Covenant in Blood wrote
No, I said the Spirit "is not at work in the modern-day Pentecostal/Charismatic prophecy/tongues/etc."—i.e., their so-called spiritual gifts. Learn to read!
I sincerely apologize for my oversight. I remembered the quote wrong, wrote several responses, and filled them in with quotes later.
However, the fact still remains that you have no scriptural or logical reason for the allegations you have made. Have you considered the idea that some Reformed writers may be right that the gift of prophecy can be manifested in the preaching of the word of God? Warfield seemed to believe this in some places in his work, and in others treats prophecy as if it were a sign gift.
The LXX and NT Greek words for 'prophet' and 'prophesy' to refer to the OT prophets and what they did. It follows then, that what the New Testament prophets did when they prophesied was the same type of thing OT prophets did. Peter describes the prophecies of OT prophets as speaking as moved by the Holy Ghost.
If some preaching is prophesying, if done under the moving of the Spirit, then couldn't some Pentecostal or Charismatic preaching be prophesying? There are times when a preacher says something that ministers very specifically, from the word of God, to a need of an individual. Can't you allow for the fact that a preacher who teacher who does this may be prophesying, speaking as moved by the Holy Ghost?
And what about Pentecostal and Charismatic prophecies. Some prophecies are made up mostly of quotes from scripture put together. How could you say that the Holy Spirit never works through this. Couldn't you allow for the idea that the Holy Spirit works through scripture quoted through the mouth of a Pentecostal or Charismatic who is prophesying?
If you say that the Spirit is not at work in such things, and He is, at least in some of them, then you are not giving the Spirit credit for His work. This may not be exactly the same as what the Pharisees did in calling the work of the Spirit of the Devil, but it is a wreckless thing to do. You are not omniscient, and you cannot say where the Spirit is or is not at work unless God reveals that to you. This is a reckless thing to do.
Search the scriptures. Where do they teach that the gifts have ceased? Take a look at the 'sign gifts' thread. A recent post cites several scriptures that disproved cessationists presuppositions as expressed in one of the chapters of Warfield's book on the subject that is posted in the forum archives. For example, Warfield is wrong to assert that gifts were only passed on through apostles' hands, as scripture shows.
What is it with you and the word "whosoever"? Have I said that one must be a Pharisee to blaspheme the Spirit? No! What I've said is that to be guilty of BLASPHEMY involves a certain level of knowledge—which the Pharisees had. And I most certainly have not said that one can commit such blasphemy and not be guilty of it!
You'd best watch yourself quite closely now! You're putting a plethora of words in my mouth, and that will get you banned from this discussion board very quickly if you keep it up!
Look at my last message carefully. I said you were arguing that one had to meet the same Pharisees criteria as the Pharisees in order for Jesus' words to apply. I specified later in the paragraph what I meant. You said the Pharisees were blaspheming this ___with knowledge<<---. That was the criteria I was referring to. Sorry if I did not make that as clear as I had intended.
As I pointed out, the Bible does NOT tell us that the Pharisees knew that they were blaspheming the Spirit! You say that you have explained tha they did. But just because you think this makes sense does not mean it is in scripture. Please show me the chapter and verse reference that makes it clear tha the Pharisees knew they were blaspheming the scripture, and if it is not too much trouble, please quote the verse for all to see. You aren't using _The Message_ are you?
The. The passages in question do not say that the Pharisees knew they were blaspheming the Spirit, or that Christ was sent from God. To base a _doctrine_ on your or __assertion__ or __guess__ that they did is not in line with the Protestant axiom of sola scriptura. You have no scripture on which to base your claim that the Pharisees knew that they were wrong.
Should they have known? Of course. But the fact remains that Jesus did __not__ say that only those who knew what they who were guilty of this sin could not be forgiven. He did say that 'whosoever' commited the sin would not be forgiven. 'Whosoever' includes anyone who commits the sin, the ignorant, the knowing, Pharisees, Saducees, European backpackers, Calvinists, Pentecostals, etc.
Is it possible that the Pharisees knew that Jesus was casting out demons by the Spirit of God? Sure, it's theoretically possible. It is also theoretically possible that they somehow knew that the US would put a man on the moon by 1969. But the text of scripture does not say that the Pharisees knew either of these facts.
Again, I can see why some would want to argue that the unforgivable sin has to be wilfull because the 'high handed' sins of the Old Testament had no sacrifice, and because of Hebrews 10:26. But it is dangerous to add things into Christ's teaching that He did not say to make it fit with ones personal view of theology. There is another intepretation of Hebrews 10:26, btw.
Yes, it is a "trump card"—a way of silencing any and all opponents by backhandedly accusing them of the only sin which is said in Scripture to be unforgiveable.
For a lot of people, discussing these things is not a game, like playing with a deck of cards. It is not about winning an argument by silencing the opponent. Just put yourself in your reader's shoes. If you believed the Holy Spirit were ministering through gifts of the Spirit, and you met someone who said that the Holy Spirit weren't, or worse, attributed these works to the Devil, wouldn't you warn the person and others hearing him?
Pentecostals and Charismatics did not invent a 'trump card' here. They did not get a time machine and sneak these verses into early manuscripts of the synoptic Gospels so as to have a trump card to play on cessationists. No, Jesus gave this teaching.
This as opposed to actually presenting any formal refutation of the cessationist postion: instead, the well is first poisoned so that the cessationist position is in opposition to the Spirit from the get-go, rather than after the thoughtful consideration of the whole counsel of Scripture.
Ihave presented rather in depth refutation of Cessationism on this thread and the sign gift thread. The 'default' understanding of scripture should be that gifts continue unless scripture says otherwise. Wouldn't you agree with this? The cessationist arguments tend to assume that gifts cease, and stack up arguments for why they should have ceased that are about scripture, but not truly based on scripture.
Here are some underlying false assumptions that are not based on scripture that cessationists use to argue that the gifts have ceased.
--That these spiritual gifts continuing are an attack on the role of scripture, or the doctrine of scripture. The problem with this assumption is that if scripture does not teach that these gifts have ceased, then rejecting them is rejecting scriptural teaching on the gifts.
--That gifts served, more or less exclusively, to confirm certain messengers, now dead or ascended, and their writings. We see from scripture multiple purposes for these gifts, including edifying the church. Furthermore, the Bible does not limit these gifts to confirming Christ and the apostles as other preachers did signs. The Bible does not teach that these gifts confirmed the canon per se. This concept, that miracles were to confirm the canon, is assumed without scriptural support, as a part of an extra-scriptural doctrine of scripture.
--That gifts were only given through the apostles. The Bible shows plenty of counter examples and the doctrinal teaching of scripture is that gifts are given by the Spirit's will
--Misinterpretations of I Corinthians 13. A quote from Lloyd-Jones in one of the cessationist articles on this website pretty well sums up the problem with this interpretation.
I have dealt with many of these doctrines in depth, but have not gotten in depth responses in return from most posters. I can understand that people post in accordance with their level of interest on a subject as well. But it seems many posters on this forum are so sure they are right about this issue that they do not think it necessary to carefully consider if their basic assumptions are flawed on this issue.
I've already told you, Christ's word about blasphemy of the Spirit was not a warning to believers, but a condemnation of those who had already committed the sin. It is ludicrous to suggest that one who is INDWELLED by the Spirit could blaspheme the same Spirit! Do you believe the Spirit does not guard God's children against such? Obedience to the Spirit is not a work that originates within us, but it is rather a work of the Spirit Himself: "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ" (Phil. 1:6), "for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).
You make some very valid points. God's grace protects believers. But scripture also teaches that we are to 'take heed' and to make our calling and ellection sure.
My understanding of it is that God's grace manifests in us giving us that desire and discipline that allows us to resist temptation-- That God gives us His word, and then He gives us the grace to desire to obey it, and the grace to obey it. We cooperate with His grace, and perhaps His grace is what is behind our co-operation.
The Bible teaches us to take heed lest we fall, and to make our calling and election sure.
Which do you think better is more characteristic the atittude of the man whom the Holy Spirit is keeping from the sin of blaspheming the Spirit, the man who recklessly makes sweeping statements about where the Spirit is or is not working, or the man who guards His tongue and-with the fear of God- is careful what He says about the work of the Spirit? Which description would you rather have fit you?
Another post like this from you and I myself will ban you.
I apologize for the mistake about the quote above. I can understand your being upset about that.
If you are upset about the content of my post, and my position that it is dangerous to make broad sweeping assertions about what the Spirit is and is not involved in, that is another matter. If I saw you about to get hit by a car, and I could stop it by saying something, I would be morally obligated to speak out. I will write in a way to keep my conscience clear before God, and if you want to ban me for that, that is your choice. Again, I am sorry about the issue with the quote, above, and I will be more careful reading quotes in the future.
