tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post5475983295892337267..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: The pseudo-sufficiency Pushmi-pullyuPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-75505436661266694742012-09-20T13:31:43.454-07:002012-09-20T13:31:43.454-07:00With that, we're done.
Sincere thanks to thos...With that, we're done.<br /><br />Sincere thanks to those who added such terrific content to the post. Golden stuff, amigos.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45594416165102483112012-09-20T13:18:35.042-07:002012-09-20T13:18:35.042-07:00Dan's right, though--I think we've gotten ...Dan's right, though--I think we've gotten off-course from his original point about whether or not a robust doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture is sustainable next to an insistence upon the need for extrabiblical revelation. Sorry for my contribution to that rabbit trail, Dan.LanternBrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14727003028902907286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9598129434109941732012-09-20T13:14:27.432-07:002012-09-20T13:14:27.432-07:00Rick,
Your questions have already been answered a...Rick,<br /><br />Your questions have already been answered at pretty great length throughout the meta today. You can also check the tags on the original post for Dan's other statements concerning the spiritual gifts. Once more, though: the definitions you give of "continuation" and "cessation" are problematic--which is sort of the point we've been making all along.<br /><br />Jennifer:<br /><br />Please forgive me for misunderstanding your post. I think I get where you're going now. Let's tackle the Acts question first: is the experience of the believers in Acts 21:4 something we can/should expect as believers today?<br /><br />I'd have to say no, simply because there isn't anything in the text to encourage that. Frankly, I see no more reason for Acts 21 to describe a phenomenon we ought to experience in the regular life of the church anymore than I see Acts 2 describing such a thing. Do you see such a textual reason? It just appears that whether or not Acts 21 is meant to be a repeating, ongoing experience of the church is beyond the scope of that text.<br /><br />I'll get to Thessalonians in a moment, but first it bears pointing out that the passage in 1 John you cite is clearly referring to false teaching, so to read that as John prescribing a practice for us whereby we can test experiences similar to those described in Acts 21 simply goes beyond the bounds of the text. John is simply telling his audience that everyone who claims to be a prophet isn't necessarily really a prophet, and that when someone DOES claim to be a prophet, their message ought to be tested against authentic apostolic doctrine. John simply isn't making any claims here about the ongoing gift of prophecy or about whether individual believers can expect to experience such things themselves.<br /><br />And I think this is where we need to start with 1 Thess 5. It strikes me as altogether likely that Paul here is giving the same kind of advice that John is: just because somebody tells you they have a prophecy, doesn't mean you should take their word for it. Instead, test it against the indisputable truth. Again: I simply don't see that Paul is attempting to make a statement of any kind about the ongoing nature of the prophetic gift in this text.<br /><br />Thanks for the interaction!LanternBrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14727003028902907286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-14931372871496338422012-09-20T12:58:48.831-07:002012-09-20T12:58:48.831-07:00Jennifer: absolutely and completely irrelevant. Yo...Jennifer: absolutely and completely irrelevant. You simply are not getting what we are talking about.<br /><br />Rick, you need to stop talking, and start listening. There is NO BIBLICALLY ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN who believes that "the gifts of the Holy Spirit have continued to this present age."<br /><br />There is NO BIBLICALLY ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN who believes that "the gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased being practiced early on in church history."<br /><br />That you are still saying this, at this point in the discussion, is marking you as simply not applying yourself. You need to read, listen, and think. At any rate, you're done repeating the same impenetrably ignorant irrelevancies.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55467785459713423072012-09-20T12:50:43.307-07:002012-09-20T12:50:43.307-07:00Lantern – thanks for the response – Question to cl...Lantern – thanks for the response – Question to clarify: Does he believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit have continued to this present age? Or Does he believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased being practiced early on in church history? <br />I believe that the gifts have continued to this present age (and I believe those that I’ve listed would agree and I would add J.I. Packer) and I think Dan believes that they have ceased. <br />I call the first view Continuationist and the second Cessationist. <br />Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123097518664033230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3014416790546788912012-09-20T12:39:31.473-07:002012-09-20T12:39:31.473-07:00The other thing you should note about the Acts 21 ...The other thing you should note about the Acts 21 prophecy is that it was written down and became scripture.<br /><br />"What are we testing if we aren;t receiving?"<br /><br />What we are testing is anything that someone claims is the Word of God. If Pastor Dan gets up before his church and says something that he claims comes from God, it had better be in the Bible.<br /><br />How can you use scripture to test what is not in scripture?Mike Westfallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06944727980772754938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-25468658677680421402012-09-20T12:16:33.133-07:002012-09-20T12:16:33.133-07:00Lantern,
Yes, that is what I am saying - the reve...Lantern,<br /><br />Yes, that is what I am saying - the revelation they received was correct - their application was not.<br /><br />So, to point this to Dan's post - did Paul need this revelation from the Spirit through these Christians? <br /><br />Is their experience something we can say we too will experience (such as Spurgeon's example of the man being waken up)? If not then why are we given the commands in 1 Thess. 5:19-22; and 1 John 4:1-6? <br /><br />What are we testing if we aren't receiving?Jenniferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313739199470646212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22181951981803009962012-09-20T11:56:35.071-07:002012-09-20T11:56:35.071-07:00Jennifer,
In Acts 21:4, Luke expressly attributes...Jennifer,<br /><br />In Acts 21:4, Luke expressly attributes this prophecy to the Holy Spirit. However, Luke does NOT tell us the exact content of that prophecy, so it's not a slam dunk that the Christians in 21:4 "received a word from God" that they felt was telling Paul NOT to go to Jerusalem. It's far more likely that what was happening was more akin to 21:8-11, where they were warning Paul what would happen if and when he did go to Jerusalem. If the believers' exhortation to Paul in 21:4 was itself a command of the Holy Spirit, then Paul sinned by rejecting it. But Scripture never really portrays his trip to Jerusalem as sinful, does it?<br /><br />In other words, what we see in 21:4 seems to involve two separate things: a prophetic warning about the tribulation Paul would face in Jerusalem (which came true) and the reaction of Paul's friends to the news of that tribulation, which was to encourage him to not go to Jerusalem. I think the most reasonable way to read this is that the warnings were Spirit-inspired prophecy, whereas the pleas to not go were simply well-meaning exhortations from friends.<br /><br />(Busenitz argues much the same in the comments section of his article.)<br />LanternBrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14727003028902907286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23612327667428074192012-09-20T11:41:31.439-07:002012-09-20T11:41:31.439-07:00Hey Lantern,
Appreciate your feedback. But it was...Hey Lantern,<br /><br />Appreciate your feedback. But it was not just Agabus who had a revelation from the Holy Spirit about the persecution coming - Acts 21:4 says that other Christians were telling Paul "through the Holy Spirit" not to go to Jerusalem. Again, they were wrong with the interpretation and the application but not the actual revelation (Paul being persecuted).<br /><br />So it does still stand as a Biblical example of Dan's quick post. <br /><br />We aren't told the how to receive as these believers did but we are told how to test as Paul did ... what are we testing if we aren't receiving?Jenniferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313739199470646212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70276745252707588452012-09-20T11:27:57.230-07:002012-09-20T11:27:57.230-07:00Jennifer,
Good question. Nathan Busenitz has deal...Jennifer,<br /><br />Good question. <a href="http://thecripplegate.com/throwing-prophecy-under-the-agabus/" rel="nofollow">Nathan Busenitz has dealt with this passage in some detail</a>, but since everybody (including me!) keeps linking you elsewhere, I'll summarize.<br /><br />1. Nothing in the biblical text actually states that Agabus' prophecy was incorrect.<br /><br />2. Luke's description of how Paul was captured in Jerusalem suggests that he agrees with what Agabus prophesied would happen.<br /><br />3. When Paul re-tells the story of his capture in Acts 28, he does so in a way that, like Luke, suggests agreement with Agabus' prophesy.<br /><br />4. Agabus claims to be quoting the Holy Spirit precisely when he prophesies about what will happen to Paul. (This is important, because if Agabus is quoting the Holy Spirit, and still ends up being WRONG, then it in turns means that the Holy Spirit Himself was wrong.)<br /><br />5. The overwhelming opinion of the early church is that Agabus' prophesy ended up being fulfilled exactly. (Here Busenitz cites a number of patristic authors, but in the interests of brevity I'll simply refer you to the above link if you'd like to peruse them.)<br /><br />In other words, then, what we have in Acts 21 is a poor litmus test for the present-day charismatic claim that the New Testament advocates an understanding of prophecy that need not be accurate.<br /><br />Hope this helps!LanternBrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14727003028902907286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45270432005811605852012-09-20T11:13:37.727-07:002012-09-20T11:13:37.727-07:00Let me give a biblical example to answer the origi...Let me give a biblical example to answer the original post (rather than continue to argue the secondary stuff about certain theologians fitting into different categories).<br /><br />Acts 21 is what I would think to be an example of non-Apostles getting revelation from the Holy Spirit. They were wrong on its application but it was still information that these Christians received from the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />We for sure aren't told how they received this revelation from the Spirit nor did Paul rebuke them for being false prophets (even though they applied the revelation wrongly).<br /><br />Did Paul need to "hear (these) things from God" that he was going to be beaten and imprisoned? Apparently, because God told him and a bunch of others.<br /><br />We aren't told how "how to get them" but we are told what to do when we hear them: 1 Thess. 5:19-22; and 1 John 4:1-6. Why give us the tools to interpret and apply "revelation" if God's Spirit no longer reveals anything?<br /><br />If I have further revealed my ignorance and am not contributing to the original past then delete away and I will find some other "full-on" cessationists to ask. Jenniferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313739199470646212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91461960535553422942012-09-20T10:23:22.209-07:002012-09-20T10:23:22.209-07:00Rick,
Just to make my point a bit clearer: Dan is...Rick,<br /><br />Just to make my point a bit clearer: Dan isn't actually saying that Grudem, Piper, et al., are biblically unorthodox because they're continuationists...he's actually saying that they ARE biblically orthodox, and because of that they AREN'T continuationists in the sense that you have defined it here: every one of them has argued for the spiritual gifts in such a way that REQUIRES them to admit some degree of CESSATION among the gifts since the apostolic age.<br /><br />Does that make sense?LanternBrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14727003028902907286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38933373914578514152012-09-20T10:18:31.759-07:002012-09-20T10:18:31.759-07:00Rick,
Dan hasn't redefined those terms at all...Rick,<br /><br />Dan hasn't redefined those terms at all. In fact, he's insisted all along upon defining both of those terms EXACTLY the way you have here.<br /><br />What Dan and others here are pointing out is that the terms themselves are misleading: almost no one who calls himself a 'continuationist' defines that in the way that you have--namely, that "all the spiritual gifts described in the New Testament have continued unabated, unchanged, and unaltered since the initial outpouring of tongues at Pentecost."<br /><br />Wayne Grudem, John Piper, and other men whom YOU have named in support of YOUR position do not define continuationism in this way--Grudem has to argue pretty forcefully that the gift of prophecy in the post-apostolic age is fundamentally DIFFERENT from what it was during the actual New Testament era. In fact (and this is the point of the Phil Johnson piece that's been linked to in the meta here), Grudem ends up arguing PRECISELY that the kind of prophecy seen in the Bible has--wait for it--effectively CEASED, to be replaced with the form of 'prophecy' he argues exists today.<br /><br />This is why you're failing to make any real headway in the meta here--Dan hasn't redefined those terms at all, he's simply asking you to take a serious, critical look at what those terms actually mean.LanternBrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14727003028902907286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-73387671980424151712012-09-20T10:06:07.442-07:002012-09-20T10:06:07.442-07:00DJP – I’ll take a crack at your question (couldn’t...DJP – I’ll take a crack at your question (couldn’t resist, nor do I think I should resist): According to YOUR definition and YOUR understanding of the terms (continuationist and cessationist) then yes you are correct, there are no biblically orthodox continuationists. However, when one redefines the terms to solidify their argument, then anyone who disagrees is going to be wrong (according to their understanding which happens to be the commonly held definition and understanding of the terms). YOU will always be right because YOU redefine the terms and tell all of us how we are to understand the terms, which differs from the commonly held understanding of the terms. No one can differ – we are forced to think the way you think, because you have fenced in your argument by redefining the terms. A little too Orwellian for my taste. This probably will be ‘removed by the administrator’, but I fell in line and answered your question. By the way (with all sincerity), the discussion is very helpful. It forces me to think through my convictions and beliefs (and challenges them in a good and healthy way). <br /><br />Commonly held definitions which leads to a commonly held understanding, so an honest discussion (debate) can be pursued:<br />Continuationism is a Christian theological belief that the gifts of the Holy Spirit have continued to this present age, specifically those sometimes called "sign gifts" such as tongues and prophecy. Continuationism is the opposite of Cessationism.<br /><br />In Christian theology, Cessationism is the view that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as tongues, prophecy and healing, ceased being practiced early on in Church history. The opposite of Cessationism is Continuationism.<br /><br /> Your definitions which supports and fences in your understanding which prohibits any disagreements or differences:<br />If you believe any of the miraculous spiritual gifts were operative in the apostolic era only,and that some or all of those gifts gradually ceased before the end of the first century, you are a cessationist.<br /><br />If you believe all the spiritual gifts described in the New Testament have continued unabated, unchanged, and unaltered since the initial outpouring of tongues at Pentecost, you are a continuationist.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15123097518664033230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10494230151216919222012-09-20T08:16:17.148-07:002012-09-20T08:16:17.148-07:00"...if you continue to only allow those who a..."...if you continue to only allow those who agree completely with..." which just illustrates the problem you're having here. If you'd read the posts we gave you, you wouldn't keep making ignorant statements about "the gifts"; and if you'd read the post I linked, you wouldn't be saying that it's an issue of deleting comments I disagree with.<br /><br />And THAT is the point of the editorial policy. This isn't meant as a bulletin board for anyone's ignorance.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91061438340495324752012-09-20T08:12:40.683-07:002012-09-20T08:12:40.683-07:00Dan,
I read your "delete policy" article...Dan,<br />I read your "delete policy" article you linked and I'm not sure how my deleted comment fit that but I respect your right to delete anything you feel fit. I would humbly submit that if you continue to only allow those who agree completely with you the right to comment you will only increase the widely viewed opinion of Team Pyro as an echo chamber.<br /><br />I will continue to study the Word and read discussions from both sides of this debate (your blog articles as well as stuff from Sam Storms, Wayne Grudem, et al).<br /><br />BlessingsJenniferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313739199470646212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-5304328582853920742012-09-20T08:02:24.780-07:002012-09-20T08:02:24.780-07:00Bob, that is a really, really excellent point, and...Bob, that is a really, really excellent point, and well-made. It adds to the value of the discussion.<br /><br />Thank you.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-63386822274603929582012-09-20T08:01:52.707-07:002012-09-20T08:01:52.707-07:00Jennifer, I see you've got a lot to think abou...Jennifer, I see you've got a lot to think about. Glad you're here. <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2012/08/pyro-and-me-philosophy-of-strategery.html" rel="nofollow">Check this</a>, and you'll understand why we're going to stay on-topic and move forward. As we've been trying to explain.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66030857273712438862012-09-20T07:59:31.828-07:002012-09-20T07:59:31.828-07:00Dan, I am struck by how this argument resembles th...Dan, I am struck by how this argument resembles the one on Limited Atonement. The Arminians say that we put limits on the atonement of Christ because we limit who it applies to. We point out that they limit it as well, but in quality not quantity. <br /><br />In the same way as cessationists, we say the quantity has gone down (admittedly to zero) while they say the quality has gone down. We say that God no longer speaks through prophets, you know the kind you stone if they are ever wrong as the OT demands and the NT authors write in light of. And they say there are. You can just never be sure if they are right and it is no big deal if the are wrong. In the end, we both reduce the gifts in some way, it is just how we do it.Bob Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07360099643007797812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-75706088428652898602012-09-20T07:58:41.440-07:002012-09-20T07:58:41.440-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Jenniferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313739199470646212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9335279470095812582012-09-20T07:35:07.388-07:002012-09-20T07:35:07.388-07:00No Jennifer, you absolutely do not get it, and you...No Jennifer, you absolutely do not get it, and you do not get what cessationism is.<br /><br />I realize it would be asking a lot to ask you to go back and read the 6+ years of writing we've done on this subject. You must also realize that it's asking us a lot to treat each (very welcome!) newcomer as if we've never written on the topic, and start all over, reinventing the wheel every week or two.<br /><br />So in sum, no, what you are saying is absolutely wrong, and it isn't a matter of opinion or extremism.<br /><br />If you want to say "the gifts" continue as in NT times, you must show me the Scriptures that have been written over the past 1900 years, and you must show me the 100% inerrant mouth-of-Christ apostles and prophets ministering today.<br /><br />And if you do that, you are not Biblically orthodox. NONE of the men mentioned affirm that position, even if they mistakenly call themselves "continuationists."<br /><br />Otherwise, you are a cessationist.<br /><br />It's simply a matter of degree, consistency, rationale.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23003402410739329882012-09-20T07:31:09.524-07:002012-09-20T07:31:09.524-07:00Dan,
oh ... and I am smiling as I type ... I thin...Dan,<br /><br />oh ... and I am smiling as I type ... I think I catch the "smirk" in your Sam Storms comment. I hope I do.Jenniferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313739199470646212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10743566574547765792012-09-20T07:29:10.359-07:002012-09-20T07:29:10.359-07:00Hey Aaron,
Read the articles ... what I see is it...Hey Aaron,<br /><br />Read the articles ... what I see is it is an "either/or" fallacy.<br /><br />Dan has created a definition of continualist that states one must accept the extremes of the view. There are no degrees or no biblical exceptions. If this is the way we define these two options (cessationist or continualist) then one must be willing to accept the extreme on both sides.<br /><br />Therefore, there are no Biblically sound evangelicals who hold to the position of cessationist. Not one.<br /><br />If your definition is the extreme, all cessationists believe that God no longer works, no longer heals, His Spirit no longer leads people to act in any specific ways, no longer provides insights not otherwise explained. <br /><br />This is why I asked about Spurgeon. He (like MacDonald) left room for God's Spirit to lead so he obviously would be in opposition to Dan's very strong position.Jenniferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313739199470646212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10593415450971067012012-09-20T07:06:09.411-07:002012-09-20T07:06:09.411-07:00Jennifer, you should not slander Sam Storms like t...Jennifer, you should not slander Sam Storms like that.<br /><br />Please answer Aaron: did you read the links he and Lantern Bright found for you?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70164710862350731512012-09-20T07:04:28.689-07:002012-09-20T07:04:28.689-07:00Rick, your next comment here will be to answer tha...Rick, your next comment here will be to answer that question. It's simple. If you're not getting it and don't want to do further research or thinking, read the links others have provided you and Jennifer.<br /><br />There are no Biblically orthodox continuationists who think "the gifts" are operating.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.com