tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6380659757584926639..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The charismataRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64684824722062857552012-11-28T23:56:39.907-05:002012-11-28T23:56:39.907-05:00Steve, do you have a general position paper on mod...Steve, do you have a general position paper on modern day tongues?Distant Cousinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05765621905219905064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32965190158057025882012-11-27T14:47:27.634-05:002012-11-27T14:47:27.634-05:00You're coming at this backwards. I'm not s...You're coming at this backwards. I'm not starting with putative charismatic phenomena in modern times, then using Scripture to rubberstamp that claim.<br /><br />As I've discussed in my analysis of Joel, I'm starting with a Scriptural promise, the terms of which are narrowly delineated. It's not anything goes.<br /><br />And for the record, I once attended a service like that. The speaker motioned his hand sideways, and the audience flopped over like dominoes. Except for me. I didn't budge.<br /><br />That was just showmanship. Working a crowd. Mob psychology. A conditioned response. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14168447586669780132012-11-27T13:52:34.383-05:002012-11-27T13:52:34.383-05:00Are you saying that God would never knock a person...Are you saying that God would never knock a person down by the power of the Holy Spirit in certain settings? Have you never spoken to someone you thought was credible speak of such an experience?Distant Cousinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05765621905219905064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74170332997611697712012-11-27T12:35:13.525-05:002012-11-27T12:35:13.525-05:00No, "wait and see" doesn't mean open...No, "wait and see" doesn't mean open to any conceivable possibility. "Wait and see" means we don't know if or when God will act miraculously. That's different from what God might or might not do. What God might or might not do is constrained by Biblical paradigms. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11483238614565636062012-11-27T11:11:53.457-05:002012-11-27T11:11:53.457-05:00And Bob Larson too.And Bob Larson too.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-92030937384391447042012-11-27T10:44:25.749-05:002012-11-27T10:44:25.749-05:00"I believe your base of operations is near th..."I believe your base of operations is near the cuckooland of ORU, so the kind of Pentecostalism you normally encounter isn’t the nuanced, guarded version of painstaking academics like Keener and Fee, but the Bob Larson/slain-in-the-Spirit variety."<br /><br />Steve, why are you minimizing the "slain-in-the-Spirt" phenomenon? Given your wait-and-see approach, shouldn't you be open to the possibility that it is legitimate? Distant Cousinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05765621905219905064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66595085574856437982012-11-26T16:40:53.709-05:002012-11-26T16:40:53.709-05:00Rhology, I was going to point out the same distinc...Rhology, I was going to point out the same distinction. Jack Deere (like other continuationsts) makes the following distinctions: <br /><br />1. true or false REVELATION, <br />2. true or false INTERPRETATION of a revelation<br />3. true or false APPLICATION of a revelation<br /><br />In his book <i>The Beginners Guide to the Gift of Prophecy</i> he gives an example of how he (allegedly) received a revelation from God and how he BOTH misinterpreted it and misapplied it. <br /><br />I posted that excerpt from his book here at <a href="http://annoyed-pinoy-s-miscellanea.9999.n7.nabble.com/Jack-Deere-and-quot-Blood-Pressure-quot-td2.html" rel="nofollow">THIS FORUM</a>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88570624497757388452012-11-26T16:12:45.644-05:002012-11-26T16:12:45.644-05:00I rebuke you. Shondai.I rebuke you. Shondai.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61435459235156423712012-11-26T15:59:45.248-05:002012-11-26T15:59:45.248-05:00In reference to these issues I would recommend an ...In reference to these issues I would recommend an important article by Vern Poythress entitled “Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology.” Especially take note of the distinction between “process” and “content.” Poythress distinguishes between “discursive” and “nondiscursive” processes. Also, he makes a distinction between “teaching” and “circumstantial” content. Poythress’ analysis is nuanced and subtle. <br />http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1996Modern.htm<br />Richard Klaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15359152360380793291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67463104536315027822012-11-26T15:32:55.242-05:002012-11-26T15:32:55.242-05:00Sorry, Alan, but I perceive the Demon of Doubt lur...Sorry, Alan, but I perceive the Demon of Doubt lurking behind your objection. I'm afraid I must turn you over to a deliverance ministry. It's for your own good. I left a call with Bob Larson's girls to pay you a visit. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72120458222041884412012-11-26T15:16:27.165-05:002012-11-26T15:16:27.165-05:00I believe your base of operations is near the cuck...I believe your base of operations is near the cuckooland of ORU, so the kind of Pentecostalism you normally encounter isn’t the nuanced, guarded version of painstaking academics like Keener and Fee, but the Bob Larson/slain-in-the-Spirit variety. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49763540289071974172012-11-26T14:36:27.271-05:002012-11-26T14:36:27.271-05:00That conclusion only follows if cessationism is ri...That conclusion only follows if cessationism is right, not if cessationism is wrong. So you're making a different argument.<br /><br />Also, both sides agree that Scripture is sufficient. The question is: sufficient for what? Scripture is sufficient for its intended purpose, but that doesn't prejudge the scope of Biblical sufficiency, which is where cessationists and continuationists divide.<br /><br />For instance, Scripture isn't sufficient for automechanics, but then, it's not supposed to be sufficient for that purpose. So that's not a deficiency.<br /><br />If, say, continuationists are right about Joel 2, then they'd fold that into the sufficiency of Scripture, for that promise is, itself, a Scriptural promise, and the rest of Acts contains examples of dreams and visions which furnish special guidance. <br /><br />One can challenge their interpretation, but that's a different argument. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-40171045419675882122012-11-26T14:26:40.935-05:002012-11-26T14:26:40.935-05:00Rhology
"In my experience, that's not wh...Rhology<br /><br />"In my experience, that's not what most continuationists attempt to use that text to prove. Generally they want to say that Agabus' prophecy was actually incorrect, and they then argue that NT prophecy doesn't have to fulfill the 100% criterion."<br /><br />I made the observation in describing the continuationist argument. <br /><br />"Also, Agabus' prophecy was a foretelling of the future; it was not a command or a 'word from the Lord' of the type as many claim today."<br /><br />Of course, a common problem in pop charismatic circles is to define the terminology in 1 Cor 12 by reference to their personal experience rather than exegesis. <br /><br />"A prophecy about what will happen is not binding on the conscience as a command from the Lord is..."<br /><br />That's a valid distinction. Assuming the prediction is correct, it tells you what to expect, not what to do. It prepares you for the outcome. You know the consequences ahead of time. A kind of advance informed consent. <br /><br />Of course, that raises the question of whether the prophecy refers to the actual future or a hypothetical future. How you respond to the prophecy will, itself, factor into the future outcome. You might take it as a warning, and not go down that path. In which case an alternate future will eventuate. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14012343035812755002012-11-26T14:13:03.982-05:002012-11-26T14:13:03.982-05:00If you’re a cessationist, and that’s wrong, you ru...<i>If you’re a cessationist, and that’s wrong, you run the risk of living like an atheist. Acting as if God ceased to exist 2000 years ago. In practice, it makes no difference if God does or doesn’t exist. You live your life the same way. The uniformity of nature. A closed causal continuum.</i><br /><br />I don't see it that way. <br />Rather, you live as if the Word of God is sufficient to tell you how to have eternal life and tell you how to live, and you can be open to God being unpredictable, but you don't think that God gives out those gifts anymore such that people could routinely perform them. <br />One could do a heckuvalot worse than thinking the Word of God is sufficient, and that is the farthest thing from being an atheist.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89413834692463921912012-11-26T14:08:22.617-05:002012-11-26T14:08:22.617-05:00Paul blithely disregards a “prophetic” warning (Ac...<i>Paul blithely disregards a “prophetic” warning (Acts 20:22).</i><br /><br />In my experience, that's not what most continuationists attempt to use that text to prove. Generally they want to say that Agabus' prophecy was actually incorrect, and they then argue that NT prophecy doesn't have to fulfill the 100% criterion. <br /><br />Also, Agabus' prophecy was a foretelling of the future; it was not a command or a "word from the Lord" of the type as many claim today. A prophecy about what will happen is not binding on the conscience as a command from the Lord is, but a "prophetic command" from the Lord seems to me to be much more potentially damaging than a "mere" prophecy of a future occurrence.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74355438225684385772012-11-26T12:33:51.378-05:002012-11-26T12:33:51.378-05:00i) I used the phrase “fallible prophecy” because s...i) I used the phrase “fallible prophecy” because some charismatics use that expression to distinguish Biblical prophecy from the Christian gift of prophecy (e.g. Acts 2; 1 Cor 12-14). <br /><br />That’s not my preferred terminology. <br /><br />ii) As I mentioned before, we need to distinguish between visionary revelation and propositional revelation. Joel’s promise specifies visionary revelation rather than propositional revelation. <br /><br />iii) Strictly speaking, visions can’t be true or false. Mental images don’t make truth-claims. Mental images don’t assert anything to be (or not be) the case. Even if visions are intended to be referential, a vision qua vision doesn’t tell you what the imagery refers to.<br /><br />Take Pharaoh’s dream of the well-nourished cattle and the malnourished cattle. By itself, that doesn’t tell you if the representation is meant to be past or future. It doesn’t tell you what real-world analogue the cattle correspond to. <br /><br />iv) There are only to ways of understanding the prophetic dream:<br /><br />a) If the dream is verbally interpreted<br /><br />b) If, in retrospect, what’s depicted comes to pass <br /><br />Either words or events can interpret the dream. <br /><br />v) We can also distinguish between external and internal interpreters. Dreams and visions can contain (spoken) words as well as images. It’s possible for some dreams and visions to be internally interpreted by a speaker within the dream or vision. Sometimes the dreamer may ask a character in the dream what the imagery means or signifies. <br /><br />vi) Strictly speaking, only propositional prophecy can be true or false. Propositions make truth-claims. Propositions assert something to be (or not be) the case. <br /><br />vii) These distinctions are also important in debates over the inerrancy of biblical prophecy. Critics carelessly allege that some Bible prophecies failed. But other questions aside, they would need to identify the type of prophecy. Strictly speaking, visionary revelation doesn’t make predictions. Only propositional revelation makes predictions. For visionary revelation to be predictive, you need something over and above the bare imagery. <br /><br />You need verbal interpretation, or you need to be able to compare the imagery with the future event once the future is past.<br /><br />And there can be other complicating factors. Biblical prophets use stock imagery.<br /><br />In addition, you have allegorical dreams. An allegory is a type of analogy. Analogies involve disanalogies. So one must understand what the dream or vision was meant to allegorize. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67071722857924659342012-11-26T05:01:47.733-05:002012-11-26T05:01:47.733-05:00My point in saying the above is that if cessationi...My point in saying the above is that if cessationists are going to say that fallible prophecies and fallible prophets are useless, then that would prove too much since <b>it would make it difficult to understand how prophecy worked and how prophets lived in the OT.</b><br /><br />OT prophets could still sin. <br /><br />Moses sinned by striking the rock a second time (Num. 20:11-12). <br /><br />Sin can include declaring false prophecies/revelations (cf. the prophet of Bethel 1 Kings 13).<br /><br />Nathan the prophet could give bad advice (1 Chron. 17:2-4). <br /><br />The prophet Micaiah seems to have falsely prophesied sarcastically, even if only temporarily (1 Kings 22:15ff.//2 Chron 18:14ff.).<br /><br />Jeremiah lied about a conversation he had with king Zedekiah (Jer. 38:24ff.).<br /><br />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.).<br /><br />Finally God was not averse to using people with bad character to deliver prophecies (cf. Balak Num. 22-24).<br /><br /><b>That's for now. I don't want to hog the blog.</b>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86271008159487598772012-11-26T03:29:21.095-05:002012-11-26T03:29:21.095-05:00It seems to me:
1. Even if Sola Scriptura wasn...It seems to me:<br /><br />1. Even if Sola Scriptura wasn't (and couldn't be) in operation, Summa Scriptura *was* during times when public inspired and infallibe Revelation was still being given by God (during both OT and NT times).<br /><br />2. That OT prophets usually <b>needed to develop a reputation</b> 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. <br /><br />That's why there were schools of the prophets where the "sons of the prophets" could be trained. <b>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.</b> OT prophets weren't themselves personally infallible.<br /><br />In one sense, the Covenant community of Jehovah/YHWH authenticated the messages of prophets and the prophets themselves (as those prophets gained a reputation for accuracy). Just as the OT prophets could, at times, authenticate alleged newer revelations (whether it be written or verbal, in vision or dream, or angelic message) or traditions. It was a spiraling authentication.<br /><br />Also people were responsible and accountable for what they already were convinced of as coming from the LORD. That's why the prophet of Judah in 1 Kings 13 was condemned for disobedience. He knew from direct revelation that he wasn't supposed to eat or drink or return to where he came from. All this was even more true during Apostolic times with the Apostles and anyone else who operated in the charismatic gifts. That's why Paul could say, "we [he included himself] prophesy <b>in part</b>". Why Paul said to "test all things [including prophecies]", Why John commanded his readers to "test the spirits". Even though Paul was acknowledged as a genuine apostle by the consensus of the Church, he was still subject to having his message evaluated (Gal. 1:8) by the covenant community (i.e. the received Gospel) and by Scripture (Acts 17:11). <br /><br />By Scripture, because it was the highest source of authority in the covenant community. Since that was true during the life of the apostles, how much more after their passing. Hence, the principle of Sola Scriptura whereby Scripture alone is the sole infallible and inerrant rule of faith and practice for the post Apostolic Church. That's why as a continuationist and charismatic, I disagree with some charismatics who claim that there are Apostles with the EXACT same prerogatives as OT prophets and NT apostles. If that were true, then the Canon could be added to at any time.<br /><br />Btw, Amos is an example of an exception to the rule that prophets were usually trained or required a period of time for them to gain a reputation for accuracy. I'm not sure whether his prophecies were instantly recognized as inspired. Regardless, maybe his book/prophecy was accepted as from God and his book eventually added to the Canon because of 1. the fulfilled prophecies, 2. it was authenticated by some other prophet who already had a reputation of being God ordained and reliable, 3. the covenant community because of 1 and 2. <br />ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47026784171087961582012-11-26T03:23:27.174-05:002012-11-26T03:23:27.174-05:00I was thinking that that's what you meant. But...I was thinking that that's what you meant. But then I figured that it might not be what you meant because it doesn't seem to answer the Cessationists question, "What's the point of fallible prophecy?" Sure, it need not be in error or fail to come true, but if some do fail, what then? What use are prophecies that may or may not come to pass? Jean Dixson can pass <i>that</i> criteria.<br /><br />ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70368418854393616372012-11-26T01:22:44.835-05:002012-11-26T01:22:44.835-05:00A fallible prophecy isn't synonymous with a fa...A fallible prophecy isn't synonymous with a false prediction. Fallible just means it could be mistaken, not that it is mistaken. Fallible prophecies can either be true or false. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87106317348424117712012-11-26T01:20:14.524-05:002012-11-26T01:20:14.524-05:00Cessationists counter on various grounds. What’s t...<i>Cessationists counter on various grounds. What’s the point of fallible prophecy? Isn’t that innately unreliable? There’s some merit to that objection. However, prophecy doesn’t have to be prospectively edifying to be retrospectively edifying. Even if you don’t act on it, <b>if it comes true</b>, that’s something you can appreciate after the fact.</i><br /><br />Steve, maybe others will not understand your point like I don't. I thought you were talking about fallible prophecies that could fail to come true.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com