Robin wrote
Then every prophetic utterance in every charismatic church should have been recorded and all Bibles updated to include the latest word from God.
But the question is, how are we to know if it was from God or not? How do we know if we are obligated to obey it or not? What should be our measuring stick?
If you tell me, "the Bible," then you have destroyed your own argument because this latest "revelation" should be part of the Bible if you're right.
Please look at the first post of the thread. Listed there are numerous examples of scriptures which refer to prophecies and revelations not recorded in scripture. Therefore, if the Bible shows that God gave revelations outside of scripture in the past, it is illogical to conclude that all genuine revelation must be in scripture.
If you say, "because it feels right or wrong in your spirit," then you haven't answered the question at all and you've left us to do whatever seems right in our own eyes.
If you say, "the pastor should tell us," or "someone with the gift of discernment should determine whether or not that particular 'revelation' is from God or not," then you leave us to guess whether or not someone who claims to have the "gift of discernment" really has it.
These are all good questions to consider. But God did not promise us an easy life. The early church had to deal with these issues when it came to prophecy. No doubt the Thessalonians asked difficult questions.
But these questions, and the fact that it is difficult to determine whether a prophesy is genuine or not is no excuse for disobeying scripture.
I Thessalonians 5
19. Quench not the Spirit.
20. Despise not prophesyings.
21. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
22. Abstain from all appearance of evil.
In spite of the fact that the Thessalonians might have difficulty determining true or false prophecies, Paul commanded them to despise not prophesyings, and to prove all things.
Sure, it is an easier, more comfortable idea to a lot of people to think that since the canon is complete, they do not have to consider whether a prophecy is try or false anymore. And it can be scary to think you might have to determine whether a prophecy is really from God.
But arguing a case based on the alternative being too scary or too uncomfortable to be true is fallacious reasoning.
If you argue that because the canon is complete, and we have revelation from God in the New Testament, isn’t illogical if that leads you to believe that you do not have to obey this revelation from God? …that we do not have to obey what the New Testament says about prophecy because we have the New Testament?
Cessationism based on the closing of the canon seems to be a Johnny-come-lately doctrine. It is something formulated and popularized during and after the Reformation, possibly partly in reaction to some false prophecies going around during that time.
And it is not a scriptural concept, either, considering the bible plainly shows that not all prophecy is in scripture. It is not a logical to say all the sign gifts have ceased since scripture says nothing about miracles and healing ceasing, and does not divide the gifts neatly into sign and non-sign gifts.
The Bible does not teach that signs were to confirm the scriptures, per se. God did bear witness to the early preachers of the Gospel with signs and wonders, but scripture does not restrict God doing this to the apostles or even those who immediately heard the word. And being a sign to unbelievers is not the only role of the gifts, including miracles. I Corinthians 12 teaches that gifts are for the edification of the church.
Futhermore, common sense tells us that reading about a miracle does not have the same impact as seeing one. If signs and wonders are unnecessary because if they would not have believed Moses, they would not have believed if God raised one from the dead, then this would apply just as much during the age when the apostles were doing miracles. For whatever reason God chose, and sometimes chooses, to draw people to be interested in hearing the Gospel through signs and wonders.
Charismaticism has no foundation; no certainty, no Biblical basis. But I do understand how seductive the teachings can be.
I think you should define terms. If by ‘Charismaticism’ you mean having a big hairdo and going on TV asking for a lot of money, that is one thing. If you mean belief in the gifts of the Spirit, that is another.
If we go by scripture, we will believe in gifts like tongue, healing, and prophecy, because the Bible talks about them. The idea that the completion of the canon of scripture would end these gifts is not scripture. For example, it is not a reasonable interpretation of I Corinthians 13, in which Paul describes his state before the coming of the perfect as childhood and his state afterward as like adulthood. We are not more mature than Paul now, because we have the scriptures, and Paul wrote about himself, not his readers, in his illustration.
Nevertheless the teachings of modern-day "new revelation" is demonic. Modern "signs and wonders" are used to "validate" damnable heresies. And considering how many of these "prophecies" have totally failed to come true in any sense, it's a wonder that no one in the theonomist camp has yet spearheaded an effort to stone these false prophets to death!
I am sure you can find many examples of false, possibly even demonic prophecies and other things. If there is a false prophet who is able to do signs, where would he try to sneak in the church? In a church that did not believe in prophets or signs, or in a church that did not? I think the answer is obvious. In the first century, the churches believed in spiritual gifts. There were genuine manifestations of them. But that did not keep false prophets and teachers from doing their best to infiltrate the ranks of the saints. On some cases, they met with some degree of success. John received genuine prophetic revelation during a time period when a woman who claimed to be a prophetess in another location was teaching things that angered the Lord and led people to sin. Her false prophecies or teachings did not make Johns true revelations untrue, or the revelations of the other prophets John said would come in the end. (Even a preterist with a very early date for the close of John would need to acknowledge that the two witnesses would prophesy after the book of Revelation was completed.)
You need to be careful with this attitude as well lest you call the genuine work of the Spirit the work of the Devil. When Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils, Jesus warned them that whoever spoke a word against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come. The early church took this teaching seriously, as you can see from my quote to Irenaeus. The Didache warns that it is possible to commit the unpardonable sin by trying a prophet who is speaking by the Spirit.
