The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Response to 'Tongues-Nonsense and Martyn Lloyd-Jon

Response to 'Tongues-Nonsense and Martyn Lloyd-Jones' by Ronald Cooke

See "updated" version of the response here: Updated Response

Link

If you really want responses to that, you are going to have to organize what you said.
It is so disjointed and long that most people would not want to take the time to read it.

Tom

The Bible also never directly says anywhere that the canon is closed, or that God is one Being in three Persons. And yet we know both are true.

Semper

Sorry about the format of this message. I left word wrap on and did not get a chance to fix it until the editting time limit had expired.

I would imagine most Protestant theologians who believe in the Trinity believe that the concept is in scripture.

As for the canon being closed, what is the canon? It is a collection of writings from early apostles and their very close associates that depicts apostolic doctrine, the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Good writings of other men in modern times, even prophetic writings cannot meet these criteria.

Do you believe in 'sola scriptura'?

In reply to:


Indeed. It is in the Scripture, but explicitly. The tri-unity of God is one of those doctrines (like Sunday worship instead of Saturday) that is not directly and explicitly stated or commanded in Scripture, but is nonetheless necessarily true. Here's what I mean by "necessarily" true:

This is a very simplistic example, but it's clear. Let's suppose that there is some verse of Scripture which explicitly states, "all normal dogs have four legs." And let's suppose another one explicitly says, "Spot is a normal dog." In that case, we don't need another verse to tell us that Spot has four legs. We already know that. In fact we are forced to that conclusion. It is necessarily so.

The WCF calls that "good and necessary consequence."

-Robin

I am not denying that. What I am saying is that we don't have a statement in the Bible that God is "one Being in three Persons" but that such a statement can be made by looking at the whole of Scripture. The same is with the cessation of the sign gifts and the closing of the canon.


Yes, I do believe in sola scriptura:

Here is a good definition of sola Scriptura:

I think the burden of proof is on you to show that we still have prophetic writings today. Why do we need more prophesy? What in the Bible is lacking? Didn't the Spirit inspire Paul to write: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" (1 Tim. 3:16-17).

Yes, that was written before the canon was closed, but we already see, in the New Testament, that there were writings that were recognized as Scripture:

2 Peter 3:15-16- "and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."- note the words REST OF

1 Timothy 5:18- "For the Scripture says, 'YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,' and 'The laborer is worthy of his wages.'- the second quotation is Luke 10:7

Again, if you truly believe that prophesy exists today, why not add it to Scripture? Where do you get the idea that it shouldn't be?

What specifically would these be? I know of none...

This is, hopefully, a more readable version of the initial post.

Response to 'Tongues-Nonsense and Martyn Lloyd-Jones' by Ronald Cooke

Ronald Cooke wrote,

This is the logical fallacy of the appeal to fear. The author feels it is scary to think that God could speak through dreams and we would have to be ina position where we would have to determine if a dream is scary or not. Would God do something like that? He did it to His people in the Old Testament and in the early days of the church. So why would He not do that to us? God does not seem concerned with giving us a 'comfortable' theology that allows us to figure everything out in our heads with simple formulas without having to be challenged by determining if something is from God.

So what, the Bible never says that visions or dreams ceased. So we should understand that they continue. The problem with cessationism is that it reaches and grasps and straws--arguments that the Bible must be inferring that the gifts have ceased. These arguments based on human reasoning that goes out on a limb are used to contradict direct _commands_ of scripture.

Scripture __commands__ the saints to covet to prophesy, and to forbid not to speak with tongues.


The same types of gifts the apostles did were given to men like Stephen Philip, and members of the (carnal and immature) church in Corinth.

And I do not see any scripture that infers that the office of apostle ended.


From what I have read, the word there refers to a premature baby. Premies probably rarely made it back then. Maybe Paul had the idea of barely surviving in mind. He used a word that could be taken to imply that he was born too early, rather than born to late, however.

We also see several others referred to as apostles in scripture, such as Silas and Timothy (I Thes. 1:1, 2:6), Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14) and possibly Apollos (I Corinthians 4.) Paul wrote that Jesus ascended on high and received gifts for men, and therefore that God had set apostles in the church. Paul was among the apostles who were sent for after Jesus ascended and received this gift. The 11 apostles were designated apostles by Christ before His ascension.

HIS ARGUMENT


Christ's works were evidence that God had sent him. God bore witness to those who heard Christ by granting that signs and wonders be done when they preached. But the Bible does not teach that confirming Christ's deity or the veracity of the apostle's ministry was the _exclusive_ reason for miracles. In fact, we read in I Corinthians 12 that miracles, among other gifts, were given for the edification of the body of Christ. Whether the canon was completed or not, the need for edification of the church still exists.

The Bible does not teach that revelation is complete or that once the canon is completed, the gifts will cease. That is the issue here--what the Bible teaches. The scriptures teach the gifts are given to the church, and does not teach that they have already ceased.

And God bore witness to the preaching of the Gospel with signs and wonders. The Bible does not teach that God bore witness to the _scriptures_ that would later be written by signs and wonders. This idea is an invention of theologians. If a preacher of the Gospel preaches a true message before unbelievers, God is certainly free to bear witness to that preaching with signs and wonders.

Philip, who was apparently not one of the 12 apostles or author of scripture, did signs and wonders in Samaria. The debated end of the book of Mark says 'the signs shall follow them that believe'-- not apostles.


I Corinthians tells of the gift of working of miracles being done in the church. If signs and wonders are marks of an apostle, this is not proof that non-apostles could not ever do these things as well. "Regular believers' in Corinth and an evangelist like Philip did such things.


The author talks about the gospel (Heb. 2:3-4) which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.5

To use this verse to substantiate continued miraculous activity is to miss the whole import of the verse. As Criswell and others have pointed out, this is one of the strongest arguments against continued miraculous activity found anywhere in the New Testament.<<

If this is one of the strongest arguments against continued miraculous activity found in the New Testament, then the case for cessationism is weak indeed. This verse tells us that the preaching of the word was cofirmed by God by signs, wonders, miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost. It does not say that such occurences had ceased to occurring. Another thing to note about this passage is that it is in line with the pattern in scripture and the longer end of Mark of the Gospel being confirmed with signs and wonders when it is preached, particularly among a new group of people.

Criswell noted:


This is eisegesis. The text does not say that he miracles had died out, but only that the Gospel was confirmed with signs and wonders among the readers when it was first preached. I Corinthians showed a continuation of spiritual gifts, including miracles, after the apostle Paul had left Corinth. The scripture is clear that miracles, healing, etc. were not exclusively for the apostles, were not exclusively for confirming their ministry, and were not exclusively for confirming the deity of Christ.


This is an argument based on fear. The issue is whether or not the teaching of scripture is that supernatural manifestations of the Spirit can continue today. The author is scared of these other manifestations, and uses an argument based on fear to convince the reader that the idea of miracles continuing is scary.

The argument based on fear:
"Hmmm. They told me there is a snake under the sheets. But if there were a snake, that would be scary. Therefore there is no snake."

The author also has a wrong understanding of what the canon is. Scripture is clear that God has given revelation outside of scripture. We do not know what prophecies were spoken about Timothy, even though scripture mentions that some were made. We do not know what Saul said when he prophesied when the Spirit of the Lord came on him. These real prophecies were not recorded in scripture.

What is scripture? What is the New Testament? The New Testament is a collection of writings written by the apostles and their close associates. They represent true apostolic teaching, the faith once delivered to the saints. They are not the sum totality of all revelation from God to man, which we can see if we read what the scriptures actually teach.


This is an unsupported assertion. It is an underlying assumption of cessationists. But this idea is not taught in the Bible, and therefore runs contrary to the Reformation principle of 'sola scriptura.' Those who try to squeeze this idea of sola scritpura end up with a sola scriptura concept that contradicts scripture.


The Word of God and Spirit of God have been foundational to true church teaching since before the New Testament was completed. The Bible simply does not teach that when the New Testament was completed that these gifts would cease. And there is no passage that even connects the idea of 'the perfect' with the ending of the gift of the working of miracles, for example. Cessationists put all gifts that offend a rationalist view of the universe into one category and try to dump them all away.



When Christ ascended, He received gifts for men, including the gift of prophet. Christ told the scribes and Pharisees that He would send forth apostles, prophets, and wise men. After Christ's ascension, Peter said that the scripture was being fulfilled that God would pour out His Spirit on all flesh. So while Christ is the ultimate revelation of God to man, and far superior to God speaking only through prophets, Christ's birth, death, burial, and resurrection did not do away with prophets, prophecy, or revelation-but rather brought a new outpouring of it as the Spirit was given to the church.


The problem with the 'evidential' view of the gifts is that it lacks scriptural support. Sure, God granted that apostles do signs and wonders. But Christ also gave Judas power to do miracles along with the other apostles. He was a son of perdition. God also had Caiaphas prophesy the death of Christ, and in the Old Testament, the soothsayer Balaam prophesied a true prophecy.

Philip did miracles when he brought the Gospel to new territory in Samaria. Philip was not an author of scripture, and was apparently not the Philip who was in the 12 apostles (since, as one of the 7, he had been chosen to help to alleviate the 12 of serving tables.) Yet he did signs and wonders when he preached the Gospel that he had received from the apostles. Philips miracles did not testify that he was a special messenger to receive apostolic revelation from heaven. They did draw attention to the Gospel that he preached, a Gospel he had no doubt heard from the apostles and them that heard them.

Paul wrote that the gift of working of miracles was given to members of the body of Christ. He did not say that it was only for approved messengers. The debated end of Mark says that these signs would follow 'them that believe.'

The idea that miracles was confined only to periods of time when scripture was being written is not a doctrine taught in scripture. As such, it should not be a doctrine of the church. It is 'human reasoning' that appeals to people who already hold to the idea that the gifts have ceased, and are looking for arguments to back up that idea. The new covenant era is different in many ways from the Old covenant era. It is an age of grace. Should we not expect that, now that we are under grace (charis), that there would be an abundance of gifts (charis-mata) in the church? The concepts of grace and gifts are closely tied together, as we can see in the meaning of the words and in the way Paul mentions 'grace' in gifts passages like Romans 12 and Ephesians 4.

MacArthur makes a similar argument to the one above in Charismatic Chaos. If I remember correctly, he argued that miraclees were done during times when scriptures were being written. One problem with this is that Kings was written long after the events occured. It would seem unlikely that any scripture was written in the time of the great miracles done by Elisha, for example. And scripture was being written by two prophets during the time of Ezra, besides the books of Ezra Nehemiah, and whatever other scriptures from the Ketubim that Ezra wrote. But is there any evidence of miracles occuring at that time?

And we should expect there to be more manifestations of gifts in an age of grace, when the Spirit is poured out on all flesh. Christians have the indwelling Spirit. Why should such manifestations be more limited now than they were in Old Testament times, if we obey the scriptures that say to desire spiritual gifts, and Jesus' teaching to pray for what we want (and yes I know the audience was the apostles on this last verse I mentioned.)


Historically, this is untrue, since there continued to be manifestations of miracles and other gifts of the Spirit in the church, including prophecy, after the last of the 12 died. The other major problem with this is that it is human reasoning. The Bible does not teach that these gifts would ceased when the 12 or Paul died. This is an unscriptural doctrine and does not line up with the Protestant principle of sola scriptura.

quote,


The Bible 'leaves us hanging' by leaving the teaching out there that there are gifts of the Spirit in the church. The Bible does not 'cancel' this teaching. So we need to believe it. God does deal with mankind as a whole, with the church as a whole. But He also deals with individuals through gifts of the Spirit.

In Old Testament times, there were prophecies given for specific situations that God did not see fit to have included in scripture. Perhaps they were not of such significance to the church that they needed to be included in the Bible. But they were revelations from God none-the-less. These revelations were not 'unneeded' for the individuals who received them. Someone or several people spoke prophecies over Timothy that were not recorded in scripture, but that does not mean that these prophecies were unimportant or unnecessary. Neither should we label revelations that God gives to people today about their ministries to be unneeded. How many missionaries have gone abroad because they sensed the Holy Spirit directed them to do so?


On the issue of I Corinthians 13, the author argues that 'telion' could refer to something that gradually becomes 'perfect.' This point is irrelevant. Whether telion means something that gradually becomes completed, or something that is completed all at once does not change when the prophecy (or prophecy in part) and knowledge (or partial knowledge) will cease. They cease 'when that which is perfect IS COME.' So whether the perfect thing took a long time to be perfect or not is irrelevant. The in part will be done away with when the perfect comes, not while the perfect is being perfected. Partial prophecy and tongues cease when the perfect comes, not while the perfect thing is becoming perfect.

And from the whole book, there is a good contextual argument for the perfect being the resurrection, or the state of the believer and the creation in the resurrection, since Paul expounds on that topic later in the book. In chapter 13, he mentions tongues, prophecy, and the perfect. In chapter 14 he expounds on tongues and prophecy, and in chapter 15, he expounds on the 'perfect' state of things in the resurrection.

Paul's state in the resurrection will make his then-earthly life seem like childhood in comparison. Paul's state when the scriptures were completed did not. Our having the scriptures does not make us seem like adults and Paul's life on earth at the time seem like childhood. Martin Lloyd-Jones has a valid argument here.



And because John Chrysostom was not well-enough versed in the documents of church history, should we all become cessationists? Perhaps Chrysostom had not read Justin Martyr who argued that there were prophets in his own time, or Ireneaus, who wrote of brethren in his own time exercising such gifts as prophecy, foreknowledge, tongues, miracles, casting out devils, raising the dead, etc. Perhaps he had not read the numerous references to prophecy and revelation of the second century. Your average second century Christian probably took it for granted that such things were possible. If cessationism were the universal teaching of the church, books like the Shepherd of Hermas could never have been so popular. The weight of church history argues against the cessation of the gifts of the Spirit.


This has not been my experience, but I am not from a staunch Reformed background. I would imagine Presbyterians and other Reformed groups who tend to be open to Charismatic gifts tend to be of a more liberal slant, still. Pentecostals and some of the more Fundamentalist Charismatic groups tend to be very much against Modernism.

But if you think about it, all of the Modernism and other such things you complain about are an argument against the idea that perfection has come. There is a lot of childishness, and people being thrown about by every wind of doctrine these days. We have not arrive become a perfect man, or arrived at the full measure of the stature of Christ, either.

The scriptures are not lacking. They are all they are intended to be. But the scriptures teach that God gives some in the church the gift of prophecy to edify the body of Christ. This is a true teaching of scripture. The scriptures are not lacking because the teaching of the scriptures are true.



How does this argue for no more prophecy?

Notice the scriptures are given so that the man of God can be fully equipped, but the passage does not say that the scriptures are all one needs to be fully equipped. you can give a soldier a gun so that he can be fully equipped, but he still needs a helmet. If a man has the scriptures and not the Spirit, or love, or grace, he is not fully equipped. We need the things the Bible teaches us we need to have. Having what the Bible says we need to have is not a threat to the importance of the Bible.

Also, if you are trying to argue that the Bible is all we need from this, keep in mind that 'scripture' at the time is smaller than it was now, so you would be implying that we do not need what was written after this verse of scripture.


Btw, not all prophecy in Biblical times was recorded in scripture. (See Is all revelation in scripture thread for list of examples.) Some of it, though true, was not included. So why should all of it be in scripture today. Prophecies today are not given by people who knew the 12, so if they are written down they do not meet the tests for cannonicity.

[quote] I think the burden of proof is on you to show that we still have prophetic writings today. Why do we need more prophesy? What in the Bible is lacking?[/quote] It may help to state the obvious so that we are on the same page. When Link talks about prophecy, and modern prophetic writings, he is not asserting (as far as I can see) that they are on the same level as Scripture. Scripture is the rule of faith, and by it we test all things, whether modern day prophecies, or even writings from the time of the Reformation. Every word that comes out of the mouth of Frank the prophet at Wildwood Pentecostal church, and every word that was written by John Calvin of Geneva needs to be tested by Scripture. We hold to what is good, and we cast away what is bad. That is why Paul exhorts churches like this: 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 ESV “Do not quench the Spirit. (20) Do not despise prophecies, (21) but test everything; hold fast what is good.” 1 Corinthians 14:29 ESV “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.” But I think you have it backwards. If there is a command in Scripture, the burden of proof is on you to tell anyone why they are not to continue to obey that command. What other commands of Scripture in the NT should we not obey? Imagine having a debate with a homosexual. He is convinced that he can continue to live as a homosexual and still be faithful to God. In fact, he wants to go into the "ministry." You would rightly say, the Scriptures tell us that homosexuality is sin, and God will judge it. In fact, the Scriptures teach very clearly that those who practice that sin will not inherit the kingdom of God. Without blinking an eye, the homosexual says to you, “Yes, at the time of the Apostles, that command was needed because homosexuals were abusive. But homosexuality is no longer like that. We no longer need that command because the Bible is completed, and we are living totally in the age of grace. During the time of the apostles, the church was living in a time of transition between the Old and New Covenant, but praise God, the fullness of grace is with us today. The burden of proof is on you to show me why homosexuality is wrong.” You would say rightly, we are to conform to the teachings of the Bible, not to impose teachings contrary to what the Bible explicitly or implicitly teaches. 1Corinthians 14:1 "Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy."

But I find your illustration wanting and even inapplicable to this discussion on the continuity of the "revelatory gifts". Why? Because re: homosexuality, it wasn't just Paul who spoke out against this sin of perversion, but God Himself throughout the entire Scriptures. The condemnation of sexual deviants is manifold.

Now, in regard to the cessationist argument against "revelatory gifts", it is a bit more indirectly taught in Scripture much like the doctrine of the Trinity; i.e., by good and necessary inference. A proper reading of Scripture sees the historical development of the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Church in the Old Testament went through some significant changes when Christ came. And after Christ ascended, the Holy Spirit brought about yet more changes, aka: maturity to the Church as it gathered together those whom Christ died, i.e., Jews and Gentiles. The infant Church used various "gifts" as its foundation was being built and after its completion the upper structure had no need of the "tools" used to lay the foundation. It seems to me that the Master Builder knew exactly what was needed to bring about the "building" He had planned.

Secondly, one of the arguments which I have brought forth and which has not been addressed, surprisingly (not), is that IF the "revelatory gifts" are still in existence, then they must be authoritative by their very nature, they being from God and thus on equal par with Scripture. Should one argue, which has been done, that there were prophesies which were not included in Scripture, I believe that this in itself proves the case for cessationism for they were not included in the inspired written record. Only those things which the Holy Spirit determined should be perpetually binding on believers for all ages were included in the Canon.

Thirdly, it would appear that Paul's statement concerning the primacy of Scripture are not given their full place in the non-cessationist camp:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV) "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

It seemed good to Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to state that Scripture was sufficient to provide ALL that a believer needs in the matter of doctrine (teaching), reproof (discipline), correction (counsel) and instruction (sanctification). Thus of what use is extra-biblical revelation which claims to add to or at least adjunct that which is 100% sufficient in and of itself? If one should respond that these "prophecies" do not add to Scripture but will and must be in accord with Scripture, then again, they serve no purpose since they allegedly have the same content?

Although there are many other good arguments which could and have been made for "light" Cessationism, IMHO, those above are satisfactory to make the case.

In His grace,

Pilgrim wrote,



I find Matthew's illustration to be quite applicable. There may be a few more verses in scripture condemning homosexual acts than there are direct commands regarding how to view prophecy. However, if we include accounts of God judging prophecies and warnings for not following individual prophecies, there are probably many more prophecies regarding the obligation of the hearer to obey true prophecies from God than there are warning against homosexuality.

The Old Testament warns that if God does speak through a prophet, that He will hold the people responsible to hear the prophet. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to 'despise not prophesyings' but to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. I Corinthians commands believers to covet to prophesy and forbid not to speak with tongues. It commands 'Let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge..

The Old Testament contains commands that he that lies with a man as one does with a woman is to be put to death. It also says 'thou shalt not' lie with a man as one does with a woman.' There are references to 'dogs', and what not to do with their offerings. Paul condemns 'arsenokoite' (sp?) in I Corinthians 6 and refers to them as sinner's the law is intended for in an epistle to Timothy. There are several verses in Romans 1 that condemn the practice.

So if we look verse for verse, both the New and Old Testament condemn homosexual activities. The Old Testament makes it clear that God required His people to hear His true prophets. The New Testament commands believers to desire to prophesy, and commands us not to despise prophesyings.

So "God Himself throughout the entire Scriptures" speaks in favor of hearing prophets as well.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the commands to desire to prophesy and to despise not prophesyings are no longer applicable. You are encouraging people to disregard direct commands of scripture, some of them to the New Testament church, so you had better have a clear case from scripture.

Doesn't it make you uneasy to tell people to disregard direct commands of scripture based on loose theological reasoning and inference? Isn't that a dangerous hermenuetical principle to follow? That is the approach of the homosexual advocates who try to infiltrate the church with their philosophy.




A difference is this: The Bible never says 'thou shalt not believe in the Trinity'. But it does contain commands not to despise prophesying, to covet to prophesy and to forbid not to speak in tongues. Cessationism is in direct conflict with obedience to these commands.



You are making some 'leaps' here not supported by any text in scripture. These are reasons you might give to help 'support' the idea if you already had some proof from scripture that the gifts ceased, but where is the proof from scripture in the first place? The church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets, but this does not disprove the continuance of the gifts, and it certainly does not disprove tongues or miracles.

Your reasoning here seems about as concrete as the the homosexual advocates. Those scriptures do not apply because [insert human reasoning.]


I think the real reason for most cessationism is identity and pride in ones church tradition. Some of the earliest Protestants arguments for cessationism were against the Roman Catholics who claimed they had miracles. The Protestants rejected the idea that real miracles were occuring. Many of the Roman Catholic claims to miracles were entertwined with repugnant practices like the worship of saints and relics. Cessationism may also have been spurred along by false prophets inspiring political revolts and practicing polygamy in Germany.

If someone is proud of his church tradition and his church does not have these gifts, if he allows that they exist, how does that effect his own view of his church traditions? He might have to allow for the idea that some other Christian group of uneducated or strange-acting people might actually have experienced gifts that believers in his circles have not. This idea is a challenge to his belief system and the church tradition he has chosen to follow.

The fact that there are a number of Charismatic preachers who teach error these days does not help either. If one allows for the possibility that God could give these gifts, then does that put him in the same boat with with strange large hairdo's on TBN?
Paul warned the church in Corinth not to divide into camps around different servants of the Lord. Protestantism has divided over leaders, mainly long dead ones, and many Christians associate that historical leader with their own spiritual identity, rather than recognizing the body of Christ.

As far as 'Reformed' identity goes in relation to gifts of the Spirit, after Jack Deere became a PCA pastor, he wrote a book entitled _Suprised by the Voice of God_ in which he recounted stories of prophetically gifted Reformers in the Scottish Reformation. One of them was an older contemporary, and perhaps mentor of John Knox, and he recounts the story of a 'prophet Peden' who is said to have raised the dead, among other things.



I really don't follow your reasoning here. You seem to be arguing against yourself. Many people who do believe in the gifts believe that prophesy now, if it is genuine, is authoratative, but it is not 'binding on all believers for all ages' and is not to be included in the canon. So how does your argument argue against the gifts?

Don't you agree that there were genuine prophecies and revelations not included in scripture?

Since there were extra-scriptural revelations, extra letters of Paul (to the Laodiceans and Corinthians for example), various prophecies not put down, why weren't all the 'anti-cessationist' commands included in these extra-scriptural works and utterances? If scripture is supposed to be 'perpetually binding on believers for all ages', then why would God include commands like the commands to desire and not despise prophesyings in the scriptures? Why do the scriptures say to forbid not to speak with tongues?


First of all, part of scriptural doctrine is that God gives the gift of prophecy to some in the church. Scriptural doctrine includes the command to 'desire to prophesy and forbid not to speak in tongues. "Despise not prophesyings" is included in the commands of scripture.

The verse you quote does not prove the conclusion you make. This is a matter of logic. Paul did not say that scripture provides all the scripture needs. As I wrote in an earlier post:

Notice the scriptures are given so that the man of God can be fully equipped, but the passage does not say that the scriptures are all one needs to be fully equipped. you can give a soldier a gun so that he can be fully equipped, but he still needs a helmet. If a man has the scriptures and not the Spirit, or love, or grace, he is not fully equipped.

If Paul were saying that scripture is all a person needs, then we would not need much of the New Testament scriptures, because many of them were in oral form at this time, and were not 'scriptures' since they were not written down. Plus, Paul had already written to Timothy that by his (extra-scriptural) prophecies, he was to fight a good warfare. Timothy had received a gift through prophecy (not recorded in scripture) with the laying on of hands of the elders.

The proof-texts for cessationism do not stand up to close scrutiny, and the way some cessationists argue them, their arguments attack the inspiration of the scriptures. Another example would be arguing that there were no more prophets after Christ because of Hebrews 1:1-2, when scripture specifically teaches that there were prophets after Christ's ascension. The inspiration of the New Testament is based on the idea that they were prophetically inspired.

First of all, I would just say that I believe that it is God speaking through Paul. "All Scripture is inspired by God..."

Second, the point I was trying to illustrate was that by dismissing commands of scripture without clear scriptural warrant, we are opening ourselves up to the same methodology from Feminists, Homosexuals, Open Theists, etc, etc.

Grace to you!

Link,

You are like a broken record...... the case for Cessationism HAS been made many times over here as well as by the authors of the several articles found here: The Charismatic Movement.

The "proof" for Cessationism is firmly grounded in the right use of Scripture, e.g., the "Analogy of Faith" and allowing for the real continuing work of the Holy Spirit Who brought the Church from its infancy onward to maturity. There are many things which were once binding, e.g., the civil and dietary laws for theonomic Israel which have been abrogated with the coming of Christ. Likewise, prophesies and tongues (a form of prophecy) were relevant for the laying of the foundation of the Church but which "passed away" when they were no longer needed since they served their purpose. This is NOT related whatsoever to the moral code of God, e.g., the prohibition against homosexuality, stealing, lying, coveting, etc. Those who would dismiss those things and claim that they are no longer sins do so most often by using some form of argument based upon "cultural boundness". The case for cessation of the revelatory (sign) gifts is not based upon some "cultural" argument whatsoever.

One of the best polemics against the charismagic position is to be found in a book written by Dr. Richard Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost and another written by Dr. O. Palmer Robertson, The Final Word. Dr. Gaffin is a well-respected N.T. scholar and has soundly refuted such advocates of non-cessationism as Wayne Grudem.

Lastly, yes it cannot be denied that there were prophetic utterances during the Apostolic period which were not recorded in Scripture. In fact, the Apostle John writes that there were MANY things which Jesus spoke and did which were not included in Scripture. But why was that? It was because God determined what was good and necessary for the establishment of the Church and its further development. Thus, ONLY those things which are to be adhered to by anyone are recorded and preserved in the inspired written Word; the Scriptures. This has nothing to do with "pride" as you so falsely claim, nor is it a matter of "tradition", although tradition is a most useful thing and one upon which the Church has survived for over two millennia. See here: Tradition: Romish and Protestant.

You have been given ample time to state your position and to try and further your agenda. I do think it is time you moved on as this Board is firmly grounded on the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, which includes "light" Cessationism. You obviously have no interest in such things.

In His grace,

Except that in your illustration there is neither exegetical nor historcial substance to the argument.