that states that the gifts have ceased. At best, we are getting "deduced" reasonings for Cessationism.

This discussion demonstrates one thing: how diffi...

2006-01-11T19:50:00.000-08:00

This discussion demonstrates one thing: how difficult it is for us in contemporary evangelicalism to think biblically, to develop our theology and make our arguments by the Word of God alone.

1 Peter 4:10, "As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God."

Campi