tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post6139113813252334189..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Something "Nice"?Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger168125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3443001356730707642007-11-04T19:48:00.000-08:002007-11-04T19:48:00.000-08:00Dan's right; every major point brought up in the f...Dan's right; every major point brought up in the flood of charismatic comments lately added to this thread <A HREF="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/search/label/da%20Gifts" REL="nofollow">has been answered</A> <A HREF="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/search/label/leaky%20Canon" REL="nofollow">before.</A><BR/><BR/>I've repeatedly <A HREF="http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2006/01/youre-probably-cessationist-too.html" REL="nofollow">explained</A> why it's facile, self-contradictory, and inadequate for charismatics on the one hand to acknowledge that the gifts supposedly operating today are not apostolic-quality manifestations (a point conceded by everyone but the rank charlatans in the charismatic movement), while on the other hand rejecting every argument for cessationism other than air-tight proof-texts. Because there is no airtight proof-text saying that the apostolic-quality gifts would cease and be replaced by lesser gifts, either.<BR/><BR/>As I've suggested many times before, that belief makes charismatics de facto cessationists (albeit cessationists of a different kind) anyway. So they have already conceded the cessationist argument in principle, and when it comes to exegetical support for their position, they face the very same hurdle they claim is insurmountable for full-fledged cessationists. In other words, the position refutes itself.<BR/><BR/>It's also irrational and inconsistent for charismatics to insist on exclusively exegetical proofs for cessationism, while they are insisting that cessationists must exegete the charismatics' anecdotal accounts of private, subjective experiences.<BR/><BR/><B>Note:</B> the miracles, dreams, and visions recorded in Scripture are comparatively rare and never trivial. They always signalled something important that God was doing. If charismatics were producing miracles of that sort, we wouldn't be having this debate.<BR/><BR/>As it is, the anecdotal, trifling, hit-and-miss (mostly miss) phenomena charismatics are pointing to and demanding explanations for strike me as the exact parallel of a file drawer full of material I used to keep when I was acquisitions editor at Moody Press. The drawer held a sheaf of manuscripts sent to me by people who insisted these were verbally-inspired messages they got directly from God—i.e., new Scripture.<BR/><BR/>But I'm a cessationist for exactly the same reason I believe the canon is closed. It's not because I can cite chapter and verse saying how and when the NT would be complete, but because for roughly two thousand years there simply have not been any credible claimants who could do the things Jesus and the apostles did.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23037539650959714412007-11-04T18:19:00.000-08:002007-11-04T18:19:00.000-08:00Absolutely incredible. I honestly don't think I'v...Absolutely incredible. I honestly don't think I've ever heard someone speak (or write) so very much, and looking it all over, see that they've said absolutely nothing what-so-ever.<BR/><BR/>A recap: <BR/><BR/>Adrain, Jesse, Link, Shannon & others - Scripture, Bible, good exegesis, more Scripture...serious points deserving engagement, etc.<BR/><BR/>Phil, occasionally piping in with a good response, with a few others on his side of the debate...<BR/><BR/>and DJP, and I quote: "The burden of proof is on the leaky-Canon set"<BR/>"...not really touched by your response"..."it's hard to see why you're whipping out that old canard." "It has been answered again and again. Perhaps, like Shannon and Laura, you don't like the answer."<BR/><BR/>Or to put it into other terms "Little silly persons, I am not speaking to you" (sticks out tongue and pats himself on the head, much like the French-men in the Holy Grail)<BR/><BR/>I guess I have a hard time believing that you've ever actually contributed anything to a discussion, apart from telling people you've already addressed something. Maybe I should start debating that way..."Well, sir - I've already answered you...even if you weren't here to hear it! Touche' Can't touch this!"<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sure felt like I got my money's worth.Shannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04401200438377027898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-42048352743852404342007-11-04T17:45:00.000-08:002007-11-04T17:45:00.000-08:00wordsmith said"But the Scriptures make us thorough...wordsmith said<BR/>"But the Scriptures make us thoroughly equipped,"<BR/><BR/>The passage does not say that. It says 'that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped'(NKJV)-- not that the scriptures are all the man needs to be equipped. But there is a stronger point in the passage.<BR/><BR/>II Timothy 3<BR/>16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.<BR/>(NKJV)<BR/><BR/>Having a copy of the Bible is not enough to be thoroughly equipped. If you say, "I have the Bible, I don't need salvation, grace, faith, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the gifts of the Spirit because I have the Bible and that is all I need to be fully equipped" you would be in error. <BR/><BR/>The passage does not say that the Bible is all you need.<BR/><BR/>You need the doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness that comes from the scriptures so that you might be thoroughly equipped. So the Bible does not replace it's own teachings. The Bible does not replace grace. The Bible does not replace faith. The Bible says we need the things.<BR/><BR/>The Bible does not replace the gift of prophecy. The Bible says 'despise not prophesyings' and 'covet to prophesy.' This is a part of the 'instruction in righteousness' that you need to be thoroughly equipped. If you reject the instructions of the scripture, you are not going to be thoroughly equipped.<BR/><BR/>Having a copy of the Bible does not do away with the need to follow the teachings of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Using II Timothy 3:17 to argue that there is no need for spiritual gifts is nonsensical. This is especially true considering the historical context. Paul did not say anything about future scriptures or a completed canon in the context of the passage. He is talking about scriptures that already exist as in verse 15, <BR/><BR/>"and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (NKJV)<BR/><BR/>Timothy had these scriptures, and the fact that he had them did not do away with the gift of prophecy or even close the canon. Paul continued on to write II Timothy 3:18 and other scriptures. The gift of prophecy continued.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying it is wrong to extrapolate from this passage that NT scritpure is profitable for correction, etc. But to try to make a case for cessationism out of this passage does not agree with the argument Paul is making in context.<BR/><BR/>And the really strange thing is that the book of Revelation tells about prophecies, and you have all these futurists, dispensationalists and others, trying to argue that prophecy has ceased, and trying to figure out a way to resurrect it for the two witnesses in Revelation. This is really an irrational way of approaching the topic.Linkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00271990233429239770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29241838184432240892007-11-04T17:05:00.000-08:002007-11-04T17:05:00.000-08:00Well, Shannon, Link, it's tempting to say that I h...Well, Shannon, Link, it's tempting to say that I had <A HREF="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/08/when-is-argument-over.html" REL="nofollow">a prophetic word about this very meta</A>. But I won't.<BR/><BR/>I found long ago that Scripture, facts, reason and history are really upsetting to Charismatics. Adduce them and all you get is a "Yeah, but" (if that), a thousand more words, a refusal to deal with what you've already wrote coupled with a puzzling insistence that you write yet more.<BR/><BR/>Then you face a choice. You can pretend (with them) that they've really dealt with what you already said, and are bringing up new and weighty points.<BR/><BR/>Or you can point out that they haven't yet dealt honestly with what you've already said, ask that they do that, and not go on until they do.<BR/><BR/>The former course is endless. The latter provokes criticism about how mean you are, from people who evidently feel that all your time is owned by your critics until the last one admits what you already knew: that you'd answered him, and that he just really hated the answer.<BR/><BR/>So you can get angry, hold your breath, and beat your fists and feet on the carpet if you like. You're not raising one point that hasn't already been spoken to, and you haven't dealt sufficiently with one counter-point.<BR/><BR/>So I think <A HREF="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/08/when-is-argument-over.html" REL="nofollow">this argument is over</A>.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43953528963169095452007-11-04T14:53:00.000-08:002007-11-04T14:53:00.000-08:00Phil or anyone else with some insight,What do you ...Phil or anyone else with some insight,<BR/><BR/>What do you tell someone when they tell you that they audibly heard God speak to them concerning a matter? For example, they were seeking something like whether or not to marry someone or adopt a child. Something along those lines. The person isn't necessarily a "charismatic" either.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>MarkMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01410144337505012175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82934038480227125982007-11-04T11:48:00.000-08:002007-11-04T11:48:00.000-08:00So, Wordsmith...you don't think that Christians ne...So, Wordsmith...<BR/>you don't think that Christians need love, only the Scripture? That sure sounds Biblical! ;-) All analogies break down, but his point was very Scriptural. Why don't you address the ACTUAL point, instead of finding fault with the analogy, which was only an attempt at helping you UNDERSTAND his point. <BR/>Welcome, yet again, to "Adventures in missing the point entirely."Shannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04401200438377027898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58334735851090391772007-11-04T11:44:00.000-08:002007-11-04T11:44:00.000-08:00Having just a rifle is not "thoroughly equipped." ...Having just a rifle is not "thoroughly equipped." But the Scriptures make us thoroughly equipped, so there is no need of ongoing revelation, and your analogy breaks down.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, Paul didn't say "The OT is what's inspired and thoroughly equips" - he said "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God...," which included the NT writings, as Peter recognized Paul's epistles to be.<BR/><BR/>Your comments and remarks are nothing new, and have been answered time and again by TeamPyro and others. It is wearisome to be expected to re-invent the wheel all the time. Try digging around a little (hint: Google is a fabulous tool) and read what's in the archives.wordsmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13694767852556204886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11364757085791787312007-11-04T11:16:00.000-08:002007-11-04T11:16:00.000-08:00Wordsmith, let's be fair...Link stated "YOUR conce...Wordsmith, let's be fair...<BR/>Link stated "YOUR concept of 'sufficiency of Scripture' isn't Scriptural"...not that, altogether, Scripture isn't sufficient. It is good, however, to clearly state what we means by the term. I believe that Scripture is sufficient, and since the Scripture tells me to desire Prophecy, and to not despise it, I seek to hear God that way, and since Scripture tells me that the heavens show of His glory, I recognize that there are things to know of God revealed by the stars and creation, and since the Scriptures encourage fellowship with other believers as a source of growth and strength, I expect to meet God there too. Being obedient to Scripture IS a proper recognition of Scripture's sufficiency. Developing doctrines which entail ideas and restrictions that aren't necessarily in the Word, is not a good way to recognize the Scriptures' sufficiency. <BR/><BR/>I'm pretty much gone for the rest of the day, so I suspect that will be my last post on this thread. Your welcome. ;-)Shannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04401200438377027898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79773454636481423802007-11-04T11:11:00.000-08:002007-11-04T11:11:00.000-08:00Does the verse about the man of God will be thorou...Does the verse about the man of God will be thoroughly equipped and try to use that as an argument about the gifts. But this is nonsensical. If that verse caused revelation to cease,we should throw out verse 18 and the rest of the book, and the books written after it. Also, Paul was likely referring to the OT, the scriptures<BR/>available at that time. Furthermore, the verse doesn't say that the Bible is the only equipment we need, only that the scriptures are given to make<BR/>the man of God fully equipped.<BR/><BR/>The US army gives a soldier a rifle so that he might be fully equipped. But the rifle is not the only equipment he needs. He needs bullets, clothes, and<BR/>a helmet. But the gun is given so that he might be fully equipped.<BR/><BR/>Plus, who would say that if we have the Bible, we don't need love. Just imagine this line of reasoning. "I don't need love because the Bible makesme thoroughly equipped. I don't need honestly, because with the Bible I am fully equipped." What if someone says they don't need the Spirit because they received the Bible so that they might be fully equipped? What if they say they don't need the gifts of the Spirit because the Bible is given that<BR/>they might be fully equipped.<BR/><BR/>This line of reasoning is nonsense because the Bible teaches us that we need love, honest, the Spirit, and the gifts of the Spirit.<BR/><BR/>We need not only a copy of the Bible. But we also need the things the Bible says we need.Linkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00271990233429239770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50010536884688096362007-11-04T11:06:00.000-08:002007-11-04T11:06:00.000-08:00Link:"Your concept of 'sufficiency of scripture' i...Link:<BR/><BR/>"Your concept of 'sufficiency of scripture' is not in scripture."<BR/><BR/>Ahem.<BR/><BR/>2 Tim 3:16-17 (NKVJ):<BR/><B>All Scripture is given</B> by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, <B>that the man of God may be <I>complete, thoroughly equipped</I> for every good work.</B><BR/><BR/>If Scripture is given that the man of God may be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work, that of necessity implies that <I>Scripture is sufficient.</I>wordsmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13694767852556204886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7922606986585619312007-11-04T10:58:00.000-08:002007-11-04T10:58:00.000-08:00DJP...so, I have to prove, to you, that my gifts a...DJP...<BR/>so, I have to prove, to you, that my gifts are genuine? How, then, do you suggest I do that? I already responded here with a slew of miracles that can be confirmed - how would you suggest the individuals contact you, or would you like their emails addresses or numbers? I have a really hard time understanding why you feel the ball is in our court, when the Scripture seems so very clear, and you've given us no reason, so far (though you say again and again that you HAVE - I've not seen it), to believe otherwise. Personally, I guess I'm a bit 'fundy' in that way - if the Bible says it, I really try to make that my belief system, and don't demand that the Scriptures prove themselves, nor do I demand that those following the Scriptures prove themselves. Of course, it is very simple for you to refuse to read the posts that may actually make a point contra yours with some detail - ignoring the fact that I've ALREADY - IN THIS POST - done exactly what you've asked, but ignore it you will, apparently. Seriously DJP - I'm angry. It's rediculous, the games you play. Absolutely rediculous. I'd honestly like to be engaged as a brother - a real person, who's got the same relationship to God that you do, who's digging in the Word and trying to really know God and follow Him, as I hope you are. Please stop writing us off as though we are imbeciles, with responses like <I>"It has been answered again and again. Perhaps, like Shannon and Laura, you don't like the answer"</I>. It's not that I don't LIKE your answer - I haven't SEEN one, seriously. BRING IT! Else all those reading this will just have to assume that you don't because you can't. Of course, you haven't read Carson yet, have you? Maybe you're just delaying until you can get your hands on the book, but if that's the case, just say so. Thanks.Shannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04401200438377027898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47058249253042478392007-11-04T10:45:00.000-08:002007-11-04T10:45:00.000-08:00djpSounds like the issue is this.Your concept of '...djp<BR/><BR/>Sounds like the issue is this.<BR/><BR/>Your concept of 'sufficiency of scripture' is not in scripture.<BR/><BR/>The fact that God gives the gift of prophecy to the church and communicates to the church through other means IS in the scriptures.<BR/><BR/>So the issue is whether to believe what the Bible teaches, or a bunch of man-made doctrines about the role of the Bible, doctrines that contradict the teachings of scripture about spiritual gifts.Linkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00271990233429239770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61156644235113077722007-11-04T10:40:00.000-08:002007-11-04T10:40:00.000-08:00There is plenty of evidence for the spiritual gift...There is plenty of evidence for the spiritual gifts in the Ante-Nicene period.Linkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00271990233429239770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58321609814811700622007-11-04T10:35:00.000-08:002007-11-04T10:35:00.000-08:00DDD -- It is not enough for Cessationism to just u...<B>DDD</B> -- <I>It is not enough for Cessationism to just use the leaky Canon issue [etc etc etc]</I><BR/><BR/>Yes. That would be why we've examined the issue from a dozen Biblical angles over and over again, every one of us, and done what you suggest and more beside. Some snipe at us for not repeating ourselves an eighty-ninth time, others snark at us every time we take up a new angle. I guess they want their money back; hope they kept the receipt.<BR/><BR/>But the leaky Canon fact won't go away, much as it irritates leaky Canoneers. After all, the Pharisees formally affirmed the full authority of Scripture. That should have settled it, if one reasons as your comment suggests.<BR/><BR/>However, as I'm sure you know, Jesus would not have concurred.<BR/><BR/>One can formally affirm something, but deny it in practice.<BR/><BR/>Like what leaky Canoneers do with the sufficiency of Scripture.<BR/><BR/>QEDDJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3189971927308698622007-11-04T10:28:00.000-08:002007-11-04T10:28:00.000-08:00Jorge--I think Shannon's question to DJP really hi...<B>Jorge</B>--<I>I think Shannon's question to DJP really hits at the heart of the issue: ....This has not been answered. </I><BR/><BR/>That's simply not true, much as you might wish it were otherwise. It has been answered again and again. Perhaps, like Shannon and Laura, you don't <I>like</I> the answer. If so, can't help you.<BR/><BR/>The burden of proof is on the person claiming to manifest a revelatory and/or attesting gift. It was thus in Biblical times, it would be so now, particularly after 1900 years of the gifts' absence among the Biblically faithful. Read Deuteronomy 13 and 18.<BR/><BR/>You can join the leaky Canoneers in attempting forty-nine evasions, and it will still be the case: you claim a Biblical-level revelatory and/or attesting gift, YOU have to prove it. You claim they've never left the church, YOU have to prove it.<BR/><BR/>The fact that there's such squealing over this simple and uncontrovertible fact is eloquent testimony to the understandably injured conscience of the modern leaky-Canoneer. <BR/><BR/>They know they don't have the goods.<BR/><BR/>They just don't want to admit it. Ruins their game.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91320926121387394282007-11-04T10:07:00.000-08:002007-11-04T10:07:00.000-08:00dddYou say that he apostles could exercise the sig...ddd<BR/><BR/>You say that he apostles could exercise the sign gifts at will. Can you prove this was always the case? I can think of several scriptures that argue against this idea.<BR/><BR/>One is that in Acts 4, the apostles did just go out and start doing signs and wonders. They actually prayed for God to do them, as if they were dependant on God for these things to happen.<BR/><BR/>Why didn't Peter just traslate himself to John Mark's mother's house instead of waiting for an angel to free him? Why didn't Paul just translate himself to Rome, or out of the sea when he was shipwrecked? Why didn't he just walk on water, at will?<BR/><BR/>Why was Paul sick with an eye infection early on in his ministry, before he wrote Galatians, an early epistle?Linkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00271990233429239770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24953107145420123582007-11-04T10:06:00.000-08:002007-11-04T10:06:00.000-08:00When Phil shuts off comments here, feel free to co...When Phil shuts off comments here, feel free to continue the conversation over at my place if you want. I want to know more about where this idea of 'sign gifts' comes from.....<BR/><BR/>The best post to comment on over at my place is probably <A HREF="http://adrianwarnock.com/2007/11/of-tone-discernment-and-charismatic.htm" REL="nofollow">my latest response to Phil.</A> I use the same comment system as these guys.<BR/><BR/>God bless,<BR/><BR/>Adrian<BR/><BR/>adrianwarnock.comAdrian Warnockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12153686724298326405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1451541881018496512007-11-04T09:55:00.000-08:002007-11-04T09:55:00.000-08:00The concept behind the term 'sign gift' as many us...The concept behind the term 'sign gift' as many use it, is built on an unbiblical paradigm.<BR/><BR/>Yes, signs and wonders did confirm the word. But the Bible never says they confirmed the scriptures, as some have proposed. Philip wasn't an apostle, but he did signs. Jesus even called casting out demons a sign. Some people were casting out demons in His name who were not a part of the apostles' group. They rebuked them, but Jesus corrected the apostles. (Btw, if you believe in casting out demons today, it is inconsistent to say that there are no more signs.) <BR/><BR/>Even in the time described in the Gospels, the apostles were not sovereign over who had the gifts. God bypassed them to fill Paul with the Spirit and make him an apostle. The Wind bloweth where it listeth.<BR/><BR/>The idea that 'sign gifts' only existed as a sign to the Jews and to verify the apostles or the New Testament contradicts scripture. Paul said that the gifts were given to profit the whole body. So even if one argues that the 'sign' aspect of gifts is no longer needed, then the edification aspect of them is still needed.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, there are still unbelievers and there are still unbelieving Jews today. The apostles and perhaps others who heard Christ did signs and wonders when the Gospel was first preached among the Hebrews. But Paul and Barnabas kept doing signs and wonders when they encountered new groups of Gentiles who had not heard the Gospel. There are still people who have not heard the Gospel. The signs in scripture go with the word preached. Nothing in there says they were to confirm the scriptures that were long ago written down. This is a man-made excuse for getting rid of gifts. <BR/><BR/><BR/>One of the key issues here on cessaionism is the idea of protecting a doctrine of sufficiency of scripture. So some preachers and theologians have invented a doctrine that is not supported by scripture, and then they disregard direct commands and teachings of scripture to support this doctrine. The Bible teaches that God communicates to the church through the gift of prophecy and commands 'despise not prophesyings.' But to defend a man-made twist on the doctrine of sufficiency of scripture, certain theologians disregard these scriptures, explaining them away to protect their man-made doctrine.Linkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00271990233429239770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41011959240500737872007-11-04T08:06:00.000-08:002007-11-04T08:06:00.000-08:00Huh??!! 12 hours only. That's too short.OK, anyway...Huh??!! 12 hours only. That's too short.<BR/><BR/>OK, anyway, in response to Link (who responsded to the wrong person, but nevermind):<BR/><BR/>The phrase 'sign gifts' is a theological phrase, just like the term 'Trinity'. They describe the purpose of those gifts that are by nature spectacular (ie. miracles, tongue-speaking, interpretation, fortelling prophecy, words of knowledge etc.). That is to say, the spectacular sign-gifts are meant to show the Jews that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 2:22), and are done by the Apostles to validate their status as Apostles (See the entire book of Acts where only the Apostles can perform and utilize all these sign-gifts <B>at will</B> (unlike the charlatans like Benny Hinn with all their fake healings etc.)). Therefore, since these gifts are meant primarily to validate the authority and Messiahship of Jesus, and the Apostleship of the Apostles, they are in general not operative today because we do not have Apostles today (contra the New Apostlic Deformation).<BR/><BR/>Spiritual gifts do edify the Church. However, why are we operating as if the Church only consists of the peoeple in our particular period of time? We have Apostles - who minister to us through the fruits of their labor from ancienct times. We have Prophets - their prophecy minister to us via the fruits of their labors from ancient times as well as the inspired Scriptures they were led to pen down. We have the gift of speaking in tongues in the Church - as a validation of Apostolic authority for the building up of the foundation of the Church which we now continue to build on.<BR/><BR/>Now, don't get me wrong. I am not against the presence of sign-gifts per se. I do not see strict Cessationism written in the Bible (proving a universal negative is next to impossible, especially when it isn't explicit). Nevertheless, Scripture indicates that the sign-gifts are there for a purpose, and therefore they are not normative at all for the Church of all ages. I have no problems with occasional expression of the sign-gifts under exceptional circumstances which demands it, but to seek after them, to treat them as normative is not something I think the Scriptures advocate.<BR/><BR/>SDG,<BR/>Daniel Chew.Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26383316119865601692007-11-04T07:57:00.000-08:002007-11-04T07:57:00.000-08:00Solameanie:I'm not sure about "supercalifragilisti...Solameanie:<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure about "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious," but one could conceivably see "antidisestablishmentarianism" being used around here, being a 17th-century ecclesiological term....<BR/><BR/>As Cent would say (in so many words), be with the Lord's people in the Lord's house on the Lord's day!Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-21188674431566885402007-11-04T07:37:00.000-08:002007-11-04T07:37:00.000-08:00Interesting discussion. I think Shannon's questio...Interesting discussion. I think Shannon's question to DJP really hits at the heart of the issue:<BR/><BR/>"I, too, believe the burdon of proof is on the cesationists. A simple reading of the Scripture seems to display that the life of a true believer in Christ should be a life lived by the power of the Spirit, with both the Fruit and the Gifts present. Tell me - apart from the fact that you haven't SEEN such (which would be judging the Scriptural accounts by your experience, rather than judging your experiences by the Scriptures), beginning from the Scripture, can you give us a solid reason, Biblically, to believe that the gifts have ceased - particularly one that hasn't already been shown false by Carson? I appreciate your participation in this dialogue and look forward to your response."<BR/><BR/>This has not been answered. The fact is, as far as I can tell, the Bible does not teach cessationalism - and the cessationalist knows that very well! Abuse of a biblical teaching is not justification for prohibiting or rejecting it. What we have seen here are cessationalists responding to the biblical challenge concerning the charismata by side-stepping the question of what the Bible actually teaches concerning the charismata. <BR/><BR/>--A Reformed CharismaticAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89781071834685850332007-11-04T07:03:00.000-08:002007-11-04T07:03:00.000-08:00Sorry I've been tied up this weekend. Interesting...Sorry I've been tied up this weekend. Interesting discussion.<BR/><BR/>Lord willing, I'll be back sometime tonight with a comment to wrap all this up. Then I'm going to close the thread. So if anyone has anything else to say here, you've got about twelve hours starting now to say it.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-72073375706740163462007-11-04T06:30:00.000-08:002007-11-04T06:30:00.000-08:00http://whatum.com/?p=184Benny Hinn Interview with ...http://whatum.com/?p=184<BR/><BR/>Benny Hinn Interview with INM.David A. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465387359523299616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10407617152224063792007-11-04T04:29:00.000-08:002007-11-04T04:29:00.000-08:00DLormanResponding to your reply to Shanon.You ask ...DLorman<BR/>Responding to your reply to Shanon.<BR/><BR/>You ask why God would pour out the sign gift when they are mostly not needed anymore?<BR/><BR/>Can you show any scripture to indicate that they are needed less? The Bible says the I Corinthians 12 gifts are given to profit the whole body. They are intended to edify the church. Where is the scripture that says that the church does not need edifying as much now a it did in the first century?<BR/><BR/>Also, I am unable to find any passage that refers to these gifts as 'sign gifts.'Linkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00271990233429239770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-34078149199083366192007-11-04T04:14:00.000-08:002007-11-04T04:14:00.000-08:00Phil et al:It is not enough for Cessationism to ju...Phil et al:<BR/><BR/>It is not enough for Cessationism to just use the leaky Canon issue. Not all versions of continualism implies that the Canon will remain open. Just because the charismatic movement by and large subscribe to some form of extra biblical revelation which possess a certain standing comparable to the Bible does not mean that all forms of continualism do so. Also, I agree with Shannon as that experiences must somehow be explained. You can't just posit the finality of revelation and discount any experience; you must explain them within a biblical framework. And some experiences are indeed real.<BR/><BR/>Shannon:<BR/><BR/>I hope at the very least, you should realize that the gifts of the Spirit serve the cause of the Holy Spirit as He works in bringing people to Christ. Therefore, the gifts are not an entitlement for any and every Christian, and the Holy Spirit does not need to give them to anyone at any time if He doesn't want to do so. As such, the question I ask is that: Is there any reason why any of the gifts are to be normative for this period (not the exception; I will grant the exception)? Knowing that the gifts are meant for a specific purpose within the context of the development of the Church, is there any reason why the Spirit will pour out the sign gifts again when they are (mostly) not exactly needed?Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.com