J Edwards wrote, >>And where is your evidence? Where is your exegesis? You offer nothing, but personal opinion, not supported by the Greek text!<<
I don’t need to do any exegesis. There is no reason to suspect the translators got it wrong. I am not arguing for anything but what the passage says. If you think the translators missed something, the burden of proof is on you.
Let us look at the verses. Hebrews 2 3. How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; 4. God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? 5. For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. The verses say that the great salvation was first spoken by the Lord, and then confirmed by them that heard him with signs, wonders, divers, miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost. The verse says nothing about whether signs wonders and miracles continued in the church after this. However, we know from other scripture that gifts of the Spirit, including the working of miracles, continued on in churches like Corinth and Rome. Since Paul was a foundation-layer in Corinth, and his reader’s had heard the Gospel from him and his co-workers, it is clear that they were not among those who had seen the Lord before the ascension.
To read cessationism into this passage is eisegesis. It is also illogical.
Btw, if you argue that the signs and wonders ceased, wouldn’t you also have to conclude that the great salvation ceased, or that the preaching of great salvation ceased? >> Hebrews reveals the fact that there is a new and final revelation in Christ (Heb 1:1-2). After the age of the Apostles there was no need for miracles to confirm their word, as they were no longer around, et. al. <<
Hebrews 1 does not even indirectly support your conclusion. The new revelation here in God’s Son.
Hebrews 1: 1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Sure, the author contrasts God speaking times pasts by the prophets with God speaking through His Son. But does he say that there would be no more prophets after Christ? No. And if you interpret that way, you either have to reject other books of the canon, or reject this book, or both. If there were no more prophetic inspiration, why should we hold this book in such high regard?
Please sit down and look up references to ‘prophet’ in the book of Acts. Jesus had already died and risen in chapter 1. In chapter 1, he ascends. Then, in chapter 2, Peter says the verses about the Spirit being poured out, dreams, visions, and prophesying were being fulfilled. Later in Acts, we see prophets in the church like Agabus, Judas, and Silas.
So if you hold that Acts is inspired, then you should recognize that there were prophets in the days after Christ’s ascension. In fact, Ephesians 4 tells us that Christ ascended, and gave the gift of prophets to the church.
>>>You claim the author “rightly argued” and later you say of yourself, “I am no expert in this area.” However, let us look further at these additional claims you are making. <<<
One does not have to be an expert to see that prophecy was an accepted gift in the church before and after Montanus came around. I would suggest you read that Britannica article.
>>Bishop Apollinarius found the church at Ancyra which was torn in two by the movement. He opposed the "false prophesy" (Eusebius 5.16.5). Eusebius preserved fragments from the works of two anti- Montanists from the 2nd century. These fragments DO NOT support your claim of “no prophecy.” The summary of them is stated herein: <<
The quote I referred to came from Eusebius who wrote in the fourth century. His work contains excerpts from later periods as well. I do not have the time at the moment to look up the quote for you. It is on the web if you are interested. Maybe I can get it for you later. The quote about the debate with the Montanists may have been from the 300’s. Montanus had been dead for some time.
In my post I did say that Montanus prophesied in an ecstatic manner, apparently. Please go back and re-read what I wrote. Maybe you have misunderstood me.
>>Yes there were new revelatory gifts—false ones! Irenaeus, during the height of the Montanists controversy was inspired to write, Adversus Haereses. Ireneaus was against the movement, he was against these “new” revelations (Journal of Theological Studies New Series XX, 1969). <<
The idea that Ireneaus was talking about Montanists seems to me to be quite dubious speculation. What evidence does the source you cite give that these were Montanists. Ireneaus called the men ‘brethren’ and if they were Montanists, then Ireneaus apparently accepted them as genuine, perhaps orthodox, Christians. That is pretty ironic in a work against heresies of the day.
Even someone with a theological axe to grind, who assumes that such men were Montanists, should be careful where he grinds his axe. If Montanists, and not orthodox Christians, were casting out demons, raising the dead, prophesying, doing miracles, and all the other things Ireneaus said, then that casts the Montanists in a rather positive light.
>>In addition, there is a difference between no reference and a valid reference—I was speaking of the later. Of course there are references! Heresy always has its pulpit.<<
Here is where the circular reasoning comes in. And any reference to the presence of gifts of the Spirit during this period, even by a champion of orthodoxy, gets redefined or interpreted as invalid.
>> Although the mainstream church prevailed against Montanism within a few generations, inscriptions in the Tembris valley of northern Phrygia, dated between 249 and 279, openly proclaimed their allegiance to Montanism. This sect persisted into the 8th century. However, this was “all” condemned by the Church as heresy! <<
But the gift of prophecy was not condemned by the church. Many non-Montanist ‘orthodox’ Christians believed in prophecy during the second century.
Btw, Phrygia and the surrounding area was where Montanism emerged.
>>What you fail to understand is that “false tongues” were in many faiths, but were looked upon as truthful revelation. While God demonstrated the true gift of “tongues” in biblical times “false tongues” persisted for centuries before and after NT times.<<
False religions teach. There are false prophecies. These things are not really relevant to the discussion. I never argued that all manifestations of tongues were true.
>>It is indeed very sad that you are intertwined with this movement. Unfortunately, Charismatic doctrine and missionaries are very active in Indonesia. This is an indictment of the Reformed camp who are not more involved in missions to the extent they should be. However, as the scripture states; <<
This discussion is not about being in a movement. It is about believing what the Bible teaches. Here in Indonesia, indigeneous Charismatic churches and Reformed Churches are numerous, and the number of local ministers far outnumber the missionaries.
>>1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.<<
Amen. But if you reject manifestions of the gifts without trying them, you are not being in obedience either. A similar passage states, I Thessalonians 5 19. Quench not the Spirit. 20. Despise not prophesyings. 21. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good
If you reject prophecies out of hand, without proving them, you are not obeying this passage. If you consider all prophecies from believers to be automatically false, you are despising prophesyings.
