tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7316802229155203789..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Confessionalism & continuationismRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86894461431576864762013-02-09T03:31:09.322-05:002013-02-09T03:31:09.322-05:00I believe anyone could receive a revelation from G...I believe anyone could receive a revelation from God in the OT, but <i>few were warranted to expect a revelation from God</i>. That's in stark contrast to the NT/New Covenant where Christians can have a personal and intimate relationship with God who speaks to them. Jesus said, "It is written in the Prophets, 'And <b>they will all be taught by God</b>.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me..." (John 6:45); "My sheep hear my voice..." (John 10:27a); and John writes "But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you...<b>his anointing teaches you about everything</b>..." (1 John 2:26). Just as it was prophesied in the OT "And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' <b>for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest</b>, declares the LORD..." (Jer. 31:34). <br /><br /><b>To be a prophet/Prophet in the OT was an extremely high calling. Yet in contrast to that, in the NT EVERYONE was encouraged to prophesy. How then could anyone say that OT prophecy by a nationally recognized Prophet (capital "p") (e.g. Isaiah) was the exact same kind of prophecy as found in the NT???</b> I mean, prophets were so common that one man had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9). As Grudem points out, not one prophecy from a local congregation has been recorded in Scripture. That really only makes sense if there was a distinction between Apostolic prophecy and the prophecies of local church prophets (as Grudem pointed out).<br />ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53203789402991770502013-02-09T02:29:27.289-05:002013-02-09T02:29:27.289-05:00I said, "My point is that God could speak to ...I said, "<i>My point is that God could speak to anyone in the OT no matter how seemingly insignificant they were</i> [e.g. "nobodies" socially, religiously, or politically speaking]<i>...</i>" and earlier "<i>I believe the OT command of the death penalty for false prophecy applied to those who claimed to speak directly and infallibly from YHWH in a conscience binding way over everyone.</i> That is, someone claiming to speak to the entire nation of Israel as a God appointed Prophet who had the authority to bind the conscience of others (indeed everyone). God's OT theocratic rule over Israel was direct and once someone was recognized as a Prophet of God (via the process I mentioned above and in the link), they were the voice of God on earth. Whereas, the NT comes on the heels of 400 years of intertestamental silence on God's part. John the Baptist being the first prophet to come on the scene to break the silence. Jesus, being the the greatest prophet of all (indeed God in the flesh), He spoke with absolute authority on God's behalf. But an authority that wasn't really recognized for what it fully was until after the the resurrection and ascension. The Apostles were Christ's ambassadors and representatives in an incarnational way (rather than the direct way the OT Prophets were theocratically). That's another reason why the Apostles saw themselves as subordinate to the OT Prophets even though they were their NT counterparts.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5093202963092975702013-02-09T01:24:04.758-05:002013-02-09T01:24:04.758-05:00BTW, just because the Apostles were not exempt fro...BTW, just because the Apostles were not exempt from being tested doctrinally, that doesn't mean they couldn't bind the conscience of believers because each Apostle was accountable to and (ideally endorsed by) the other Apostles so that if (hypothetically) an Apostle went rogue, he could be corrected (Gal. 2:11) or excommunicated.c It took a while for Paul to go up to Jerusalem to get endorsed by the other Apostles because he believed (rightly in this case) that he was specially commissioned by Christ. However, neither he (Gal. 1:8; 2:2d) nor any other Apostle was exempt from correction. Also, each of the Apostles, while they were the NT equivalents to OT Prophets (capital "P"), were nevertheless conscious of the fact that their authority was subordinate to the OT prophets as they speak through their Canonical writings (i.e. the indisputable, inspired, inerrant, infallible, supremely authoritative Holy Scriptures). To the degree the Apostles were faithful to the OT Scriptures, and the teaching of the Messiah (who was prophesied by the Scriptures) whom they claimed *sent* (i.e. "Apostled") them, they were able to bind the conscience of the people of God.<br /><br /><br />typo correction: <i>Can you imagine Manoah and his wife keeping secret the Angelic visitation</i> [LEST] <i>they be stoned to death if the prophecy of a birth proved false?</i><br /><br />I retract the following statement in light of 1 Cor. 14:5. <br /><i>"...(since Paul seems to place it at the bottom of the list if not interpreted)..."</i>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79364026707126931632013-02-09T00:53:22.388-05:002013-02-09T00:53:22.388-05:00My point is that God could speak to anyone in the ...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. If the traditional understanding (e.g. Ian Hamilton) of NT prophecy is correct then there would be no point in Paul's admonition to test prophecies and hold fast what is good (1 Thess. 5:21). Notice that if Hamilton's understanding were correct, then it should have said "hold fast <i>HE</i> who is good." That is, judging a good prophet from a bad prophet, rather than a good prophecy from a bad prophecy. All prophets and prophecies (including those who in the past were acknowledged by all to be genuine) were supposed to be tested. No one was exempt. Not Peter (Ga. 2:11), nor Paul (Gal. 1:8). See also Rev. 2:2. Acts 17:11 was the method by which anyone claiming a prophecy or word from God was to be tested. Obviously the Bereans were not yet sure that Jesus was the Messiah and that Paul was one of His apostles. But the same testing applied even afterwards.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43626130954126806452013-02-09T00:01:12.900-05:002013-02-09T00:01:12.900-05:00Annoyed Pinoy, have you seen the debate between Ia...<i>Annoyed Pinoy, have you seen the debate between Ian Hamilton and Wayne Grudem on prophecy ("private revelations")? Hamilton (cessationist) argues that prophecy is a revelation from God which binds the conscience, which seems to put it on par with the Bible.</i><br /><br />Thanks for the link. I watched it yesterday. I thought Grudem sufficiently answered Hamilton's objections. Grudem says more in his books in defense of his view. Here's a <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-charismata.html?showComment=1353918561095#c8627100815948759877" rel="nofollow"><b>LINK</b></a> to my current (and changing) views on OT prophecy that indirectly addresses that criticism. I'm not dogmatic in my answer. Grudem thinks there was one kind of OT prophecy, while NT prophecy is two tiered (though sometimes he says there's one kind of NT prophecy, but that Apostolic prophecy is infallible and conscience binding in a way that local congregation prophecy isn't). There's even one theologian who argues that both NT AND OT prophecy was two tiered. My current view is similar to the later view. Two tiers where one can move from the lower tier to the higher tier by building a reputation as an accurate prophet (with the obvious requirement for being doctrinally orthodox and morally upright). See my comments in my link above. I believe the OT command of the death penalty for false prophecy applied to those who claimed to speak directly and infallibly from YHWH in a conscience binding way over everyone. There are OT examples of people whom God spoke to (either via direct voice, dream, vision, angelic visitation and message etc.) who didn't claim to be the kind of infallible Prophet (capital "P") who can bind people's conscience. 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.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63093380003157172902013-02-08T20:30:48.671-05:002013-02-08T20:30:48.671-05:00I'm not discussing what I personally think is ...I'm not discussing what I personally think is the correct interpretation. Rather, I'm pointing out that if we accept the traditional Westminster interpretation of Rev 13 vis-a-vis a papal Antichrist, then, by analogy, we should interpret the two witnesses along the same lines. Either both cases involve the ability to work miracles, or neither does. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15509401183290041742013-02-08T20:26:02.102-05:002013-02-08T20:26:02.102-05:00starkle, private revelations can be very private. ...starkle, private revelations can be very private. Hence the name (heh). I can't think of a private revelation or any other kind of supernatural experience that I've had that I feel comfortable sharing in this medium. Not all have been "revelatory" per se (though some have been). I have Christian friends (and friends of friends) who've had even more extraordinary experiences than I have and some of them have gone to cessationist Bible institutes like Moody Bible Institute (Chicago, IL) or have graduated from seminaries like Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, IL), or Biblical Theological Seminary (Hatfield, PA).ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64536593323804779002013-02-08T12:58:03.289-05:002013-02-08T12:58:03.289-05:00Steve: Yes, but given the apocalyptic language I&#...Steve: Yes, but given the apocalyptic language I'm not sure why we should take the miracles performed by the witnesses as being literal- it seems to be referring back to Elijah and Moses. Indeed, the miracles that they perform hardly seem analogous to the kinds continuationists claim- gifts of healing, tongues, private revelation as opposed breathing fire and calling down some pretty serious plagues.Thomas Keningleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01624894562826380210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34179375881550883422013-02-08T10:26:17.110-05:002013-02-08T10:26:17.110-05:00Annoyed Pinoy,
Can you give an example of private ...Annoyed Pinoy,<br />Can you give an example of private revelation in your own life?Distant Cousinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05765621905219905064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38738416719222819872013-02-07T20:09:04.339-05:002013-02-07T20:09:04.339-05:00Thomas Keningley
"I don't think acceptin...Thomas Keningley<br /><br />"I don't think accepting his working occultic miracles would defeat cessationism in principle, as cessationism is framed around the normal working of the church, not significant eschatological figures."<br /><br />Except, as I point out, that there's an ecclesiastical counterpart in the two witnesses. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29734578789697876362013-02-07T18:35:34.089-05:002013-02-07T18:35:34.089-05:00Steve: Yes, I would agree that there is an objecti...Steve: Yes, I would agree that there is an objection to private revelations en toto within cessationism, being a special case with regard to closure of the canon. So I think that kind of cessationism would be somewhere between your two definitions- it's not just public and private revelations have stopped, but also certain miraculous gifts within the church (e.g. tongues).<br /><br />Yes I suppose Westminster would do that, although one could simply say that the Antichrist is a special case, and precisely is supposed to stand out and be significant amongst the world and church and gain followers by impressing people with his miraculous powers, which would be rather less impressive on continuationism. I don't think accepting his working occultic miracles would defeat cessationism in principle, as cessationism is framed around the normal working of the church, not significant eschatological figures.Thomas Keningleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01624894562826380210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91282406721952522952013-02-07T17:58:04.245-05:002013-02-07T17:58:04.245-05:00Thomas Keningley
"Is that the contention of ...Thomas Keningley<br /><br />"Is that the contention of cessationism? Isn't the point of cessationism that miraculous gifts have stopped, not that miracles in themselves have ceased? That, at least, is how I've always understood it, with particular emphasis on tongues and prophecy."<br /><br />i) First of all, I think cessationists have a general objection to postbiblical "private revelations", whether dreams, visions, auditions, angelic apparitions, &c. It wouldn't have to be a "gift" to be revelatory, and therefore verboten.<br /><br />ii) I framed my discussion in terms of Westminster view of the papacy. Doesn't that implicitly ascribe occultic miracles to the papacy? That would make it "official." Tied to the person or office of the papal Antichrist. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24223597973972731952013-02-07T17:28:03.891-05:002013-02-07T17:28:03.891-05:00Is that the contention of cessationism? Isn't ...Is that the contention of cessationism? Isn't the point of cessationism that miraculous gifts have stopped, not that miracles in themselves have ceased? That, at least, is how I've always understood it, with particular emphasis on tongues and prophecy.<br /><br />Annoyed Pinoy, have you seen the debate between Ian Hamilton and Wayne Grudem on prophecy ("private revelations")? Hamilton (cessationist) argues that prophecy is a revelation from God which binds the conscience, which seems to put it on par with the Bible. Given that the immediate context of the NT is the OT, should we not understand prophecy in the NT as being the same thing as in the OT- an authoritative revelation from God which binds the conscience of the one who receives it, as well as any who hear it? Obviously this has implications for the idea of canonical closure. If that's the case, then R. C. Sproul would have been sinning had he failed to heed the prophecy received by his friend, no, were prophecy still around?<br /><br />Here's the link: http://vimeo.com/37169587Thomas Keningleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01624894562826380210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37440887888175632602013-02-07T16:14:52.402-05:002013-02-07T16:14:52.402-05:00oops, this was supposed to be a reply to TUAD'...oops, this was supposed to be a reply to TUAD's post. ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47428731470213661192013-02-07T16:13:32.199-05:002013-02-07T16:13:32.199-05:00The first lecture at THIS LINK Sproul relates the...The first lecture at <a href="http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/knowing_gods_will/looking-for-gods-will/" rel="nofollow">THIS LINK</a> Sproul relates the following story (which I'll recall from memory, though I haven't listened to it in a while). If I recall the story correctly, Sproul said when he was young he was once in a situation where he didn't know whether to go work for another seminary where he was offered a job or stay where he currently was at. So he decided to have an intense night of prayer (and I think fasting) with his wife and friends (who were either there or praying on their own). They were praying that if possible God could make it clear whether he should go or not; using, if necessary some unusual way. Then in the middle of the night (2 AM) he woke up and answered a phone call from a childhood friend/acquaintance. The son of a friend of his mother. He hadn't spoken to this person in years. What surprised him was what his friend said. His friend said that for the past hour (or more) he'd been frantically trying to contact him (trying to find someone who had R.C.'s phone number) because that night he was suddenly struck by an urgent sense that God was telling him to tell Sproul he should take the new job. <b>It's funny how Sproul admits his complete befuddlement as to what to do with strange occurrence and how to respond</b>. If anyone wants to know what happened, they can listen to the story themselves. heh hehANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43145504949046546622013-02-07T14:58:21.291-05:002013-02-07T14:58:21.291-05:00Reading what Steve linked to, Wayne Grudem wrote:
...Reading what Steve linked to, Wayne Grudem wrote:<br /><i>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:<br /><br />By the way, some weeks ago you faxed me an extract from Baxter about God making personal informative revelations. <b>This was the standard Puritan view, as I have observed it—they weren't cessationists in the Richard Gaffin sense</b>.15</i> [bold added by me]<br /><br />WOW!!!!!!!!! What a quote. That's coming from Packer who's well know for being well versed in the writings of the Puritans. The quote is not in my copy of Grudem's book which is a first printed edition, but it is in the revised edition (as it is on Amazon.com <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=TPpJntIUoZEC&pg=PA356&lpg=PA356&dq=%22I+may+add+a+personal+note+at+this+point:+When+I+first+found+this+material+in+Baxter%22&source=bl&ots=VEXYxa6aZB&sig=vxphym5KFzJvIzHZkOb_RKgD0Gc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EQUUUZymLY2ayQGfooHgDA&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22I%20may%20add%20a%20personal%20note%20at%20this%20point%3A%20When%20I%20first%20found%20this%20material%20in%20Baxter%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>).ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16911456273800579422013-02-07T14:25:16.672-05:002013-02-07T14:25:16.672-05:00Steve Hays: "Once again, my immediate point ...<b>Steve Hays</b>: <i>"Once again, my immediate point is not to evaluate this exegetical tradition, but to analyse the text of the Confession on its own terms, including the exegetical traditional undergirding the Confession. Within that framework, the Confession seems to commit adherents to continuationism."</i><br /><br />Interesting argument. If I recall correctly, R.C. Sproul is a Confessionalist and he's also speaking at the 2013 Truth Matters conference which will tackle the theme of Charismaticism this year.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85257010181075800602013-02-07T14:15:47.576-05:002013-02-07T14:15:47.576-05:00Chapter 1 section 6
The whole counsel of God, con...Chapter 1 section 6 <br /><i>The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: <b>unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men</b>.</i><br /><br />This passage rules out post-Biblical inspired revelation on par with Scripture which can be added to Scripture. But it doesn't necessary rule out private revelations that are not public and which are not to be considered on par with Scripture. Whereas the statement in chapter 1 section 1 could be interpreted to bar the reality/possiblity of private revelations where it says, "...<b>those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased</b>."ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19849910378181062362013-02-07T14:00:50.218-05:002013-02-07T14:00:50.218-05:00Arguably the strongest place in the WCF suggesting...Arguably the strongest place in the WCF suggesting strict cessationism is where it says, "..which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; <b>those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased</b>."<br /><br />But when the WCF says that "private spirits" are to be judged by the supreme and highest authority of Scripture, it suggests to me that the framers of the Confession were acknowledging that there are (or can be) such private (i.e. not public, non-infallible, and non-universally binding) revelations that sometimes really do come from God (either immediately or mediately via angels). Otherwise, why include "privates spirits" along with "all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men" which are to be judged/tested?<br /><br />If they were taking a strong stand for strict cessationism, then there would be no point, or at least lessened reason, to include private spirits to be judged, <b>since they would have a priori ruled out of hand the possibility of their having come from God</b>. <br /><br />Also, I think there is a good case for 1. some of the framers of the WCF, 2. their contemporaries, 3. those who immediately preceded and 4. immediately came after them to have had such private revelations. So, at the very least I think (some of) the WCF framers' spiritual experience happened to be broader than their Creed/Confession allowed for; leading to a happy inconsistency.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com