tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post7691182992201370135..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: The Amazing Dr. von Cipher's "Conversation" with "God"Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger166125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-48888277414780477852007-04-13T10:37:00.000-07:002007-04-13T10:37:00.000-07:00I would like to know more about your face-to-face ...I would like to know more about your face-to-face experiences with God?<BR/>I ask because you say "the perfect" is the Canon of Scripture.<BR/>But, if you would read the rest of the passage (that little thing called "context"), you would read, "When the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."<BR/><BR/>I could buy that the perfect was the Canon of Scripture, if it weren't for that little detail that I'm not seeing Jesus face-to-face. It may seem a minor detail, but I feel a bit cheated if I'm supposedly seeing Him face to face and I can't actually see Him.<BR/><BR/>You might argue that "the perfect" is the neuter "telios" in the Greek. And Paul never refers to Christ in the neuter. But that's no real argument.<BR/><BR/>Look at 1 Corinthians 1:7-9: "so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord."<BR/><BR/>The "end" is the greek word "telos", the root of "telios", and also in the neuter. The perfect is the end, the consummation of all things. Then we will really see Him face-to-face.<BR/><BR/>Am I missing something?Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07500399617983809790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-65809780507640778632007-04-01T08:00:00.000-07:002007-04-01T08:00:00.000-07:00My goal was not to blister anyone, but to provide ...My goal was not to blister anyone, but to provide some honest observations and questions. I certainly did not wish for a digression into name calling (i.e. hap-hap-happy, adolescent girls). Actually, the only name calling I did was self-deprecating (charis-maniac). <BR/><BR/>I hope that my commendation of your meticulous defense of scripture is not lost here. It's good to have staunch supporters of orthodoxy on our side. Thank you!Jesse P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15208204274257809020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-12553545047732034032007-03-31T21:54:00.000-07:002007-03-31T21:54:00.000-07:00jesse p.: "If this is such a serious issue to you,...<B>jesse p.:</B> <I>"If this is such a serious issue to you, why were you reluctant to respond, if the sufficiency of scripture is at stake?"</I><BR/><BR/>Because we've already been through the same debate a gazillion and a half times, and it invariably draws people to our blog who don't really seem to care all that much about the truth of whatever issues are on the table anyway. They just seem to like arguing for sport. They usually are people who haven't read or commented on our blog before. They apparently aren't interested in reading old posts to learn what our position is or how we have argued in favor of it. They just want to join the fight before it dies down again.<BR/><BR/>And then they are gone as quickly as we post on a different subject.<BR/><BR/>Most of our regulars will testify that those kinds of discussions pretty quickly begin to feel like a sickening merry-go-round.<BR/><BR/>But the newbies who actually have done the most to poison the atmosphere (including girls barely into adulthood who aren't ashamed to write a long, blistering rebuke to a 50+-year-old pastor on their second or third comment at the blog—and such)? They usually creep away to other, safer places, where they spread stories about how badly they were treated here.<BR/><BR/>We tire of it.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46572066257278959782007-03-31T18:45:00.000-07:002007-03-31T18:45:00.000-07:00Phil Johnson said: "We actually tried to leave it ...<I>Phil Johnson said: "We actually tried to leave it at that, but Dr. Warnock was insistent."</I><BR/><BR/>Dan justified the admitted strength of his blistering statements by comparing what he was doing with apostolic defense of the gospel. This hardly sounds reluctant to me. If this is such a serious issue to you, why were you reluctant to respond, if the sufficiency of scripture is at stake?<BR/><BR/><I>Dan said: "Second: you seem to have skipped the rest of the article as well. That, or we'll put you down in favor of people claiming unmediated, direct, verbal, morally-binding revelation apart from the Bible, AND claiming to have written books by direct divine inspiration."</I><BR/><BR/>I have never received, nor am I in favor of these. Please do not interpret my observation of your response as an endorsement of what you responded to. <BR/><BR/>I was simply noting that the harshness of your response seemed to indicate that this issue of the gifts is a stumbling block. You seem to interpret a person's use of charismatic language as some sort of evangelism. How else would you know what his motives are for writing, as you claimed to?<BR/><BR/>I agree with you in as much as subjective impressions should not be given the authority of scripture. Anything that challenges the authority of scripture undermines the entire Christian faith. I think your impulse to guard scripture is commendable.Jesse P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15208204274257809020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7058060759888180132007-03-31T16:37:00.000-07:002007-03-31T16:37:00.000-07:00Jesse PFirst, part of my article that you seem to...<B>Jesse P</B><BR/><BR/>First, part of my article that you seem to have skipped:<BR/><BR/><I>If our hooded brother had wanted to write an anonymous article about how he had felt moved — by Christian love and generosity, voluntarily, and according to a personal application of Biblical principles — to give his royalties to a struggling young student, that would have been one thing. We would easily have understood the anonymity as being Christian modesty and reluctance to toot his own horn. We would have understood the point of the story as being that we should maybe live out the values of the early church, in thinking of how we can invest in others. There could have been a lot of positive value in the story, and no argument whatever. We'd have admired him, and felt challenged to emulate his example.<BR/><BR/>But that isn't what the story was about, it isn't why it was written, it isn't the impact it is meant to have</I><BR/><BR/>Second: you seem to have skipped the rest of the article as well. That, or we'll put you down in favor of people claiming unmediated, direct, verbal, morally-binding revelation apart from the Bible, AND claiming to have written books by direct divine inspiration.<BR/><BR/>In which case, BTW, you validate every concern Frank, Phil and I have ever lodged about continuaglossalalaicists®.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-42345125754654970812007-03-31T13:04:00.000-07:002007-03-31T13:04:00.000-07:00Jesse P.: "The fact of the matter is that this bro...<B>Jesse P.:</B> <I>"The fact of the matter is that this brother did a very generous thing, which seems to be lost just because he had the audacity to use language like 'God said...' to describe an inner struggle."</I><BR/><BR/><B>Note:</B> It was not Dan or any of the PyroManiacs who brought this whole matter up in the first place. It was John Piper, himself a Continualationalist® who wrote the definitive complaint about the article—and we were merely agreeing with Dr. Piper.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, the HUGE point you are missing here is that the anonymous gentleman who wrote the CT article is <I>not</I> being criticized <I><B>"just because"</B></I> of a language infraction. He is being criticized (not merely by us but by Dr, Piper as well) for suggesting that a private message from God is more thrilling and more important than the message we get from God in His written Word.<BR/><BR/>If we're going to insist on strict charity here, we ought to start by correctly representing the point under discussion.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, the original remarks on this blog dealing with the issue were posted by Frank Turk and me; Dan wasn't even planning to join the dogpile. Frank and I independently of one another posted brief, single-sentence affirmations that were simple nods of the head in Piper's direction.<BR/><BR/>We would have left it at that, but one of our dearest charismatic friends, Dr. Adrian Warnock, requested that we needed to post more in-depth analyses of Dr. Piper's remarks. We actually <I>tried</I> to leave it at that, but Dr. Warnock was insistent.<BR/><BR/>So, for the record, we began this thing simply wishing to express <I>agreement</I> with a point made by John Piper. We developed our thoughts under protest at the insistence of another charismatic brother. And now we are being tarred with the complaint that we are "uncharitable" toward charismatics. It's a little bit hard to make the <I>whole</I> charismatic community happy, evidently. We find ourselves pining for the old days when Pentecostals were pretty much hap-hap-happy all the day.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3164418944697965492007-03-31T11:28:00.000-07:002007-03-31T11:28:00.000-07:00Dan,One of the quarrels that cessationists have wi...Dan,<BR/><BR/>One of the quarrels that cessationists have with 'charis-maniacs' is that they make too big a deal out of the gifts of the spirit, de-emphasizing the gospel, love and other things. The fact of the matter is that this brother did a very generous thing, which seems to be lost just because he had the audacity to use language like "God said..." to describe an inner struggle.<BR/><BR/>Your role as word police has blinded you to the act of Christian love and charity that you claim to be far more important than the gifts themselves.<BR/><BR/>In my experience, contrary to the popular stereotype, it is the cessationists, not the charismatics, that get hung up on this issue of the gifts. This certainly seems to be true in this instance as well.<BR/><BR/>For you to equate someone's choice of words to describe their inner wrestlings with Paul's battle for the gospel seems to further cloud the gospel as Paul was defining it. You seem to be an advocate for a gospel-without-gifts as much as you are a gospel-without-works.<BR/><BR/>If the gospel, charity and love really were more important to you as you say they are, you would not allow your disagreement with his language to overshadow the good things he has done.<BR/><BR/>I think you're guilty of the very thing you think charismatics do, making the issue of gifts a stumbling block for partnership in the gospel.Jesse P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15208204274257809020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89238615321355457222007-03-31T11:02:00.000-07:002007-03-31T11:02:00.000-07:00Realize that many of us who have cessationist back...<I>Realize that many of us who have cessationist backgrounds still have heard "God laid it on my heart." To be a *true* cessationist, do you have to say that is wrong? Or is it possible that is what the work of the Holy Spirit is all about?</I><BR/><BR/>I, for one, am looking forward to Phil's writeup.<BR/><BR/>What generally seems to happen with respect to the 'God laid it on my heart' scenario is this:<BR/>1) A person feels a desire or compulsion for some action/outcome.<BR/>2) They mull it over in their mind, and the desire grows.<BR/>3) As the desire grows, their perception of its rightness grows with it.<BR/>4) Unable to explain the desire, and feeling that it is right, they intellectually associate it with a 'leading of the Spirit'<BR/>5) Now feeling led by the Spirit, they may take action, or the opposite may happen - they feel paralyzed, and begin to look for signs - this is what i call omen reading.<BR/>6) Saying they act, if things seem to work out good, they then conclude that it MUST have been the Holy Spirit.<BR/>If things work out bad, they either repeat at step one, or become disillusioned.<BR/><BR/>I realize that is a bit general. I have seen that on more than one occasion.<BR/><BR/>Here is the problem with this scenario: The desire or impression or 'voice' is tested against itself - that is, our own inclination to it. The outcome is then often used to confirm it by arbitrary PRAGMATIC standards, rather than by Scripture.<BR/><BR/>What I am getting at is that a person is willing to act on the basis of an arbitrary assignment of authority to the voice in one's head. <BR/><BR/>That is exceedingly dangerous. And it is significant that there is no NT or OT precedant for this.<BR/><BR/>Let me give you an example from my own life.<BR/><BR/>One day, out of the blue, I remembered a girl that was in my class in university: She was an agnostic, and I had been in a short conversation about religion with her at one point.<BR/><BR/>So I figured I'd send her an email, and see how she was doing, and perhaps meet up and preach the Gospel to her. She was formerly close friends with one of my friends, so in part I longed to see her saved for the sake of his joy and conscience. I felt compelled to preach the Word to her, both by duty and from personal inclinations.<BR/><BR/>It turns out that when I emailed her, she was actually wanting to talk to me because I was one of the only Christians that she knew who actually took the faith seriously, but being a very introverted person, she didn't want to impose. She had been seriously thinking about God, felt convicted of sin, and had even been trying to read the Bible.<BR/><BR/>She didn't receive the Gospel immediately, but after having told her clearly of the substitutionary work of Christ, the total depravity of man and our position as children of wrath, and even given her 'Sinners in the hands of an angry God,' she repented and is now pursuing godliness in our fellowship.<BR/><BR/>Now - many that I know would say the Holy Spirit led me to speak to her.<BR/><BR/>Why do I not make that claim?<BR/><BR/>1) God is sovereign. Of course He ordained that all of that would take place, such that this girl would hear the Gospel.<BR/><BR/>2) I cannot honestly say that I had an explicit or implicit 'word from God.' What did I feel/hear? Nothing out of the ordinary. I cannot distinguish the origin of the desire for emailing her from the desire I had that morning, that compelled me to purchase a coffee.<BR/><BR/>3) What I can say is that God necessarily disposed reality such that all these things would take place (He does that in everything). Whether he disposed my mind to that, or directly impressed it upon me, i cannot tell. <BR/><BR/>But I have complete confidence that the Holy Spirit is working in the church to make her pure and perfect for Christ. <BR/><BR/>The Holy Spirit is the only way I could receive the Bible - I know that because the Bible tells me so. The Holy Spirit is the only way my heart would cry out "Abba, Father" - that is, I would be inclined to have intimacy with God - I know that because the Bible told me so. I know the Holy Spirit enlightened me to receive the Gospel, and quickened me to desire God and pursue joy in Christ - I know that because the Bible told me so.<BR/><BR/>This is the issue: It seems that many assume that the perhaps the only way for God to push us in a particular direction is a word from the Holy Spirit. But He can use any number of ways to put my mind into the state He so desires, and it may not involved a 'word from God' or being 'led by the Holy Spirit.' Those are explicit, distinct occurrences. I just cannot say or determine if those explicit occurrences are what forms my desires in any instance. It is dangerous to do so. Those who claim to do so have no cognative reason for thinking it may be the Holy Spirit. As Janelle said earlier, 'The Holy Spirit confirms a persons conscience.' But this is a circular argument, since the conscience is still the arbiter of determining if it is confirmed by the Holy Spirit, apart from an objective standard of measurement for such esoteric experiences with God. Nice feelings are used to confirm the 'good source' of those nice feelings. The Bible gives us no such precedant for thinking this way or for thinking that these experiences are the way the Holy Spirit interacts with us. I do not see the Scriptures commending us to lean on even our regenerate heart, but I do see them telling us to lean on the Word, knowing we are enabled to do so by the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>Here is the bottom line. Nobody that I have met has ever managed to provide one iota of Biblical basis for asserting that my desire or impression was explicitly a word from God. It was my desire. This does not match the pattern of any of the gifts in the NT. It isn't a gift. It is a normal part of being a human. I am not saying that God did not ordain it - He certainly did: But it seems quite arrogant as to claim to be a prophet when I know full well that I am not. I wrote the email to that girl because I desired to do so to find an opportunity to speak the Gospel. That is all I will say of it, and I will give God the glory for His providence and mercy in causing this girl to receive the truth. And I pray that it is sincere, and that He will persevere her.<BR/><BR/>Even unbelievers experience this sort of coincidence, or desires, or compulsions. They really do. And they experience it in the context of other religions and turning from God. I had a Hindi-agnostic explaining the same sort of experience to me <I>four days ago</I> about how things had worked out mysteriously and how she felt all the events in her life had led her to better pursue the fulfillment of her humanity.<BR/><BR/>What distinguishes us from them? How do we know what to do? How do we know what to think and whether our desires are godly?<BR/><BR/>2 Peter 1<BR/><B>19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.</B><BR/><BR/>I KNOW that THIS is from God.<BR/><BR/>Romans 12<BR/><B>2Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.</B><BR/><BR/>Same with this. So I apply my cognitive faculties to the one thing that is 'more sure' than my own experience: I pursue understanding and learning of God from the Scriptures, and use them as the rod and rule of every desire and impression. And from this, I have concluded that I am in no position to make assertions about the arbitrary feelings in my heart and their origin.<BR/><BR/>I am at peace with my purpose, what I should do, my job, and my life. Not that I am perfect by any means, but I do not wonder about what to do because I have a lamp for my feet. And that lamp points me to the pursuit of righteousness, peace, love, and faith, for the glory of God. <BR/><BR/><B>What are you lacking that you need more? </B><BR/><BR/>This is a real question to ask yourself. From my end of things, the pursuit of the voice of God in subjective impressions appears to be such a blind trek, and a wasteful tragedy.<BR/><BR/>I will state clearly now: I believe The Holy Spirit grants gifts to whomever He wills for the edification of the church.<BR/><BR/>This means, of course, that if the Holy Spirit decided not to grant gifts for some reason, then He won't do it - on His own divine prerogative. <BR/><BR/>EDIFICATION. Yet the written word is more than sufficient - I do not perceive I need a sign for my faith, or a prophecy for guidance. The written Word is more edifying than I could have ever imagined prior to diving headlong into it.<BR/><BR/>Psalm 119:<BR/>81My soul longs for your salvation;<BR/> I hope in your word.Mike Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17608757096556069037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-49713849909483854462007-03-31T08:19:00.000-07:002007-03-31T08:19:00.000-07:00Donette:I think you're right: it's time to give th...<B>Donette:</B><BR/><BR/>I think you're right: it's time to give the issue of "tone" a rest. After re-reading the whole thread, I have to say I think the complaints from those who claimed they got "blasted" were severely overblown. In fact, I don't see where anyone was trying to be mean-spirited on any side of this discussion, and no one said anything <I><B>here</B></I> in this thread that was out of line, until a handful of people started impugning Dan Phillips's character and motives. (Unless private e-mails were sent that I am unaware of, I'm frankly mystified as to what the complaints about extreme nastiness and brutality were based on.)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, none of our guests <I>should</I> have felt brutalized. Even Tinkie Winkie, the gay Teltubbie, ought to have been able to withstand the level of contention in this thread. If the disagreements expressed here, and the tone with which they were expressed, seems so awful as to offend certain sensitive souls, then one might well conclude that we should never disagree with another Christian about <I>anything,</I> and if we ever did have a dissenting opinion, we ought to just keep it to ourselves. But we know that's not the case.<BR/><BR/>So let's give one another the benefit of the doubt when it comes to tone monitoring. <I>Taking</I> unnecessary offense is just as evil as unnecessarily <I>causing</I> offense, and vice versa. Being insensitive is no less a fault than being overly sensitive, and vice versa. We can all work on being nicer. Let's do it, OK?<BR/><BR/>And now, let's also carry on, shall we?<BR/><BR/>You raise an excelent question, Donnette. I'll tell you what: I'll try to answer it in a new post—hopefully before noon today (Saturday). Watch the space above.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24269111698963705782007-03-31T07:50:00.000-07:002007-03-31T07:50:00.000-07:00"God laid it on my heart." To be a *true* cessatio..."God laid it on my heart." To be a *true* cessationist, do you have to say that is wrong? Or is it possible that is what the work of the Holy Spirit is all about?<BR/><BR/>I had a thought, and a Scripture.<BR/><BR/>"Your Word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against You. ... Incline my heart unto Your testimonies, and not to covetousness." Psalm 119:11,36<BR/><BR/>"Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another inpsalms and hymns and spirtual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." Col. 3:16<BR/><BR/>The Word needs to be hid in our hearts, and it needs to dwell in our hearts, and surely it needs to be the Holy Spirit who is taking this same Word to shape us, and to renew our minds, and those around us as well, for the glory of Christ our Lord.<BR/>I don't know if that helps or not.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50660283380949157922007-03-31T06:36:00.000-07:002007-03-31T06:36:00.000-07:00I'm all for wit and sarcasm, when appropriate. Af...I'm all for wit and sarcasm, when appropriate. After all, if I thought it was all wrong, all the time, I wouldn't come here much, right? I just implore you to be a bit more gentle with those of us who are here to learn, not just argue. I have questions, and up till now, I have never commented because sometimes dissenters get eaten alive! I think April and Janelle had valid questions that never got fully answered because they didn't have a passage of Scripture that showed private inspiration is relevant for today.<BR/><BR/>Let's move on. I don't want my plea for civility to become the focus. It was just a side note.<BR/><BR/>Realize that many of us who have cessationist backgrounds still have heard "God laid it on my heart." To be a *true* cessationist, do you have to say that is wrong? Or is it possible that is what the work of the Holy Spirit is all about?<BR/><BR/>I haven't figured this out yet, and truly am trying to work through it. Any thoughts? - just be gentle! :)Donettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08695632521945765772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-238915470042004302007-03-31T06:01:00.000-07:002007-03-31T06:01:00.000-07:00Mike, thank you.I find this to be extremely helpfu...Mike, thank you.<BR/><BR/>I find this to be extremely helpful for further study - which is why I printed it. Thanks again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24410945954410448442007-03-30T22:42:00.000-07:002007-03-30T22:42:00.000-07:00Here is some food for thought. These points were r...Here is some food for thought. <BR/><BR/>These points were raised in another discussion regarding these issues in my own fellowship. They are meant as a STARTING POINT for a grounded discussion - and they are somewhat random. They do not necessarily represent a convinced view of their writer or myself, BUT ARE A POINT TO BEGIN A DISCUSSION. This may not even be the best venue, but I want to help lay some tracks for some of you to properly begin to think of these things, as best I can.<BR/><BR/>I feel obligated since I said the discussion should get back to the topic at hand.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, so it is clear, I agree with the Pyros that what is happening in the churches, from everything that i have seen and heard of, is not the prophecy/revelatory gifts of the apostolic times. I also hold that subjective impressions are no metric for the Holy Spirit's approval, <I>no matter how good it feels or how right it feels.</I> Elevating one's own mental voice and inclinations to the authority of the Holy Spirit arbitrarily is extremely dangerous. Upon inquiring how one knows the voice of the Spirit, such that it is quantifiably not arbitrary, as prescribed in the OT requirements for a word from God or prophecy, I have not seen a convincing or helpful argument thus far. For example, from earlier: Romans 9:1-3 is not in the context of an instruction on discernment, and to think that the apostle had that in mind is quite an acontextual reading.<BR/><BR/>A book recommended to me on the topic is a Zondervan title edited by Grudem: 4 Views of the Miraculous Gifts, or Are the Miraculous gifts for Today, or <BR/>something like that.<BR/><BR/>1. The issue is the revelatory gifts - tongues, prophecy, words of knowledge. To a lesser extent, the gift of signs and wonders and miracles is also included, at least as far as it is understood to be exercised by a human agent.<BR/> <BR/>2. The issue is not the other gifts - administration, teaching, encouragment, service, etc.<BR/> <BR/>3. I've always found a case for cessationism built on 1 Cor 13 to be weak at best. But what 1 Cor 13 does demonstrate is still a very pertinent point, and that is this: These gifts will pass away at some point.<BR/> <BR/>4. There are two important precedents for cessationism: the period with no prophecy between Malachi and John the Baptist, and the fact that there are no NT-type apostles today.<BR/> <BR/>5. The above point must be conceded by all who wish to retain a closed canon. If there are still apostles, there may still be enscripturation.<BR/> <BR/>6. One mark of an apostle was to have seen the Risen Lord in the flesh (1 Cor 9:1). There can be no such apostles today.<BR/> <BR/>7. 1 Cor 13 suggests strongly that the point at which knowledge and prophecy (note: tongues is NOT repeated here) will pass away will be when the perfect comes.<BR/> <BR/>8. What does "pass away" mean? Does it mean that the PROVISION of these prophecies and knowledge will pass away (i.e., there will be continuing revelation up to this point?) Or does it mean that the CONTENT or USE of these prophecies and knowledge will pass away (i.e., the provision may have ceased already, but when the perfect comes the Bible as we now have it and other gifts will be of no more use and will themselves pass away?)<BR/> <BR/>9. Note that Paul uses the term "pass away" of prophecy and knowledge in two separate places: verse 8 and verse 9. <BR/><BR/>TONGUES<BR/> <BR/>10. The term used in reference to tongues is different: "cease." Note also that Paul does not mention tongues again in his argument like he does with the other two. <BR/><BR/>11. The issue: is Paul simply varying his writing style for literary effect? Or is there an important point here? <BR/><BR/>12. The Old Testament describes "men speaking strange tongues" as a sign of judgment on the Hebrew people for unfaithfulness (is 28:11, 33:19. Right from the incident at the tower of Babel in Genesis, strange languages are seen as a sign of judgment and oppression. The captivity in Egypt is described in parallelism as coming out of a people of strange language (Ps 114:1). This is the context in which we must understand the gift of tongues, a point that Paul himself makes (1 cor 14:21-22). <BR/><BR/>13. The strange languages anticipated by Old Testament prophets were not necessarily miraculous - after all, the Egyptians spoke their "tongue" naturally. <BR/><BR/>14. The incidents of tongues described in Acts all happen as the Gospel crosses cultural barriers - to Samaritans and Gentiles. They are described in contexts that suggest that the tongues authenticate the Gospel message. <BR/><BR/>15. The other place where tongues become an issue in the New Testament in in 1 Corinthians. This passage can be interpreted as either abuse of a miraculous gift or the use of ordinary foreign languages in inappropriate ways. Corinth was a very multicultural city. The Greek "glossa" can describe either miraculous or nonmiraculous language. In fact, it's only in English Christian practice that "tongue" and "language" take on different connotations - in Greek it is the same word. <BR/><BR/>16. Remembering that tongues are a sign of judgment to unbelievers, and in OT use were a sign to Hebrews in particular, it has to be significant that judgment did indeed befall the Jews in AD 70, when the Temple was destroyed and Jerusalem sacked.<BR/> <BR/>17. Jesus clearly prophesied in Matthew the destruction of the Temple as it happened in AD 70. This was a judgment for Jewish unbelief.<BR/> <BR/>18. Clearly the issue of tongues becomes related to the issue of eschatology, then, and how the judgment of God is to be understood in history.<BR/> <BR/>19. I don't see any Biblical evidence for the notion of tongues as an unintelligible, "heavenly" prayer language. It seems always to be described as a translatable, objective human language. Modern Pentecostal tongues don't really resemble the Biblical paradigm.<BR/> <BR/>20. Ecstatic utterances of the Pentecostal pattern have been observed among Hindus and Buddhists, as well as Catholics, Mormons, anti- Trinitarian United or Apostolic Pentecostals, and other heretical groups. They were known to occur in the NT period among Greek mystery religions as well. They may be more psychological than spiritual in origin.<BR/> <BR/>21. In summary: could tongues have passed away at the end of the NT period, but other gifts have carried on? Patristic citations may support this view. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, I looked into the patristic writings for a while. For the most part, they don't really talk about tongues or prophecy except in quoting Corinthians, as far as I can tell (so far - there is a LOT of material). There is this passage from Clement of Alexandria [153 - 193 - 217 AD ?ish?] - Stromata, Book IV, Chapter XXI:<BR/><BR/><I>And now we perceive where, and how, and when the divine apostle mentions the perfect man, and how he shows the differences of the perfect. And again, on the other hand: "The manifestation of the Spirit is given for our profit. For to one is given the word of wisdom by the Spirit; to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith through the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing through the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discernment of spirits; to another diversities of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: and all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, distributing to each one according as He wills."2879 <B>Such being the case, the prophets are perfect in prophecy, </B> the righteous in righteousness, and the martyrs in confession, and others in preaching, not that they are not sharers in the common virtues, but are proficient in those to which they are appointed. </I><BR/><BR/>As a note, I think this testimony of the patristic writings in this case is something to consider with respect to the fallible prophecy argument, which, incidentally, I cannot agree with.<BR/><BR/>Also, Phillip Schaff notes regarding the issue in his Introduction to the Shepherd of Hermas:<BR/><BR/><I>As Eusebius informs us, the charismata were not extinct in the churches when the Phrygian imitations began to puzzle the faithful. Bunsen considers its first propagators specimens of the clairvoyant art, and pointedly cites the manipulations they were said to practice (like persons playing on the harp), in proof of this. We must place ourselves in those times to comprehend the difficulties of early Christians in dealing with the counterfeit. “Try the spirits,” said St. John; and St. Paul had said more expressly, “Quench not the Spirit; despise not prophesyings; prove all things,” etc. This very expression suggests that there might often be something despicable in the form and manner of uttering what was excellent. To borrow a phrase of our days, “the human element” was painfully predominant at times, even among those who spoke by the Spirit. The smoke of personal infirmity discoloured genuine scintillations from hearts in which still smouldered the fire of Pentecostal gifts. The reticence of Irenæus is therefore not to be marvelled at. He cautioned Eleutherus no doubt, but probably felt, with him, that the rumours from Phrygia needed further examination. The prophetic gifts were said to be lodged in men and women austere as John the Baptist, and professing a mission to rebuke the carnal and self-indulgent degeneracy of a generation that knew not the apostles.</I><BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/><I>To our scornful age, indeed, glutted with reading of every sort, and alike over-cultivated and superficial, taking little time for thought, and almost as little for study, The Shepherd can furnish nothing attractive. He who brings nothing to it, gets nothing from it. But let the fastidious who desire at the same time to be competent judges, put themselves into the times of the Antonines, and make themselves, for the moment, Christians of that period, and they will awaken to a new world of thought. Let such go into the assemblies of the primitive faithful, in which it was evident that “not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, were called.” There they were, “as sheep appointed to be slain,” “dying daily,” and, like their blessed Master, “the scorn of men, and outcast of the people,” as they gathered on the day of the Lord to “eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” After the manner of the synagogue, there came a moment when the “president” said, “Brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.” <B>But the tongues were ceasing, as the apostle foretold; </B> and they who professed to speak by the Spirit were beginning to be doubted. “Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, do they live forever?” It was gratifying to the older men, and excited the curiosity of the young, when the reader stood up, and said, “Hear, then, the words of Hermas.” Blessed were the simple folk, those “lambs among wolves,” who hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and who eagerly drank in the pure and searching Scriptural morality of The Shepherd, and then went forth to “shine as lights in the world,” in holy contrast with the gross darkness that surrounded them.</I><BR/><BR/>I found it interesting. This is just to get the brain turning, not to start a wild fire... Read it for the context...<BR/><BR/>Long post - but I hope it helps, whatever your position on the topic. May we all by grace continue reforming to the Scriptures.Mike Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17608757096556069037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88538006973675003132007-03-30T18:39:00.000-07:002007-03-30T18:39:00.000-07:00Is it permissible to recommend some articles for t...Is it permissible to recommend some articles for teaching on this subject? If so, here are the links.<BR/><BR/>http://svchapel.org/Resources/articles/read_articles.asp?id=116<BR/><BR/>http://svchapel.org/Resources/articles/read_articles.asp?id=131amysuzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00828186210363075636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78311907954080377062007-03-30T18:19:00.000-07:002007-03-30T18:19:00.000-07:00Two funniest comments (so far):Rich Ryan—A nine le...Two funniest comments (so far):<BR/><BR/><B>Rich Ryan</B>—<I>A nine letter word that begins with C and characterizes authoritative revelation? Hmmm....<BR/><BR/>"Centuri0n?"</I><BR/><BR/>And...<BR/><BR/><B>jbuck21</B>—<I>If that were *my* wife who got that explanation for why *our* roof wasn't getting repaired, I'd be the Hellespont, and she'd be doing the whippin'.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, of course I loved:<BR/><BR/><B>PJ</B>—<I>For our part, we admit to being sometimes a little too brusque for the Teletubbie crowd...</I><BR/><BR/>True, true.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-48345588080044780552007-03-30T16:41:00.000-07:002007-03-30T16:41:00.000-07:00gayla,So true. That's my point. It's always impera...gayla,<BR/><BR/>So true. That's my point. It's always imperative to remember who you're "blogging" with. Always consider the source. It's the mature thing to do.<BR/><BR/>I had another thought hit me as I looked over the post again.<BR/><BR/>I remember seeing the Unknown Comic once doing his routine, and he introduced his parents in the audience, and they had paper bags on their heads.<BR/>He was funny.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-53841977472896103392007-03-30T15:03:00.000-07:002007-03-30T15:03:00.000-07:00I've said this before on other Pyro comment thread...I've said this before on other Pyro comment threads--pretty much everyone who comes here to read (and comment) understands that the wit and humor is sharp and no one is spared. I know that everytime I wade into the waters of any discussion I'd better be rock-solid or willing to be challenged or corrected. Pyros, please continue to keep us thinking, challenged, and on our toes--and don't leave out the wit and humor!! :-)Conniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16388126339087271102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47771470988474672172007-03-30T14:19:00.000-07:002007-03-30T14:19:00.000-07:00Mike Jones:Exactly.Thank you.Luke 6:41-42.<B>Mike Jones:</B><BR/><BR/>Exactly.<BR/><BR/>Thank you.<BR/><BR/>Luke 6:41-42.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61477183508715368812007-03-30T12:37:00.000-07:002007-03-30T12:37:00.000-07:00Can someone please cite what exactly you find offe...Can someone please cite what exactly you find offensive or rude in Dan's comments? What warrants this?<BR/><BR/><I>"Moving on . . . Dan, you can be right and go into your corner with your trophy above your head and claim victory, but what good does that do in the long run? Readers who disagree walk away with a really nasty taste in their mouth and maybe never return. And if your goal is to have all comments either singing your praises or only looking for a battle, then you are well on your way . . . </I><BR/><BR/>What warranted the trophy comment? What basis do you have, in any of Dan's writings, to think that the latter is his goal? And if there is none, then you are being antagonistic, and there is no reason to even suggest such an ad hominem notion, even hypothetically.<BR/><BR/>150 posts ago the blog was in view - and Dan expresses on that blog why he adopts an authoritative and unwavering tone:<BR/><BR/><B>I am aware that this is a blisteringly scathing essay. What possible justification is there, for this tone?<BR/><BR/>Because our Lord Jesus, and His apostles and prophets, were always the most unsparing and ferocious with false teachers and religious leaders.<BR/><BR/>Because the issues are huge, though they're being dealt out as if this were a playground conversation.<BR/><BR/>Because I feel deeply concerned for all the people who you and I know darned well will read an article like this, envy this man's (purported) intimacy with God, and start listening for voices in their head, too. And they'll start heeding those voices, even if (as in this case) they don't quite jibe with the Bible.<BR/><BR/>And what kind of Christ-shaming, damaging, ruinous behavior will come of that?</B><BR/><BR/>If you find that Dan's tone is inappropriate, why not send him a PM or something (find email here: http://www2.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578). First admonish him privately from the Scriptures, with evidence. <BR/><BR/>It would seem to me that Dan has a deep concern that he believes warrants the "rebuke them sharply" approach of Titus 1. He said as much at the beginning.<BR/><BR/>One might consider returning to the subject at hand - I was most enjoying the read.<BR/><BR/><I>If you believe your former claim, then you should be able to show us many in-context, unambiguous passages in Scripture that say, in so many words, that every Christian should expect your latter claim to be his regular experience.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise you have absolutely no reason to expect it, or to encourage others to expect it, other than your own opinion. Which is what Biblical Christianity is not about.<BR/><BR/>That is THE issue. </I>Mike Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17608757096556069037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-20279746917926418112007-03-30T12:31:00.000-07:002007-03-30T12:31:00.000-07:00Donette, you said, "Dan, you can be right and go i...Donette, you said, "Dan, you can be right and go into your corner with your trophy above your head and claim victory, but what good does that do in the long run? Readers who disagree walk away with a really nasty taste in their mouth and maybe never return. And if your goal is to have all comments either singing your praises or only looking for a battle, then you are well on your way . . ."<BR/><BR/>I wonder how this is truly the right position to take. Is it better for Dan to say it is okay that others hold to bad theology and feel okay about it?<BR/><BR/>If a person comes here to discuss an issue that has been laid out, should they not be willing to engage their minds and backbone? If they cannot handle this, it is better to not post. Why interact if you cannot interact?<BR/><BR/>It isn't about claimingn victory by holding up a trophy. It is about being able to actually believe something and have at the same time the desire and ability to stand firm in it.<BR/><BR/>Dan did not ask me to post any of this obviously. I have just seen this attitude displayed so often it is disturbing. No one is advocating a beat down of someone. At the same time, one should not engage a tank with a BB gun.<BR/><BR/>Truth is not determined by consensus. The Lord hates a coward.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46021495168932336642007-03-30T11:28:00.000-07:002007-03-30T11:28:00.000-07:00Thanks Don! You know it's sometimes difficult to ...Thanks Don! You know it's sometimes difficult to tell what someone is trying to convey with this kind of format. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-35145934827570348612007-03-30T11:11:00.000-07:002007-03-30T11:11:00.000-07:00Donette said: "Dan, you can be right and go into y...Donette said: "Dan, you can be right and go into your corner with your trophy above your head and claim victory, but what good does that do in the long run? Readers who disagree walk away with a really nasty taste in their mouth and maybe never return."<BR/><BR/>I concur. Many of the comments here do leave a very bad and nasty taste in my mouth. However, I will return. I like much of what you "Pyromaniacs" have to say about a lot of things, even though I don't like the attitude you gentlemen (and quite a few of your "fans") exude.<BR/><BR/>Unlike Donette, I happen to disagree with the you on these issues. I don't care to debate, but if you're really interested in knowing how others feel about these issues, I invite you to my blog:<BR/><BR/>http://adebtortomercy.blogspot.com/2007/03/and-fight-continues.html#links<BR/><BR/>http://adebtortomercy.blogspot.com/2007/03/great-is-lord-and-greatly-to-be-praised.html#links<BR/><BR/>http://adebtortomercy.blogspot.com/2007/03/some-books-worth-reading.html#links<BR/><BR/>Your brother in Christ,<BR/>Wyeth DuncanWyeth Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07037542472866679987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81015236023321918442007-03-30T10:34:00.000-07:002007-03-30T10:34:00.000-07:00"Don, I hope you didn't think I was implying that ..."Don, I hope you didn't think I was implying that I didn't need to examine myself."<BR/><BR/>Nope. Didn't think that at all. <BR/><BR/>I was simply trying to bring attention to the character of this proven "blog-ministry" of the Lord, that's all.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-63257201444347240682007-03-30T10:01:00.000-07:002007-03-30T10:01:00.000-07:00"Snarky" - I like that word. It's cute. It aptly..."Snarky" - I like that word. It's cute. It aptly describes how my 3 year old acts when he doesn't get a nap. But c'mon. I think we all know that the comments here are a little more than just "snarky."<BR/><BR/>Listen, I admit to being a part of the Teletubbies crowd (or Dora the Explorer), but this isn't about offending me. It is about wasting a beautifully ordained moment to be humble and teach. Need I repeat that I agree with you, Dan? You are the author, you have the unique opportunity to reply with graciousness and set the tone of the discussion. Just because someone else gets "snarky" doesn't mean you have the right to. <BR/><BR/>Wow. This sounds like a lecture I gave my kid just a few days ago.<BR/><BR/>Moving on . . . Dan, you can be right and go into your corner with your trophy above your head and claim victory, but what good does that do in the long run? Readers who disagree walk away with a really nasty taste in their mouth and maybe never return. And if your goal is to have all comments either singing your praises or only looking for a battle, then you are well on your way . . .Donettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08695632521945765772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58918230020964363382007-03-30T07:19:00.000-07:002007-03-30T07:19:00.000-07:00correction: I hope you didn't think.....correction: I hope you didn't <I>think</I>.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com