tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post1710866728300837303..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: "Continuationist" dodge (NEXT! #11)Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger127125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-37144565141906278222009-04-25T16:02:00.000-07:002009-04-25T16:02:00.000-07:00Yes, the Storms article does make the sort of argu...Yes, the Storms article <I>does</I> make the sort of argument <I>I</I> say it makes. This may not be the same thing as saying it makes the sort of argument <I>you say</I> I say it makes.<br /><br />And then, since anyone who wants can read my brief post and his longer post and draw his own conclusion, let's let it lie.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11990635283430442342009-04-25T13:00:00.000-07:002009-04-25T13:00:00.000-07:00On Rule 1:
Dan, my thought was, "Oh, if I simply ...On Rule 1:<br /><br />Dan, my thought was, "Oh, if I simply misunderstood which article he was talking about... I wish he would've pointed it out." I didn't think you were obliged to correct it; I thought that simple correction is helpful. I especially didn't think your obliged to respond to arguments. (And yes, I thought of Rule 1 yesterday, when I noticed that you didn't reply. I thought, "Oh well.") <br /><br />And apparently I didn't misunderstand. You <I>were</I> referring to Storms' article. <br /><br /><br /><br />I already said that "summary" was the wrong word, and proceeded to explain myself. You respond by saying, "I wasn't summarizing." I don't expect you to respond; I do expect that if you respond, it's after listening.<br /><br />To quote you, "Shall I copy and paste my response to the first iteration?"<br /><br /><br />I'll leave it with this, unless you choose to interact more specifically:<br /><br />No. Storms' article didn't use the arguments you're responding to. "God doesn't change" and "Scripture doesn't expressly list expiration dates" are not part of his article.<br /><br />Your argument isn't aimed at every kind of reference to continuity or to a lack of Biblical warrant for cessationism. It depends on how those concepts are used, and how much weight it put on them. None of which you know, from "an 'outline' with little substantive content to explain each point."Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-85367973787454639372009-04-25T12:07:00.000-07:002009-04-25T12:07:00.000-07:00I summarized the argument, and I allused to his ar...I summarized the argument, and I allused to his article, which also employs it. That I was summarizing Storm's article was your fabrication.<br /><br />You haven't already noticed that I don't feel obliged to respond to every snark or emotional outburst of yours (such as the one to which you allude) or anyone else's, or follow you (or anyone) into every argument over every space between every letter of every post that I write?<br /><br />Then take notice. That's what Rule 1 is about.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26650985428868172862009-04-25T12:03:00.000-07:002009-04-25T12:03:00.000-07:00Hmm. I think my last line was a good summary--tha...Hmm. I think my last line was a good summary--that you read his article, and think he would disagree with your point. And I'm saying his article shows nothing of the sort.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86457684506177175222009-04-25T11:56:00.000-07:002009-04-25T11:56:00.000-07:00"Take away this argument, and they don't have much..."Take away this argument, and they don't have much."<br /><br />Two arguments, actually. The "there must be a verse" argument, and the "God worked that way in the past, and God doesn't change" argument.<br /><br />I disagree, but "No they don't"/"yes they do" isn't particularly productive.<br /><br /><br /><I>"And remind me, where did I say my intent was to summarize Sam Storms' entire attempt at an argument?"</I>.<br /><br />I was talking about this comment:<br /><br /><I>"Not at all, thesgc; the focus is exclusively on anyone calling himself a "continuationist" and leaning on the argument that the gifts must continue, because God doesn't change, Scripture doesn't expressly list expiration dates, etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />Like the article I linked to in the post."</I>.<br /><br />When I mentioned your "summary", I was referring to this. To the idea that Storms was leaning on the argument that gifts must continue because God doesn't change, and that Scripture doesn't expressly list expiration dates.<br /><br />Perhaps you actually meant, "This post is focused like Phil Johnson's post was focused." If so, then I misunderstood you. (And I wish you had corrected <A HREF="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21212024&postID=1710866728300837303#c2024343940864155528" REL="nofollow">that misunderstanding</A> earlier.)<br /><br />Note: I'm not saying you intended to summarize the entire set of 12 points, in that quote. ("Summary" implied that. My bad.) I'm saying, he did use <I>some form of</I> the concept of continuity & lack of Biblical support for discontinuity. But whether he using your translation is another matter. And how he was "leaning" on them is a matter of how those points interacted with his other points. (Unless you think he was saying, "These are 12 standalone proofs of continuation"?)<br /><br />Without taking into account the context (and the development of the outline in the actual lecture), you don't know how he applied those concepts. You don't know how he leaned on them. You don't know what he said about the limitations of each argument.<br /><br />And you don't know whether he would agree with your post.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-63193504136050702712009-04-25T10:33:00.001-07:002009-04-25T10:33:00.001-07:00Take away this argument, and they don't have much....Take away this argument, and they don't have much.<br /><br />And remind me, where did I say my intent was to summarize Sam Storms' entire attempt at an argument?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-2656626796904029872009-04-25T10:33:00.000-07:002009-04-25T10:33:00.000-07:00Ah, Dan, good! Thank you for your last comment. ...Ah, Dan, good! Thank you for your last comment. The second paragraph gave me some clue how you would have responded to my earlier <A HREF="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21212024&postID=1710866728300837303#c3396524095839690218" REL="nofollow">on-topic questions</A> about the matter, had you decided to reply.<br /><br />I'll think about what you said. I wasn't separating apostleship & Scripture-writing, at least in my mind. But I need to review my comments, because I see where you got that idea. And... Well, I need to think about it. Thank you. (Though I <I>don't</I> see any connection in Acts or the epistles between <I>prophets</I> in early church, and the writing of Scripture.)<br /><br /><br />And I'll repeat my agreement with you, which you may have missed: That charismatics need to be more open to the idea that the Bible give a <I>basis</I> for the idea that some gifts would cease without explicitly <I>stating</I> that they would cease.<br /><br /><br />But I also want to encourage everyone not to accept you reductionistic simplification as Gospel Truth. It's not that you're totally off-base--it's that you're stripping away nuance & sophistication that <I>is</I> sometimes present, and that doesn't fit your criticism. As I said before, I've seen such simplicity from <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Surprised-Power-Spirit-Jack-Deere/dp/0310211271/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240679470&sr=1-1" REL="nofollow">Jack Deere</A>--also from <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Hearing-God-Developing-Conversational-Relationship/dp/0830822267" REL="nofollow">Dallas Willard</A>. It's there, and I see it sometimes from the average charismatic on the Internet.<br /><br />But, for instance, arguments about the characteristics of the New Covenant do <I>not</I> fall into that simplistic category. Nor does every request for Biblical justification for cessation fit this simplistic form. Nor does every statement, "There's no passage that teaches cessationism" translate to "Unless I have a verse, I won't believe cessation." And your "summary" of Sam Storms' article was only recognizable by the slimmest margin. (Even aside from the fact that Storms <I>said</I> it was an outline of a talk, without the development of each point. Meaning that you over-simplified an already simplified outline.)<br /><br />It reminds me of the way some people report Young Earth Creationist arguments in overly-simplified forms. I've seen the simple forms, but I've also seen the better forms.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57136318361678130852009-04-25T10:29:00.000-07:002009-04-25T10:29:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7707215909606643712009-04-25T09:47:00.001-07:002009-04-25T09:47:00.001-07:005:15 AM, April 23, 2009; 5:55 AM, April 25, 2009 W...5:15 AM, April 23, 2009; 5:55 AM, April 25, 2009 Who gets up that early?<br /><br />Yeah I meant the Pop.<br /><br />And I was thinking along this line: "hundreds of inerrant, morally-binding Bible books by now!"<br /><br />And about <A HREF="http://www.peterpopoff.org/" REL="nofollow">Peter Popoff's Miracle Spring Water</A>, but that's another story.<br /><br />Then I was thinking about authority and how it is that the charis guys seem to have their own and that ends up infecting the underlings. Eventually everyone becomes their own authority but if you attack a pop figure the lemmings rally to the defense, knowing that if his infallibility is challenged, theirs falls victim too...<br /><br />anyway, there is something not right about inerrant, morally-binding and ongoing that paves the way for things like blacks can't fill the priesthood, women can be elders, sex-talk from the pulpit is cool, repeating unsubstantiated stories of healings and resurrections, speaking in tongues and not knowing what it means means they're real, and justification of other stuff like the writing of weird novelly books that aren't technically theology texts, but that are really neat new ways of expressing Christian "truth" also known as shackin up...<br /><br />By that time my medication was kicking in so I went and watched The Last Samurai and meditated upon the meaning of sake and why some like it hot and some like it not.<br /><br />Stefan my WV was bedoznni. I am beginning to suspect some ominicient spiritual force. It just doesn't seem random. But then, how does random determine what is not.Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66334965953092117362009-04-25T09:47:00.000-07:002009-04-25T09:47:00.000-07:00Takin... "demonstrate" may be true, but it's just ...<B>Takin</B>... "demonstrate" may be true, but it's just a bit stronger than I'd say. I'd say it accords well with that understanding, and makes the best sense. Given that both offices necessarily entail inerrant direct revelation, and given that the full inauguration of the New Covenant (particularly given the "mystery" aspects) required additional revelation, what you're suggesting makes the best sense to me.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76965530017597822312009-04-25T08:58:00.000-07:002009-04-25T08:58:00.000-07:0019 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,...19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22 ESV)<br /><br />Does the foundational nature of the apostles and prophets demonstrate that those offices, as opposed to elders and deacons, had a limited duration?takinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760291553608925513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55708503842090148842009-04-25T08:24:00.000-07:002009-04-25T08:24:00.000-07:00The charismatics' argument is a simplistic argumen...The charismatics' argument is a simplistic argument. It is also almost universally used by them, and is a major prop to their system. Remove it, and much logically follows that isn't supportive of their diversion.<br /><br />Also, <B>comeinfromtherain</B>, it should be noted that Jugulum's atomizing insistence on a facile divorcing of the authorship of Scripture from the office/gifts of apostles and prophets (and the inauguration of the New Covenant), as if it were just an explicable and unrelated happenstance, is not really supported by Jesus' description of the offices and their function, and probably would not be persuasive to many. Nor should you miss that adding any qualifiers to the office of apostle, <I>absent</I> an explicit verse limiting the gift, is still another confirmation of the point of this post.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39554491758095358632009-04-25T07:02:00.000-07:002009-04-25T07:02:00.000-07:00comeinfromtherain,
Yeah, you're missing the point...comeinfromtherain,<br /><br />Yeah, you're missing the point.<br /><br />You're defending the idea of extra-biblical revelation. Which was the topic of the previous NEXT.<br /><br />This NEXT is focused on the simplistic argument, "You can't say that the gifts ceased unless you have a verse that says they would." Because charismatics <I>do</I> agree that <I>other</I> NT activities ceased. They agree that Scripture isn't being written anymore--and there's no verse that says so. (Unless you think 1 Cor 13 applies--and charismatics don't think it does.)<br /><br />So that applies to any charismatics who simply argue, "God used to work that way, and God doesn't change, so he works that way now." It does <I>not</I> apply to charismatics who argue, "Acts 2 describes the characteristics of the New Covenant." Because Scripture-writing isn't part of that description of the New Covenant.<br /><br />And again, as for apostleship: There isn't a verse that says "apostleship will cease", but it does seem to include "being an eyewitness" in the definition. So charismatics can point to that biblical warrant for saying apostleship will cease.<br /><br />Of course, that means charismatics need to be open to another idea. There doesn't have to be "a verse" to justify cessationism. The Bible can define the purpose of certain gifts in a way that <I>implies</I> they'll cease.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26801456747286859712009-04-25T05:57:00.000-07:002009-04-25T05:57:00.000-07:00Yes, comeinfromtherain, I understood it the first ...Yes, <B>comeinfromtherain</B>, I understood it the first time you said it. And I replied. You saying it again is not, to me, endearing. Shall I copy and paste my response to the first iteration?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-59217887847273534052009-04-25T05:55:00.000-07:002009-04-25T05:55:00.000-07:00Strong Tower — Well, I'll try to answer that withi...<B>Strong Tower</B> — <I>Well, I'll try to answer that within this NEXT...</I>THANK you. Really! (c:<br /><br /><I>Now the Catholic Church has its charismatic sense if one considers that the Pop has a special....</I>Did you mean to write "the Pop"?<br /><br />Either way, I'm cracking up.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81853698163636116322009-04-25T00:15:00.000-07:002009-04-25T00:15:00.000-07:00Sorry, if I didn't make myself clear. The implica...Sorry, if I didn't make myself clear. The implication that I got from your post was based on what I thought was a progressive logic. <br /><br />A) ALL revelation from God is the same, it equals Scripture.<br /><br />B) "if" someone claims to hear from God then it should (by virtue of "A" being true) be tacked onto to Scripture.<br /><br />C) So... a continuationist's Bible must be huge by now.<br /><br />I was thinking that the logic of the argument was already lost at point "A", and that Fred Butler may be wrong in his assumption that there couldn't be more than one kind of revelation from God.<br /><br />Phillip's daughters (Acts 219)were prophetesses. That to me would imply that they prophesied (IE. received revelation from God). But, nowhere are the words of their prophecies recorded in the Scriptures. <br /><br />Now, if they prophesied and the Lord did not consider that it was necessary for those words to be added to the Scriptures, (giving reasonable credibility to the idea that perhaps it was because they weren't the kind of revelation that needed to be in the Scriptures). <br /><br />How then can you not consider that someone who claims to receive some revelation from God today also may not consider the words of the revelation to be on the same level as Scripture either?<br /><br />I am NOT arguing for continuationism in this post, ONLY that the logic by which you are seeking to oppose it, is faulty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31469337825802643732009-04-24T23:51:00.000-07:002009-04-24T23:51:00.000-07:00"Why? What is it about Reformed theology that dema..."Why? What is it about Reformed theology that demands cessationism?"<br /><br />Well, I'll try to answer that within this NEXT: "You guys must have hundreds of inerrant, morally-binding Bible books by now!"<br /><br />One piece of the heart of the Reformation "was" Sola Scriptura-<br /><br />Now the Catholic Church has its charismatic sense if one considers that the Pop has a special gift which enables him to receive special, infallible revelation and such. He even speaks Latin which everyone knows is the tongues of angels ;)<br /><br />Anyway, it seems to me that personal, special revelation, works contrary to the essential doctrine of the Word as the infallible final authority for faith and practice. Somehow it just doesn't fit.<br /><br />The other reason is somewhat along those lines but really has to do with academic traditions, roots and origins of the movements and the fact that the "emotive" charisma aberrations are found almost exclusively among the non-Reformed. Having come the long road into the Reformed camp I was only familiar with the Arminianism of the emotives. So for me there was an assumption that the two went together and were necessarily incompatible with the Reformed message.<br /><br />Now if I have to weigh the balance it would tip to the cessationist side if only for the first reason I gave. What I have found in the second case is what I stated before, whether Reformed or not, I find the argument within the continuationist camp to be unable to square itself with Scripture in much the same ways when defending it.Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-69831239708171183382009-04-24T19:58:00.000-07:002009-04-24T19:58:00.000-07:00Oops. I fell befoul of the new Blogger html tag cu...Oops. I fell befoul of the new Blogger html tag curse.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88721049889537807422009-04-24T19:51:00.000-07:002009-04-24T19:51:00.000-07:00Thanks, but:
Either you're making a comment that ...Thanks, but:<br /><br />Either you're making a comment that would have been appropriate under the Next! about prophecy, and not this one; or...<br /><br />You don't get what this Next! is about. It isn't about the nature of prophecy. It is about <I>continuationism</I>. If one wants to argue (as linked in the article above) that NT events continue because there's no verse (it is claimed) that says they won't, then <B>show me the Scriptures!</B>See?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86733413090497615712009-04-24T19:46:00.000-07:002009-04-24T19:46:00.000-07:00I'm thinking there might be omething to the "it's ...I'm thinking there might be omething to the "it's revelation but it's not THAT kind of revelation" argument.<br /><br />Phillip had four daughters who were prophetesses. I would find it hard to comprehend how the could be called prophetesses if they never, ever prophesied. But we have not a single word in the Scriptures telling us what they prophesied. <br /><br />This leads me to conclude one of a couple of things; 1. either God does speak or reveal stuff (or at least has done so in the past). At it was not recorded in the Scriptures, because it was "not THAT kind of revelation". <br /><br />or <br /><br />2. The "prophesying" meant "preaching" and would then lead me to the possible conclusion that the gifts have therefore not actually ceased but changed somewhat, (special revelation not being necessary any longer as we have the completed canon of Scripture). <br /><br />Would that latter belief make one a cessationist? IE. Not believing that the gift of prophecy to have ceased but rather to have moved into the greater emphasis of speaking forth the word of God as opposed to speaking forth the new revelation of God.<br /><br />Another possible example might be the Apostle Paul receiving a revelation of Heaven, which he didn't record the details of in the Scriptures. <br /><br />Just a thoughtAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87721536710011397452009-04-24T16:21:00.000-07:002009-04-24T16:21:00.000-07:00Strong Tower said, "It confuses me, somewhat, to f...Strong Tower said, "It confuses me, somewhat, to find the Charismatics within the Reformed camp."<br /><br />Why? What is it about Reformed theology that demands cessationism?<br /><br />Some believe that you cannot be baptistic and reformed?<br /><br />Someone even said that to be consistently Reformed you must be a premillinialist.<br /><br />Certainly, your overarching theology must interact with all the secondary parts, but I fail to see why Reformed theology is incongruent with believer’s baptism, amillinialism, or continuationism.takinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760291553608925513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-20364723364875891452009-04-24T15:18:00.000-07:002009-04-24T15:18:00.000-07:00"Having come in through Pentacostalism and waded ..."Having come in through <B> Pentacostalism and waded through the mire of Charismaticism, the thing that moved me along was the striving to understand.</B> I came to the simple conclusion that with all the <B>chaos in either manifestations or doctrine something wasn't right.</B> Dr. W. Martin was a great help."<br /><br />Martin was a great help in winding my way through the maze of the cults and his works on the mind-science cults and the connection between them and the Third wave types like John Wimber and C. Peter Wagoner and the prosperity Gospel, (Copeland was my guide into tongues), as well as the various branches of the Manifest Sons of God movements, (I was a fan of Earl Paulk), et cetera. Before becoming a believer I had experienced all manners of power occult. To me it charisma was religion as normal, just a rival. Walter Martin's apologetics ministry did indeed help de-con my fusion.<br /><br />You needed to read all that I said. It was the inconsistency in docrine and the chaos and confusion to which I was alluding. Sorry to name drop. I can see how it might well cause your synapses to misfire.<br /><br />But there was also this: "It confuses me, somewhat, to find the Charismatics within the Reformed camp."<br /><br />I don't expect that everyone should be perfect, but generally I do expect the Reformed to think. What I did learne from W. Martin was to search futher and establish. I still credit him for bringing me out of those circles, for without him I wouldn't have had a clue as to what might be amiss. When I landed in the SBC I discovered they had no reasons, just traditions, and after more than fifteen years there, I realized they weren't any better off not knowing why they believed than I had been when I thought that I did. Now, W. Martin was an SBCer, but he still had much to do with my leaving it behind. Some day they might learn what the authority of Scripture is to go along with inerrency, and some day I might return. But I digress. The fact that Martin was ordained Episcopalian (if I remember right), but a quasi-non-cessationist/SBCer, means little. It was his apologetic approach to the faith that helped me.<br /><br />It's a sign Stefan.Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-40491771892413321752009-04-24T15:11:00.000-07:002009-04-24T15:11:00.000-07:00I have no comment, but I just noticed the verifica...I have no comment, but I just noticed the verification word is "ourucle."<br /><br />Kind of like a genuine "oracle," but not...?Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88564134101411351282009-04-24T14:33:00.000-07:002009-04-24T14:33:00.000-07:00Misunderstanding of the other side abounds... on a...Misunderstanding of the other side abounds... on all sides.<br /><br />For instance, the last two audio defenses of cessationism that I heard. Neither displayed any awareness of the "fallible prophecy" view. (I'm not saying that they disagreed, or argued against it. I'm not saying, "They assumed prophecy is always infallible." I'm saying, "They assumed that charismatics believe prophecy is infallible.")Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87350683066947460822009-04-24T14:26:00.000-07:002009-04-24T14:26:00.000-07:00And I'll ditto that. He was a real man with a spad...And I'll ditto that. He was a real man with a spade in his hand.<br /><br />Hank Hannegraaaaf is a little bird that goes and pecks up someone else's seed here and there.<br /><br />CRI was a <I>great</I> thing, in Martin's heyday.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.com