J Edwards wrote
There is no new revelation, however, the Holy Spirit speaks to us everyday (Heb 12:25). God does not speak outside of that which the Holy Spirit has already spoken (2 Pet 1:19f).
II Peter 1:19 does not prove your point, and in fact disproves it. Don't you believe the Spirit was speaking through Peter as he wrote those very words recorded in II Peter 1:19.
II Peter 1:18-20
>> 18. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.<<
Here Peter is apparently considered the OT prophecies a 'more sure word' of prophecy than the words he heard on the holy mount (apparently the same words that would be or had been recorded in the Gospels.)
The fact that Peter said he had a 'more sure' word of prophecy implies that he had another word of prophecy besides that 'more sure' word of prophecy. There was prophecy outside the Old Testament verses he was referring to. In Peter's other epistle, he the person with the gift of prophecy to use his gift appropriately. Would you even deny Peter lived in a time when the genuine gift of spoken prophecy was in operation? If not, how then can you argue that Peter is arguing that God does not speak outside scripture from this passage?
And since the NT canon was not complete, there is no logical way you can make this argue that God does not speak outside the canon of scripture. It is like saying "I can prove Arminianism by John 11:35. See 'Jesus wept.' That proves Arminianism." These verses you refer to do not support the propositions you make.
The Scripture is complete and already sufficient to accomplish that which God has chosen (2 Tim 3:16f). The canon is closed.
No one is saying the canon is open. I am saying that you may have an idea of what 'canon' means that is not backed up by scripture. The first post of this discussion lists verses that prove that God spoke outside of scripture.
1. The 'scripture' Timothy had access to was probably the Old Testament. He may have had some of Paul's letters.
2. If this verse closed the canon, then II Timothy 3:17 on is not canonical, and neither are later books.
3. If, as we believe, this verse applies to NT scripture as well, that scripture we need to be fully equipped tells us to covet to prophesy and gives instructions on how to prophesy in an appropriate manner.
4. The verse does not say that scripture is all the man of God needs to be fully equipped; it says that scripture is given so that the man of God may be fully equipped.
A soldier needs a rifle to be fully equipped. That does not mean he needs nothing more. Can the man of God be equipped without grace? Without love? without faith? It just so happens these things are taught on in the scriptures. But so are gifts of the Spirit like prophecy. In fact, Paul told Timothy that by some extra-scriptural prophecies spoken about him, he was to fight a good warfare.
As R. Fowler White states, (snipped)
Now that God has accomplished salvation once-for-all, in Christ, He has also spoken His word, once-for-all, in Christ and in those whom Christ authorized and empowered by His Spirit (Heb. 1:1-2; 2:3, 4; Matt. 16:15-19; John 14:26; Eph. 2:19, 20). With the completion of salvation in Christ comes the cessation of revelation
None of these verses Fowler quotes say anything about revelation outside of scripture ceasing. This seems typical of the theological reasoning on this thread in favor of cessationism. Scriptures verses are cited in the context of assertions not backed up by those verses.
Could you explain _how_ you think Hebrews 1:1-2 backs up the idea that God does not speak through prophets nowadays, without contradicting the fact that God spoke through prophets after Christ came? Are you trying to say that Jesus is the scriptures?
J Edwards wrote
We just deny any further need for them as their so called “new” revelations can no longer be validated by an apostle.
This is based on an unscriptural assumption. Nowhere does the Bible teach this idea that prophecies had to be validated by an apostle (unless we refer to Christ as an Apostle, since He is the Word.) Paul encouraged the prophets in Corinth to prophesy, even when he was away.
And the revelations I am talking about are not additions to the gospel, but 'revelations' in a broader sense.
I wrote,
:
3. Hebrews 2 teaches that God bore witness to the eye-witnesses of the resurrection's preaching of salvation with signs, wonders, and gifts. Therefore, the gifts ceased.
-Counterargument. This is poor logic.
If I say, "When I first came to work at my company, I used to eat at McDonald's, which is next door, quite often" does that mean I do not eat at McDonald's anymore? I might eat at McDonald's, and I might not.
J Edwards
This is not poor logic, but proper interpretation of the Greek text.
Nice trick. When you can't explain something, it is in the Greek. Can you demonstrate to me that the Greek tenses, cases, etc. here prove your point?
If the fact that God 'bore witness' in the past supposedly proves that He will never do so again, then you would have to explain why signs and wonders were done among Gentile groups and not among the Hebrews. You cannot make a logical case from this passage that gifts ceased without arguing that they were not done among other groups besides the readers of the epistle. (You can't make a logical case at all.)
I rode the bus yesterday. Does that statement imply anything about whether I rode the bus today?
Miracles came in each age of the Bible for specific periods of time and then they vanished (the revealing of the law to Moses; the lives of Elijah and Elisha, and the age of the early Church in Christ).
Can you show me where the Bible teaches this? That is what I am asking for, scripture that proves your points. I am not asking for assertions followed by scripture references that do _not_ prove your point.
The relationship between man in Christ and God, and the relationship between the typical man in Old Testament times and God is different, wouldn't you agree? We have been given the seal of the Spirit. Jesus sent the Comforter to lead and to guide into all truth. On the day of Pentecost, Peter quoted that prophecy that young men would see visions, and old men would dream dreams, verses about people prophesying when God poured out His Spirit on all flesh in the last days.
And if you will notice something about your argument, not only does the scripture not teach that miracles were confined to these periods, but during some of these periods it is unlikely that scripture was being written. During the life of Elijah and Elisha, who wrote scripture? The accounts of their lives were written much later?
And, as I have shown, the early church believed prophecy and other gifts continued. I have refered you to a work if you are seriously interested, but there are plenty of records of miracles in church history. You could look up some of the Celtic saints, or Saint Patrick for examples. In the 300's, you could look up Gregory of Armenia. Many of the men labeled as 'apostles' in history, like Patrick and Gregory, are known to have been miracle workers. Accounts of gifts of the Spirit in history are quite numerous.
And you have not explained away the gift of prophecy in the church as recorded in the Didache, or Justin's comment that there were prophets in the church of his day (maybe 120 AD) and the Jews did not have them, or the fact that years after Montanus' death, when the Montanists said they did not have the gift of prophecy anymore, a presbyter argued against them that the gift continued on. The Montanists were accused of prophesying against the custom of the church. The church had prophecy during that time.
Many things McDonald’s had when they first opened are no longer even on the menu. Though the foundation of McDonald’s is still there, what they serve is different. Their meat is not even real meat any more—it is processed and that is what is coming through the doors of the Charismatic Church—processed miracles—imitations.
Let's hope 100% ground beef McDonald's does not sue you for your post. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Your analogy does not work. Whether McDonald's changed it's meny or not, If I say "I ate at McDonald's when i first started working here." that says nothing about whether I still eat at McDonald's these days. If the Bible says God bore witness with signs and wonders when the Gospel was preached among the Hebrews, it does not mean He did not do so at other times. it does not mean he did not bear witness with signs and wonders when Paul preached among the Ephesians, for example. We know from scripture that he did grant signs and wonders to be done. And God has born witness to the Gospel with signs and wonders at many times throughout history, as you could find out if you would do some research on the subject before you pretended to know about it.
To extend the McDonald's analogy, let's imagine McDonald's has an infallible menu. The 'Big Mac' is on the meny. You argue that they no longer sell the Big Mac. If their menu is infallible, they do sell the Big Mac.
The Bible tells us that gifts like prophecy and tongues are given to the church. The Bible commands to covet to prophesy and to forbid not to speak in tongues. It commands to forbid not to prophesy. These are commands of scripture that cannot be erased simply by making assertions followed by scripture verses that do not prove your assertions.
First, no one said that miracles were ONLY a sign to authenticate the apostle’s teaching. One wonders why you have to continue to use deception to make your points. One of the reasons for miracles was to confirm the teaching of Scripture. Miracles helped the Jewish people recognize that the Messiah had come as prophet, priest, and King. Miracles are the fulfillment of Scripture, etc.
Pardon my mistating my case.
The Bible never says that confirming scripture was one of the purposes of miracles. Show me scripture if you can prove otherwise.
The Bible does show us that God bore witness to preachers of the Gospel with signs and wonders when they preached the word. The Gospel is still preached today. God had other preachers besides the apostles do signs and wonders at times (Philip, Stephen.)
The Bible also shows that the working of miracles is given to edify the body of Christ. This is found in I Corinthians 12. The body of Christ has not ceased to exist. So citing a list of reasons for miracles, and then stating these purposes have all been fulfilled will not work. The body of Christ still exists and still needs to be edified.
Second, miracles and such did follow them that believe, however, the Mark 16 promise “in context” was only to the Eleven (Mark 16:14, 17)….
If you accept the passage as inspired, not that the passage says that 'them that believe' will do miracles. It does not say here, 'you' will do miracles, but 'them that believe' which is not limited to the apostles.
Third, as Jesus says, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign (miracle)” (Matt 12:39). Apparently they still do!
Remember, logic, again. If an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, it does not mean all who seek after a sign are evil and adulterous. In Acts 4, the apostles seek God to do signs and wonders, and He grants their request. That does not mean that they are evil and adulterous.
If I say 'Witches eat ice cream' it does not logically follow that all who eat ice cream are witches.
Do you have the gift of self interpretation? Above you argued that it did not matter if the canon was closed and here you are arguing that it does matter. Let us know when you can properly interpret yourself.
I do not get your point. Be that as it may, I was listing arguments made and alluded to in the thread, not saying that a closed canon meant the end of prophecy.
And so what if tongues and their interpretation if done rightly edified the Church—this does not prove that the Church continued to require this edification. We are edified by the Word, by prayer, by the sacraments, etc.
Why should we assume that what the scriptures say is true has changed. The Bible says tongues with intepretation edifies the church. It does not say anything about the church no longer needing that type of edification. Your question is like the homosexual propagandists who asks for proof that Romans 1 still applies today.
I would not argue that teaching the word of God, prayer, and holy communion are not edifying. I will tell you that the Bible also says that prophecy and tongues with interpretation are edifying as well.
There are no “new” prophecies therefore they are all easy to judge as false!
You don't get out much do you? Apparently, you are aware that people are prophesying, or you would not have made the comments you have about the charismatic movement.
Actually, we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the sign gifts have been discontinued both from Scripture and church history.”
You have not even made a real case for your position. You repeatedly refer to verses that do not support your assertions. Do you even think about the verses you cite, and if they have any connection to the ideas you put forth?
Your position is one that contradicts direct commands of scripture, and you have such scanty support for your ideas.
