Donations for the month of November


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 13,293
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,533
Posts50,706
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,293
Tom 3,300
chestnutmare 2,862
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 20
Pilgrim 16
John_C 3
Recent Posts
The Church of England Announcement
by Tom. Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:11 PM
Law and Grace
by Tom. Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:56 PM
Why I hate the left
by Pilgrim. Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:42 PM
What is a missionary work
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:07 AM
Terrorist Attacks
by AJ Castellitto. Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:08 AM
Theonomy
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:54 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#29199 - Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:18 PM Re: Gifts of the Spirit ***** [Re: Link]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Please note: For sake of space I have abbreviated Link’s statements.

Quote
Link states,

1. That prophecy today, it should be added to scripture.

--Counter-argument. The first post of this thread shows that there were genuine prophecies not included in the text of scripture. If these were not included, why would all other prophecies have to be included. New Testament books had to meet the criteria of being from apostolic circles, not merely be prophetic or revelatory in nature. God gave many revelations to prophets in the first century whose writings are not included in scripture.

There is no new revelation, however, the Holy Spirit speaks to us everyday (Heb 12:25). God does not speak outside of that which the Holy Spirit has already spoken (2 Pet 1:19f). The Scripture is complete and already sufficient to accomplish that which God has chosen (2 Tim 3:16f). The canon is closed. As R. Fowler White states,

Quote
Now that God has accomplished salvation once-for-all, in Christ, He has also spoken His word, once-for-all, in Christ and in those whom Christ authorized and empowered by His Spirit (Heb. 1:1-2; 2:3, 4; Matt. 16:15-19; John 14:26; Eph. 2:19, 20). With the completion of salvation in Christ comes the cessation of revelation. Consequently, the church now lives by a "Scripture only" principle of authority. To tamper with this principle invites a host of theological and pastoral problems. The proof of this observation can be seen in the effect of these "prophecies" upon many who are being led far afield from the sufficiency of the gospel itself. Its finality and complete sufficiency is, in reality, subtly assaulted by these claims to modern prophecies.

Finally, the Bible gives us no reason to expect that God will speak to His children today apart from the Scriptures. Those who teach otherwise need to explain to God’s children how these words "freshly spoken from heaven" can be so necessary and strategic to God’s highest purposes for their lives when their Father does nothing to ensure that they will ever actually hear those words. Indeed, they must explain why this is not quenching the Spirit.


Quote
Link states,

2. Hebrews 1 teaches that God spoke in times past by prophets, but now he has spoken by his Son. Some argue based on this, that there were no more prophets.

--Counterargument. This line of reasoning contradicts New Testament teaching that there were prophets after the ascension.

No one here denies that there were prophets after the ascension (i.e. Agabus, Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11). We just deny any further need for them as their so called “new” revelations can no longer be validated by an apostle. God has already spoken to us by His Son (meaning Christ as the Head of His Church, his apostles, et. al. (Eph 4:11-16; 5:23; Col 1:18)).

Quote
Link states,

3. Hebrews 2 teaches that God bore witness to the eye-witnesses of the resurrection's preaching of salvation with signs, wonders, and gifts. Therefore, the gifts ceased.

-Counterargument. This is poor logic.

If I say, "When I first came to work at my company, I used to eat at McDonald's, which is next door, quite often" does that mean I do not eat at McDonald's anymore? I might eat at McDonald's, and I might not.

This is not poor logic, but proper interpretation of the Greek text. Miracles came in each age of the Bible for specific periods of time and then they vanished (the revealing of the law to Moses; the lives of Elijah and Elisha, and the age of the early Church in Christ). To use your illustration, the McDonald’s next door has changed significantly since it first opened. Many things McDonald’s had when they first opened are no longer even on the menu. Though the foundation of McDonald’s is still there, what they serve is different. Their meat is not even real meat any more—it is processed and that is what is coming through the doors of the Charismatic Church—processed miracles—imitations. So much for CRMT (Charismatic Ronald McDonald Theology). [Linked Image]

Quote
Link states,

4. That supernatural gifts were given exclusively as signs to verify the apostles and/or the scriptures.

Counter-argument- God bore witness to the apostle's preaching by signs and wonders, yes. But scripture does not teach that this is the only purpose for supernatural gifts. -The debated end of Mark says that certain signs will follow 'them that believe'

-I Corinthians 12 shows us that these gifts were given to edify the body of Christ, which still exists today. Therefore, confirming the word is not the only reason for such things.

First, no one said that miracles were ONLY a sign to authenticate the apostle’s teaching. One wonders why you have to continue to use deception to make your points. One of the reasons for miracles was to confirm the teaching of Scripture. Miracles helped the Jewish people recognize that the Messiah had come as prophet, priest, and King. Miracles are the fulfillment of Scripture, etc. Second, miracles and such did follow them that believe, however, the Mark 16 promise “in context” was only to the Eleven (Mark 16:14, 17)…. Third, as Jesus says, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign (miracle)” (Matt 12:39). Apparently they still do!

Quote
Link states,

5. That belief in the continuance of spiritual gifts violates a certain section of a particular creed.

-Actually the creed quoted does not necessarily contradict the continuance of the gifts, depending on how it is interpreted. However, this is irrelevant. If the Bible does not teach that the gifts ceased, then to base such a doctrine on the wording of a creed is similar to the way Roman Catholics treat papal decrees and other 'sacred tradition.'

Creeds and confessions are interpretations of Scripture that have been established by the Church as true. As with anything else they have matured with time and study. They help guard the church against, “seducing spirits and doctrines of devils,” as you are presenting. As has already been shown to you in Hebrews 1, 2 and 1 Cor 13, etc. the sign gifts have ceased. You have yet to document otherwise.

Quote
Link states,

6. That 'the perfect' in I Corinthians 13 refers to the closing of cannon of scripture.

-I do not recall anyone here directly stating it. However, I was refered to a website that argued this idea.

Do you have the gift of self interpretation? Above you argued that it did not matter if the canon was closed and here you are arguing that it does matter. Let us know when you can properly interpret yourself.

Quote
Link states,

7. That the quote from Isaiah 28 in I Corinthians 14 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

-This really has no bearing on the cessation of the gifts for two reasons

- Paul's makes his point in quoting the verse, that tongues is a sign to 'unbelievers', as he writes, and not Jews per se. He says nothing about the destruction of the temple, Jerusalem, etc. in this passage. Paul does not argue that tongues is a sign to the Jews in particular here.
- Tongues has a purpose other than as a sign to unbelievers. With the gift of interpretation, it edifies the church. Without, it edifies the individual who uses it.

Was/Is there not such a thing as an unbelieving Jew? Were there not unbelieving Gentiles that were familiar with what the Jews taught? Just because one is an unbeliever does not mean they are not familiar with what a religion teaches!

And so what if tongues and their interpretation if done rightly edified the Church—this does not prove that the Church continued to require this edification. We are edified by the Word, by prayer, by the sacraments, etc. Jesus and His apostles laid a “foundation” (Eph 2:19-22). The foundation is not made completely of the same elements used to build upon it.

Quote
Link states,

8. If there are true prophecies, they would be authoratative, and they would be hard to judge.

-This is not an argument against the continuance of prophecy. Scripture commands the church to despise not prophesyings and to prove all things. If believing the gifts continue makes church life seem more difficult, that is not evidence that they have ceased. If God would require the early church to discern what was true in their day, is it so hard to believe He might require us to do the same?

There are no “new” prophecies therefore they are all easy to judge as false!

Quote
Link states,


I have not seen a strong argument against the use of the gifts, certainly not one based on scritpure. If one cannot show scripture to show that the gifts ceased, why should he believe they have?

Actually, we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the sign gifts have been discontinued both from Scripture and church history. Our job is not to convince you of the truth, but to lay out the truth before you. You came here on what you thought was a mission from God to convince us that you were right; however, this did not happen. It may be wise for you to consider why God has really sent you here; that you are wrong and needed the truth. You need only ask way the Holy Spirit has not yet shown you the reality of the truth? As was stated previously, we pray that, “God may give you repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.”

[Linked Image]


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#29200 - Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:33 AM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: J_Edwards]  
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Link Offline
Journeyman
Link  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Jakarta, Indonesia
J Edwards wrote
Quote

There is no new revelation, however, the Holy Spirit speaks to us everyday (Heb 12:25). God does not speak outside of that which the Holy Spirit has already spoken (2 Pet 1:19f).


II Peter 1:19 does not prove your point, and in fact disproves it. Don't you believe the Spirit was speaking through Peter as he wrote those very words recorded in II Peter 1:19.

II Peter 1:18-20
>> 18. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.<<

Here Peter is apparently considered the OT prophecies a 'more sure word' of prophecy than the words he heard on the holy mount (apparently the same words that would be or had been recorded in the Gospels.)

The fact that Peter said he had a 'more sure' word of prophecy implies that he had another word of prophecy besides that 'more sure' word of prophecy. There was prophecy outside the Old Testament verses he was referring to. In Peter's other epistle, he the person with the gift of prophecy to use his gift appropriately. Would you even deny Peter lived in a time when the genuine gift of spoken prophecy was in operation? If not, how then can you argue that Peter is arguing that God does not speak outside scripture from this passage?

And since the NT canon was not complete, there is no logical way you can make this argue that God does not speak outside the canon of scripture. It is like saying "I can prove Arminianism by John 11:35. See 'Jesus wept.' That proves Arminianism." These verses you refer to do not support the propositions you make.


Quote
The Scripture is complete and already sufficient to accomplish that which God has chosen (2 Tim 3:16f). The canon is closed.


No one is saying the canon is open. I am saying that you may have an idea of what 'canon' means that is not backed up by scripture. The first post of this discussion lists verses that prove that God spoke outside of scripture.

1. The 'scripture' Timothy had access to was probably the Old Testament. He may have had some of Paul's letters.
2. If this verse closed the canon, then II Timothy 3:17 on is not canonical, and neither are later books.
3. If, as we believe, this verse applies to NT scripture as well, that scripture we need to be fully equipped tells us to covet to prophesy and gives instructions on how to prophesy in an appropriate manner.

4. The verse does not say that scripture is all the man of God needs to be fully equipped; it says that scripture is given so that the man of God may be fully equipped.

A soldier needs a rifle to be fully equipped. That does not mean he needs nothing more. Can the man of God be equipped without grace? Without love? without faith? It just so happens these things are taught on in the scriptures. But so are gifts of the Spirit like prophecy. In fact, Paul told Timothy that by some extra-scriptural prophecies spoken about him, he was to fight a good warfare.

As R. Fowler White states, (snipped)
Quote

Now that God has accomplished salvation once-for-all, in Christ, He has also spoken His word, once-for-all, in Christ and in those whom Christ authorized and empowered by His Spirit (Heb. 1:1-2; 2:3, 4; Matt. 16:15-19; John 14:26; Eph. 2:19, 20). With the completion of salvation in Christ comes the cessation of revelation



None of these verses Fowler quotes say anything about revelation outside of scripture ceasing. This seems typical of the theological reasoning on this thread in favor of cessationism. Scriptures verses are cited in the context of assertions not backed up by those verses.

Could you explain _how_ you think Hebrews 1:1-2 backs up the idea that God does not speak through prophets nowadays, without contradicting the fact that God spoke through prophets after Christ came? Are you trying to say that Jesus is the scriptures?


J Edwards wrote

Quote

We just deny any further need for them as their so called “new” revelations can no longer be validated by an apostle.


This is based on an unscriptural assumption. Nowhere does the Bible teach this idea that prophecies had to be validated by an apostle (unless we refer to Christ as an Apostle, since He is the Word.) Paul encouraged the prophets in Corinth to prophesy, even when he was away.

And the revelations I am talking about are not additions to the gospel, but 'revelations' in a broader sense.



I wrote,
Quote
:

3. Hebrews 2 teaches that God bore witness to the eye-witnesses of the resurrection's preaching of salvation with signs, wonders, and gifts. Therefore, the gifts ceased.

-Counterargument. This is poor logic.

If I say, "When I first came to work at my company, I used to eat at McDonald's, which is next door, quite often" does that mean I do not eat at McDonald's anymore? I might eat at McDonald's, and I might not.



J Edwards
Quote

This is not poor logic, but proper interpretation of the Greek text.


Nice trick. When you can't explain something, it is in the Greek. Can you demonstrate to me that the Greek tenses, cases, etc. here prove your point?

If the fact that God 'bore witness' in the past supposedly proves that He will never do so again, then you would have to explain why signs and wonders were done among Gentile groups and not among the Hebrews. You cannot make a logical case from this passage that gifts ceased without arguing that they were not done among other groups besides the readers of the epistle. (You can't make a logical case at all.)

I rode the bus yesterday. Does that statement imply anything about whether I rode the bus today?


Quote

Miracles came in each age of the Bible for specific periods of time and then they vanished (the revealing of the law to Moses; the lives of Elijah and Elisha, and the age of the early Church in Christ).



Can you show me where the Bible teaches this? That is what I am asking for, scripture that proves your points. I am not asking for assertions followed by scripture references that do _not_ prove your point.

The relationship between man in Christ and God, and the relationship between the typical man in Old Testament times and God is different, wouldn't you agree? We have been given the seal of the Spirit. Jesus sent the Comforter to lead and to guide into all truth. On the day of Pentecost, Peter quoted that prophecy that young men would see visions, and old men would dream dreams, verses about people prophesying when God poured out His Spirit on all flesh in the last days.

And if you will notice something about your argument, not only does the scripture not teach that miracles were confined to these periods, but during some of these periods it is unlikely that scripture was being written. During the life of Elijah and Elisha, who wrote scripture? The accounts of their lives were written much later?

And, as I have shown, the early church believed prophecy and other gifts continued. I have refered you to a work if you are seriously interested, but there are plenty of records of miracles in church history. You could look up some of the Celtic saints, or Saint Patrick for examples. In the 300's, you could look up Gregory of Armenia. Many of the men labeled as 'apostles' in history, like Patrick and Gregory, are known to have been miracle workers. Accounts of gifts of the Spirit in history are quite numerous.

And you have not explained away the gift of prophecy in the church as recorded in the Didache, or Justin's comment that there were prophets in the church of his day (maybe 120 AD) and the Jews did not have them, or the fact that years after Montanus' death, when the Montanists said they did not have the gift of prophecy anymore, a presbyter argued against them that the gift continued on. The Montanists were accused of prophesying against the custom of the church. The church had prophecy during that time.

Quote

Many things McDonald’s had when they first opened are no longer even on the menu. Though the foundation of McDonald’s is still there, what they serve is different. Their meat is not even real meat any more—it is processed and that is what is coming through the doors of the Charismatic Church—processed miracles—imitations.


Let's hope 100% ground beef McDonald's does not sue you for your post. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Your analogy does not work. Whether McDonald's changed it's meny or not, If I say "I ate at McDonald's when i first started working here." that says nothing about whether I still eat at McDonald's these days. If the Bible says God bore witness with signs and wonders when the Gospel was preached among the Hebrews, it does not mean He did not do so at other times. it does not mean he did not bear witness with signs and wonders when Paul preached among the Ephesians, for example. We know from scripture that he did grant signs and wonders to be done. And God has born witness to the Gospel with signs and wonders at many times throughout history, as you could find out if you would do some research on the subject before you pretended to know about it.

To extend the McDonald's analogy, let's imagine McDonald's has an infallible menu. The 'Big Mac' is on the meny. You argue that they no longer sell the Big Mac. If their menu is infallible, they do sell the Big Mac.

The Bible tells us that gifts like prophecy and tongues are given to the church. The Bible commands to covet to prophesy and to forbid not to speak in tongues. It commands to forbid not to prophesy. These are commands of scripture that cannot be erased simply by making assertions followed by scripture verses that do not prove your assertions.

Quote

First, no one said that miracles were ONLY a sign to authenticate the apostle’s teaching. One wonders why you have to continue to use deception to make your points. One of the reasons for miracles was to confirm the teaching of Scripture. Miracles helped the Jewish people recognize that the Messiah had come as prophet, priest, and King. Miracles are the fulfillment of Scripture, etc.


Pardon my mistating my case.

The Bible never says that confirming scripture was one of the purposes of miracles. Show me scripture if you can prove otherwise.

The Bible does show us that God bore witness to preachers of the Gospel with signs and wonders when they preached the word. The Gospel is still preached today. God had other preachers besides the apostles do signs and wonders at times (Philip, Stephen.)

The Bible also shows that the working of miracles is given to edify the body of Christ. This is found in I Corinthians 12. The body of Christ has not ceased to exist. So citing a list of reasons for miracles, and then stating these purposes have all been fulfilled will not work. The body of Christ still exists and still needs to be edified.


Quote
Second, miracles and such did follow them that believe, however, the Mark 16 promise “in context” was only to the Eleven (Mark 16:14, 17)….


If you accept the passage as inspired, not that the passage says that 'them that believe' will do miracles. It does not say here, 'you' will do miracles, but 'them that believe' which is not limited to the apostles.

Quote
Third, as Jesus says, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign (miracle)” (Matt 12:39). Apparently they still do!


Remember, logic, again. If an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, it does not mean all who seek after a sign are evil and adulterous. In Acts 4, the apostles seek God to do signs and wonders, and He grants their request. That does not mean that they are evil and adulterous.

If I say 'Witches eat ice cream' it does not logically follow that all who eat ice cream are witches.

Quote

Do you have the gift of self interpretation? Above you argued that it did not matter if the canon was closed and here you are arguing that it does matter. Let us know when you can properly interpret yourself.


I do not get your point. Be that as it may, I was listing arguments made and alluded to in the thread, not saying that a closed canon meant the end of prophecy.

Quote

And so what if tongues and their interpretation if done rightly edified the Church—this does not prove that the Church continued to require this edification. We are edified by the Word, by prayer, by the sacraments, etc.


Why should we assume that what the scriptures say is true has changed. The Bible says tongues with intepretation edifies the church. It does not say anything about the church no longer needing that type of edification. Your question is like the homosexual propagandists who asks for proof that Romans 1 still applies today.

I would not argue that teaching the word of God, prayer, and holy communion are not edifying. I will tell you that the Bible also says that prophecy and tongues with interpretation are edifying as well.

Quote

There are no “new” prophecies therefore they are all easy to judge as false!


You don't get out much do you? Apparently, you are aware that people are prophesying, or you would not have made the comments you have about the charismatic movement.


Quote

Actually, we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the sign gifts have been discontinued both from Scripture and church history.”


You have not even made a real case for your position. You repeatedly refer to verses that do not support your assertions. Do you even think about the verses you cite, and if they have any connection to the ideas you put forth?

Your position is one that contradicts direct commands of scripture, and you have such scanty support for your ideas.

#29201 - Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:31 AM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: Link]  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
Link said:

In reply to Covenant In Blood
Quote
Jesus said that a house divided cannot stand, and that if He was casting out demons by the prince of demons, by whom were the sons of the Pharisees casting out demons? The Pharisees were well aware that Satan does not cast out Satan. Blasphemy of the Spirit involves an awareness that the Spirit is at work, and maliciously attributing His work to Satan.


And is this supposed to prove that the Pharisees believed in Jesus, or that He were casting out demons by the Spirit of God? Why would Jesus have to tell them this if this were already in their minds? Jesus exposed a flaw in their reasoning, showing that they were wrong. It was Christ who made this argument, and not the Pharisees, and there is nothing in the text to indicate that the Pharisees had thought of it before Christ said it.


He didn't have to tell them anything. Do you think His telling them was a kind-hearted warning that they might be near to committing this sin? Certainly not! He was rather exposing their evil hypocrisy and charging them with the unforgiveable sin.

Quote
Quote
Not in the least, because it involves just what the offense spoken of is! The offense involves an awareness of Who is doing the work.


This is hopeful eisegesis, and not something that comes from the text. Let us look at the verse in question:

Quote

32. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.


Jesus said that ‘whosoever’ spoke a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him. He did not qualify His statement by making an exception for those who did so in ignorance, or those who lived in the first century. Nor did he say that this teaching only applied to those who saw the miracles He Himself performed. Instead of limiting this principle, he expands it, declaring that such a person will not be forgiven in this world or in the world to come.


Tell me, what does it mean to "speak a word against the Holy Spirit"? Because that is where my argument has been focused. Nor have I said anything about it being applied only to those who saw the miracles being performed. What I said is that to be able to blaspheme the Spirit involves the knowledge that He is and that He is indeed at work! Since He is not at work in modern-day Pentecostal/Charismatic prophecy/tongues/etc., I'm not concerned that I've blasphemed Him.

Quote
If we take Christ’s word as true, we must acknowledge that whoever speaks a word against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this world or in the world to come? This is an uncomfortable, possibly even scary teaching.


Which is precisely why Pentecostals and Charismatics love to abuse cessationists with it! It's a trump card. As long as they claim that their "gifts" are from the Spirit, they can accuse us of the unforgiveable sin. Whereby they also find it very easy to silence opposition to a great variety of false teaching by encouraging "open hearts" which are not so hardened as to be near to blaspheming the Spirit! If we have committed the unforgiveable sin by attributing the modern-day manifestations of the sign gifts to over-active imaginations and devilish lies, you have no reason any longer to continue with us here. However, if we indeed have the Spirit, we need have no fear of blaspheming Him.

Quote
Here is the earliest interpretation of the verse I can find, from around the turn of the first century, speaking of prophets in those days:

11:10 And any prophet speaking in the Spirit ye shall not try neither discern;
11:11 for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.

(I do not agree with way this is worded, btw, but it illustrates that those chronologically close to Christ took His teaching literally on this issue. This document purports to be the teaching of the 12 apostles.)


I take the teaching literally, too, so I'd appreciate it if you quit with your false dichotomy. Not that the Didache is a great aid to you; that section touches on false prophets who speak in the Spirit, and specifically commands disobedience to one who asks—"in the Spirit," no less—for money.

Quote
Christ said what He did on this issue. What should we believe, the words of Christ, or complicated theological arguments that say He did not really mean what He said?


I think we should believe the Scripture before any man who claims to be a prophet.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#29202 - Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:02 AM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: CovenantInBlood]  
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Link Offline
Journeyman
Link  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Jakarta, Indonesia
In response to Covenant in Blood

Quote

Since He is not at work in modern-day Pentecostal/Charismatic prophecy/tongues/etc., I'm not concerned that I've blasphemed Him.



How arrogant of you to presume to feign omniscience regarding the Spirit's work. You say that the Spirit is not at work among Charismatics and Pentecostals. This makes no sense at all in light of scripture. Millions of Charismatics have faith in Christ, believe that Christ died and rose from the dead. There is no scripture that says that people who do not agree with you on every point of doctrine do not have the Spirit at work in their lives. Scripture does not teach it. So how do you claim to know that the Holy Spirit is not at work in them? Do you claim an extra-scriptural 'revelation'?

Millions who believe in the gifts have faith in Christ, and multitudes who have converted from false religions to Christ are involved in churches that are labelled as Pentecostal and Charismatic. Many of the Christians who are persecuted for their beliefs in China and elsewhere would be classified as 'Charismatic.' And you say the Spirit is not at work in them? The Bible teaches that the Spirit convicts even the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. So why would he not be at work among brethren simply because they actually believe the scriptures teaching regarding the gifts of the Spirit.

You are reckless with your words about the Spirit. You should not be careful not to allow your pride in your knowledge of spiritual things outweigh your fear of God. If you fear God, you should not try to take credit from the Spirit for His work.

[quote about him not saying blasphemers had to meet certain criteria]

It is true that you did not mention all of those things. You are, however, asserting that the blasphemer of the Spirit has to meet certain criteria that the Pharisees met in order to be guilty of the sin, when Christ said that 'whosoever' spoke a word against the Spirit would not be forgiven. The problem is that the scripture does not tell us the level of knowledge of the Pharisees. We do not know that they were consciously rejecting the truth. Should they have believed? Of course, but shouldn't any believer who sees or even hears about a true miracle believe it is true, or at least not reject it out of hand? If he believes the scriptures, he should at least be open to the possiblity that it may be true.

I can understand why some theologians want to argue that one must blaspheme with full knoweldge to be guilty. Perhaps they are trying to make this into the same sin that the author of Hebrews mentions in Hebrews 10 when he says 'for if we sin wilfully after we have knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins..." They may also want to put this into the category of the 'high handed' sins of the Old Testament for which there was no sacrifice (as opposed to the unwilful sins for which one could offer a sacrifice.) But we cannot sacrifice the truth of the words of the text to make it fit comfortably into our understanding of things. Christ said that whoever spoke a word against the Spirit would not be forgiven. He does not

Quote

Which is precisely why Pentecostals and Charismatics love to abuse cessationists with it! It's a trump card. As long as they claim that their "gifts" are from the Spirit, they can accuse us of the unforgiveable sin.


Honestly, I have scarcely ever seen or heard a Charismatic mention the unpardonable sin to a cessationist. Maybe Charismatics mention this verse to you because they see how reckless you are with your claims about the Holy Spirit and His works. The fact is, there is nothing in scripture that teaches that gifts did not continue. Cessationist claims are based on human reasoning rather than on scripture. Scripture teaches us to despise not prophesyings and where does scripture say anything at all about signs ceasing? I Corinthians 13 does not even mention the idea, and nor do the other passages under discussion.

This is not a 'trump card' by the way. This is not a game. Perhaps you see it as one, and that may be the reason why you are so reckless regarding your broad sweeping conclusions about the Spirit. It is a logical conclusion based on the text of scriptures, and it is also consistent with early church interpretation of the unpardonable sin.

Quote
If we have committed the unforgiveable sin by attributing the modern-day manifestations of the sign gifts to over-active imaginations and devilish lies, you have no reason any longer to continue with us here. However, if we indeed have the Spirit, we need have no fear of blaspheming Him.


This is a reckless attitude toward the things of God. It reminds me of a misinterpretation of Predestination whereby someone thinks if he is predestined, God will just send him to heaven, and automatically make him obey the commands of God. He does not have to concern Himself with obedience, and just lives like the Devil.
Here you reason that if you have the Spirit, you can't blaspheme anyway. What is the point of putting the warning in Matthew 12 and elsewhere if there were no way one could blaspheme the Spirit. The Bible tells us 'to pay the most earnest heed' in regard to our obedience to the Spirit. The idea that you can't sin against the Spirit, or if you can you are damned anyway is a dangerous attitude. You should be careful to obey God on this issue. Isn't that the attitude we should expect of the saints that persevere?

#29203 - Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:11 PM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: Link]  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
Link said:
In response to Covenant in Blood

Quote

Since He is not at work in modern-day Pentecostal/Charismatic prophecy/tongues/etc., I'm not concerned that I've blasphemed Him.



How arrogant of you to presume to feign omniscience regarding the Spirit's work. You say that the Spirit is not at work among Charismatics and Pentecostals. This makes no sense at all in light of scripture.


No, I said the Spirit "is not at work in the modern-day Pentecostal/Charismatic prophecy/tongues/etc."—i.e., their so-called spiritual gifts. Learn to read!

Quote
It is true that you did not mention all of those things. You are, however, asserting that the blasphemer of the Spirit has to meet certain criteria that the Pharisees met in order to be guilty of the sin, when Christ said that 'whosoever' spoke a word against the Spirit would not be forgiven.


What is it with you and the word "whosoever"? Have I said that one must be a Pharisee to blaspheme the Spirit? No! What I've said is that to be guilty of BLASPHEMY involves a certain level of knowledge—which the Pharisees had. And I most certainly have not said that one can commit such blasphemy and not be guilty of it!

You'd best watch yourself quite closely now! You're putting a plethora of words in my mouth, and that will get you banned from this discussion board very quickly if you keep it up!

Quote
The problem is that the scripture does not tell us the level of knowledge of the Pharisees. We do not know that they were consciously rejecting the truth.


Yes, we do, by the implication of Christ's own words to them, as I have explained.

Quote
I can understand why some theologians want to argue that one must blaspheme with full knoweldge to be guilty. Perhaps they are trying to make this into the same sin that the author of Hebrews mentions in Hebrews 10 when he says 'for if we sin wilfully after we have knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins..." They may also want to put this into the category of the 'high handed' sins of the Old Testament for which there was no sacrifice (as opposed to the unwilful sins for which one could offer a sacrifice.) But we cannot sacrifice the truth of the words of the text to make it fit comfortably into our understanding of things. Christ said that whoever spoke a word against the Spirit would not be forgiven.


Where on earth are you getting all this stuff? Why not deal with what I have said, since it is after all to me that you are responding?

Quote
Quote
Which is precisely why Pentecostals and Charismatics love to abuse cessationists with it! It's a trump card. As long as they claim that their "gifts" are from the Spirit, they can accuse us of the unforgiveable sin.


Honestly, I have scarcely ever seen or heard a Charismatic mention the unpardonable sin to a cessationist. Maybe Charismatics mention this verse to you because they see how reckless you are with your claims about the Holy Spirit and His works.


Bringing up the unpardonable sin to cessationists is a standard tactic from Pentecostals/Charismatics. STANDARD. I dare say any of us here who have been involved in discussion with P/C's regarding whether the sign gifts continue today have heard the same accusation! So it was little surprise to me that you went ahead and brought it up. How ironic that you should say that I am reckless about my claims with the Holy Spirit, when rather it is you who have played fast and loose with my words! When I say that the Spirit is not at work among the modern-day "gifts," it is entirely consistent with what I believe to be the biblical doctrine concerning their cessation.

But you have virtually accused me and any other cessationists of being guilty of the unpardonable sin if we say that the modern-day "gifts" are not genuine works of the Holy Spirit! (Since that is "speaking a word against the Spirit" in your understanding, is it not?) Is this consistent with what you've said to me? Tell me, are you so arrogant as to think that you know that the Holy Spirit is not at work among cessationists?

Quote
The fact is, there is nothing in scripture that teaches that gifts did not continue. Cessationist claims are based on human reasoning rather than on scripture. Scripture teaches us to despise not prophesyings and where does scripture say anything at all about signs ceasing? I Corinthians 13 does not even mention the idea, and nor do the other passages under discussion.


I Cor. 13 doesn't even mention the idea? Are you blind? Read v. 8! You can argue all you want that this doesn't mean that the gifts HAVE passed away, but you cannot argue that it says nothing about the idea that they WILL. And you accuse cessationists of not basing their claims on Scripture! What a crock!

Quote
This is not a 'trump card' by the way. This is not a game. Perhaps you see it as one, and that may be the reason why you are so reckless regarding your broad sweeping conclusions about the Spirit. It is a logical conclusion based on the text of scriptures, and it is also consistent with early church interpretation of the unpardonable sin.


Yes, it is a "trump card"—a way of silencing any and all opponents by backhandedly accusing them of the only sin which is said in Scripture to be unforgiveable. This as opposed to actually presenting any formal refutation of the cessationist postion: instead, the well is first poisoned so that the cessationist position is in opposition to the Spirit from the get-go, rather than after the thoughtful consideration of the whole counsel of Scripture.

Quote
Quote
If we have committed the unforgiveable sin by attributing the modern-day manifestations of the sign gifts to over-active imaginations and devilish lies, you have no reason any longer to continue with us here. However, if we indeed have the Spirit, we need have no fear of blaspheming Him.


This is a reckless attitude toward the things of God. It reminds me of a misinterpretation of Predestination whereby someone thinks if he is predestined, God will just send him to heaven, and automatically make him obey the commands of God. He does not have to concern Himself with obedience, and just lives like the Devil.
Here you reason that if you have the Spirit, you can't blaspheme anyway. What is the point of putting the warning in Matthew 12 and elsewhere if there were no way one could blaspheme the Spirit. The Bible tells us 'to pay the most earnest heed' in regard to our obedience to the Spirit. The idea that you can't sin against the Spirit, or if you can you are damned anyway is a dangerous attitude. You should be careful to obey God on this issue. Isn't that the attitude we should expect of the saints that persevere?


I've already told you, Christ's word about blasphemy of the Spirit was not a warning to believers, but a condemnation of those who had already committed the sin. It is ludicrous to suggest that one who is INDWELLED by the Spirit could blaspheme the same Spirit! Do you believe the Spirit does not guard God's children against such? Obedience to the Spirit is not a work that originates within us, but it is rather a work of the Spirit Himself: "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ" (Phil. 1:6), "for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

Another post like this from you and I myself will ban you.

Good day.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#29204 - Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:36 PM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: CovenantInBlood]  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 983
Robin Offline
The Boy Wonder
Robin  Offline
The Boy Wonder

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 983
Florida
In reply to Covenant in Blood, who wrote:

Quote
Bringing up the unpardonable sin to cessationists is a standard tactic from Pentecostals/Charismatics. STANDARD. I dare say any of us here who have been involved in discussion with P/C's regarding whether the sign gifts continue today have heard the same accusation!


This is one of the most repulsive and hateful things ever to have emerged from Pentecostalism / Charismania. The haves and have-nots. Those who don't speak in tongues and don't believe as they do are at best low-wattage, second class Christians or at worst, apostate, having blasphemed the Holy Spirit if we have dared to say that modern-day Charismatic "gifts" are not from God.

So why not go ahead and come right out with it, Link. Boldly prophecy that all cessationists are going to hell for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

In truth, however, there is only one reason that anyone ever goes to hell: "Because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (John 3:18)."

So since according to you, Link) we're all going to hell for not blabbering unintelligibly and for believing that people who do so are misteken in believing that such nonsenical gibberish is a miracle gift from God, you may as well stop pretending to treat us like "errant bretheren" and tell it like it is.

-Robin

#29205 - Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:45 PM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: Link]  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Wes  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Northwest Indiana, USA
Ken Ewert wrote an article entitled Continuing Revelation – What’s The Big Deal? In this article he describes the arguments made by both the charismatics and the cessationists. I think he makes some good points which hopefully will help you reconsider your position.

He points out that what we practice will divide us. Both sides agree that God speaks to us but they don’t agree on how that is done. He says, “If we get this wrong, we may well get a lot wrong.”

Quote
Cessationists affirm that God works providentially in His people’s lives but deny that God speaks direct new revelation to His people. God’s Word is living and active, and the Holy Spirit leads and empowers His people to apply His word to the specific and varied aspect of their lives. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God... that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16). Scripture is sufficient.


Ken Ewert gives us an example of how personal revelation which gives specific guidance to an individual’s situation undermines the believer’s dependency on the Bible even though they know the modern prophecies are not always accurate.

Quote
The charismatic view of continuing revelation is, in my opinion, mistaken, and it leads to significant troubles. Chief among these is that new revelation acts as a parallel authority which challenges, and often undermines, the unique role of God’s Word in the believer’s life. To illustrate by way of an actual example: A man “prophesies” while praying over a young widowed woman. He encourages her that God would soon give her the desire of her heart, namely a husband. This “prophetic” word purports to reveal, in a very personal and specific way, God’s will for this woman’s future.

Is this form of guidance helpful, harmless, or harmful? If God’s Word is both definitive and sufficient to equip the widow of God for every good work, this other “word” has significant potential for harm. God has already spoken, and is speaking, to the widow’s situation in Scripture. The Apostle Paul encourages widows to, among other things, trust in God, continue in prayer, and avoid living for their pleasures (1Tim 5:5,6). God instructs this widow to give her attention to godly behaviour and draw comfort and strength, not from her knowledge of what the future will hold—like a husband, but from His promises to care for her.

The “prophecy” distracts the widow from God’s Word. This is apt to be true even if she is determined to hold the prophecy in subjection to Scripture. While she may know that Scripture is infallible Revelation and the “prophetic word” is perhaps only partially accurate, the fact that the prophecy is specific to her situation elevates its importance and displaces Scripture.


Even prominent charismatic leaders admit to making many predictions that were wrong. Which makes us wonder where do these errant messages come from? Would we accept the Bible as the infallible inerrant word of God if this were true of any of the prophecies in Holy Scripture? Since modern prophecies are only accurate part of the time we can’t rely on them and they can distract us from relying on the Bible.

Quote
A final concern is that belief in new fallible revelations may, over time, undermine the faith of God’s people in His infallible Word. Don Basham, a prominent charismatic leader, now deceased, wrote that “My personal experience has been that I’ve heard eight or ten times as many erroneous prediction prophecies as valid ones...”6 Other charismatic leaders I’ve spoken to concur with this. At best, “prophecy” that is often false is confusing for God’s people. More serious yet, if God’s message to us is delivered in such an unreliable manner today, how sure can we be that His Word was faithfully delivered to us in Scripture? Is it possible that Moses, Jeremiah, or Paul were, like so-called modern “prophets,” only “fairly accurate”?

Perhaps the burden of proof demanded of the cessationist should be addressed to the charismatic. No verse in the Bible explicitly states: “Prophecy [or revelation] will cease with the completion of redemption and the closure of the canon.” However, neither is there one explicit statement in Scripture confirming the closing of the canon. Charismatics accept the closed canon (as do all orthodox believers), but reject the cessation of revelation. But on what basis do they accept the former and reject the latter? It seems that these two issues—the completion of the canon and the completion of revelation—are indeed the same issue. They seem to “stand or fall together.” If revelatory prophecy, apostleship, and tongues continue, God is still authoritatively speaking and thus on what basis do we believe the canon is complete? We either have a complete and sufficient Scripture or we have continuing revelation. We cannot have both.



Wes


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
#29206 - Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:05 PM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: Robin]  
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Link Offline
Journeyman
Link  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Jakarta, Indonesia
In response to Robin

Quote
So why not go ahead and come right out with it, Link. Boldly prophecy that all cessationists are going to hell for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.


Because that is not what I believe. If one is a cessationist, that does not mean he has blasphemed the Spirit, and I believe a Pentecostal or Charismatic could blaspheme the Spirit as well.

Cessationism is the type of doctrine that could cause one to be more inclined to blaspheme the Spirit, especially if it is mixed with an untamed tongue and arrogance.

I do not believe that one has to speak in tongues to be filled with the Spirit or baptized with the Spirit, so your 'second class Christian' comment does not apply to me.

Quote
In truth, however, there is only one reason that anyone ever goes to hell: "Because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (John 3:18)."


People go to Hell because they sin against God. So anyone who has sinned deserves it. By God's grace we can be forgiven through faith in His Son.

Quote
So since according to you, Link) we're all going to hell for not blabbering unintelligibly and for believing that people who do so are misteken in believing that such nonsenical gibberish is a miracle gift from God, you may as well stop pretending to treat us like "errant bretheren" and tell it like it is.


I do not believe everyone has to speak in tongues. God gives different gifts to different believers. I am not a classical Pentecostal in my beliefs on this issue, but most Pentecostal denominations I know do not teach that you are going to hell if you do not speak in tongues. Generally it seems to be the Oneness Pentecostals that believe you need to speak in tongues and be baptized 'in the name of Jesus' to be saved. Generally, though, Pentecostals are Trinitarian and do not believe tongues is a requirement for salvation.

#29207 - Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:43 PM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: Wes]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710
William Offline
Addict
William  Offline
Addict

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710
.
Wes the article that you recommended is good but the opening paragraph could be better.

Quote
Our answer to the question of whether revelation continues (the charismatic) or not (the cessationist) should not divide us in terms of fellowship. We are all baptised by one Spirit and members of one body (1 Cor 12:13).


I think this man has lost his fire at least with that statement. Fellowship with people who get revelations outside of the Bible? Below is something that was written by Homer C. Hoeksema in "The Voice of Our Fathers" concerning the Canons of Dordt (emphasis mine) which condemned arminianism for those who don't know. The qoute doesn't exactly fit but I think most people will get the point

Quote
. . . Still more, the Canons very specifically define the errors, point out theire danger in many instances, and expressly oppose them with the scriptures in hand.
Objections are sometimes raised against this aspect of our Canons. In fact, there are some who accept only the positive part of the Canons. There are those who say that to be positive is suffient, and that to mention and condemn specifically certain errors is unnecessary. They are usually the same people who never care to hear any rejection of errors in the preaching of the Word. And especially when Our Canons reject the errors of the Arminians at length, and sometimes do so in a very strong and condemnatory language, these people who have been polluted by the false notion of politeness and tolerance of our age and by the silly conception of brotherly love object that an articulate rejection of errors offends people, drives them away from the church instead of winning them, and can serve no good purpose in the church of Christ.


William



Last edited by William; Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:08 PM.



#29208 - Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:33 PM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: William]  
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Link Offline
Journeyman
Link  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
Jakarta, Indonesia
Covenant in Blood wrote

Quote


No, I said the Spirit "is not at work in the modern-day Pentecostal/Charismatic prophecy/tongues/etc."—i.e., their so-called spiritual gifts. Learn to read!



I sincerely apologize for my oversight. I remembered the quote wrong, wrote several responses, and filled them in with quotes later.

However, the fact still remains that you have no scriptural or logical reason for the allegations you have made. Have you considered the idea that some Reformed writers may be right that the gift of prophecy can be manifested in the preaching of the word of God? Warfield seemed to believe this in some places in his work, and in others treats prophecy as if it were a sign gift.

The LXX and NT Greek words for 'prophet' and 'prophesy' to refer to the OT prophets and what they did. It follows then, that what the New Testament prophets did when they prophesied was the same type of thing OT prophets did. Peter describes the prophecies of OT prophets as speaking as moved by the Holy Ghost.

If some preaching is prophesying, if done under the moving of the Spirit, then couldn't some Pentecostal or Charismatic preaching be prophesying? There are times when a preacher says something that ministers very specifically, from the word of God, to a need of an individual. Can't you allow for the fact that a preacher who teacher who does this may be prophesying, speaking as moved by the Holy Ghost?

And what about Pentecostal and Charismatic prophecies. Some prophecies are made up mostly of quotes from scripture put together. How could you say that the Holy Spirit never works through this. Couldn't you allow for the idea that the Holy Spirit works through scripture quoted through the mouth of a Pentecostal or Charismatic who is prophesying?

If you say that the Spirit is not at work in such things, and He is, at least in some of them, then you are not giving the Spirit credit for His work. This may not be exactly the same as what the Pharisees did in calling the work of the Spirit of the Devil, but it is a wreckless thing to do. You are not omniscient, and you cannot say where the Spirit is or is not at work unless God reveals that to you. This is a reckless thing to do.

Search the scriptures. Where do they teach that the gifts have ceased? Take a look at the 'sign gifts' thread. A recent post cites several scriptures that disproved cessationists presuppositions as expressed in one of the chapters of Warfield's book on the subject that is posted in the forum archives. For example, Warfield is wrong to assert that gifts were only passed on through apostles' hands, as scripture shows.


Quote
What is it with you and the word "whosoever"? Have I said that one must be a Pharisee to blaspheme the Spirit? No! What I've said is that to be guilty of BLASPHEMY involves a certain level of knowledge—which the Pharisees had. And I most certainly have not said that one can commit such blasphemy and not be guilty of it!

You'd best watch yourself quite closely now! You're putting a plethora of words in my mouth, and that will get you banned from this discussion board very quickly if you keep it up!


Look at my last message carefully. I said you were arguing that one had to meet the same Pharisees criteria as the Pharisees in order for Jesus' words to apply. I specified later in the paragraph what I meant. You said the Pharisees were blaspheming this ___with knowledge<<---. That was the criteria I was referring to. Sorry if I did not make that as clear as I had intended.

As I pointed out, the Bible does NOT tell us that the Pharisees knew that they were blaspheming the Spirit! You say that you have explained tha they did. But just because you think this makes sense does not mean it is in scripture. Please show me the chapter and verse reference that makes it clear tha the Pharisees knew they were blaspheming the scripture, and if it is not too much trouble, please quote the verse for all to see. You aren't using _The Message_ are you?

The. The passages in question do not say that the Pharisees knew they were blaspheming the Spirit, or that Christ was sent from God. To base a _doctrine_ on your or __assertion__ or __guess__ that they did is not in line with the Protestant axiom of sola scriptura. You have no scripture on which to base your claim that the Pharisees knew that they were wrong.

Should they have known? Of course. But the fact remains that Jesus did __not__ say that only those who knew what they who were guilty of this sin could not be forgiven. He did say that 'whosoever' commited the sin would not be forgiven. 'Whosoever' includes anyone who commits the sin, the ignorant, the knowing, Pharisees, Saducees, European backpackers, Calvinists, Pentecostals, etc.

Is it possible that the Pharisees knew that Jesus was casting out demons by the Spirit of God? Sure, it's theoretically possible. It is also theoretically possible that they somehow knew that the US would put a man on the moon by 1969. But the text of scripture does not say that the Pharisees knew either of these facts.

Again, I can see why some would want to argue that the unforgivable sin has to be wilfull because the 'high handed' sins of the Old Testament had no sacrifice, and because of Hebrews 10:26. But it is dangerous to add things into Christ's teaching that He did not say to make it fit with ones personal view of theology. There is another intepretation of Hebrews 10:26, btw.


Quote

Yes, it is a "trump card"—a way of silencing any and all opponents by backhandedly accusing them of the only sin which is said in Scripture to be unforgiveable.


For a lot of people, discussing these things is not a game, like playing with a deck of cards. It is not about winning an argument by silencing the opponent. Just put yourself in your reader's shoes. If you believed the Holy Spirit were ministering through gifts of the Spirit, and you met someone who said that the Holy Spirit weren't, or worse, attributed these works to the Devil, wouldn't you warn the person and others hearing him?

Pentecostals and Charismatics did not invent a 'trump card' here. They did not get a time machine and sneak these verses into early manuscripts of the synoptic Gospels so as to have a trump card to play on cessationists. No, Jesus gave this teaching.

Quote

This as opposed to actually presenting any formal refutation of the cessationist postion: instead, the well is first poisoned so that the cessationist position is in opposition to the Spirit from the get-go, rather than after the thoughtful consideration of the whole counsel of Scripture.


Ihave presented rather in depth refutation of Cessationism on this thread and the sign gift thread. The 'default' understanding of scripture should be that gifts continue unless scripture says otherwise. Wouldn't you agree with this? The cessationist arguments tend to assume that gifts cease, and stack up arguments for why they should have ceased that are about scripture, but not truly based on scripture.

Here are some underlying false assumptions that are not based on scripture that cessationists use to argue that the gifts have ceased.

--That these spiritual gifts continuing are an attack on the role of scripture, or the doctrine of scripture. The problem with this assumption is that if scripture does not teach that these gifts have ceased, then rejecting them is rejecting scriptural teaching on the gifts.

--That gifts served, more or less exclusively, to confirm certain messengers, now dead or ascended, and their writings. We see from scripture multiple purposes for these gifts, including edifying the church. Furthermore, the Bible does not limit these gifts to confirming Christ and the apostles as other preachers did signs. The Bible does not teach that these gifts confirmed the canon per se. This concept, that miracles were to confirm the canon, is assumed without scriptural support, as a part of an extra-scriptural doctrine of scripture.

--That gifts were only given through the apostles. The Bible shows plenty of counter examples and the doctrinal teaching of scripture is that gifts are given by the Spirit's will

--Misinterpretations of I Corinthians 13. A quote from Lloyd-Jones in one of the cessationist articles on this website pretty well sums up the problem with this interpretation.

I have dealt with many of these doctrines in depth, but have not gotten in depth responses in return from most posters. I can understand that people post in accordance with their level of interest on a subject as well. But it seems many posters on this forum are so sure they are right about this issue that they do not think it necessary to carefully consider if their basic assumptions are flawed on this issue.

Quote

I've already told you, Christ's word about blasphemy of the Spirit was not a warning to believers, but a condemnation of those who had already committed the sin. It is ludicrous to suggest that one who is INDWELLED by the Spirit could blaspheme the same Spirit! Do you believe the Spirit does not guard God's children against such? Obedience to the Spirit is not a work that originates within us, but it is rather a work of the Spirit Himself: "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ" (Phil. 1:6), "for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).


You make some very valid points. God's grace protects believers. But scripture also teaches that we are to 'take heed' and to make our calling and ellection sure.

My understanding of it is that God's grace manifests in us giving us that desire and discipline that allows us to resist temptation-- That God gives us His word, and then He gives us the grace to desire to obey it, and the grace to obey it. We cooperate with His grace, and perhaps His grace is what is behind our co-operation.

The Bible teaches us to take heed lest we fall, and to make our calling and election sure.

Which do you think better is more characteristic the atittude of the man whom the Holy Spirit is keeping from the sin of blaspheming the Spirit, the man who recklessly makes sweeping statements about where the Spirit is or is not working, or the man who guards His tongue and-with the fear of God- is careful what He says about the work of the Spirit? Which description would you rather have fit you?

Quote
Another post like this from you and I myself will ban you.


I apologize for the mistake about the quote above. I can understand your being upset about that.

If you are upset about the content of my post, and my position that it is dangerous to make broad sweeping assertions about what the Spirit is and is not involved in, that is another matter. If I saw you about to get hit by a car, and I could stop it by saying something, I would be morally obligated to speak out. I will write in a way to keep my conscience clear before God, and if you want to ban me for that, that is your choice. Again, I am sorry about the issue with the quote, above, and I will be more careful reading quotes in the future.

#29209 - Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:28 PM Re: Gifts of the Spirit [Re: Link]  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
However, the fact still remains that you have no scriptural or logical reason for the allegations you have made.


Yes I do, and they have been presented numerous times.

Quote
If some preaching is prophesying, if done under the moving of the Spirit, then couldn't some Pentecostal or Charismatic preaching be prophesying?


I don't buy the first premise.

Quote
And what about Pentecostal and Charismatic prophecies. Some prophecies are made up mostly of quotes from scripture put together. How could you say that the Holy Spirit never works through this. Couldn't you allow for the idea that the Holy Spirit works through scripture quoted through the mouth of a Pentecostal or Charismatic who is prophesying?


THAT isn't prophecy, that's Scripture!

Quote
Search the scriptures. Where do they teach that the gifts have ceased?


Those arguments have already been presented to you.

Quote
You said the Pharisees were blaspheming this ___with knowledge<<---.


And I'm saying that it's not "blasphemy" to begin with if there isn't knowledge—not that you have to have knowledge for your blasphemy to count, but you have to have knowledge to even blaspheme in the first place.

Quote
As I pointed out, the Bible does NOT tell us that the Pharisees knew that they were blaspheming the Spirit! You say that you have explained tha they did. But just because you think this makes sense does not mean it is in scripture. Please show me the chapter and verse reference that makes it clear tha the Pharisees knew they were blaspheming the scripture, and if it is not too much trouble, please quote the verse for all to see. You aren't using _The Message_ are you?


You are apparently incapable of reading through an argument. This condescension on your part is entirely inappropriate and, as such, I'm not going to make any further response to this post.

You are BANNED. [Linked Image]

Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Who's Online Now
1 registered members (chestnutmare), 17 guests, and 88 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
November
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
650,082 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.053s Queries: 16 (0.004s) Memory: 2.7374 MB (Peak: 3.0423 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-11-18 06:12:47 UTC