tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post113696463478231917..comments2023-05-27T03:17:19.681-07:00Comments on PyroManiac: You're probably a cessationist, tooPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-21355413624456451752007-02-26T13:45:00.000-08:002007-02-26T13:45:00.000-08:00Phil, I dont really know what your point is in thi...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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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 othersRebecca Farlowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10367217077067611046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137694376161403332006-01-19T10:12:00.000-08:002006-01-19T10:12:00.000-08:00Great post!I have translated this article!http://w...Great post!<BR/>I have translated this article!<BR/><BR/>http://www.monergismo.com/textos/dons_espirituais/voce_cessacionista_phillip.htmFelipe Sabinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11933298480013233712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137281430008190022006-01-14T15:30:00.000-08:002006-01-14T15:30:00.000-08:00Well, it looks like I'm one of those rare "absolut...Well, it looks like I'm one of those rare "absolute non-cessationists" (I believe <B>all</B> the spiritual gifts in the NT are still in operation today.) But I am definately <B>not</B> "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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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 <I>miraculous</I> gifts have ceased. But by exactly the same logic I could describe him as a continuationist because he believes that some <I>spiritual</I> 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.)<BR/><BR/>I've posted about this very recently <A HREF="http://www.4-14.org.uk/index.php/archives/40-response-to-to-be-continued-1" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://www.4-14.org.uk/index.php/archives/47-response-to-to-be-continued-2" REL="nofollow">here</A>, so if you want read more, head over there and I won't clog up this blog!Mark Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03253032477968218422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137175466748660362006-01-13T10:04:00.000-08:002006-01-13T10:04:00.000-08:00I could spend hours tearing apart your arguements ...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.A Human Beanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02634670004706827610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137132759076765052006-01-12T22:12:00.000-08:002006-01-12T22:12:00.000-08:00(david van essen) They don't have the time to figu...<I>(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!</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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!Kyjohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02576699017770933239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137129033291260062006-01-12T21:10:00.000-08:002006-01-12T21:10:00.000-08:00I read this entire thread with some interest. My ...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." <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137100309636717542006-01-12T13:11:00.000-08:002006-01-12T13:11:00.000-08:00Ellen,God knows the future and at times has chosen...<I>Ellen,<BR/><BR/>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.</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly - so why do we flock to the so-called "prophets" of today, wanting to know the future?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>I blogged about that <A HREF="http://mzellen.blogspot.com/2006/01/todays-prophets.html" REL="nofollow">ib my blog</A> yesterday.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137091845423668922006-01-12T10:50:00.000-08:002006-01-12T10:50:00.000-08:00before someone does a gotcha:see 1 Cor 5 for the "...<I>before someone does a <B>gotcha</B></I>:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Corinthians+5%3A9" REL="nofollow">see 1 Cor 5</A> 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.<BR/><BR/>Apparently, He didn't. And I see no reason to expect that to change.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>PGEpgeppshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00778075334003141988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137090523268778302006-01-12T10:28:00.000-08:002006-01-12T10:28:00.000-08:00Well, this is interesting.If we believe in the suf...Well, this is interesting.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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...<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>PGEpgeppshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00778075334003141988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137074970958745552006-01-12T06:09:00.000-08:002006-01-12T06:09:00.000-08:00There are some looney charasmatics out there, the ...<EM>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.<BR/><BR/>I think everybody in this thing has been arguing against those archetypes, when few, if any, of us actually fit the bill.</EM><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://blogotional.blogspot.com/2006/01/ok-thats-it-i-quit.html" REL="nofollow">Read the rest of my post here</A>.John Schroederhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917037602880789273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137048356616895202006-01-11T22:45:00.000-08:002006-01-11T22:45:00.000-08:00Brad Meyer:Why do you mention the Third Person of ...Brad Meyer:<BR/>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.Via Crusishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16871319374060535540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137047750172196292006-01-11T22:35:00.000-08:002006-01-11T22:35:00.000-08:00Mike,Masterful!Mike,<BR/>Masterful!Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04859259996035017464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137047640119298092006-01-11T22:34:00.000-08:002006-01-11T22:34:00.000-08:00Phil hasn't finished presenting the cessationist v...<I>Phil hasn't finished presenting the cessationist view yet, so it's a bit premature to ask, "Where's the Scripture support?"</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>In Christ alone,<BR/>mikeMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05447965246351592556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137047341747824152006-01-11T22:29:00.000-08:002006-01-11T22:29:00.000-08:00If a debate arises over whether or not dinosaurs s...<I><BR/>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/>In Christ alone,<BR/>mikeMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05447965246351592556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137045747098032102006-01-11T22:02:00.000-08:002006-01-11T22:02:00.000-08:00It boils down to, "Hey, every claim to miraculous ...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?"<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/>Mar 9:24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine UNBELIEF.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04859259996035017464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137044552884889702006-01-11T21:42:00.000-08:002006-01-11T21:42:00.000-08:00Ellen,Check Acts 11:27-28 amd 21:9-11 -JacobEllen,<BR/>Check Acts 11:27-28 amd 21:9-11<BR/> -JacobJacob Hantlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04964637928698990552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137040592017243992006-01-11T20:36:00.000-08:002006-01-11T20:36:00.000-08:00Ellen,God knows the future and at times has chosen...Ellen,<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>-mikeMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05447965246351592556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137039434634168042006-01-11T20:17:00.000-08:002006-01-11T20:17:00.000-08:00Okay...when was the last time you heard a modern d...Okay...<BR/><BR/>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?)<BR/><BR/>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?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137039282167621712006-01-11T20:14:00.000-08:002006-01-11T20:14:00.000-08:00What I'm getting from this discussion is the need ...What I'm getting from this discussion is the need to make sure that we all start with the same working definitions of terms. <BR/><BR/>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.Shane McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10562944955850268776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137037840491668782006-01-11T19:50:00.000-08:002006-01-11T19:50:00.000-08:00This discussion demonstrates one thing: how diffi...<B>This discussion demonstrates one thing:</B> 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.<BR/><BR/><B>1 Peter 4:10,</B> <I>"As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God."</I><BR/><BR/>CampiSJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137037614086382402006-01-11T19:46:00.000-08:002006-01-11T19:46:00.000-08:00Periodically I attempt to listen to charismatic pr...Periodically I attempt to listen to charismatic preaching. I try to start with a positive attiude and I'm determined to find the nuggets of truth. But darned if I don't walk away time and time again frustrated and irritated. (Anecdote: I'm listening to the New Covenant Ministries preaching one morning and Wiley Tomlinson's wife, Jeena, is doing the preaching. She says "God told me something this week I want to share with you; no, put away your Bibles it's not there." That kinda message frustrates me no end. I can hardly bear it.) I have so badly wanted to feel a kinship with my charismatic brethren ( and sistern too) but you're either expositing THE WORD, with some attempt at accuracy, or you're just engaged in "bull shoveling." I remember a friend giving me a long tape of a message by John Kilpatrick who had such a big part in the Brownville revival. The message was an hour plus and it was quite interesting and it NEVER exposited Scripture. It didn't even touch Scripture and I'm thinking to myself; can you have true revival and not be teaching Scripture? Puhleese. Preachers that just talk and don't even attempt to exposit drive me batty. My non-charismatic preacher friends can frustrate me when they wander off to make Scripture fit their message agenda but I've historically found the charismatic preachers to be much worse. Sometime I'm more concerned that the teaching gift has ceased to say nothing of the apostolic gifts. Sigh; enough rant for one day.S.G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09746381491495106590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137036905963714582006-01-11T19:35:00.000-08:002006-01-11T19:35:00.000-08:00While we wait for Phil to "do more exegesis," can ...While we wait for Phil to "do more exegesis," can <I>anyone</I> give me Scriptural warrant for prophecies from God only being right 65% of the time? <BR/><BR/>No, wait--make that being right less than <I>100%</I> of the time. I don't care what era we're in, we're talking about God here, not Miss Cleo. <BR/><BR/>Give me a single illustration from Scripture of it happening or show me the verses that show this gift is now operative in a diminished form, and I'm willing to listen. <BR/><BR/>Otherwise, this conversation <I>really is</I> a non-starter, and exegetical or not, Phil's comments stand.Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137035132388855302006-01-11T19:05:00.000-08:002006-01-11T19:05:00.000-08:00It hits me today that one of the reasons I general...It hits me today that one of the reasons I generally doubt "today's prophets" (still don't know where I stand on cessation) is that they primarily only have good things to say.<BR/><BR/>Biblical prophets came along when the people of God were being bone-headed and needed a "clue by four".<BR/><BR/>If a prophet is telling people only that which they want to hear - that is generally not the message of God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137031954800458942006-01-11T18:12:00.000-08:002006-01-11T18:12:00.000-08:00Thanks Phil, Dr. Mike said, "Are you denying the ...Thanks Phil, <BR/><BR/>Dr. Mike said, "Are you denying the tradition of "calling," e.g., being "called to the ministry"? <BR/>I would have the same question. I would share your stance on a closed Canon, and Sola Scriptura. Is there such as thing as "hyper-cessationism" that wouldn't allow a calling to ministry? I wouldn't expect a literal verbal calling. But what about 1 Tim. 3:1, ..."if a man desires the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work."- a calling as it were. Psalm, 37: 4 " Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart." I would say that as you delight yourself in the LORD, He changes the desires of your heart to more Christlikeness. That this transition to us as spirit-filled believers feels seemless. And that for some this may manifest in the desire for the office of a bishop. The qualifications for said office then follow.<BR/>Also: As a independent fundamental baptist church we, gather deacons, and elders in the laying on of hands and annointing for newly ordained pastors and the sending of missionaries. We add retired/veteran police officers and military members to this list when we consecrate new officers and military members who are starting duty here or being sent overseas. This is in light of Romans 13:4 Do you then have to deny the tradition of Calling and Sending to be cessationist?Via Crusishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16871319374060535540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12723103.post-1137028349645196912006-01-11T17:12:00.000-08:002006-01-11T17:12:00.000-08:00(frank walton) Can someone recommend a book that h...<I>(frank walton) Can someone recommend a book that holds to the cessation view in detail? Thanks.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Perspectives on Pentecost</I>, by Richard Gaffin.Kyjohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02576699017770933239noreply@blogger.com