Pilgrim wrote,
But I find your illustration wanting and even inapplicable to this discussion on the continuity of the "revelatory gifts". Why? Because re: homosexuality, it wasn't just Paul who spoke out against this sin of perversion, but God Himself throughout the entire Scriptures. The condemnation of sexual deviants is manifold.
I find Matthew's illustration to be quite applicable. There may be a few more verses in scripture condemning homosexual acts than there are direct commands regarding how to view prophecy. However, if we include accounts of God judging prophecies and warnings for not following individual prophecies, there are probably many more prophecies regarding the obligation of the hearer to obey true prophecies from God than there are warning against homosexuality.
The Old Testament warns that if God does speak through a prophet, that He will hold the people responsible to hear the prophet. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to 'despise not prophesyings' but to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. I Corinthians commands believers to covet to prophesy and forbid not to speak with tongues. It commands 'Let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge..
The Old Testament contains commands that he that lies with a man as one does with a woman is to be put to death. It also says 'thou shalt not' lie with a man as one does with a woman.' There are references to 'dogs', and what not to do with their offerings. Paul condemns 'arsenokoite' (sp?) in I Corinthians 6 and refers to them as sinner's the law is intended for in an epistle to Timothy. There are several verses in Romans 1 that condemn the practice.
So if we look verse for verse, both the New and Old Testament condemn homosexual activities. The Old Testament makes it clear that God required His people to hear His true prophets. The New Testament commands believers to desire to prophesy, and commands us not to despise prophesyings.
So "God Himself throughout the entire Scriptures" speaks in favor of hearing prophets as well.
The burden of proof is on you to show that the commands to desire to prophesy and to despise not prophesyings are no longer applicable. You are encouraging people to disregard direct commands of scripture, some of them to the New Testament church, so you had better have a clear case from scripture.
Doesn't it make you uneasy to tell people to disregard direct commands of scripture based on loose theological reasoning and inference? Isn't that a dangerous hermenuetical principle to follow? That is the approach of the homosexual advocates who try to infiltrate the church with their philosophy.
Now, in regard to the cessationist argument against "revelatory gifts", it is a bit more indirectly taught in Scripture much like the doctrine of the Trinity; i.e., by good and necessary inference.
A difference is this: The Bible never says 'thou shalt not believe in the Trinity'. But it does contain commands not to despise prophesying, to covet to prophesy and to forbid not to speak in tongues. Cessationism is in direct conflict with obedience to these commands.
A proper reading of Scripture sees the historical development of the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Church in the Old Testament went through some significant changes when Christ came. And after Christ ascended, the Holy Spirit brought about yet more changes, aka: maturity to the Church as it gathered together those whom Christ died, i.e., Jews and Gentiles. The infant Church used various "gifts" as its foundation was being built and after its completion the upper structure had no need of the "tools" used to lay the foundation. It seems to me that the Master Builder knew exactly what was needed to bring about the "building" He had planned.
You are making some 'leaps' here not supported by any text in scripture. These are reasons you might give to help 'support' the idea if you already had some proof from scripture that the gifts ceased, but where is the proof from scripture in the first place? The church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets, but this does not disprove the continuance of the gifts, and it certainly does not disprove tongues or miracles.
Your reasoning here seems about as concrete as the the homosexual advocates. Those scriptures do not apply because [insert human reasoning.]
I think the real reason for most cessationism is identity and pride in ones church tradition. Some of the earliest Protestants arguments for cessationism were against the Roman Catholics who claimed they had miracles. The Protestants rejected the idea that real miracles were occuring. Many of the Roman Catholic claims to miracles were entertwined with repugnant practices like the worship of saints and relics. Cessationism may also have been spurred along by false prophets inspiring political revolts and practicing polygamy in Germany.
If someone is proud of his church tradition and his church does not have these gifts, if he allows that they exist, how does that effect his own view of his church traditions? He might have to allow for the idea that some other Christian group of uneducated or strange-acting people might actually have experienced gifts that believers in his circles have not. This idea is a challenge to his belief system and the church tradition he has chosen to follow.
The fact that there are a number of Charismatic preachers who teach error these days does not help either. If one allows for the possibility that God could give these gifts, then does that put him in the same boat with with strange large hairdo's on TBN?
Paul warned the church in Corinth not to divide into camps around different servants of the Lord. Protestantism has divided over leaders, mainly long dead ones, and many Christians associate that historical leader with their own spiritual identity, rather than recognizing the body of Christ.
As far as 'Reformed' identity goes in relation to gifts of the Spirit, after Jack Deere became a PCA pastor, he wrote a book entitled _Suprised by the Voice of God_ in which he recounted stories of prophetically gifted Reformers in the Scottish Reformation. One of them was an older contemporary, and perhaps mentor of John Knox, and he recounts the story of a 'prophet Peden' who is said to have raised the dead, among other things.
Secondly, one of the arguments which I have brought forth and which has not been addressed, surprisingly (not), is that IF the "revelatory gifts" are still in existence, then they must be authoritative by their very nature, they being from God and thus on equal par with Scripture. Should one argue, which has been done, that there were prophesies which were not included in Scripture, I believe that this in itself proves the case for cessationism for they were not included in the inspired written record. Only those things which the Holy Spirit determined should be perpetually binding on believers for all ages were included in the Canon.
I really don't follow your reasoning here. You seem to be arguing against yourself. Many people who do believe in the gifts believe that prophesy now, if it is genuine, is authoratative, but it is not 'binding on all believers for all ages' and is not to be included in the canon. So how does your argument argue against the gifts?
Don't you agree that there were genuine prophecies and revelations not included in scripture?
Since there were extra-scriptural revelations, extra letters of Paul (to the Laodiceans and Corinthians for example), various prophecies not put down, why weren't all the 'anti-cessationist' commands included in these extra-scriptural works and utterances? If scripture is supposed to be 'perpetually binding on believers for all ages', then why would God include commands like the commands to desire and not despise prophesyings in the scriptures? Why do the scriptures say to forbid not to speak with tongues?
Thirdly, it would appear that Paul's statement concerning the primacy of Scripture are not given their full place in the non-cessationist camp:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV) "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
It seemed good to Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to state that Scripture was sufficient to provide ALL that a believer needs in the matter of doctrine (teaching), reproof (discipline),
First of all, part of scriptural doctrine is that God gives the gift of prophecy to some in the church. Scriptural doctrine includes the command to 'desire to prophesy and forbid not to speak in tongues. "Despise not prophesyings" is included in the commands of scripture.
The verse you quote does not prove the conclusion you make. This is a matter of logic. Paul did not say that scripture provides all the scripture needs. As I wrote in an earlier post:
Notice the scriptures are given so that the man of God can be fully equipped, but the passage does not say that the scriptures are all one needs to be fully equipped. you can give a soldier a gun so that he can be fully equipped, but he still needs a helmet. If a man has the scriptures and not the Spirit, or love, or grace, he is not fully equipped.
If Paul were saying that scripture is all a person needs, then we would not need much of the New Testament scriptures, because many of them were in oral form at this time, and were not 'scriptures' since they were not written down. Plus, Paul had already written to Timothy that by his (extra-scriptural) prophecies, he was to fight a good warfare. Timothy had received a gift through prophecy (not recorded in scripture) with the laying on of hands of the elders.
The proof-texts for cessationism do not stand up to close scrutiny, and the way some cessationists argue them, their arguments attack the inspiration of the scriptures. Another example would be arguing that there were no more prophets after Christ because of Hebrews 1:1-2, when scripture specifically teaches that there were prophets after Christ's ascension. The inspiration of the New Testament is based on the idea that they were prophetically inspired.
