Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Cessationism, testimonial evidence, and historical knowledge


I'm going to comment on some recent remarks by Ed Dingess:
He [Steve Hays] wants to argue, in theory that healings and miracles have continued without missing a beat even though he has never encountered a faith healer or miracle worker himself. 

i) It's quite possible (or even likely) that I've never encountered a faith-healer. I don't seek them out. And from my perspective, there's no presumption or expectation that every generation (or any generation) has a genuine faith-healer on hand. That's up to God.

ii) But in principle, somebody could have the gift of healing without being famous for it. Our popular preconception of faith-healers is shaped by media coverage of celebrities who make a career out of their reputed ability to heal. Folks like Aimee Semple McPherson, Oral Roberts, Kathryn Kuhlman, and Benny Hinn. They hold healing services for hundreds or thousands. That's the basis of their notoriety. 

But take the case of Peter Bide. How many Christians, much less the general public, have ever heard of him? You have to know something about the life of C. S. Lewis. To the extent that anyone has heard of Peter Bide, that's not because he was well-known in his own right, but because he's remembered in association with C. S. Lewis. Bide was an Anglican priest and former student of Lewis. When Joy Davidman was diagnosed with terminal cancer, Lewis asked Bide to pray over her because he had a reputation as a healer. As a result, she went into remission. For a time, she got much better.

Bide wasn't a "professional" healer. Rather, he was an Anglican priest who happened to have a gift for healing–to judge by what I've read. 

iii) BTW, isn't this a credible case of a Christian healer? Our information comes from C. S. Lewis's own correspondence. Isn't Lewis a credible witness to the miraculous healing of his wife, and the role that Rev. Bide played in that transaction? If we dismiss that out of hand, how is that any different from the attitude of Godless debunkers like Martin Gardner or James Randi? 

Based off that sort of reasoning, we are left without any recourse, but to accept the claims of alien abductions as well. 

i) Notice how Ed's knee-jerk skepticism about testimonial evidence repristinates the position of Hume and his followers. Yet the Bible places great stock in the value of eyewitness testimony.

ii) Ed acts as though you can only assume one of two attitudes towards testimonial evidence: blind credulity or reflexive incredulity. He acts as though every witness is equally trustworthy or equally untrustworthy. But there are standard criteria for sifting testimonial evidence. 

This is one of the basic problems besetting some members of the MacArthur circle. Their cessationism commits them to radical skepticism regarding the possibility of historical knowledge. They're like the minimalist school in Biblical archeology (e.g. Hector Avalos). That's what happens when you adopt a purely reactionary posture. 

Those who argue this way want to defend the on-going practice and possibility of tongues, healings, and miracles but without having to subject it to empirical verification.
I have said that our method for examining this question is both exegetical and empirical. It is exegetical from the standpoint that we must understand the nature of the gifts given in Scripture and how the Church used those gifts for ministry and for edification. It is empirical in the sense that these claims are physical in nature and can be subjected to empirical testing. We can see if a healing has taken place or if a person can actually speak in a foreign language supernaturally.

I have no objection to the empirical verification or falsification of reported healing, where medical records and diagnostic technology are available. 

The dreams of Abimelech and Pilate's wife were given for our benefit, primarily. That is why they are included in divine revelation. You do understand that divine revelation in Scripture was given for the divine revelation OF Scripture and FOR our benefit, right? God is not capriciously or arbitrarily out there revealing things to people willy nilly. There is obviously a greater purpose in His actions than what we see with the Pentecostal connections you are trying to make.
Notice that Ed dodges the issue of how Abimelech or Pilate's wife should have responded to their revelatory dreams. That's because the question exposes an insuperable dilemma in his position. If, on the one hand, he allows that they were right to heed the warning, then, by his own admission, that supposedly opens a door that can't be closed: Once you open the door to such experiential leanings and to extra biblical revelation, just about anything can walk in under the guise of a “movement of God." That would be a fatal concession on his part. For he no longer has a basis for excluding extrabiblical revelation in principle.
However, at least in his initial response to me, he's not prepared to say they were wrong to heed the warning, for that would place him in diametrical opposition to the text. These were revelatory dreams from God. The recipients were supposed to heed the divine warning. 
Since Ed has no good answer, he ducks the question. Changes the subject.
That's because Ed isn't beginning with the witness of Scripture. He begins with his a priori position, then tries to explain away inconvenient evidence to the contrary.

I don't distinguish between verbal and visionary revelation because I cannot know either unless they were reduced to the revelation of Scripture. You continue to miss your target.

Notice how he's confusing ontology with epistemology. Visionary revelation is a different genre. 

If I allow the extra biblical principle in Pentecostal theology, I am indeed in quicksand without any escape from any of the outrageous claims that supposedly come through those revelations. A man may hear that God wants him to divorce his Baptist or Presbyterian wife and marry a fellow Pentecostal who will follow him in his supposed Holy Ghost filled ecstatic utterances. Who are we to say he is wrong. We may say you cannot divorce her because of Paul. He will retort that Paul was speaking of a general situation where the man never heard from God. But I have heard from God and therefore, I must obey! How shall we respond to this person? They have a word from God as sure as any word from God written down in Scripture.
How can we know that Benny Hinn did not receive a legitimate revelation that God has disclosed to him but to no one in Scripture? If we affirm the possibility of extra biblical revelation, I do not see how we can judge the claims these men make, to be false without at the same time engaging in a level of arbitrariness foreign to all rational thought. Even if we arbitrarily assert that all new revelation must be examined in light of Scripture, there is enough not revealed in Scripture that enormous error could ensue and we would have no exegetically rational way of refuting it. This development is both intellectually unappealing and spiritually perilous.
This whole question is a question of epistemology. How do we know and what is our final authority for knowing? Either we have a closed canon and a final authoritative revelation that serves as the basis for knowing truth or we do not. There is no middle ground.

i) The obvious problem with Ed's position is that he raises an issue which didn't begin with the death of the apostles. This goes all the way back to the OT. What should a believer do when confronted with conflicting prophetic claimants? There are hypothetical cases in Deut 13:1-5 & 18:15-21, as well as concrete cases like Jer 27-28. 

Ed's objection either proves too much or too little. By his logic, no OT Jew could distinguish between true and false prophets. Given Ed's all-or-nothing position, an OT Jew should either lend equal credence to all prophetic claimants or dismiss them en masse. This is the problem with the corrosive skepticism of hardline cessationists like Dingess. It doesn't stop with postbiblical "prophecies" or miracles. The same acid begins to dissolve Biblical prophecies and miracles. Ironically, Ed is staking out the same skeptical ground as liberals like Sanders, Crenshaw, and Sheppard. 

If only a closed canon will serve as the basis for distinguishing between true and false claimants, then where does that leave OT Jews, who–by definition–weren't operating with a closed canon. At that time, the canon was still open. It was still the era of public revelation. Same thing with the NT church. 

ii) The fact that someone claims to be a prophet carries no inherent presumption that he is what he claims to be. The bare possibility of "extrabiblical revelation" doesn't confer presumptive actuality on any particular claim or claimant. 

Let's take a concrete example. Alexander Peden. He was a Covenanter with a reputation for foreknowledge. He was reputedly prescient or clairvoyant about enemy troop movements–among other things. Maybe this is legendary, but let's discuss it from a hypothetical standpoint.

Suppose your a Covenanter who's living in Scotland during the Killing Times. Suppose Peden comes rapping on your door and warns you to leave with your family because he had a premonitory dream of Redcoats heading to your house to murder your family. What should you do?

Well, if Peden has a track record for accurate predictions, it would be prudent of you to heed the warning. You have nothing to lose, and potentially everything to gain. 

That doesn't mean you're obliged to heed the warning. Rather, you're acting on his local reputation. That's a judgment based on probability rather than certainty. You don't have to have be strongly invested in his claims. 

The Killing Times were extraordinary times. It wouldn't be surprising to me if God does extraordinary things in extraordinary times to protect his people from mass extermination. 

iii) But what about ordinary times? I endorse Spurgeon's default position. He relates an anecdote about a man who came up to Spurgeon and said the Lord told him he was to preach at the Metropolitan Tabernacle that Sunday. Spurgeon replied, "That’s funny - the Lord didn’t tell me that!"

If somebody says God told them to tell me something, my normal reaction would be: If God really has something to tell me, he can tell me directly!

44 comments:

  1. Here's another modern testimony of a healing. Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland was healed of a serious viral infection that caused painful laryngitis when two lay elder's laid their hands on him and prayed for him. Rather than God immediately healing Moreland in response to prayer, Moreland recounts how it seemed as if heat poured from one of the elder's hand into his throat and chest. Apparently this was a case of mediate healing rather than immediate healing. BTW, the experience of what feels like heat and/or electricity are two of the most common manifestations experienced in claimed testimonies of healings. Many ministers of healing and books on healing mention this. His testimony can be read here:
    http://www.preachingtoday.com/illustrations/2007/november/1112607.html

    There's also J.P. Moreland's testimony of receiving words of wisdom or words of knowledge or prophecy. A video of his testimony can be viewed here:
    http://charismatamatters.blogspot.com/search?q=moreland

    Bide was an Anglican priest and former student of Lewis.

    Many people recommend Mark Pearson's book Christian Healing: A Practical & Comprehensive Guide

    I read about 1/3 of his book a while back and it seemed really good. I think Mark Pearson is an Anglican minister, but I'm not sure. I believe the John H. Armstrong who recommends his book on healing is the same John H. Armstrong who was once well thought of in Reformational circles (but no so much now for various reasons). Pearson did his theological training at Oxford (Masters degree, 1973) and Virginia Theological Seminary, 1974, and was ordained September 15, 1974. He received his doctorate in the area of Christian Healing ministry from Boston University in 1999 [ Ugh a Catholic institution :^( ].

    Two links about Mark Pearson HERE and HERE. Sermon on The Gift of Healing HERE. So far I haven't found anything heretical in his teaching. But I'm still looking because of the tendency of some Anglicans to be liberal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I forgot to mention that his wife is a medical doctor:

      Dr. Mary Pearson was born in Schenectady, New York and raised in nearby Clifton Park. Her undergraduate degree in biology is from Union College, Schenectady and her medical degree is from University of New England, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Biddeford, Maine. She served her medical internship in Farrell, Pennsylvania and her medical residency in Erie.

      Delete
    2. At the Amazon.com preview one can read endorsements of Mark Pearson's book by John H. Armstrong, Charles Hummel, Former Director of Faculty Ministries Intervarsity Christian Fellowship etc.; Robert Webber Myers Professor of Ministry Northern Seminary; Dr. Ted Baehr Chairman, The Christian Film and Television Commision; William P. Wilson, MD Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry Duke University Medical Center Distinguished Professor of Counseling Carolina Evangelical Divinity School; Bob Mendelsohn Australian Diredtor of Jews for Jesus and a few other people.

      Mark Pearson's book and Ken Blue's book Authority to Heal are the best introductions to the ministry of healing I've encountered and I have dozens of books on the topic (not to mention dozens of books I've browsed).

      Delete
    3. I don't want to interrupt current discussions so I'm posting some links here that address some of the issues and concerns mentioned in those other discussions.

      Here's a link to some of the posts on J.P. Moreland's website that discuss why God might sometimes speak in an unclear way. (by various authors including Moreland)

      http://www.jpmoreland.com/?s=objections+to+hearing+God


      Here's a link to a great example of one of those posts

      Does God "TRY" to Speak?
      http://www.jpmoreland.com/2012/07/19/objections-to-hearing-god-part-five-a-response-to-does-god-try/

      Delete
    4. I'm not tracking with that Moreland article. What about it was compelling to you?

      Delete
    5. Sorry, I don't understand that phrase, "I'm not tracking." So, I'm not sure if 1. you don't understand it's relevance in the discussion, or 2. You didn't read it because you don't have the time so you want me to summarize it and explain why it's compelling to me.

      The article points out that it's not inconsistent with the omnipotence of God for God to intentionally speak in a way that's unclear. Or even, as the article says, "Moreover, God can also form an unconditional intention to be heard/missed (unconditional relative to the intended hearer's immediate response). That is, God can have aims that are best achieved only by allowing some person to hear/miss it, come what may." [bold emphasis by me]

      Some examples the article gives are:
      God could intend that if Barbarelli is willing to act on what he hears, then God will allow his voice to come from the periphery to the focus of Barbarelli's attention.
      He could decide that Giorgione hear his voice with greater frequency only if Giorgione stops doing some action that violates his conscience.
      He could will that Tully hear his voice with greater clarity only if Tully stops distracting himself.
      God could act such that, if Cicero chooses to familiarize himself better with some aspect of biblical revelation, then Cicero will recognize God's voice as God's voice.
      God could make his own communicative efforts less-than-clear in order to help train Orcutt in an ability—that of recognizing what God's voice is like; or that of helping Orcutt discern God's voice from among competing distractions.
      God could allow Orcutt to miss his voice at various times, or in various ways, in order to help Orcutt form certain habits of character—courage to act in faith on the basis of good reasons, for instance; or as incentive for cultivating a less distracted life.
      He could allow Orcutt to miss it in some fashion in order to maintain what some have called "epistemic distance" from Orcutt—this plausibly being the only way in some cases to preserve human freedom or moral responsibility.

      Delete
    6. Personally I think Rom. 12:6, 1 Cor. 14:29-33; 1 Pet. 4:11 suggest that the successful exercise of the NT charismatic gifts were often dependent on the proportionality of one's faith and practiced proficiency in its use. That can account for why some Words of Knowledge or Wisdom or Prophecy both in NT times and modern times could be unclear in its meaning/interpretation and its proper application (or permissible applications). For example, Agabus' prophecy lead him to interpret and apply it in such a way as to tell Paul to stay away from Jerusalem. However, Paul accepted the prophecy but applied in the opposite way (even if he may have been permitted to apply it the way other Christians thought he should). Paul knew from previous revelations that, if not now, then eventually he would have to go to Jerusalem to endure persecution.

      Delete
    7. God can have aims that are best achieved only by allowing some person to hear/miss it, come what may

      That wouldn't really be prophecy, then. It would be something else.

      Delete
    8. This is also why 1 Thess. 5:20-21 says,20 Do not despise prophecies.21 Test all things; hold fast what is good." Apparently, some of the Thessalonian Christians got weary of hearing "bad" prophecies and started despising prophecies and prophesying. As a corrective, Paul instructs them to test all prophecies and to accept and hold onto those that were apparently from God and were correct/beneficial. This attitude and approach to prophecy was unlike the response that people should have given to Old Testament prophecies from nationally recognized prophets in ancient Israel like Jeremiah or Isaiah. Those were to be accepted without qualification (or nearly so; See Here, Here and Here for my views on some qualifications if anyone is interested). Therefore NT prophets and prophecies isn't equivalent to OT prophets and prophecies since (generally speaking) you weren't to question the authority, interpretation, and application of an OT prophet's prophecy.

      Delete
    9. That wouldn't really be prophecy, then. It would be something else.

      So you don't think that in the OT or even Jesus gave prophecies that were intended by God to be misunderstood by the immediate hearers at that particular time (even if it were to be understood at some latter time by the same or different people)? What do you do with Jesus' statement and apparent prophecy "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."?

      Delete
    10. Or Jesus' prophecy in Matthew:

      23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
      24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

      Preterist and Futurist Christians still disagree on the proper meaning and fulfillment of this prophecy.

      Delete
    11. I'd like to see you substantiate your inference about the Thess Christians' hearing failed prophecies. I think that's some speculation, with all due respect my dear brother.

      What if Paul wanted them to test prophecies b/c that's a great idea all the time, b/c that's what the Bereans did in Acts 17 and that's a commendable attitude? B/c when you test "prophets" and they get it wrong, you know not to listen to their "prophecies" anymore?

      The OT prophets were to be accepted w/o qualification b/c those guys were really speaking for God. There were plenty of false prophets at the time as well. How could faithful Israelites tell them apart? The false ones would get stuff wrong (and/or teach idolatry).

      You mentioned that NT prophets are different, but ISTM, my dear brother, that you have asserted it but not proven it.


      So you don't think that in the OT or even Jesus gave prophecies that were intended by God to be misunderstood by the immediate hearers at that particular time

      Yea, I guess you're right about that. Jesus even said that He speaks in parables so that most ppl wouldn't get it.
      Maybe we should back up on that point...I guess you were addressing something slightly different than where I followed you to. I was talking about prophecies being fallible. So let me just concede that point to you.

      Delete
    12. I believe that since the inscripturation of Revelation in Scripture by Moses, all further alleged revelations by prophets were to be tested by Scripture (Prima Scriptura/Summa Scriptura). In that sense, all OT Prophets and NT Apostles were to be tested. I set forth my case in comments in previous blogs. Exempli gratia: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-charismata.html
      http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/02/confessionalism-continuationism.html
      http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/04/divine-guidance.html
      and the recent blog here http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/08/feminist-cessationists.html
      Here's an excerpt from previous comments:
      1. Even if Sola Scriptura wasn't (and couldn't be) in operation, Summa Scriptura *was* during times when public inspired and infallible Revelation was still being given by God (during both OT and NT times).

      2. That OT prophets usually needed to develop a reputation for being accurate as prophets (in 1. fullfillment of foretellings, 2. correspondence to truth/fact in words of knowledge, 3. orthodox with respect to the currently recognized Scripture by the Covenant community as the canon was growing). To the degree that their reputation of past accuracy (and godliness) had grown, to THAT degree that were to be believed/heeded.

      That's why there were schools of the prophets where the "sons of the prophets" could be trained. That's why it's recorded that AS Samuel GREW, the LORD didn't allow his words "fall to the ground" (1 Sam. 3:19) so as to establish him as a reliable prophet. Otherwise, once a person had been recognized as someone through whom God had (at least once) spoken through, then that would mean he would INSTANTLY become infallible and must be obeyed from then on out. But if that's the case, then how could we fault the prophet of Judah in 1 King 13:7ff. who heeded the temptations of a formerly accurate prophet of Jehovah from Bethel? Ironically, after the incident he DOES again accurately prophesy for Jehovah about the first prophet's doom for disobeying God. OT prophets weren't themselves personally infallible.

      Delete

    13. For example, Manoah and his wife received a visitation of the Angel of the LORD (probably the pre-incarnate Christ) who spoke in YHWH's name a message which Manoah and his wife were free to repeat to others without fearing that if it was discovered that the message was later proved false that they would be stoned. My point is that God could speak to anyone in the OT no matter how seemingly insignificant they were without fear of being stoned to death if the message proved false. Can you imagine Manoah and his wife keeping secret the Angelic visitation least they be stoned to death if the prophecy of a birth proved false? Could you imagine them wringing their hands if they had accidentally or intentionally told someone of the angelic prophecy (which they believed ultimately came from God)? There was no time limit as to when they would bear a son. So, it could have been years later. But if one of them died before the other, then the survivor would end up being a false prophet worthy of death if the traditional understanding of OT prophecy were true. Obviously, anyone in the OT could receive a revelation from God. I believe the same is true under the New Covenant. If you think about it, the greatest available spiritual gift in the NT was not teaching (cf. the warning in James 3:1), nor was it the gift of speaking in tongues (since Paul seems to place it at the bottom of the list if not interpreted). Rather it's the gift of prophecy. Repeatedly Paul encourages EVERYONE to earnestly/eagerly seek that spiritual gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 14:1; 5; 24; 39 cf. Acts 2:17-18). Imagine the Corinthians responding back to Paul saying, "You may encourage ALL of us to seek the gift of prophecy Paul, but nah, we pass on that. We don't want to be excommunicated for accidentally giving false prophecies." Excommunication of course being the NT counterpart to OT execution for false prophecy.

      Delete
    14. OT prophets usually needed to develop a reputation for being accurate as prophets

      Well, of course. I doubt they walked around glowing with golden light. People had to know that God was speaking thru them.
      And how did they gain that reputation? By never making a mistake when he said "thus saith the Lord".


      AS Samuel GREW, the LORD didn't allow his words "fall to the ground"

      So the Lord didn't let him ascribe "thus saith the Lord" to something false. That sounds like an outstanding principle, one we should heed to this very day. God doesn't make mistakes.


      how could we fault the prophet of Judah in 1 King 13:7ff. who heeded the temptations of a formerly accurate prophet of Jehovah from Bethel?

      We can fault him b/c he had received a word from the Lord with a specific command, which he disobeyed on the basis of hearsay. God doesn't contradict Himself. The prophet should've known that.


      Manoah and his wife received a visitation of the Angel of the LORD (probably the pre-incarnate Christ) who spoke in YHWH's name a message which Manoah and his wife were free to repeat to others without fearing that if it was discovered that the message was later proved false that they would be stoned.

      Not the same thing. They weren't claiming to be prophets. They were claiming an angelophany.


      Can you imagine Manoah and his wife keeping secret the Angelic visitation least they be stoned to death if the prophecy of a birth proved false?

      Sounds to me like that's the proper attitude - you need to be REALLY REALLY sure that God has spoken before you go spouting off "thus said the Lord to me!"
      Take it fwd to today - I know for sure that Scirpture is God speaking. I have zero confidence that when Sam Storms says he knows a guy who gives prophetic utterances that are remarkably accurate (by which he means a few have come true and the rest he has conveniently forgotten about), that that was actually God speaking. Such a man ought to be quiet and speak to himself and God, and if he really wants to share a word from the Lord, flip open his ESV.


      But if one of them died before the other, then the survivor would end up being a false prophet worthy of death if the traditional understanding of OT prophecy were true

      Manoah and his wife no doubt figured that God could keep one of them from croaking before the son was born.


      anyone in the OT could receive a revelation from God.

      Just like today. But we're talking about PROPHETS, not single incidents.


      Repeatedly Paul encourages EVERYONE to earnestly/eagerly seek that spiritual gift of prophecy

      1) Which is easily explained by the cessationist position - Paul was telling them to seek it in his day but it's not given anymore in 2013.
      2) Just b/c we seek something doesn't mean God always gives it.


      "We don't want to be excommunicated for accidentally giving false prophecies."

      Then that's easily settled - don't give false prophecies. If the Lord is really speaking thru you, you won't, don't worry.



      Delete
    15. So the Lord didn't let him ascribe "thus saith the Lord" to something false. That sounds like an outstanding principle, one we should heed to this very day. God doesn't make mistakes.

      Not all revelations from God (e.g. prophecies, words of knowledge or wisdom) were prefaced with "Thus saith YHWH"

      We can fault him b/c he had received a word from the Lord with a specific command, which he disobeyed on the basis of hearsay. God doesn't contradict Himself. The prophet should've known that.

      Agreed. That's a principle I've repeatedly defended for years. The point is that the prophet from Bethel may have been a genuine prophet (Steve thinks otherwise). But if he was, then that goes to show that just because one has proven to be an accurate and reliable prophet in the past doesn't give one carte blanche authority. Prophets are still sinners. Abraham was a prophet of sorts (Gen. 20:7) and he committed many sins of unbelief. Moses sinned by striking the rock a second time (Num. 20:11-12). Sin can include declaring false prophecies/revelations (cf. the prophet of Bethel 1 Kings 13). While it can be disputed, a possible interpretation of the passage is that a genuine prophet of God pronounced a false prophesy to test another prophet. Nathan the prophet could give bad advice (1 Chron. 17:2-4). The prophet Micaiah prophesied sarcastically, even if only temporarily (1 Kings 22:15ff.//2 Chron 18:14ff.). Jeremiah lied about a conversation he had with king Zedekiah (Jer. 38:24ff.). Elisha legitimately used subterfuge (2 Kings 6:19). This shows how prophets would sometimes "finesse the truth". He did a similar thing regarding his prophecy to Ben-Hadad through Hazael (2 Kings 8:10ff.). Jonah disobeyed the LORD. Isaiah admitted he had unclean lips (Isa. 6:5). And God was not averse to using people with bad character to deliver prophecies (cf. Balak Num. 22-24). Peter was an apostle, yet because of his behavior he was "not straightforward about the truth of the gospel" (Gal. 2:14).

      Not the same thing. They weren't claiming to be prophets. They were claiming an angelophany.

      It's still a revelation from the LORD (like that to Joseph in a dream, and Mary when Gabriel visited her). Anyone listening to their testimony had to make a decision as to whether to believe it as possibly (truly) coming from God or not.

      Delete
    16. I have zero confidence that when Sam Storms says he knows a guy who gives prophetic utterances that are remarkably accurate...

      But I'm not claiming that modern prophecy is equivalent to OT prophecies of OT prophets like Moses, Isaiah & Elijah. Many continuationists theologians argue for a difference between OT and NT prophecy. Even to the possibility that OT prophecy was two tiered. Maybe even NT prophecy was two tiered. I explained my own tentative view in the links above if anyone is interested.

      1) Which is easily explained by the cessationist position - Paul was telling them to seek it in his day but it's not given anymore in 2013.

      You missed my point. ISTM that it doesn't make sense to consider OT prophecy as equivalent to NT prophecy if what was, in the OT, the most unique, special and elite gifting/calling should turn out to be the most potentially available and obtainable gift in the NT. As I said, "Repeatedly Paul encourages EVERYONE to earnestly/eagerly seek that spiritual gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 14:1; 5; 24; 39 cf. Acts 2:17-18)." Thus opening it up to possible greater abuse. Or greater cases of unintentional false prophecies that people sincerely thought were from God. Even Samuel didn't immediately recognize it was the LORD who was speaking to him (1 Sam. 3:4-14).

      2) Just b/c we seek something doesn't mean God always gives it.

      Of course. But James also says, "You have not because you ask not" (James 4:2). Reminds me of this POWERFUL 3 min video of John Piper.

      Then that's easily settled - don't give false prophecies. If the Lord is really speaking thru you, you won't, don't worry.

      But everyone was encouraged to contribute according to their spiritual gift (1 Cor. 14:26). Also, if NT prophecy was the same as that of the OT, then why did Paul say it should be judged (1 Thess. 5:21, 1 Cor. 14:29-33, cf. 1 John 4:1)? If you believe OT prophecies from OT prophets were to be accepted because they had carte blanche authority, then NT prophets and their prophecies should NOT have been judged. In the case of Agabus' prophecy and Paul's response, if OT & NT prophecy were the same, then either Agabus was a false prophet or Paul disobeyed a prophet of God.

      Delete
    17. It's my contention that OT prophets had to gain a reputation for being a reliable prophet. To the degree that they had such a reputation along with a reputation for godliness, to that degree they were to be believed. All the while knowing that a prophet was still fallible in himself and therefore each prophecy had to be judged on a case-by-case basis afresh (though in light of past reputation). Only when a prophet claimed to directly speak for God through a public and universally binding revelation was the prophet liable to be stoned to death if his prophecy proved false.
      If an OT prophet had to be judged in that way, then that opens up the possibility that NT prophets could be judged in that way too. Possibly because NT prophecies could be inaccurate. Or a false prophecy could come from a genuine and sincere believer. Or because the revelation was genuine, but the interpretation and/or application was wrong. For example, Agabus' revelation was genuinely from God but he wrongly interpreted it as a warning and wrongly applied it in such a way as to tell Paul to stay away from Rome. When in actuality it was merely an indication that Paul was going to face persecution if he continued on his way to Jerusalem. Paul interpreted it as a revelation from God to psychologically prepare him to face the persecution. He may or may not have thought he was free to stop his journey to Jerusalem. But, most likely, he knew from previous revelations that if not "now", then eventually he would have to suffer greater persecution at Jerusalem.

      Delete
    18. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    19. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    20. Rhology, I understand if you don't respond to this post. I think this conversation has run it's course (you probably do too). I always enjoy discussions with knowledgeable committed fellow believers like you. But for the record I wanted to respond again to something you said one more (& last) time.

      2) Just b/c we seek something doesn't mean God always gives it.

      As Christians (and especially as Calvinists) we believe that all our prayers should be submitted to God's Sovereign will which He has purposed according to His superior wisdom which is coupled with His love.

      However, I believe some things are more clearly His will than others. Also, as Calvinists we distinguish between God's revealed will and His decretive will (which is secret). Since we cannot know what God's secret will of decree is, we cannot specifically pray for those things. We can only submit to it, praising God that it's for the ultimate best. However, when it comes to God's revealed will, there are some things that we can pray for which are 1. specifically promised/commanded in Scripture, 2. generally promised in Scripture, 3. things not specifically promised but are consistent and in keeping with His general promises, 4. things contrary to His revealed will. Then we have to also distinguish between conditional and unconditional promises. For example, God's promise to keep the current cosmos ordered till His purposes are fulfilled are unconditional (Jer. 31:35-36; Isa. 66:22). God will do it regardless of whether we pray and obey. But, many of God's promises are conditional. Additionally, God teaches us (and promises by that teaching) that our ability to fulfill the conditions are from Him (Isa. 26:12; Phil. 2:12-13). Moreover, God teaches that He has ordained to what degree we will fulfill those conditions at any given time (Eph. 1:11; 2:10; Prov. 19:21; 20:24; 21:1; Jer. 10:23).

      To the degree that something is God's will or promise, and to whatever degree of consistency (or inconsistency) we fulfill their conditions: 1. God will fulfill His promises (whether they be specific or general); 2. we can have confidence to believe we may, can (or definitely will) receive them (1 John 3:21-22; 5:14-15). As well as having Biblical warrant to persist and persevere in prayer until we receive their fulfillment (Luke 11:8; 18:1, 7; Matt. 7:7-12).
      For example, God's revealed will clearly and specifically commands us (and promises us we can by His grace) to glorify God (command: Matt. 6:9; 1 Cor. 10:31; promise: John 15:5, 16) and pursuit our sanctification (command: 1 Thess. 4:3; promise 1 Thess. 5:23-34). Since these are specifically God's revealed will, we have warrant to pray for these things with boldness.
      [continued in next comment]

      Delete
    21. Speaking of perseverance, George Mueller said: "It is not enough to begin to pray, nor to pray aright; nor is it enough to continue for a time to pray; but we must patiently, believingly continue in prayer, until we obtain an answer; and further, we have not only to continue in prayer unto the end, but we have also to believe that God does hear us and will answer our prayers. Most frequently we fail in not continuing in prayer until the blessing is obtained, and in not expecting the blessing."

      The question then is whether spiritual gifts are specifically or generally promised; and whether they are promised with or without conditions. Same thing for other promises like wisdom (Jehovah Ori: 1 Cor. 1:30; Ps. 27:1; James 1:5-8), justification (Jehovah Tsidkenu: 1 Cor. 1:30; Isa. 23:6; 53:11; Rom. 10:9-10), sanctification (Jehovah Mekaddishkem: 1 Cor. 1:30; Exo. 31:12-13; Lev. 20:7-8; 1 Thess. 5:23-24; Heb. 12:14), redemption (Jehovah Goel: 1 Cor. 1:30; Is. 49:26, 60:16; Rom. 3:24; 8:23), provision (Jehovah Jireh: Gen. 22:14; Matt. 6:8, 11 25-26, 30-33; Phil. 4:19; 2 Cor. 9:8, 10-11), healing (Jehovah Rapha: Exo. 15:26; 23:25-26; Ps. 103:2-3; Mal. 4:2; James 5:14-16ff; Acts 3:16; Mark 1:41; 1 Thess. 5:23-24; et cetera, et cetera, etc. See my blog HERE). I could type up more references for promises of protection, long life, perseverance in the faith, and much more, but you all get the picture. There are also dozens more Jehovah compound names.

      Paul tells us, "For all the promises of God in Him [i.e. in Christ] are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us" (2 Cor. 1:20). Yet we know instances of Christians or OT believers who weren't protected (but died as martyrs), starved to death (for not compromising), died of sickness, made foolish choices, got morally worse as they got older (e.g. Solomon). To summarize my resolution to the apparent contradiction between God's promises and our (sometimes) lack of experience of them, I would point to the distinctions I made above concerning specific, general, unconditional, conditional promises and God's sovereign purposes. Regardless of God secret intentions, I believe we are to persist in seeking for the fulfillment of God's promises since 1. God commands us to and 2. tells us their fulfillment is often conditioned on faith, prayer, persistent prayer, and obedience (and God commands us to fulfill those conditions).

      When it comes to spiritual gifts, and assuming some form of continuationism, it's clear that God generally promises spiritual gifts and conditions their giving based on earnestly desiring and pursuiting them in prayer (1 Cor. 14:1, 39). From those same passages (and others) it's also clear that all Christians OUGHT to have spiritual gifts. Some might even argue that Scripture declares and explicitly teaches ALL Christians DO have spiritual gifts. If that's true, then (it has been argued) they remain LATENT until we pursuit them and we find out which spiritual gifts we have or until God reveals to us which we have and which others God may want to additionally give us.

      Delete
    22. typo corrections: I kept mixing up pursue, pursuing and pursuit.

      Delete
    23. In addition to God's 1. Will of Decree, 2. Will of Demand (also known as, "will of command", "revealed will", "prescriptive will", or "preceptive will"), I also believe in 3. God's Will Delight. I suspect this is the same as R.C. Sproul's distinction and description of God's Will of Disposition (or dispositional will). It refers to God's general benevolent attitude toward His creation and creatures and what He's willing to do for it and them.

      For example, God's revealed will during Christ's earthly ministry was that the Gospel be only preached, heralded and offered to the lost House of Israel (Matt. 10:5-6; 15:24; Acts 3:26; 13:46; Luke 24:47). Nevertheless, because of God's dispositional will (which is alluded to in many passages in God's revealed will in Scripture; e.g. Ps. 145:8-9), Jesus (with God the Father's approval) answered the prayer and responded to the faith of the Syrophoenician woman who was a Gentile. Even though it was contrary to God's revealed will. Initially, when the woman asked Jesus for mercy on her daughter, Jesus kept quiet and didn't respond to her (Matt. 15:23a). His disciples begged Him to command her to leave (Matt. 15:23b). He chose not to send her away even though He reiterated His mission was only for "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24). The woman persisted and asked for mercy again (Matt. 15:25). Then Jesus responded by saying, "It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." Then she said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." By her insightful response, Jesus gladly granted her request and commended her for her great faith. From this passage we can see that all along Jesus was secretly willing to grant her request even though it contradicted God's revealed will, since He didn't send her away (when He could have). Evidently, His intention was to draw out her faith by His initial refusal. A refusal which was based on God's revealed will concerning His mission. This is an instance where God's Will of Disposition/Delight contradicted God's Revealed Will. But because of the woman's persistent faith, she was able to appropriate what God was willing to grant in one sense, which He was not willing to grant in another sense.

      Delete
    24. I also believe in 4. God's Directional Will. It refers to situations in which God reveals to us outside of Scripture (but which doesn't contradict Scripture) a course of action He would have us take. Such impressions, leadings, or commands may have differing degrees of clearness, certainty and urgency.
      This would have been a common situation before the close of the Bible's Canon. Cessationists would deny that such directions are possible (or are EXTREMELY rare). However, continuationist believe that they can or do happen even if they are rare. An example might be waking up in the middle of the night to a voice saying there's a fire in the house and to get out. The voice may be directly from God or the voice of an angel commissioned by God to protect you (and if necessary to speak to you).

      Delete
  2. "If somebody says God told them to tell me something, my normal reaction would be: If God really has something to tell me, he can tell me directly!"
    But what of OT prophets who carried messages to people?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i) OT prophets are authoritative in a way that modern prophets are not.

      ii) The evidence that somebody is a modern prophet isn't comparable to the evidence for OT prophets.

      Delete
    2. i) So in the OT, "thus saith the Lord" meant "thus saith the Lord". But today, "thus saith the Lord" means "thus maybe saith the Lord"?
      I don't get it. I get that this is ASSERTED by men such as Sam Storms, but I don't understand the rationale.

      ii) Like accuracy?

      Delete
    3. i) Alan, you're shadowboxing with a different position than mine. If you want to critique the position of Storms, fine. That's not my argument.

      ii) Once again, you're filtering my statement through an alien grid. You need to deal with my stated position on its own terms, instead of constantly translating my statements into someone else's position.

      The question at issue wouldn't be whether a "prophecy" is accurate or inaccurate, but what kind of evidence we have for believing that a prophetic claimant is what he claims to be.



      Delete
    4. what kind of evidence we have for believing that a prophetic claimant is what he claims to be.

      Well, my position is at least simpler on that count - if he claims to be a prophet, he better nail it 100% of the time. B/c prophecy is by definition a word from God Himself, and God gets stuff right 100% of the time.

      Delete
    5. That oversimplifies the practical issues of verification and falsification, as I explain below.

      Delete
  3. Suppose your a Covenanter who's living in Scotland during the Killing Times. Suppose Peden comes rapping on your door and warns you to leave with your family because he had a premonitory dream of Redcoats heading to your house to murder your family. What should you do?

    But suppose you're a Covenanter who's living in Scotland during the Killing Times. Suppose Peden comes rapping on your door and warns you to leave your church because he had a premonitory dream of the pastor engaging in an adulterous affair and believing false doctrine behind closed doors tho you have no other evidence of the affair and he has always preached solid doctrine. What should you do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i) That wouldn't be a premonitory dream.

      ii) My example involves special guidance, not doctrine or ethics. Foresight or "second sight" rather than insight. My example doesn't credit a modern "prophet" with special ability to evaluate doctrine and ethics. Rather, he seems to have a gift for anticipating hazardous eventualities.

      iii) There's no correlation between living in dangerous times and a church with an adulterous pastor. So there's no situational reason to think you might receive special guidance under those circumstances.

      iv) I don't think a modern "prophet" has the authority to make pronouncements about doctrine and ethics. As is clear from my example, I'm not using "prophet" in that broader sense. Rather, I'm using it to denote someone who's gifted with special awareness of impending outcomes or the intent of human agents (i.e. precognition, clairvoyance, clairaudience).

      v) One's confidence in Peden's ability is qualified. If he seems to be reliable (given his track record), it would be wise under those circumstances to heed the warning. Play it safe. That's a cost/benefit analysis.

      But it's possible that he's just lucky. Good at guessing what would happen. You're not placing unconditional trust in his advice. Maybe he has no special ability to discern the future.

      Delete
    2. i) Yes, it would. Those things are events - adulterous affair, belief in false teaching. It's warning the recipient of the pastor's hidden vices.

      ii) But it's from God in each case. "Thus saith the Lord."
      It's not THE PROPHET evaluating something. It's God, b/c the man speaking is a prophet, giving revelation from God.
      It's hazardous to attend church where the preacher believes false doctrine.

      iii) True. An adulterous, false pastor is far MORE dangerous, and so couldn't we just substantiate the alleged prophecy with the ol' "how much more would God want to protect His church from SPIRITUAL danger!"?

      iv) Why not? Is he speaking revelations from God or isn't he?
      If he is, then isn't your objection groundless?
      If he's not, then why listen to him?
      If he MIGHT be, doesn't that lead us into total confusion?

      v) "seems" to be reliable? I don't care about HIM, I care about God. Is God speaking thru him or not?

      Maybe he has no special ability to discern the future.

      How could we know? Does Scripture say anything about that? Like testing prophets and rejecting them if they're not 100% accurate?

      Delete
  4. Rhology

    "i) Yes, it would. Those things are events - adulterous affair, belief in false teaching. It's warning the recipient of the pastor's hidden vices."

    Alan, you're equivocating. A premonition involves a (would-be) future event, not a past or present event, much less "hidden vices" or "false teachings." Don't stretch my statement into something that bears no recognizable resemblance to the original statement.

    "ii) But it's from God in each case. "Thus saith the Lord." It's not THE PROPHET evaluating something. It's God, b/c the man speaking is a prophet, giving revelation from God."

    My hypothetical doesn't require me to make any assumptions about the source of Peden's predictive ability. It's sufficient for me to know that he has a reputation for making accurate predictions. That's all I'm acting on. It's a pragmatic judgment, not a theological judgment.

    "It's hazardous to attend church where the preacher believes false doctrine. iii) True. An adulterous, false pastor is far MORE dangerous, and so couldn't we just substantiate the alleged prophecy with the ol' 'how much more would God want to protect His church from SPIRITUAL danger!'?"

    I don't need to a priori ascribe a whole range of alleged abilities to Peden. Rather, in my scenario, there's some probative evidence that he can foresee a (would-be) future. That doesn't commit me to anything else. Indeed, it doesn't even commit me to heed his forewarning.

    I'm not beginning with an abstract preconception of what a modern "prophet" can allegedly know. Rather, in my hypothetical, I'm dealing with an individual who has a time-tested ability.

    My information about his ability is limited. And his predictive ability might even be fallible. But if he's right more often than he's wrong, then it would be prudent of me to vacate the house in case the Redcoats are coming.

    "iv) Why not? Is he speaking revelations from God or isn't he?"

    I don't have to prejudge that question.

    "If he MIGHT be, doesn't that lead us into total confusion?"

    "Total confusion" about what? Leaving the house for a few hours to elude the Redcoats? And if it turns out that he was mistaken, so what? Sometimes we take unnecessary precautions. Should we only take precautions in case we know we're in danger?

    "v) 'seems' to be reliable? I don't care about HIM, I care about God. Is God speaking thru him or not?"

    There's no reason I should accept your attempt to recast the issue.

    "How could we know? Does Scripture say anything about that? Like testing prophets and rejecting them if they're not 100% accurate?"

    i) Testing prophetic accuracy depends, in part, on whether these are short-term or long term predictions.

    ii) As I've also pointed out, it depends on the kind of "revelation" we're dealing with. If, say, a premonitory dream is allegorical, then there are interpretive ambiguities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even in your example, the premonition was about something already underway, of which the Covenanter was not yet aware. Same with my pastor example. I think you need to find another objection. :-)

      So Peden has accurate predictions. But <100%, yes? So he might hear from God, but he might not. It's a toss of the dice whenever he comes to you and says "yo, you better leave your house".
      What does "time-tested ability" mean? What is the benchmark? The minimum % for premonitory warnings that later turned out to be right? 51%?

      I certainly agree that it doesn't commit you to heed his forewarning. That's been my contention all along. :-)


      Leaving the house for a few hours to elude the Redcoats?

      In your example, sure. But it just might be that another time he asks you to sow a $1000 seed so as to reap a hundredfold.

      Delete
    2. Rhology

      "Even in your example, the premonition was about something already underway, of which the Covenanter was not yet aware."

      "Underway" in what sense? That that Redcoats *planned* to go to my house?

      "Same with my pastor example."

      No, your pastoral example is not the same, since "hidden vices" or "false teaching" is hardly the same as future contingencies, or knowledge thereof.

      "I think you need to find another objection. :-)"

      Alan, if you can't argue in good faith, don't argue at all. I don't have the time or interest. Don't push your luck.

      
"So Peden has accurate predictions. But <100%, yes? So he might hear from God, but he might not. It's a toss of the dice whenever he comes to you and says "yo, you better leave your house". 
What does 'time-tested ability' mean? What is the benchmark? The minimum % for premonitory warnings that later turned out to be right? 51%?"

      Alan, don't be captious. You and I play the odds everyday. We assess risk factors. We don't have exact percentages. We wing it. What's the benchmark for choosing an automechanic? Do you have a mathematical formula? No.

      

"I certainly agree that it doesn't commit you to heed his forewarning. That's been my contention all along. :-)"

      Don't pretend that you extracted a concession from me when I never said otherwise. Don't trifle with me. Be an honest debater.

      


"In your example, sure. But it just might be that another time he asks you to sow a $1000 seed so as to reap a hundredfold."

      Alan, throughout this exchange you have a bad habit of substituting a position I didn't take for the position I actually took, attacking the substitute position, then challenging me to defend the substitute position. The only position I need to defend is my own, not your diversions.

      Delete
    3. Right, that the Redcoats were already on the march, or that your house was on their agenda for the day.

      The future contingency about the pastor would be whether his adultery and false doctrine ever crack thru his concealment.

      No, we don't have perfect things in this life in general. Except the Scripture, b/c we know that the Scripture is God talking. We don't know that about these other things.


      The only position I need to defend is my own, not your diversions.

      Well, that is certainly true. I don't put it past myself to mistake what you're trying to say.

      Delete
    4. Rhology

      "Right, that the Redcoats were already on the march, or that your house was on their agenda for the day. The future contingency about the pastor would be whether his adultery and false doctrine ever crack thru his concealment."

      You're at liberty to define terms your own way. But I'm not bound by your definitions.

      Delete
  5. Apparently John Calvin received a Word of Knowledge. Excerpt taken from The Suppressed Evidence by Thomas Boys (pages 125-128).

    QUOTE
    But one of the most remarkable circumstances of a supernatural kind, recorded in the life of this Reformer [i.e. John Calvin], is the manner in which he was miraculously made acquainted, at Geneva, with a battle that was being fought near Paris. That is, he was miraculously made acquainted with it at the time of its occurrence, and many days before the arrival of the intelligence.

    "One thing must not be omitted, that on the nineteenth of December" (1562), "Calvin lying in bed sick of the gout, it being the Sabbath-day, and the north wind having blown two days strongly, he said to many who were present, 'Truly I know not what is the matter, but I thought this night I heard warlike drums beating very loud, and I could not persuade myself but it was so. Let us therefore go to prayers, for surely some great business is in hand.' And this day there was a great battle fought between the Guisians and the Protestants not far from Paris, news whereof came to Geneva within a few days after."


    On this narrative it seems necessary to make a few observations.

    1. Though I have taken it from an English work, it will be found, with no material variations, in Calvin's Life by Beza. Beza himself, also, evidently records the occurrence as believing it, and as recognizing its supernatural character. Here, then, we see the belief of two, among the most eminent Reformers, in such miraculous occurrences.

    2. The circumstance of the wind's blowing violently from the north, seems to be mentioned for the purpose of more strongly marking, what indeed is of itself sufficiently evident, that the sounds could by no possibility have reached Geneva in a natural way. The mention of the fact also proves to us, that the extraordinary occurrence must have attracted notice at the time, while it admitted of examination, and while it was possible to ascertain how the wind was on the day specified.

    3. Calvin related what he had experienced in the hearing of many individuals.

    4. The sound which he heard was not faint or doubtful, but as loud as possible.

    [Continued in next post]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5. He seems to have been fully conscious of the possibility of self-deception; nay, to have been disposed to think himself under a a delusion; but could not bring himself to that persuasion.

      6. The deliberate conclusion, to which he had come when he addressed his friends, was, that some great business was certainly in hand.

      7. On this conclusion he solemnly acted, proposing prayer.

      8. The news of the battle, which had actually been fought at the time, coming to Geneva some days after, must have made a solemn impression on all those who had heard, or had been informed of, Calvin's words.

      In short, Calvin, and the other Reformers, seem to have been often dealt with, in respect to their views upon supernatural and miraculous occurrences, too much according to the feelings and preferences of those who have professed to give a representation of them. Such persons are themselves hostile to all belief in occurrences of the kind referred to: and consequently, under the influence of this feeling of dislike, and acting from it, they lay hold on a few of the strongest expressions on one side of the question, I mean, on their own; present us with these as affording a fair representation of the writer's general sentiments; overlook (for I really do not think they would in every case wilfully secrete and keep back), overlook, through strong prejudice, preference, and antipathy, all that makes against them; and thus totally mislead those who trust to them for information, deceive the church, and leave it in error. Who, that reads the above account, will pretend to tell us, or even to prove to us by any expressions which can be produced, that either Calvin or Beza had no belief in supernatural and miraculous occurrences? If I am asked, how, after all, it comes to happen that such expressions can be found in their writings; expressions confessedly, if viewed alone, unfavourable to the doctrine of miracles; my reply is, that I really do not feel myself called upon to solve the difficulty. Perhaps the case is, that the experience of the Reformers in this matter lay above some of their technical statements. This, we shall find great reason to think, was the case especially with Luther. It is the case, indeed, with many Christians. Their religious system, and their religious experience, are often quite different things. The one they have from man, or hold by the sufferance of man; the other they have from God.
      END QUOTE

      Delete
    2. Interesting.

      It does make me wonder, just since we're on the topic, if Calvin ever said something similar any other times in his life, and if so whether they also failed to ever be substantiated by later evidence, and if so whether anyone bothered to write them down.

      One success is interesting in that it stands out from the zillions of failed "prophetic impressions" that I, as one individual, have witnessed with my own eyes and ears.

      Delete
    3. Thomas Boys gives other examples of Calvin apparently having given accurate predictive prophecies. Same thing for other Reformers like Luther. I don't know if Calvin made prophecies (or statements later interpreted/considered as prophecies) which failed or not. I assume you already know that at one of Matt Slick's websites he gives three examples of Reformed ministers who seemed to operate in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Here are the links:

      John Knox 1514-1572
      Robert Fleming 1630 -1694
      George Wishart 1513-1546

      Delete
    4. At the links HERE or HERE are excerpts from appendix 7 of Wayne Grudem's The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Revised Edition) where Grudem survey's the historical evidence for the apparent operation of some Reformed or Reformational ministers in the gift of the Spirit.

      At one point Grudem writes:

      ...I may add a personal note at this point: When I first found this material in Baxter, I photocopied these two pages and sent them to J. I. Packer, whose doctoral dissertation at Oxford was on Baxter's work. Packer sent back the following note:

      By the way, some weeks ago you faxed me an extract from Baxter about God making personal informative revelations. This was the standard Puritan view, as I have observed it—they weren't cessationists in the Richard Gaffin sense.



      That's coming from J.I. Packer who is well known for being well versed in the writings of the Puritans.

      Delete