tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post2702081718889734120..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Come Hiatus or High Water ...Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-17652492823627812742007-07-26T20:07:00.000-07:002007-07-26T20:07:00.000-07:00Hey Frank:I stumbled across this tonight at HotAir...<B>Hey Frank:</B><BR/><BR/>I stumbled across this tonight at HotAir and thought of you :-). Enjoy.<BR/><A HREF="http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/25/im-fat-because-of-you/" REL="nofollow"><BR/><B>I'm Fat Because of You...</B></A>SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19933541008297549792007-07-20T07:10:00.000-07:002007-07-20T07:10:00.000-07:00So what you're saying is you can't have any hiatus...So what you're saying is you can't have any hiatus and still have continuance?<BR/><BR/><I>...I think you better tell that to Frank! ;-)</I>Chris Hamer-Hodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15680998868164693275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62944141072510882662007-07-20T06:33:00.000-07:002007-07-20T06:33:00.000-07:00No, you really do have the burden of proof. That's...No, you really do have the burden of proof. That's why you feel you do, and I won't let you shrug it off. You are insisting on continuation; you are asserting that revelation is ongoing. You must provide proof throughout church history, or it isn't "continuation."<BR/><BR/>And any snapshot of any ministry of any faithful, believing man — Spurgeon, Whitfield, Chrysostom, Athanasius, Knox — that doesn't abundantly evidence continuation of <I>exactly the same sorts of phenomena</I> is a problem for you to explain, and a confirmation of the contrary position.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41311233935122904072007-07-19T22:55:00.000-07:002007-07-19T22:55:00.000-07:00Dan,As a historical document the Bible has been pr...Dan,<BR/>As a historical document the Bible has been preserved several orders of magnitude better than any other contemporaneous work.<BR/><BR/>So there is a "cliff-like dropoff" in verified <I>anything</I> relating to church life and practice when compared to the first century accounts in the Word.<BR/><BR/>Also, God is not just sovereign over the use of the charismata in the church. He is sovereign over all things.<BR/><BR/>As a Reformed brother, you must be aware that it is possible for doctrine and practice within the church at large to deviate from the Biblical standard and have to be restored at a later date.<BR/><BR/>But, I don't see why I should have to be on the defensive about these things. Let me ask this question in return:<BR/><BR/>How does the historical fact that the gifts declined in the middle of the SECOND century fit with your understanding of the teaching in Corinthians that "the perfect comes"?Chris Hamer-Hodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15680998868164693275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9596192347924077822007-07-19T12:20:00.000-07:002007-07-19T12:20:00.000-07:00Ah yes. That explains why there's a cliff-like dro...Ah yes. That explains why there's a cliff-like dropoff in verified, apostolic-level revelatory/attesting supernatural works among Bible believers from the first century until....<BR/><BR/>... well, until today!<BR/><BR/>It's because EVERY LAST CHRISTIAN IN THE WORLD succeeded in doing what the first-century church was unable to do: stop the Spirit doing what He wanted to do.<BR/><BR/>Slick.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10457242362364080192007-07-19T12:10:00.000-07:002007-07-19T12:10:00.000-07:00Steve,You are right in that we must base our doctr...Steve,<BR/>You are right in that we must base our doctrine on Scripture, not church history. However, when we do make reference to church history we should make sure we have our facts right.<BR/><BR/>I do hope we can put an end to the spurious claims that there is no historic evidence of charismata past the time of the original apostles. <I>That's just not true.</I><BR/><BR/>Although it is the Spirit who distributes the gifts according to his own Sovereign will (which incidentally is why I dislike the label "charismatic" when it is used in a way that implies he distributes them according to church practice!) we do have a part to play in whether we move in the gifts or not:<BR/><BR/>The spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. (1Co 14:32)<BR/><BR/>Do not quench the Spirit. (1Th 4:19)<BR/><BR/>For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands (2Ti 1:6)Chris Hamer-Hodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15680998868164693275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-32613513984875854032007-07-19T11:43:00.000-07:002007-07-19T11:43:00.000-07:00Funny how we try so hard to make everything that G...Funny how we try so hard to make everything that God claims sovereignty over into a decision we can make.Darylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01296029404229769941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-74549970483459557312007-07-19T11:25:00.000-07:002007-07-19T11:25:00.000-07:00Steve Lamm—...the gifts are sovereignly distribute...<B>Steve Lamm</B>—<I>...the gifts are sovereignly distributed by the Spirit as He wills</I><BR/><BR/>Which to my mind decisively answers every continuationist attempt to explain why the gifts did not, in fact, continue.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-77088580411389926212007-07-19T10:13:00.000-07:002007-07-19T10:13:00.000-07:00Chris hh,You suggested a theory as to why the char...Chris hh,<BR/><BR/>You suggested a theory as to why the charismatic gifts waned in the second century:<BR/><BR/>[My own theory is that it was an over-reaction to the distasteful practices of the Montanists that resulted in the gifts being neglected. A case of baby out with the bath water]<BR/><BR/>I've wondered the same thing myself, but I think this theory has a fatal flaw which is that in I Cor. 12 Paul clearly says the gifts are sovereignly distributed by the Spirit as He wills, for the edification of the church. <BR/><BR/>Are you saying that the miraculous gifts were in fact given by the Spirit, but not put to use or quashed, or that the Spirit stopped giving them? <BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>SteveSteve Lammhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06994451968247281749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-42422166355029691562007-07-19T08:36:00.000-07:002007-07-19T08:36:00.000-07:00> My memory is telling me that my former readings ...<I>> My memory is telling me that my former readings about the mention of the charismatic and miraculous gifts in church history had the church fathers mentioning their use well into the second century.</I><BR/><BR/>I'd rather not get dragged back into this debate until Frank has opened it up again... however since you make reference to something I believe I quoted:<BR/><BR/>Eusebius, the eminent early church historian makes several references to the charismatic gifts being active in the church up to the time of the Montanists (mid Second century)<BR/><BR/>From the way that he makes reference to them it is fairly clear that they were no longer commonplace in his own time (early 4th century)<BR/><BR/>So unless you discredit one of the most valuable sources of early church history, we must place the date that the gifts fell out of use sometime after the middle of the second century.<BR/><BR/>[My own theory is that it was an over-reaction to the distasteful practices of the Montanists that resulted in the gifts being neglected. A case of baby out with the bath water]<BR/><BR/>Here are a couple of quotes:<BR/><BR/><I>The followers of Montanus, Alcibiades and Theodotus in Phrygia were now first giving wide circulation to their assumption in regard to prophecy,—for <B>the many other miracles that, through the gift of God, were still wrought in the different churches</B> caused their prophesying to be readily credited by many</I><BR/>[Eusebius, History of the Church, Bk5 ChIII S4]<BR/><BR/><I>They cannot show that one of the old or one of the <B>new prophets</B> was thus carried away in spirit. Neither can they boast of Agabus, or Judas, or Silas, or the daughters of Philip, or <B>Ammia in Philadelphia</B>, or <B>Quadratus</B>, or any others not belonging to them.”<BR/><BR/>And again after a little he says: “For if after Quadratus and Ammia in Philadelphia, as they assert, the women with Montanus received the prophetic gift, let them show who among them received it from Montanus and the women. <B>For the apostle thought it necessary that the prophetic gift should continue in all the Church until the final coming.</B> But they cannot show it, though this is the fourteenth year since the death of Maximilla.”</I><BR/>[Eusebius, History of the Church, BkV ChXVII S3-4]Chris Hamer-Hodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15680998868164693275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62549178321600711682007-07-19T08:00:00.000-07:002007-07-19T08:00:00.000-07:00Here is what a reformed writer of high caliber wro...Here is what a reformed writer of high caliber wrote not long ago on this matter. He recommended some writers that I need to check out.<BR/><BR/>A work that closely resembles my own position, that presents in its own way some of the points that I would raise, and that does this in an accessible format, is Sola Scriptura and the Revelatory Gifts by Don Codling, a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary and a Presbyterian pastor. If you are going to get only two of the books that I name in this article, get Codling and Ruthven. If you are going to get only one, get Codling. It is not the most substantial work, but all things considered, it is one of the best options for one who cannot afford to read several crates of books on the subject. It shows that not only is there no exegetical basis for cessationism, and that there are biblical reasons to expect the spiritual gifts to continue, but it also brings up what ought to be an obvious point, that the sufficiency of Scripture and the completion of the Canon in fact sustain no necessary connection to the cessation or continuation of the spiritual gifts in the first place. This work serves as an adequate basis to assume the continuation of the spiritual gifts (although there are many others to reinforce it), upon which we may construct other propositions and proposals regarding Christian doctrine and practice. Note that this work does not espouse Grudem's position on prophecy. Indeed, when dealing with false prophecies, it makes a serious and effective use of the power of excommuncation, the kind of stance (regarding excommunication itself, and not just as it applies to false prophets) that I have always asserted, but seldom seen in another writer. <BR/><BR/>From Vincent Cheung at<BR/><BR/>http://www.vincentcheung.com/2007/05/04/some-comments-on-cessationism/Stephen Garretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10866698322854892197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67981484505886303302007-07-19T06:37:00.000-07:002007-07-19T06:37:00.000-07:00To Centrurion:Dear Hiatus:Your name is appropriate...To Centrurion:<BR/><BR/>Dear Hiatus:<BR/><BR/>Your name is appropriate for I believe surely there has been a “hiatus” in the granting of the nine miraculous gifts. <BR/><BR/>Allow me to kindly address the following things you say in today’s writing.<BR/><BR/><BR/>“...miraculous gifts, but those gifts were specifically for the fulfillment of Joel 2.”<BR/><BR/>Has Joel 2 been fulfilled? Has all things been restored? Have we had the commotions in the heavenly bodies of which it speaks? “I will pour out of my Spirit” is continuationism, is it not? Why are not the other things associated with Joel’s prophecy? Maybe we do not have God given dreams and visions because we think this has ceased for us today?<BR/><BR/>“...open a history book and point out the fact that the gifts did, in fact, cease.”<BR/><BR/>Yes, I agree. But, you failed to point out a precise date in history. Can you give that? If the “strict cessationists” are correct in their interpretation of the “perfect” (I Cor. 13) as being the completion of the “canon” of scripture, or the writing of the Book of Revelation, in AD 95, then we have the date of their “official cessation,” do we not? I don’t accept this view, but at least some can point to a date, based not on history, of course, but upon an inference drawn for a false interpretation of the “perfect is come.” <BR/><BR/>My memory is telling me that my former readings about the mention of the charismatic and miraculous gifts in church history had the church fathers mentioning their use well into the second century. Perhaps some reader can help substantiate that. I will certainly look into it when I have time. (I hope someone will save me the time!)<BR/><BR/>“The earliest apologists for the church never once pointed to on-going miracles and signs as a substantiation of the church's connection to God or for their authority.”<BR/><BR/>Again, this goes back to what I said above. Have we really checked thoroughly the annals of early church history on this point? Also, did not Hanserd Knollys believe he had a gift of healing and brothers went to him for healing?<BR/><BR/>“I would agree, in one sense, that 1Cor offers us guidance on this issue. The question is whether Paul offers us "a healthy doctrine of charismata", or if Paul instead is speaking to what a healthy, well-rounded spiritual life is in light of the Gospel.”<BR/><BR/>Why does one exclude the other?<BR/><BR/>“In the continualist view, the gifts are the way the church at any given point in time demonstrates and exercises its connection to the Holy Spirit, right?”<BR/><BR/>Yes, and no. Does this not all go back to one simple principle that Jesus taught? A principle that cannot be made to apply to a sub dispensation within the church age? What is that principle? “If you had faith as a grain of mustard seed...” If we had greater faith, faith that only God can give, in whatever degree he chooses, and to whom he chooses, could we not still work miracles? Or, is the statement of Christ not applicable today? Should we not seek this greater faith?<BR/><BR/>“If the charismatic doctrine is actually that deep and wide, why is it so far from being present in that form in the NT?”<BR/><BR/>I think perhaps it is! Read Piper’s treatise again!<BR/><BR/>“...why does the NT not tell us to follow the gifts around rather than what it does tell us to do –– which is follow the healthy teaching of doctrine?”<BR/><BR/>Again, I do not see that one excludes the other.<BR/><BR/>“...and for the record, the weakest, least-compelling aspect of John Piper's theology –– Dr. Piper being someone I greatly admire –– is his cautious expression of the necessity of the practice of the miraculous gifts today.”<BR/><BR/>I thought it was very compelling. When I first read it, I said, “this is just what I have been seeing and saying!”Stephen Garretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10866698322854892197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-14075096274543599962007-07-18T15:04:00.000-07:002007-07-18T15:04:00.000-07:00It's all fun and games until I compose a 16-page r...It's all fun and games until I compose a 16-page rebuttal ...<BR/><BR/> ... we'll see who's laughing after you all have to read THAT. HA!FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58559929291588258552007-07-18T14:52:00.000-07:002007-07-18T14:52:00.000-07:00Daryl: you said "I'm not sure that many concepts m...Daryl: you said "I'm not sure that many concepts more complex than 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' can be supported by a single verse alone." True, but you have to start somewhere! Also, the originator of the blog considered this verse significant in the debate. In my judgment this verse does not prove cessationism.<BR/>As regards church history and experience of others: C.S. Lewis once gave the analogy of doing math, and then asking someone you trust to check the sums. I myself am not a charismatic (for lack of a better word), but I know charismatic brothers and sisters who I *know* love Jesus and who have made great sacrifice to preach the gospel to people in great need and poverty. And they clearly exhibit the fruits of the Spirit: joy, love, peace, in abundance. I have learned a lot from them about prayer and worship. Haven't ya'll ever met Christians like this as well?Eclectic Pietisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00406401732112222244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-21238416940606383782007-07-18T13:52:00.000-07:002007-07-18T13:52:00.000-07:00... to comb over everything I have ever written, s...<I>... to comb over everything I have ever written, said in conversation, taught, sang or preached ...</I><BR/><BR/>Will that be available for BibleWorks 7 any time soon?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05397172952048926482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51350926446662032352007-07-18T13:34:00.000-07:002007-07-18T13:34:00.000-07:00And besides, on Dan's (absurd) standard of proof —...And besides, on Dan's (absurd) standard of proof — suppose I say that I have conclusively proven that the revelatory charismata have fulfilled their purpose and are non-operative.<BR/><BR/>Doesn't it then become Dan's burden to comb over everything I have ever written, said in conversation, taught, sang or preached, and prove that I <I>haven't</I> so done?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-52492206648638532192007-07-18T13:31:00.000-07:002007-07-18T13:31:00.000-07:00True, Scott; me... and John Calvin, Martin Luther,...True, Scott; me... and John Calvin, Martin Luther, Charles H. Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, John Knox, John Owen....DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-64285453485157860422007-07-18T13:14:00.000-07:002007-07-18T13:14:00.000-07:00Is no one else bothered by this:Dan [E.] said:You ...Is no one else bothered by this:<BR/><BR/>Dan [E.] said:<BR/><BR/><I>You claimed Paul discussed nothing of the charismata in his letter to Timothy, but he clearly does by recalling the action of a revelatory word of God confirming the pastoral role of Timothy!<BR/><BR/>How we miss this! When we deny that type of prophetic word spoken over our leaders, we create an environment of doubt wherein men not fit for the pastoral role are allowed to become pastors because we have said that God no longer reveals His will through charismatic prophecy!<BR/><BR/>What a tragedy for the Church! When we toss away the charismata, we toss away this type of confirmation used to confirm the roles of specific individuals within the Church. We then go on blindly to install folks God may not have confirmed because we base their confirmation on things outside the Spirit. And for this error, we've damaged the Church. <BR/><BR/>God gave that prophetic word then and He will do so today if we believe that He will. Our problem is that too many people say the charismata have ceased. Therefore, God has given us over to the vagaries of installing people into positions of leadership who do not have His confirmation by means of prophetic revelation.<BR/><BR/>The implication is clear.</I><BR/><BR/>So, Dan [P.], he need not listen to you -- he's unceremoniously defrocked you and every other pastor-teacher not ordained by charismatic prophecy!<BR/><BR/>ScottUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05397172952048926482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11607336022681434492007-07-18T12:47:00.000-07:002007-07-18T12:47:00.000-07:00Isn't the evidence that the sign gifts are not in ...Isn't the evidence that the sign gifts are not in use, and that the only ones we see are not biblical, somehting that can be used to support cessationism?<BR/><BR/>For instance, Noah lived to be 950 years old. Man! I'm glad God changed that.<BR/>But could someone live to be 950 years old again?<BR/>Sure if God wanted them to.<BR/><BR/>Just a thought.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19468812190194786022007-07-18T12:39:00.000-07:002007-07-18T12:39:00.000-07:00DLE—Phil lumped all charismatics in with charisman...<B>DLE</B>—<I>Phil lumped all charismatics in with charismaniacs. I very gently noted that</I><BR/><BR/>Wrong, as has been pointed out to you, repeatedly.<BR/><BR/><I>Phil and I have come to terms on this discussion</I><BR/><BR/>Is that right, Phil?<BR/><BR/><I>It's bothersome that you do not wish to address these issues head-on, but elect to try to twist them so as not to give a cogent response point by point.</I><BR/><BR/>Wow, you really haven't ever read even one post of mine on the toic, have you?<BR/><BR/>On second thought, given your unrepentantly (see above) miserable mishandling of Phil's — never mind.<BR/><BR/>And meanwhile, since I already demonstrated by Scripture and logic that your position is absurd, I'll stand pat. (Note: repeating yourself is not a response.)DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-77549517225226426462007-07-18T12:10:00.000-07:002007-07-18T12:10:00.000-07:00I realize I'm only an onlooker to this conversatio...I realize I'm only an onlooker to this conversation (and happy to be, I'm finding it very instructive), but where Dan (DLE) says:<BR/><BR/>"...You not only have to rebut their continuation in a soundly Scriptural way, but you need to prove that not one single genuine gift has manifested since the deaths of the apostles (or the close of the canon, depending on what kind of cessationist you are). You've got most of Church history around the globe to examine. Good luck."<BR/><BR/>Methinks he's WAY overstepped the authority of scripture issue. If the case for cessationism can be made in a soundly Scriptural way, why then, what may or may not be found in church history has exactly no bearing whatever on the questions being asked. <BR/>If cessationism is scriptural, then anything that appears to be an example of a sign gift just isn't. Simple as that.Darylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01296029404229769941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88111973570912779872007-07-18T12:08:00.000-07:002007-07-18T12:08:00.000-07:00DLE: "Phil lumped all charismatics in with charism...<B>DLE:</B> <I>"Phil lumped all charismatics in with charismaniacs. I very gently noted that. Phil and I have come to terms on this discussion."</I><BR/><BR/>See, the thing is: I <I><B>didn't</B></I> "lump all charismatics with charismaniacs," and your response (if I may say so mildly) was <B><I>perhaps</I></B> not as good a model of gentleness and restraint as you fancied.<BR/><BR/>I thought we "came to terms" because I pointed out (from a lengthy context) that I didn't actually say what you seemed to think I said in the post that set you off. As Dan said, others have pointed this out to you as well. But you keep making the same assertions.<BR/><BR/>Is it your idea of "coming to terms" that you get to keep reinventing what I said in my original post in your own terms?Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76515329080544950322007-07-18T12:03:00.000-07:002007-07-18T12:03:00.000-07:00No one disputes that charismatic gifts are clearly...No one disputes that charismatic gifts are clearly described in Scripture as being in operation. The thing is: Is this <I>descriptive</I> or <I>prescriptive</I>? If the latter, is there any indication that such gifts are to be expected throughout this entire present age? We cessationists would argue "no," and I would even venture to say that the miraculous workings we read about in Acts are descriptive, and hence not normative for the church today. It is this failure to distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive that leads in part to such fruitiness as "anointed prayer cloths" and the like.<BR/><BR/>The Bible clearly tells us about floating axe-heads and muddy eye salves which heal blindness, but that doesn't mean that we have a reasonable expectation for such things today.wordsmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13694767852556204886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-64725881404155028402007-07-18T11:10:00.000-07:002007-07-18T11:10:00.000-07:00DJP (Dan),Yes, the burden of proof is on you to pr...DJP (Dan),<BR/><BR/>Yes, the burden of proof is on you to prove that all charismatic gifts have ceased given that the Bible clearly shows them working.<BR/><BR/>It's bothersome that you do not wish to address these issues head-on, but elect to try to twist them so as not to give a cogent response point by point.<BR/><BR/>I make no pretense to support bogus gifts or the ones who use them. But you try to avoid my points by lumping real and bogus gifts together and then saying that all are bogus.<BR/><BR/>That's flawed logic, yet it seems like every comment you have made since this conversation began continues to use that same sidestep to avoid confronting the real truth that gifts are to continue.<BR/><BR/>Yes, the burden of proof is on you to say that no longer exist. You not only have to rebut their continuation in a soundly Scriptural way, but you need to prove that not one single genuine gift has manifested since the deaths of the apostles (or the close of the canon, depending on what kind of cessationist you are). You've got most of Church history around the globe to examine. Good luck.dlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02475467561892290120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-84791570982578464342007-07-18T10:58:00.000-07:002007-07-18T10:58:00.000-07:00DJP (Dan),Phil lumped all charismatics in with cha...DJP (Dan),<BR/><BR/>Phil lumped all charismatics in with charismaniacs. I very gently noted that. Phil and I have come to terms on this discussion.<BR/><BR/>That's over for both of us.dlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02475467561892290120noreply@blogger.com