tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post7056555250659907564..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: It never endsPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8627165475403679292008-09-12T15:38:00.000-07:002008-09-12T15:38:00.000-07:00JugThe issue is whether or not sign gifts still ex...<B> Jug</B><BR/>The issue is whether or not sign gifts still exist. The text in question does not address that point in particular it rather addresses an event happening at the present time. They hadn't ceased yet but they would. Earlier Paul said quite explicitly that tongues would cease. That's where the argument really lies and I've gone into that several times over the course of this series in detail. <BR/><BR/>If you don't like what I've done with Paul's citation of Isaiah that's o.k. and your desire to see greater work done on the passage as a whole is valid. I don't have time right now to get into it in any greater detail right now. I'm just checking in on my way out the door and I won't have time to continue this. I've got a full plate this weekend. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, good talking with you. See you next time.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-6038697665576082712008-09-12T10:55:00.000-07:002008-09-12T10:55:00.000-07:00"did in fact me" == "did in fact mean""did in fact me" == "did in fact mean"Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46092356360780835352008-09-12T10:54:00.000-07:002008-09-12T10:54:00.000-07:00Chad,I'll give your argument some more thought."Fi...Chad,<BR/><BR/>I'll give your argument some more thought.<BR/><BR/>"First off, I don't think your charge that I failed to provide exegesis is fair, for one thing, you haven't given me any exegesis at all but rather isogesis. I believe you have come to the text with a certain presupposition and it's coloring your view."<BR/><BR/>Chad, it's entirely possible that my attempted exegesis of 1 Cor. 14:20-25 was flawed, and that I was reading things into it that were not there. It might turn out that my exegesis was eisegetical.<BR/><BR/>That has nothing to do with whether or not you provided exegesis of the passage, which you did not.<BR/><BR/>I say that because you have still not walked through Paul's use of Isaiah to lay out what he did in fact me. You have critiqued my attempted exegesis--and yes, you used exegetical techniques to do so. You have not offered your own positive exegesis of what Paul is talking about. In what sense does he mean that tongues are a sign for the unbeliever and prophecy a sign for the believer? How does that fit with what he has already said about uninterpreted tongues? How do interpreted tongues fit in? How do verses 23-25 fit with Paul's application of Isaiah 28?<BR/><BR/>In other words, you may have exegeted a phrase, but you have not exegeted the passage.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-75079148820966633402008-09-12T10:38:00.000-07:002008-09-12T10:38:00.000-07:00Besides, I think you're overlooking the fact that ...Besides, I think you're overlooking the fact that it was common for people to speak more than one language in that part of the world at that time.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-32019715675137246552008-09-12T10:34:00.000-07:002008-09-12T10:34:00.000-07:00Jug First off, Paul does not quote Isa 28:11 verba...<B> Jug</B> <BR/><BR/>First off, Paul does not quote Isa 28:11 verbatim, but even the application of the text in the context of Isaiah is still that since the Jews would not listen to the gospel God has taken the oracle once reserved for them and given it to the Gentiles. This is an application of many of the first shall be last theme of scripture. he's not talking about making the word of God unintelligible as a sign of judgement but rather giving it to men who are not Hebrew. <BR/><BR/>The gospel does have the effect of condemning those who reject it, but that's because they know what the message is. The understand it and still reject it such as with the Pharisees. <BR/><BR/>Remember, Paul says that the gospel was given to the Gentiles in order to make the Jews jealous, not to make the word of God unintelligible. Besides, it it's unintelligible how will they know it's the word of God? If I go down to the Hindu Temple which has been constructed in my town and people start speaking in strange utterances that I don't understand I'm not going to assume that they're speaking the word of God and thereby provoke me to jealousy. <BR/><BR/>First off, I don't think your charge that I failed to provide exegesis is fair, for one thing, you haven't given me any exegesis at all but rather isogesis. I believe you have come to the text with a certain presupposition and it's coloring your view.<BR/><BR/>When I said that Paul says that it is "by men of other tongues" and that the text says they will not listen, not that they will not be able to understand because it's in a language that's strange to them, that is exegesis. I have read the text and interpreted according to what it actually says given the rules of grammar and context. <BR/><BR/>Your insistence that it could mean since it's was in a foreign language that would make it unintelligible is isogesis, you are reading into the text something it does not say. You are making an assumption but you are not exegeting. Remember, when tongues were spoken there was to be an interpreter so all could understand. That sort of squashes your whole point of the word of God being unintelligible.<BR/><BR/>The point is that this text in no way supports the notion that tongues continue to the present day, especially since Paul says quite explicitly they will cease.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86792424732044517702008-09-12T07:30:00.000-07:002008-09-12T07:30:00.000-07:00Jug I have to head to work right now. I'll try ...<B> Jug </B> I have to head to work right now. I'll try to comment more when I'm on my lunch break.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-69728791607790075212008-09-12T06:56:00.000-07:002008-09-12T06:56:00.000-07:00Chad,I wouldn't criticize you for not having done ...Chad,<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't criticize you for not having done a particular study into the precise meaning of the words--I hadn't either! And I understand that this isn't a very good venue for doing so.<BR/><BR/>My point was that your brief, extremely confident dismissal of my sketch <B>depends on the results of such a study</B>. And you called it a counter-exegesis--when it was nothing of the kind.<BR/><BR/>Your comment was a good argument--I want to check into this, and it might be a fatal flaw in the view I presented. But if you want me to follow you into your position with the kind of confident attitude you displayed--well, it requires serious attention to God's word before I could do that.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50337032957564194022008-09-11T16:30:00.000-07:002008-09-11T16:30:00.000-07:00Jug I have rule that I follow as closely as poss...<B> Jug </B> I have rule that I follow as closely as possible. I know just enough Greek to know that I can be dangerous to myself and other with it. Like James White always says, a little Greek is a dangerous thing. So as a result I try to never bring up what the Greek says in blog discussions. Most of the Lexicons available to people like you and me will not give us enough information to determine the full range of meaning of a particular word. Even when a good a and broad range of meanings is given you and I are not really going to be able to say with certainty which definition is best and we often try to pick the one we like best over and above which meaning is demanded by the grammar and syntax.<BR/><BR/>So, no I haven;t done a word study, and checking the Greek can be very helpful in personal study and I do it often and encourage others to do so I try to never bring it up in blog discussions. It really is beyond the realm of most of us to discuss properly and we can do just fine with only the English which is something even the less learned can follow without feeling left out. <BR/><BR/>I don't mean to be dismissive but I have to go right now. If the comments are open later maybe I'll have a chance to comment further. Anyway, good discussion Jug.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-21815559917391140462008-09-11T16:17:00.000-07:002008-09-11T16:17:00.000-07:00"It says quite clearly, by men of strange toungue..."It says quite clearly, by men of strange toungues i.e. foreigners, the gentiles. Nothing is said at all about unintelligible speech."<BR/><BR/>But if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. (Do you agree? Yes, no?) If yes, then a statement about "people of strange tongues" has application when I do not know the meaning of what I'm hearing.<BR/><BR/>Oh, sorry. I forgot the quotation marks around my first sentence. Paul <A HREF="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Cor+14%3A11" REL="nofollow">said it</A>, not me. :) I hope you said "yes". 1 Cor. 14 is most certainly about uninterpreted tongues, i.e. speech that is unintelligible to the hearer. (Whether it is unintelligible to the speaker would take more examination than we've given--and I have to run to my small group.)<BR/><BR/>And no, you have not offered counter-exegesis. You have argued that there's a flaw in mine; you have not exegeted the passage, or explained Paul's use of Isaiah.<BR/><BR/>Now, you're right that hear/listen makes a difference. Have you done a word-study to find out what the Greek & Hebrew mean, and if there's any ambiguity? Can it mean both, or is it specifically "pay heed to"? If yes, good. If not, what are you doing being so confident?<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure. I need to find out. So, there are two things to do before I could possibly decide that you're right:<BR/>1.) Do a word-study on <A HREF="http://net.bible.org/search.php?search=eisakouo" REL="nofollow">eisakouo</A> and <A HREF="http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=08085" REL="nofollow">shama</A>.<BR/>2.) Exegete the alternative meaning of the passage.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88223283255876780642008-09-11T15:56:00.000-07:002008-09-11T15:56:00.000-07:00Jug Paul doesn't say they won't understand, he sa...<B> Jug </B><BR/><BR/>Paul doesn't say they won't understand, he says they won't listen. There's your counter exegesis. <BR/><BR/>Like I said, unintelligable gobbledygook as a sign of judgment is not in view here. This text has nothing to do with the babbling that so often goes on when people claim to be speaking in tongues. <BR/><BR/>It says quite clearly, <I> by men of strange toungues</I> i.e. foreigners, the gentiles. Nothing is said at all about unintelligible speech.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-83852828935124677732008-09-11T15:44:00.000-07:002008-09-11T15:44:00.000-07:00Frank You said; " I'd count Paul as a cessationist...<B> Frank </B><BR/><BR/>You said; <I>" I'd count Paul as a cessationist as we see his letters to Titus and Timothy. Those are his last letters, and oddly, as he commissions the next generation of leaders who will carry on after his death, not one word about the use of signs in the church, the prophecy over Timothy notwithstanding."</I><BR/><BR/>Precisely. I agree 100%Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-83994026281260552122008-09-11T13:29:00.000-07:002008-09-11T13:29:00.000-07:00So, to summarize:In the apostolic era:1.) Signs au...So, to summarize:<BR/><BR/>In the apostolic era:<BR/>1.) Signs authenticated the eyewitnesses & apostolic authority.<BR/>2.) Prophecy did not play an authoritative role.<BR/><BR/>Paul's comments in the Pastoral letters suggest that in the post-apostolic era:<BR/>1.) Signs will not authenticate personal authority. (Though they could accompany evangelism without implying personal, apostolic-type authority.)<BR/>2.) Prophecy could continue to play a non-authoritative role, if that's what it was doing before.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45548076032808338522008-09-11T13:20:00.000-07:002008-09-11T13:20:00.000-07:00[1] Agreed.[2] "If Paul saying there is a revela...[1] Agreed.<BR/><BR/>[2] "If Paul saying there is a revelation which is not Scripture, all the wheels come off all the rails for a lot of people."<BR/><BR/>I'm not clear--Are you saying you're one of those people? That you think all revelation that God has ever given is contained in Scripture? I wouldn't agree--we only have two prophecies of Agabus in Acts, and it strains credulity to think that he was only given those two. Also, we don't have everything that Jesus taught, which would all be revelation. The canon contains all inspired scripture, and all revelation required for "doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness"--but not all revelation God has ever given.<BR/><BR/>[2] "Paul says to Titus that the church is to be lead by elders who have faithfully received the word and then who faithfully teach the word. Not those who will prophecy"<BR/><BR/>Amen. That was my point. Prophecy isn't supposed to play that role--faithful elders who can teach the Word are.<BR/><BR/>And that only indicates cessationism if the first generation of the early church <I>did</I> use prophecy in that role. I don't see that happening in the NT. Isn't <I>that</I> suggestive?<BR/><BR/>[2] "That should be a very telling fact for anyone concerned about supernatural signs, but often it is not."<BR/><BR/>I agree. Paul's comments to Timothy and Titus are very suggestive about the role of miracles--they were <I>not</I> going to be a continuing authentication of the authority of a church leader.<BR/><BR/>[3] "Now, why reason to that inductively? Because we have to recognize the purpose of Isaiah-like prophecy, and consider that the other sign gifts have the same purpose."<BR/><BR/>Uh... You mean <A HREF="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Corinthians+14%3A1-5" REL="nofollow">upbuilding and encouragement and consolation</A>? Timothy receiving a word <A HREF="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Timothy+4%3A14" REL="nofollow">revealing a gift</A>? Convicting an unbeliever and <A HREF="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Corinthians+14%3A24-25" REL="nofollow">calling him to account</A> so that he falls down and worships God?<BR/><BR/>Those are the Isaiah-like purposes that you have in mind?Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-69799095212771927182008-09-11T12:58:00.000-07:002008-09-11T12:58:00.000-07:00Note: I wrote my previous comment before seeing yo...Note: I wrote my previous comment before seeing your reply. I'm now writing another.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90566055639242280512008-09-11T12:56:00.001-07:002008-09-11T12:56:00.001-07:00In other words, I don't expect to find the pas...In other words, I don't expect to find the pastoral letters repeating everything about the continued practice of the church--but when Paul is talking to Timothy about leadership & authority in the church, I <I>do</I> expect to find references to prophecy & signs if they play that kind of role.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-13362513406922057312008-09-11T12:56:00.000-07:002008-09-11T12:56:00.000-07:00Jug --That's actually a great question. I have an...Jug --<BR/><BR/>That's actually a great question. I have an answer in multiple parts.<BR/><BR/>[1] I think that we often miss the clear problem in the NT that the word "prophet", it can mean anything from Isaiah, to any prophet like Isaiah, to someone in the school of the Prophets, to someone who was gifted with speaking encouragement or praise or wisdom, to someone who was possessed by a demon and had supernatural knowledge of events or information.<BR/><BR/>So when we find that word in use someplace, we have to determine what the speaker meant by it -- and I think context -always- tells us what they meant by it.<BR/><BR/>[2] When we say that the "Isaiah-like" role of prophet is frankly missing in the NT (John being the last of the OT prophets), we then are left with what is meant, for example, when Paul exhorts Timothy to remember the prophecy spoken over him, or when Paul exhorts the Corinthians to "earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy." If Paul saying there is a revelation which is not Scripture, all the wheels come off all the rails for a lot of people.<BR/><BR/>But clearly, Paul says to Titus that the church is to be lead by elders who have faithfully received the word and then who faithfully teach the word. <I>Not</I> those who will prophecy. The primacy of Paul's teaching is unquestionably the standard of the second-generation church.<BR/><BR/>In that, the availability of signs is frankly <I>not even addressed</I> by Paul when instructing both Titus and Timothy. Fidelity to Scripture, however, is. That should be a very telling fact for anyone concerned about supernatural signs, but often it is not.<BR/><BR/>[3] Lastly, if we confess that Isaih-like prophecy has ceased -- even though Scripture never says explicitly that it has ceased -- we should inductively reason that the <I>lesser</I> gifts have also ceased.<BR/><BR/>Now, <I>why</I> reason to that inductively? Because we have to recognize the <I>purpose</I> of Isaiah-like prophecy, and consider that the other sign gifts <I>have the same purpose</I>. If the <I>purpose</I> of Isaiah-like prophecy is complete (and I think we would agree that it is), I think it is wholly-reasonable and <I>faithful</I> to consider that the <I>lesser</I> signs have ceased <I>for the same reason</I>.<BR/><BR/>How'zat?FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-53353338996921992512008-09-11T12:18:00.000-07:002008-09-11T12:18:00.000-07:00P.S. And when we have passages like 1 Thes. 5:20,...P.S. And when we have passages like <A HREF="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+thes+5%3A19-21" REL="nofollow">1 Thes. 5:20</A>, "Do not despise prophecies", I want some actual apostolic teaching directly to the effect that prophecy ceased with apostolic era. (And people do argue that 1 Cor. 13 is such a teaching--I'm not convinced, but that's the kind of thing I'm looking for.)<BR/><BR/>To borrow language from the paedobaptism/credobaptism debate:<BR/><BR/>When we have practices that are positively established, I need something more than good & necessary inference to change it. (Though I don't think it's all that good & necessary.)Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38042491302176457622008-09-11T12:00:00.000-07:002008-09-11T12:00:00.000-07:00Frank,Paul's pastoral letters certainly excludes t...Frank,<BR/><BR/>Paul's pastoral letters certainly excludes the idea of prophets holding an authoritative, leading role in the continuing life of the church. Similarly, signs also play no significant role in the continuing leadership of the church.<BR/><BR/>And that's part of the argument for seeing NT prophecy as less authoritative--the fallible reporting of a revelation rather than the very words of God. Because <I>nowhere</I> in the NT are prophets presented in the kind of leadership role of the apostles--or even the kind of leadership role of an elder.<BR/><BR/>So I agree that Titus & Timothy show something about the role of prophecy. But I can only take them as evidence for cessationism if you can show that prophecy played a bigger role before than afterward. If you're saying that "how he comissions the churches to carry on without him" shows cessation, I want to examine the difference in how the early church operated in apostolic vs. post-apostolic times.<BR/><BR/>And there <I>is</I> a difference. Signs didn't play the same role. <A HREF="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=heb+2%3A3-4" REL="nofollow">Heb. 2:3-4</A> suggests that signs <I>particularly</I> accompanied the testimony of the eyewitnesses. And Paul doesn't direct us to look toward Magisterial apostolic successors in a Catholic or Orthodox sense--Scripture is our guide of apostolic teaching.<BR/><BR/>But I don't see the before-and-after difference when it comes to prophecy & tongues. How was the role of prophecy different between apostolic and post-apostolic times?Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31140405172769755042008-09-11T11:38:00.000-07:002008-09-11T11:38:00.000-07:00chad,"Unintelligble speech as a sign of judgement ...chad,<BR/><BR/>"Unintelligble speech as a sign of judgement is not in view in Paul's epistles so it is a non-issue. "<BR/><BR/>My goodness, Chad. I presented you with an argument that Paul was talking about it--an argument that Paul is directly and particularly talking about unintelligible speech as a sign of judgment in 1 Cor. 14:20-25. You can argue against the exegesis, but you can't respond by saying, "It's not in view."<BR/><BR/>"<A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM" REL="nofollow">An argument isn't just contradiction!</A>"<BR/><BR/>As for Grudem--My reference to him wasn't an appeal to authority, as you seem to take it. It's not about "out-weighing"--that's silly. It was an offering of a more in-depth (and more competent) exegesis than the sketch that I gave. And I would welcome referrals to good interaction on the subject. (That's partly why I like the 4 views book--it includes Richard Gaffin as the cessationist, a strong scholar.)Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24844405513050192212008-09-11T11:32:00.000-07:002008-09-11T11:32:00.000-07:00There is no doubt in my mind - those are blackberr...There is no doubt in my mind - those are blackberries.Michellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00168363955644093592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-35361721169374135382008-09-11T10:54:00.000-07:002008-09-11T10:54:00.000-07:00BTW, Chad, I'd count Paul as a cessationist as we ...BTW, Chad, I'd count Paul as a cessationist <I>as we see his letters to Titus and Timothy</I>. Those are his last letters, and oddly, as he commissions the next generation of leaders who will carry on after his death, <I>not one word about the use of signs in the church</I>, the prophecy over Timothy notwithstanding.<BR/><BR/>Paul was a cessationsit. To say otherwise is to miss how he comissions the churches to carry on without him.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76761832880757183482008-09-11T10:21:00.000-07:002008-09-11T10:21:00.000-07:00Jugulum Unintelligble speech as a sign of judgem...<B> Jugulum </B> <BR/><BR/>Unintelligble speech as a sign of judgement is not in view in Paul's epistles so it is a non-issue. <BR/><BR/>As for Grudem, well we can play dueling commentators all day long and it will get us no where. I could easily throw Berkhoff and Shedd or Kistemaker at you and as far as I'm concerned they all outweigh Grudem and they were all cessationsits. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I'm glad to see that you are proceeding with caution.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-2981674945894201962008-09-11T10:03:00.000-07:002008-09-11T10:03:00.000-07:00Chad, I think the contrast that Paul is making is ...Chad, I think the contrast that Paul is making is between the things that will pass away and the things that abide. Paul places hope among the abiding gifts. That he then goes on to speak of pursuing love does not mean that it is not existing, and he makes it superior to the sign gifts and places hope within love. Paul has not ended his comparisons of things that burn up and things that do. In this phase he is expressing the contrast between what ceases and what does not (faith, hope, love).<BR/><BR/>This still will not answer the question of continualism. It does however draw a sharp contrast between the gifts of the mature as opposed to the gifts that operate as a function of immaturity. Here I am speaking primarily of an infant church because it is quite obvious that the mature are indicated as operating in the gifts. However, what I think Paul is saying also is that if the Corinthians who were fond of priding themselves one against the other really wanted to attain the lofty status, then it is not to the spiritual gifts that their attention should be focussed, for they are of diminishing and vanishing importance. In the end whether they have them or not, what is important abides without them anyway.Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90511143312359958132008-09-11T09:16:00.000-07:002008-09-11T09:16:00.000-07:00Licks, you say?<A HREF="http://gwax.com/content/tootsiepop.html" REL="nofollow">Licks</A>, you say?Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-34846227090965129442008-09-11T08:55:00.000-07:002008-09-11T08:55:00.000-07:00Comment thread will close later today. Get your l...Comment thread will close later today. Get your licks in while it's still open.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.com