continued:

But that is not how Scripture defines the test.  Here’s Bill Hayman(?), he says, “We must not be quick to call someone a false prophet simply because something he said was inaccurate.  Missing it a few times in prophecy doesn’t make a false prophet, no mortal prophet is infallible.  All are liable to make mistakes.”  But you see how far short this is falling from the biblical standard.  Here’s Jack Deere, “Prophets are really messy.  Prophets make mistakes.  And sometimes when a prophet makes a mistake, it’s a serious mistake.”  I mean, I know prophets just last year that cost people millions of dollars with the mistake they made.  I talk to people who made the wrong investments, actually moved their homes and spent tons of money.

In the extended interview between Mike Bickle and Bob Jones, which if we had time we could read the whole thing, a large portion of it is included in the Strange Fire books.  So you’ll see it when you get the book tomorrow.  The interview concludes with Mike Bickle asking Bob Jones, so there have been errors, there’s been a number of errors in your prophetic ministry—is the implication.  And Bob Jones answers, “Oh, hundreds…hundreds of them.”

A couple of other examples, Cindy Jacobs and Chuck Pierce at a prophecy conference in 2000 acknowledged, “We’ve made a lot of mistakes. There’s no excuse but we need to do better.  And Kim Clements(?) on TBN said, and this pretty much just sums up the Charismatic view of prophecy, “You can be a wrong prophet, and not be a false prophet.”

Now someone might say, “Well that…that’s the broader Charismatic Movement. That’s the TBN mainstream larger, wider Charismatic Movement, what about the continuationists?  What about the more conservative continuationists?

Well, this view of prophecy is prevalent among continuationists as well.  Perhaps the most well-known proponent of modern prophecy is Wayne Grudem and Grudem says this in his book The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today.  He says, “There is almost uniform testimony from all sections of the Charismatic Movement that prophecy is imperfect and impure and will contain elements which are not to be obeyed or trusted.”

As a result of this then, continuationists acknowledge that people can rely too much on the subjective guidance of prophecy. So Grudem says, “Usually this has been because they did not realize that prophecy in the church age is not the Word of God and that it can frequently contain errors.”  Sam Storms adds this, “One should avoid looking to or depending on the gift of prophecy for making routine, daily decisions in life, because God does not intend for the gift of prophecy to be used as the usual way we make decisions regarding His will.”  In other words, modern prophecy can’t be trusted.

Very interesting here, Wayne Grudem talks about how you can know whether or not a prophecy is legitimate.  You’ll note how subjective this becomes because now the objective criteria of being accurate is no longer being use.  So Wayne Grudem says this, “Pastorally if someone is in charge of a home fellowship group, or if a pastor is in charge of a prayer meeting, you call it as you see it.  I have to use an American analogy.  It’s an umpire calling balls and strikes as the pitcher pitches the ball across the plate.  So by ignoring the objective standards of Scripture, then, evaluating whether or not something really is a true prophecy becomes hopelessly subjective.”

Here in another place, and this again comes from his book The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, Grudem adds this.  “Did the revelation seem like something from the Holy Spirit?  Did it seem to be similar to other experiences of the Holy Spirit which he had known previously in worship?  Beyond this, it is difficult to specify much further except to say that over time, a congregation would probably become more adept at making evaluations and become more adept at recognizing a genuine revelation from the Holy Spirit and distinguishing it from their own thoughts.”  You can see the subjective language that is being used because all objective criteria have been ignored.

Now this raises an important question.  If the Bible requires 100 percent accuracy for prophets, then how can the Charismatic Movement justify prophets who regularly speak errors when they claim to be speaking words from God?  Now just to illustrate some of the more outlandish errors, we could talk about, for example, in 1989 when Benny Hinn predicted that Fidel Castro would die sometime in the 1990’s.  Or when he predicted that the homosexual community in America would be destroyed by fire before 1995, or that a major earthquake would devastate the east coast before the year 2000.  None of those predictions came true.

In the 1990’s, Bob Jones and Rick Joyner predicted that within a matter of months, Southern California would be swallowed by the Pacific Ocean after a major earthquake.  That also did not come to pass. And in 2007 Pat Robertson predicted a major terror attack in the U.S. in that year.  Here’s what Robertson said on his show, “The Lord didn’t say nuclear but I do believe it will be something like that, that it will be a mass-killing, possibly millions of people, major cities injured.  There will be some very serious terrorist attacks.  The evil people will come after this country and there’s a possibility not a possibility, a definite certainty that chaos is going to rule.”

Those kinds of stories, of course, could be multiplied many times over. And those are just a few more egregious examples to make a point.  If we were to apply the standard of Deuteronomy 18, we would have to consider these men to be false prophets.  But Charismatics are quick to say, just because a modern prophet gets a prediction or many predictions wrong, that doesn’t make him a false prophet.  How can they say that? 

Well the answer may surprise you.  Defenders of modern prophecy generally claim that there are actually two categories of prophets or prophecy depicted in Scripture.  The first kind of prophet is the one that is described in Deuteronomy 18. That kind of prophet had to be 100 percent accurate.  And in that category they would include the Old Testament prophets, along with the Apostles and the writers of any other New Testament books.  So they have to be 100 percent accurate. 

But then they would contend that there’s a second lower category of prophet, a second tier of prophet in the New Testament.  They refer to these as New Testament congregational prophets and they claim that these prophets were not held to a standard of 100 percent accuracy.  So the argument essentially goes like this.  While first tier prophets like Moses, Isaiah, Peter and Paul were held to a standard of absolute, orthodoxy and correctness, these congregational prophets were allowed to deliver revelations from God that weren’t actuality full of errors and mistakes.  Because this second tier form of prophecy was not accurate, it also was not considered authoritative. And so, as a result you don’t have to obey the word of a prophet.

In a sense then, this congregational form of prophecy was essentially nothing more than Spirit-led advice.  It was optional for people to follow because it may or may not be accurate.  In fact, Wayne Grudem himself speaking of modern prophecy says, “I would put this idea of God bringing things to mind in the same category of authority as advice or counsel from a godly person.”

Now there’s a significant pastoral issue with that redefinition of biblical prophecy because modern prophecy unlike mere advice, can be used to abuse, manipulate, and coerce people who think that they’re obeying the Lord when in fact they are not.

Kim Crutchfield(?), Charismatic author, an advocate of modern prophecy acknowledges this fact.  He says, “Some churches and church leaders become abusive. Abusive church leaders use prophecy to castigate, vilify and place fear in a person’s heart.  These are false prophecies, uttered as a tool of social control.  They predict doom for those who leave a church.  Such leaders do not allow people to question the prophet, judge the prophecy or call the message into question. This is a clear abuse of spiritual authority, Unscrupulous leaders often use prophecies and words from the Lord to manipulate their flock.  It is a crass form of spiritual manipulation. It leaves people vulnerable to the whims and manipulations of would-be prophets.”  I think that is absolutely true.

continued:

On a practical level, if you tell me that you’ve received a Word from God for my life, that’s definition more than you just telling me that you’re sharing a Word of advice or counsel that comes from your own opinion.  So you can see the devastating effects this type of prophecy can have in the church. It can really become a burden on well-meaning people. 

But there’s an even bigger problem.  Continuationists justify errant prophecy by suggesting a lower-class of New Testament prophets.  The bigger problem than just the pastoral implications is that this is simply not a biblical way to define prophecy, either in the Old Testament, or in the New Testament.  The notion of a lower tier of prophets who are frequently inaccurate in their prophetic declarations is completely absent from the New Testament record.  The New Testament nowhere suggests that prophets in the church were to be held to a lesser standard than their Old Testament counterparts.  In fact, the evidence indicates exactly the opposite.  New Testament prophets, no matter what church congregation they were part of, were held to the very same standard as those used…the very same standards as those used in the Old Testament.

So, for starters, the New Testament refers to both Old Testament and New Testament prophets using the exact same terminology. There is no distinction in the way the New Testament talks about Old Testament prophets, or New Testament prophets.  We see this in the book of Acts where time after time references are made to Old Testament prophets and then references to New Testament prophets are interspersed throughout the book of Acts without any sort of distinction, comment or caveat being used.

Sam Waldron says this, “If New Testament prophecy in distinction from Old Testament prophecy was not infallible in its pronouncements, this would have constituted an absolutely fundamental contrast between the Old Testament institution and the New Testament institution.  So suppose that a difference as important as this would be passed over without explicit comment is unthinkable.”  So the New Testament never defines prophecy in a New Testament context as being anything different than what it was in an Old Testament context.

But there is more than just evidence from silence to support the fact that there’s only one kind of prophet described in Scripture.  In Acts 2:18, for example, Peter quotes from Joel 2:28 to describe the type of prophecy that would characterize the New Testament age.  Joel 2:28 is an Old Testament passage, it’s describing Old Testament quality prophecy.  So by using that passage, Peter was declaring that New Testament prophecy would be of the same kind as the Old Testament prophecy that Joel had just described.

Not only that, but the New Testament  describes prophets in the New Testament in a way that is equivalent to how the Old Testament describes prophets as well. So we have the same terminology and now we have the same descriptions.  Dr. David Farnell(?) who teaches New Testament here at the Master’s Seminary, after a lengthy study of this issue in the New Testament says this, this is about the prophet Agabus in particular, we’ll talk more about Agabus in just a few minutes.  But he’s showing how Agabus is described in the same way as Old Testament  prophets were described.  Agabus introduced his prophecy with the formula, “This is what the Holy Spirit says,” or “Thus says the Holy Spirit,” which closely parallels the Old Testament prophetic formula of “Thus says the Lord.”  It’s the same introductory phrase, in fact, that the Lord Jesus used when He declared words of prophecy to the seven churches in the book of Revelation.  And certainly, we would not accuse the Lord Jesus of using …of using fallible or errant prophecy.

Like many Old Testament prophets, Agabus presented his prophecies through symbolic actions.  Again as a similarity.  Like the Old Testament prophets, Agabus was empowered by the Holy Spirit and like the Old Testament prophets, Agabus’ prophecies were accurately fulfilled.  Now on that last point, we’re going to go into a little bit more detail because Continuationists would argue that perhaps Agabus was not accurate in his prediction.

But Dr. Farnell summarizes the evidence and says, “Look, in summary, the early post-apostolic church judged the genuineness of New Testament prophets by Old Testament standards.  Prophets in the New Testament era who were ecstatic, who made wrong applications of Scripture or who prophesied falsely were considered false prophets because such actions violated Old Testament stipulations regarding what characterized a genuine prophet of God.

The New Testament church during the apostolic age, their scriptures consisted of the Old Testament. So when they went to the Bible to decipher how to judge a true prophet from an false prophet, they derived the same principles from the Old Testament that we have articulated this afternoon.

The bottom line then is this, nothing in the New Testament suggests that there was a second tier of congregational prophets in the early church that was held to a lower standard of one hundred percent prophetic accuracy.  The New Testament indicates the prophets and the church were measured by the very same criteria as Old Testament prophets: doctrinal orthodoxy, moral integrity, and predictive accuracy.

So there are two types of prophets in the Bible, true prophets and false prophets. But there is not this third middle ground that the contemporary Charismatic Movement wishes to hold to.

Now, someone will say, “Well there are some objections that Charismatics will raise to what you have just articulated.”  So let’s take a moment to answer three of the most common Charismatic objections.

The first is an appeal to Romans 12:6, proponents of fallible prophecy, or prophecy that has mistakes and errors in it, will often point to Romans 12:6 which in the NAS reads as follows, “Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly.  If prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith.”  Based on this verse, Charismatics and Continuationists argue that the accuracy of one’s prophecy can vary depending on how much faith you have.  So if you have 80 percent faith, then you can deliver a prophecy that is 80 percent accurate.

But that is actually a misunderstanding of the Greek in this verse.  And, in fact, though I like the New American Standard, they have mistranslated this verse.  The pronoun, the possessive pronoun “his” before the word “faith” is not in the Greek.  In Greek it is the definite article THE.  It should read, “According to the proportion of the faith.”  Now a number of translations like the ESV and others do better they say, “In proportion, or in measure to our faith,” sort of a collective sense. But the Greek itself is explicit.  It is THE faith.

What this means then is this is not saying that the accuracy of your prophecy fluctuates depending on how much faith you have.  Rather it is saying that whatever a prophet speaks, it must perfectly accord with THE faith, those things that were previously revealed.  Jude 3 and 4 talks about contending earnestly for the faith, once for all delivered to the saints.  And Romans 12:6 should be understood in that same light.  If someone prophesies, if someone claims to speak for God, their message must be measured against the faith…as it has been delivered in previous revelation.  So this is simply affirming that Old Testament principle of doctrinal orthodoxy.  You must be perfectly accurate theologically when you claim to speak for God.

Now there’s another objection that Charismatics often raise and that is an appeal to 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 verses 20 through 22.  This verse reads, or these verses read as follows, “Do not despise prophetic utterances, but examine everything carefully.  Hold fast to that which is good and abstain from every form of evil.”  Based on this verse, continuationists ask, if New Testament prophecy was infallible like Old Testament prophecy, then why did Paul tell the Thessalonians to test it carefully, or to examine it carefully?

Well, we would respond with the following observations. First of all, I think it’s important to note that Paul’s statement “Do not despise prophetic utterances” was written at a time when everyone agrees that the gift of prophecy was still active. So when cessationists reject the false predictions being made by self-appointed modern prophets, they’re not disobeying Paul’s command, rather they’re taking the command to test things seriously. When we test modern prophets using the biblical standards, we are right then to reject those who do not pass the test.

Verse 22, Paul states that those prophecies which do not pass the test, and I think by implication those who declare such prophecies, that they are to be regarded as evil and believers are to abstain from them. This indicates that there is a seriousness, a gravitas to that kind of rejection of error and cessationists seek to apply that in a meaningful way.

continued:

Now the fact that Paul instructed his readers to examine prophecy carefully, it does not mean that New Testament prophecy was fallible or full of errors.  Rather it indicates that false prophets posed a real threat to the New Testament church. Consequently believers needed to test all supposed prophecies so as to distinguish between true prophets and false prophets.  False prophets wreaked havoc in the Thessalonian church.  As John MacArthur explains, the Thessalonians in particular needed to be wary of false prophets.  Paul’s two epistles to them indicate that some within their congregation had already been misled, both with regard to Paul’s personal character, and with regard to the eschatological future of the church.  Much of Paul’s instruction was in response to the erroneous teaching that was wreaking havoc within the Thessalonian church.

Finally, the idea that New Testament prophecy had to be examined or tested, that does not make it qualitatively different than Old Testament prophecy. In fact, the very reason that God gave those tests in Deuteronomy 13 and in Deuteronomy 18, was so that Old Testament saints could test prophecy too, just as New Testament believers were commanded to do it in 1 Thessalonians 5.

Now why did Old Testament prophecy need to be tested?  Because just as in New Testament times, the threat of false prophets was in ever-present danger.  I think it’s important to note as well that in Acts 17:11 the Bereans were considered noble for examining the things that even the Apostle Paul was telling them. So even apostolic teaching should be tested by that which had been previously revealed.

So, Dr. MacArthur says this, putting all this together, we see that 1 Thessalonians 5 does not support the Charismatic case for fallible prophecy.  Rather it leads to the opposite conclusion because it calls Christians to test any message, or messenger that claims to come from God.  When we apply the test of Scripture to the supposed revelations of modern-day Charismatics, we quickly see their prophesying for what it really is, a dangerous counterfeit.

Now there’s one more objection that Charismatics raise, and perhaps this is the most common objection of all.  Tom hinted at it this morning in his message.  But let’s talk just a little bit about the prophet Agabus.

In Acts 11:28, Agabus is affirmed as a true prophet who accurately foretold the coming of a severe famine.  But controversy surrounds Acts chapter 21 verses 10 and 11, according to continuationists, Agabus was a true prophet who got the predictive details of his prophecy wrong.  In their minds then, he provides an example…in fact, really the only New Testament example of a prophet who failed to make an accurate prediction but was still considered a true prophet.

Here’s what Luke says in Acts 21:10 and 11.  “As we were staying there for some days, a prophet named Agabus came from Jerusalem….from Judea.  And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, ‘This is what the Holy Spirit says, in this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’”  Now according to continuationists, the overall gist of Agabus’ prophecy is correct, but the details are wrong.  In particular, according to continuationists, Agabus erred when he stated, number one, that the Jews would bind Paul and number two, that the Jews would deliver Paul into the hands of the Romans.  So here Wayne Grudem says this, “This is a prophecy whose two elements of binding and giving over by the Jews are explicitly falsified by the subsequent  narrative.”  In another place, Grudem says, “The prediction was not far off, but it had inaccuracies and detail that would have called into question the validity of any Old Testament prophet.”

So how are we to think about Agabus?  Are the details of his prophecy explicitly falsified?  Did he err when he predicted that the Jews would bind Paul and hand him over to the Romans?  I think the answer to this question is no.  I don’t think Agabus got anything wrong in his prophecy.  Let me give you five reasons why.

Number one, nothing in the text states that Agabus got his prophecy wrong. So the idea that this is explicitly falsified is in itself explicitly false.  Neither Luke nor Paul, nor anyone else in Scripture, criticizes the accuracy of Agabus’ prediction or says that he erred.  Thus at best, the continuationists’ conclusion about Agabus is based on an argument from silence.

Secondly, Luke’s description of what happened to Paul in Jerusalem farther down in Acts chapter 21 implies that the Jews bound him just as Agabus predicted.  In fact, Luke doesn’t need to repeat those details because he’s already given us those details through the words of Agabus.  But the details are implied as being perfectly fulfilled.  So the rest of Acts 21 explains the Jews laid hands on Paul. They seized him, they dragged him and they sought to kill him and they were beating him when the Roman soldiers finally arrived.

Later when Paul stands before Agrippa, he reiterates that the Jews seized him in the Temple and tried to kill him.  The mob would have had to restrain Paul in some way in order to do all of this to him, since Paul did not subject himself to it willingly.  As they forcibly removed him from the Temple, the would have used whatever means were necessary to seize him and to bind him.

So the implication in both Acts 21 and Acts 26 is that Paul was bound exactly as Agabus said he would be.  In fact, the Greek word “to bind” can mean to arrest or to imprison, but it can also simply mean to tie someone up, or to wrap someone up with rags.  So when Agabus says you’re going to be bound in this way, that’s exactly what happened.

Number three, Paul’s later testimony confirms that the Jews delivered him over, or handed him over to the Romans. Continuationists claim that Agabus also erred when he predicted that the Jews would deliver Paul over to the Romans, but that error is not demanded by the text.  In fact, in Acts 21:32, Paul is being beaten when the Roman cohort arrives, the Jews upon seeing the soldiers stop assaulting Paul and the implication of the text is that when the Roman soldiers arrived, the angry mob dispersed and relinquished Paul into the hands of the Roman soldiers.  That, of course, accords perfectly with Agabus’ prediction.  But there’s an even more explicit statement in Acts 28 where Paul has just arrived in Jerusalem.  He’s under house arrest in Rome.  Here’s what Luke says.  “When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself with a soldier who was guarding him. After three days, Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews and when they came together, he began to say to them,” and this is Paul speaking, “Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered.” That word for delivered is the exact same word that Agabus used when he said that Paul would be delivered by the Jews into the hands of the Romans.  Here he says, “I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.”

So you can see, there’s no reason to cast aspersion or doubt on the details of Agabus’ prophecy.  Now here’s probably the most important reason why I think it’s very dangerous to accuse Agabus of getting the details wrong.  Agabus is quoting the Holy Spirit. In Acts 21:11 Agabus begins his prophecy by saying, “Thus says the Holy Spirit.”  Just like the Old Testament prophets would declare, “Thus says the Lord.”  Nothing in the text indicates that he was wrong to do that, and, in fact, the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to record Agabus’ prophecy in exactly this way.

continued:

So, those who accuse Agabus of error ought to be very careful. And I don’t say this flippantly but meaningfully, Agabus is quoting the Holy Spirit and I believe it is dangerous to then accuse the following words of being inaccurate.

Now finally and probably least important in our list of five, but one that I appreciate because I teach church history, no one in church history ever accused Agabus of errant prophecy until the modern Charismatic Movement.  And we don’t have time this morning for me to read to you from Augustine and Chrysostom and Gregory of Nanzianzus, and Ambrose and others who talk about Agabus.  But when they do talk about Agabus, which isn’t very frequently, they acquaint him with the Old Testament prophets like Isaiah and Ezekiel and they never ever imply that his prophecy was wrong.

So, based on these five reasons, I feel confidence stating that there is no hint of fallible prophecy not only in church history but in a straight-forward reading of the biblical text, no hint of fallible prophecy in Agabus’ prediction. Which means if Agabus didn’t get the details wrong, then there is no New Testament example of a prophet who got the details wrong.

Now, what are the implications of what it is that we are discussing?  We have just a few minutes left this afternoon, and I want to talk just a little bit about what it is that we’ve been discussing and what the implications of this are.

Terms of a review, the Bible articulates three criteria by which to evaluate a true prophet from a false prophet.  Those criteria are, number one, doctrinal orthodoxy.  Number two, moral integrity.  And number three, predictive accuracy.  A word that truly comes from God will be consistent with what has previously been revealed and will come from the life of someone who is consistent in their own walk with the Lord and if it includes details of prediction, or of hidden knowledge that is being revealed, those details will be perfectly accurate because the source of that prophecy is the God who knows everything and who cannot speak falsehood.

Self-proclaimed prophets who fail any of those three tests should consider the serious biblical warnings against falsely claiming to speak for God.  So quote from the Strange Fire book, John MacArthur says, “Fallible prophets are false prophets. Or at best, misguided non-prophets who should immediately cease and desist from presumptively pretending to speak for God. When compared to the clear criteria set forth in the Word of God, nothing about modern prophecy measures up.”

Now, from a cessationists standpoint, and I appreciated Tom Pennington’s defense of cessationism this morning, we would say that the true gift of prophecy has ceased. According to Ephesians 2:20, the foundation of the church built on the foundation…the church being built on the foundation of the Apostles and the prophets, the foundational age, once that age passes, both Apostles and prophets, those gifts associated with those offices pass away as well.  So the foundation age has passed and so we would contend that the gift of prophecy passed along with it.

With the canon of Scripture complete, there is no longer any need for us to receive new revelation from God. We have the prophetic word and it contains all that we need for life and godliness.  And I appreciate the emphasis that’s been made in the keynote sessions and that will be made with Dr. Lawson’s upcoming message, and that emphasis is that the sufficiency of Scripture itself is at stake.  Any concept of new revelation from God undermines the authority of Scripture and it also competes with the exclusivity of biblical revelation. And that is what makes the concept of modern prophecy, even if you redefine it as Spirit-led advice, the concept itself is dangerous.

So the idea that new revelation is still being given, undermines the doctrine of Scripture sufficiency. It also enables unscrupulous leaders to abuse their people supposedly in the name of God and I recognize that not everyone who claims to be a Charismatic prophet is guilty of abusing people, but it does happen and the problem comes by labeling error as prophecy.  It shows us how dangerous the idea of modern prophecy really is.

Now I’d like to close our time by citing three well-known figures from history…two from church history, and one from biblical history.  All three of these extended quotations are going to be included in the Strange Fire book, so you will have these tomorrow when you get the book.  But I think they provide a fitting conclusion to our discussion about modern prophecy.

The first comes from a well-known British pastor of the early twentieth century, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones.  Here’s what he said in his work on Ephesians chapter 4.  He said, “Try to imagine our position if we did not possess these New Testament epistles but the Old Testament only. That was the position of the early church.  Truth was imparted to it primarily by the teaching and preaching of the Apostles but that was supplemented by the teaching of the prophets to whom truth was given and also the ability to speak it with clarity and power in the demonstration and authority of the Spirit.  But once these New Testament documents were written, the office of a prophet was no longer necessary.  Again, we must note that often in the history of the church, trouble has arisen because people thought they were prophets in the New Testament sense and that they had received special revelations of truth.

The answer to that is that in view of the New Testament scriptures, there is no need of further truth. That is an absolute proposition. We have all truth in the New Testament and we have no need of any further revelations. All has been given, everything that is necessary for us is available.  Therefore, if a man claims to have received a revelation of some fresh truth, we should suspect him immediately.  The answer to all this is that the need for prophets ends once we have the canon of the New Testament. We no longer need direct revelations of truth, the truth is in the Bible.  We must never separate the Spirit and the Word. The Spirit speaks to us through the Word so we should always doubt and query any supposed revelation that is not entirely consistent with the Word of God.  Indeed the essence of wisdom is to reject all together the term revelation and speak only of illumination.  The revelation has been given once and for all.  And what we need and what by the grace of God we can have and do have is illumination by the Spirit to understand the Word.

Now this next quote that I want to read to you comes from another well-known British pastor, a couple of generations before Lloyd-Jones, and that’s Charles Spurgeon.  This quote is direct.  So I want to hide behind the fact that this is Charles Spurgeon’s quote.  Okay…good.  He says this, “Honor the Spirit of God as you would honor Jesus Christ if He were present.  If Jesus Christ were dwelling in your house, you would not ignore Him.  You would not go about your businesses if He were not there.  Do not ignore the presence of the Holy Spirit in your soul.  To Him pay your constant adorations, reverence the august guest who has been pleased to make your body his sacred abode.  Love Him, obey Him, worship Him.  Take care never to impute the vain imaginings of your fancy to Him.  I have seen the Spirit of God shamefully dishonored by persons—I hope they were insane—who have said they have had this and that revealed to them.  There has not, for some years, passed over my head a single week in which I have not been pestered with the revelations of hypocrites or maniacs.  Semi-lunatics are very fond of coming with messages from the Lord to me, and it may save them some trouble if I tell them once and for all that I will have none of their stupid messengers.  Never dreamed that events are revealed to you by heaven, or you may come to be like those idiots who dare impute their blatant follies to the Holy Spirit.  If you feel your tongue itch to talk nonsense, trace it to the devil, not to the Spirit of God. Whatever is to be revealed by the Spirit to any of us is in the Word of God already. He adds nothing to the Bible and never will.  Let persons who have revelations of this, that and the other go to bed and wake up in their senses. I only wish they would follow the advice and no longer insult the Holy Spirit by laying their nonsense at His door.”

Concluded:

That was harsh but I would add this, I didn’t read that intending it to be funny, I read it intending it to be sobering because I think Spurgeon intended it to be received in a spirit of sobriety, recognizing just what an offense it is to claim to speak for God and then to speak words that don’t actually come from God.

Last place I’d like to read to you from is from Jeremiah, this is the Lord Himself speaking through the prophet Jeremiah.  Jeremiah chapter 23:16 to 32, this, I believe, underscores just how serious God takes it when people claim to be prophets but the revelation they’ve supposedly received is from their own imaginations and not from Him.

“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you.  They make you worthless. They speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord.  I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran.  I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.  But if they had stood in My council and had caused My people to hear My Words, then they would have turned them from their evil way and from the evil of their doings.  I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in My name saying, ‘I have dreamed, I have dreamed.  How long will this be in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies?  Indeed they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart.’  Behold, I am against the prophets, says the Lord, who used their tongues and say, ‘The Lord says,’ behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams, says the Lord, and tell them and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness.  Yet I did not send them or command them, therefore they shall not prophet this people at all.”

Let’s close our time in prayer.

Heavenly Father, those are sobering words to end this seminar with, and we do not seek to be trite, but rather to recognize the sober warning of Scripture. And, Father, we are so thankful that You have given us the prophetic Word which is complete and which is sufficient to reveal to us the knowledge of God which is all that we need for life and godliness. And so, Lord, we ask as we seek to apply what we’ve talked about this afternoon, we ask that we would be faithful to find our joy, our satisfaction, our contentment in the things that You have revealed to us in Scripture and that we would not look for some other fountain of knowledge because none other exists.  You have chosen to reveal yourself through Your Word and You’ve given us Your Holy Spirit through whom in Him we can come to understand through His illuminating power the truth of that Word and submit ourselves to it.  So, Lord, we ask that as we are conformed to Your Word, that we would also be conformed to Your Son, Jesus Christ. We pray this in His precious and holy name.  Amen.

www.gty.org/resources/sermons/TM13-8/a-word-from-the-lord-evaluating-the-modern-gift-of-prophecy-nathan-busenitz

^^^

I would want to know if vooks and nlmediator will prefer I do the summary to the above text first before they respond to it or they will simply respond now.

The text is about the longest but probably the most informative.

WinsomeX:
^^^

I would want to know if vooks and nlmediator will prefer I do the summary to the above text first before they respond to it or they will simply respond now.

The text is about the longest but probably the most informative.

I think vooks' and nlmediator's postures or stances are quite and crystal clear (i.e. I dont think either will come out flogging a dead horse)

The former is pro-foretelling & forthtelling, but insists that foretelling has turned spurious, with fake prophets abound. he also agrees that Agabus was the last recorded NT bible foretelling prophet

The latter, on the other hand, gravitates towards forthtelling, and hints that foretelling metamorphosed into word of knowledge, word of wisdom and discerning of spirits

PS: Personally dont think Agabus got it wrong as well, as his prediction came to pass.
As a matter of fact, the prophecy (i.e. the foretelling) wasnt even a warning to Paul, rather it was an affirmation that something is about to happen to him, which to Paul's credit and glory to God, he took it on the chin (i.e. didnt complain that something bad is about to happen to him, instead he chided and told off those feeling sorry and weeping for him)

BBG,
I think you slightly misrepresented me.
I said Agabus is the ONLY NT prophet we have in action and curiously enough, he is recorded foretelling.

One thing we can't run away from, cessassionists or continuists, is barring speaking in tongues and interpreting them,we can't OBJECTIVELY define any other spiritual gift. Holy Spirit never left us much to analyze them. What is 'word of knowledge? Wisdom? Evangelist? Pastor?

BabaGnoni:

I think vooks' and nlmediator's postures or stances are quite and crystal clear (i.e. I dont think either will come out flogging a dead horse)

The former is pro- foretelling & forthtelling, but insists that foretelling has turned spurious, with fake prophets abound. he also agrees that Agabus was the last recorded NT bible foretelling prophet

The latter, on the other hand, gravitates towards forthtelling, and hints that foretelling metamorphosed into word of knowledge, word of wisdom and discerning of spirits

vooks:
BBG,
I think you slightly misrepresented me.
I said Agabus is the ONLY NT prophet we have in action and curiously enough, he is recorded foretelling.

One thing we can't run away from, cessassionists or continuists, is barring speaking in tongues and interpreting them,
we can't OBJECTIVELY define any other spiritual gift. Holy Spirit never left us much to analyze them. What is 'word of knowledge? Wisdom? Evangelist? Pastor?

Bro, that's what I said isnt it as in "he also agrees that Agabus was the last recorded NT bible foretelling prophet"
but it looks like, you rather be quoted or paraphrased as sayong Agabus was the ONLY NT and not as Agabus is the LAST RECORDED NT
- I hear you loud & clear bro and with you 110%

About "What is 'word of knowledge? Wisdom? Evangelist? Pastor?"

As mentioned earlier by other posters "word of knowledge" is a gift. It has no office, it essentially has to do with knowing and bringing forth the mind of God

As for "wisdom", I am assumming you mean "word of wisdom" here. If affirmative, then, it too is a gift and has no office, it essentially has to do with understanding and speaking forth Kingdom & biblical truth

"Evangelist" is a no-brainer and was going to skip it, but on second thought didn't. It too is a gift, has no office or title. It is something every Christian is expected to do when and/or if chanced (i.e. sell the Kingom, literally)

"Pastor". Pastor or pastoring, this is an interesting one as there is ONLY ONE Pastor (i.e. Shepherd) which is our Lord Jesus.
It has to do with pastures or pastoral. Remember the scripture, "Know that the LORD is God. It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, the sheep of his pasture." (i.e. Psalms 100:3)

Shepherding, in this instance is a gift, it has no office or title. it is a privilege to shepherd on behalf of God but one doesnt take up the title or status. That office or title is reserved for our Lord Jesus Christ. There is ONLY ONE PASTOR
Just as cooking doesnt make one a chef or to call one a chef such is shepherd. Incidentally there is only ONE mention of PASTOR in the NT, and where it was mentioned, it was used exclusively for our Lord Jesus Christ
- you would find the pastors (i.e. pastor with a "s'' in Ephesians 4:11) translated from shepherd but as said the only Pastor used in NT was used in reference to our Lord Jesus Christ

Bro,
It is well with Agabus.

We ca get into 'gifts' vs 'offices' distinction but we can't objectively define any of them save tongues.

BabaGnoni:

Bro, that's what I said isnt it as in "he also agrees that Agabus was the last recorded NT bible foretelling prophet"
but it looks like, you rather be quoted or paraphrased as sayong Agabus was the ONLY NT and not as Agabus is the LAST RECORDED NT
- I hear you loud & clear bro and with you 110%

About "What is 'word of knowledge? Wisdom? Evangelist? Pastor?"

As mentioned earlier by other posters "word of knowledge" is a gift. It has no office, it essentially has to do with knowing and bringing forth the mind of God

As for "wisdom", I am assumming you mean "word of wisdom" here. If affirmative, then, it too is a gift and has no office, it essentially has to do with understanding and speaking forth Kingdom & biblical truth

"Evangelist" is a no-brainer and was going to skip it, but on second thought didn't. It too is a gift, has no office or title. It is something every Christian is expected to do when and/or if chanced (i.e. sell the Kingom, literally)

"Pastor". Pastor this is an interesting one as there is ONLY ONE Pastor (i.e. Shepherd) which is our Lord Jesus.
Shepherding is a gift, it has no office or title. That office or title is reserved for our Lord Jesus Christ
Just as cooking doesnt make one a chef or to call one a chef such is shepherd. Incidentally there is only ONE mention of PASTOR in the NT, and where it was mentioned iot was used exclusively for our Lord Jesus Christ
- you would find the pastors (i.e. pastor with a "s'' in Ephesians 4:11) translated from shepherd but as said the only Pastor used in NT was used in reference to our Lord Jesus Christ

vooks:
Bro,
It is well with Agabus.

We ca get into 'gifts' vs 'offices' distinction but we can't objectively define any of them save tongues.

What is known as pastor(s) today, is what Jesus called hirelings or hired hand(s) in John 10:12-13

Jesus mentioned that the hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep and even before then called them thieves, saying "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (i.e. John 10:10)

- Jesus, 2000 years ago, saw today coming. He saw the reality, the emergence of thief(eves) come only to steal and kill and destroy

Before the upgrade to thieves status, Isaiah way back from the OT, has this to say (i.e. Isaiah 56:11)

"They are dogs with mighty appetites; they never have enough.
They are shepherds who lack understanding;
they all turn to their own way, they seek their own gain."
- Isaiah 56:11 NIV

Theory aside,
Am very much interested in a cessationist's position on the role of prayer in a Christian. Am sure like shdemidemi, it is just a psychological exercise to get a problem off your chest.

PRAYER- I hope the OP oblige you by finding the appropriate perspective of a cessationist on the issue of prayer. Think about these questions and answer them within yourself.

1)Is there a need for a proper prayer?

2)Is it important to know how to pray?

3)What is the purpose of praying?

4)Can we pray as we ought to outside a proper understanding of the Word of God?

5)Is prayer some form of emergency appeal?

6)Is prayer about 'I, I,I, ME, ME, ME, ME, MY, MY,MY'?

7)Is prayer about asking God to do my will or asking to be conformed to accept God's will?

8 ) Is it enough to superficially recite a memorised line of prayer?

9) Does God know all things OR is He informed by our prayer?

10) Am I created to be used by God OR is God for my use?

vooks:
Theory aside,
Am very much interested in a cessationist's position on the role of prayer in a Christian.
Am sure like shdemidemi, it is just a psychological exercise to get a problem off your chest.

shdemidemi:
PRAYER-
I hope the OP oblige you by finding the appropriate perspective of a cessationist on the issue of prayer.
Think about these questions and answer them within yourself.

1)Is there a need for a proper prayer?

2)Is it important to know how to pray?

3)What is the purpose of praying?

4)Can we pray as we ought to outside a proper understanding of the Word of God?

5)Is prayer some form of emergency appeal?

6)Is prayer about 'I, I,I, ME, ME, ME, ME, MY, MY,MY'?

7)Is prayer about asking God to do my will or asking to be conformed to accept God's will?

8 ) Is it enough to superficially recite a memorised line of prayer?

9) Does God know all things OR is He informed by our prayer?

10) Am I created for God to use or Him for my use?

@vooks & shdemidemi, where applicable

Prayer is a psychological exercise? Indeed? What the nerve, what an oversimplification

Whatever cessationist means. It is so naive to misconstrue "end of support" for discontinuation

End of support doesnt mean not in use, stoppage in use, use discontinuation etcetera
For example, Microsoft no longer gives support on Windows XP (i.e. when users approach Microsoft with a Windows XP issue, they will politely be asked to upgrade to one of the newer operating system supported by Microsoft) but this doesnt means large number of users out there aren't using Windows XP

Microsoft may decide tomorrow to change and start supporting Windows XP but that for financial reasons etcetera is unlikely

God however, is not constrained like Microsoft, as God, in His Sovereign Power, can decide to revive or revert "end of support" statuses of gifts etcetera we deemed are discontinued or stopped. This is God's prerogative, a God privilege, as it were.

Now it will be VERY MUCH INTERESTING to know the following about others, but particularly vooks and shdemidemi:

1) Do you pray at all?
1b) If Yes to #1. Why do you pray?
If No to #1, why do you not pray then?

2) How do you pray? Where do pray? When do you pray?
(i.e. How, as in, muted prayer, audibly, praying silently/grievously in the spirit etcetera
Where, as in, in prayer closet only, in church only, only during family devotion, before eating etcetera
When, as in, during crisis, emergency, in time of need, always, occasionally, never, don't pray at all as God knows my needs, for healing etcetera)

3) How often do you pray? (i.e. what is the frequency, is it seasonal etcetera)
(i.e. particularly in relation shdemidemi's #5 question)

4) What do you pray about and/or pray over? ( i.e. give examples, in addition to your response)

5) What is prayer?
Is prayer one-directional, a one-way, self-centric endeavour? (i.e. about me, mine and I)
5b) What is "house of prayer"?
(i.e. your and/or the understanding of the phrase in relation to Mark 11:17, 1 Corinthians 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 6:19)

6) What is your and/or the understanding behind Luke 18:1?
(i.e. particularly the "...men ought always to pray..." part and in relation shdemidemi's #7 question)
http://biblehub.com/greek/4336.htm

7 ) What is Matthew 6:9-13 all about? Is Matthew 6:9-13 a cure-all silver bullet?
Is it a mantra, something to be repeated frequently?
(i.e. particularly in relation shdemidemi's #8 question)

8.) What is the essence prayer? What is the importance of prayer?
(i.e. particularly in relation shdemidemi's #1, #2, #3 and #9 question)

9) What REALLY is prayer, considering the background or having in mind the "birds of the air" and " lilies of the field" in Matthew 6:25-34?
(i.e. particularly in relation shdemidemi's #9 and #10 question)

10) Without knowing, was Pharaoh praying and inadvertently prayed his doom (i.e. his death) in Exodus 10:28-29
(i.e. particularly in relation shdemidemi's #10 question)

10b) Does Solomon's in 1 Kings 3:7-10 and John 15:7 give us hints about going about praying?
(i.e. particularly in relation shdemidemi's #2, #4 and #10 question)

BabaGnoni:

I think vooks' and nlmediator's postures or stances are quite and crystal clear (i.e. I dont think either will come out flogging a dead horse)

I suspected it. I was hoping I was wrong and thus was trying my luck.

I hope to see a Nairaland that will someday come up to maturity where opposing views can be discussed without either sides spending pages disparaging each others views. I am certain that we can all keep whatever core beliefs we have while at the same time learning one thing or the other from one another.

This thread is presenting the views of cessationists and their disagreement with Charismatics. Since cessationists are human, their views are certainly not infallible. These are the things I was hoping those who disagree with them would point out.

I have done my bit; from the diatribe I pick specific points and I present my view.

The strongest argument in favor for cessationism is ABUSE of the Charismatic. This is also the weakest as it has no biblical precedence. Paul was not about to ban spiritual gifts where they were abused.

The strongest argument for continuitionism is, all theological arguments against it are fatally weak. It takes serious imagination to read cessationism from scriptures.

I also spotted intellectual dishonesty; denying or not disclosing HISTORICAL accounts of the gifts long after 96AD. I won't repeat the references, but you can refer to a thread I created about this. Page 13 to be precise
https://www.nairaland.com/2002518/skeptics-guide-tongues-prophecy

WinsomeX:

This thread is presenting the views of cessationists and their disagreement with Charismatics. Since cessationists are human, their views are certainly not infallible. These are the things I was hoping those who disagree with them would point out.

vooks:
I have done my bit; from the diatribe I pick specific points and I present my view.

The strongest argument in favor for cessationism is ABUSE of the Charismatic. This is also the weakest as it has no biblical precedence. Paul was not about to ban spiritual gifts where they were abused.

The strongest argument for continuitionism is, all theological arguments against it are fatally weak. It takes serious imagination to read cessationism from scriptures.

I also spotted intellectual dishonesty; denying or not disclosing HISTORICAL accounts of the gifts long after 96AD. I won't repeat the references, but you can refer to a thread I created about this. Page 13 to be precise
https://www.nairaland.com/2002518/skeptics-guide-tongues-prophecy

..."Looking back, I’m sure God was laughing at me. He knew that this experience would force me to sort out my large pile of theological baggage. Quite naturally, the moment I got home, I began reading every book on miraculous Christianity that I could find.
What I hated about all the books I found was that they were 90% experiential and 10% Biblical
I mean, the stories were great; but, I had some pretty tough questions. And it seemed like none of the books would really deal with the deeper issues that were floating around in my skeptical brain. I mean, I can understand why many people denounce tongues and spiritual gifts as un-Biblical. Good systematic teachings are hard to find. And the same goes towards the “Anti-miraculous” arguments..."
- page 5

"Once again, teaching on the kingdom of God was the central message of Jesus; and, as we can see in the above scripture, this message was inseparable from the miracles that accompanied it..."
- page 17

"The more I allow Bible truths to settle in my heart, the more silly these excuses become. To say, “ I won’t ever speak in tongues because I don’t have the gift” is like arguing, “I don’t have the gift of self-control”. Or, “I don’t have the gift of joy, thus it’s perfectly fine for me to stay depressed!” Instead, God has a supernatural allotment of grace to meet your every need. In the greater scheme of things, you may not become known as a “Prophet” like many characters in the New Testament (Acts 21:10; 13:1; Eph. 4:11); however, you will, at least, have a “common amount”..."
- page 32

"... To elaborate on this, I want to share a commentary from a highly controversial yet hugely influential figure in 20th century pentecostalism, Kenneth Hagin Senior. As his Word of Faith movement planted thousands of churches around the world throughout the 1970's and 80's, he played a significant role in shaping a good deal of modern pentecostal theology (for both better and worse). Although he is often speared by evangelicals for the foolish unorthodox statements he made from time to time, Kenneth Hagin spent a great deal of his life balancing & challenging Pentecostal beliefs with a call to scripture (books and fruitfulness which ignorant and scared dogmatists will probably never read)..."
- page 43

Wow, this guy doesnt pull any punches.

That excerpt from page 32, brings to mind, the one that cooks and the chef analogy

Anyway as for the Hagin "spent a great deal of his life balancing & challenging Pentecostal beliefs with a call to scripture" part, that is for another discuss or day

A good must read book. The author is top notch. Thanks for sharing the pdf vooks, its now archived away for future referencing and/or use
- don't let the title throw you off from reading the 51 pages book, as the author is not a skeptic

It wouldhave been tagged "hellven fire conference"

vooks:
I have done my bit; from the diatribe I pick specific points and I present my view.
The strongest argument in favor for cessationism is ABUSE of the Charismatic. This is also the weakest as it has no biblical precedence. Paul was not about to ban spiritual gifts where they were abused.

Abuse is an argument for cessationism but it is not the strongest. There are hundreds of arguments against the Charismatics but I will share mine. BTW, like BBG, I have archived the pdf for future read.

My strongest argument against Charismatics is the fruit of their lives. I have observed the lives of leading Charismatics and Cessasionists, their followers and what one could call the average lifestyle of the two groups and must agree that the Charismatics make a poor testimony for Christianity. The case in points are unending. Now, I have been heavily critical of Charismatics here and have revealed the ministers I respect on this forum. The natural thing would have been to locate the skeleton in their lives but no one has even tried bc they will find nothing. John MacArthur has been a face of American Evangelicalism for over 40 years and no one can trace a scandal or a foolish talk to him or his associates. That's fruit. That's how to commend doctrine: by the way we live, not by tongues or miracles. Jesus' words come to play here:

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

WinsomeX:
Abuse is an argument for cessationism but it is not the strongest. There are hundreds of arguments against the Charismatics but I will share mine. BTW, like BBG, I have archived the pdf for future read.

My strongest argument against Charismatics is the fruit of their lives. I have observed the lives of leading Charismatics and Cessasionists, their followers and what one could call the average lifestyle of the two groups and must agree that the Charismatics make a poor testimony for Christianity. The case in points are unending. Now, I have been heavily critical of Charismatics here and have revealed the ministers I respect on this forum. The natural thing would have been to locate the skeleton in their lives but no one has even tried bc they will find nothing. John MacArthur has been a face of American Evangelicalism for over 40 years and no one can trace a scandal or a foolish talk to him or his associates. That's fruit. That's how to commend doctrine: by the way we live, not by tongues or miracles. Jesus' words come to play here:

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

"Do I need tongues to be saved?
After demonstrating how critical this continual infilling of the Holy Spirit is to the central message of Jesus, people naturally begin to ask: “If I’m not manifesting any miracles, does this mean I’m not saved or ‘sealed’ by the Holy Spirit?” The answer to this question is a resounding “No.”

There are certain Pentecostal groups that specifically believe that one must experience tongues to be saved. This strong claim is only found in a very small minority of Pentecostal churches. Generally I’ve only heard it come from Oneness Pentecostals24 or various groups within legalistic pentecostal churches.

They commonly quote Romans 8:9 which reads:
“And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ”.

And, like many Pentecostals, they believe that unknown tongues are the primary and most probable evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism. Thus, they further reason: If you don’t speak in tongues, you’re not saved.

However, as we show in the next chapter, there is no truly conclusive evidence which clearly demonstrates that the Holy Spirit Baptism doesn’t automatically occur for every believer at salvation. The fact that people haven’t yet experienced unknown tongues (or any other
manifestation) could simply mean that they already have the baptism; and, they simply need to receive better teaching about receiving and “letting the manifestations out.”

Secondarily, there are dozens of scriptures which denote how to receive salvation without any discussion about the Holy Spirit Baptism. I think it’s rather dogmatic and bold to confidently declare that tongues are the only tell-tale manifestation that signals the true evidence of Holy Spirit
baptism (as we will sufficiently show in the next chapter).

Certainly, there is a high possibility of experiencing tongues (according to scriptural precedence); yet, there is no verse that explicitly teaches “You do not have the Holy Spirit unless you have tongues”. So to take this implication in scripture and make it the foundation of one’s salvation theology is all-together disturbing."
- pages 20 - 21

The author (i.e. on page 20) and I, share the same sentiment as you (i.e. the highlighted black bold)

WinsomeX:

Abuse is an argument for cessationism but it is not the strongest. There are hundreds of arguments against the Charismatics but I will share mine. BTW, like BBG, I have archived the pdf for future read.
My strongest argument against Charismatics is the fruit of their lives. I have observed the lives of leading Charismatics and Cessasionists, their followers and what one could call the average lifestyle of the two groups and must agree that the Charismatics make a poor testimony for Christianity. The case in points are unending. Now, I have been heavily critical of Charismatics here and have revealed the ministers I respect on this forum. The natural thing would have been to locate the skeleton in their lives but no one has even tried bc they will find nothing. John MacArthur has been a face of American Evangelicalism for over 40 years and no one can trace a scandal or a foolish talk to him or his associates. That's fruit. That's how to commend doctrine: by the way we live, not by tongues or miracles. Jesus' words come to play here:
Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

This is one of the most ridiculous posts you've ever written. So because you know a handful of cessationists and they have good fruit, that concludes that cessationists leaders generally have good fruit? I doubt that among Christians who know what they're talking about that John MacArthur would hold a candle to Jack Hayford in terms of integrity, intellectualism and length of service.

You're really doing a lot of damage to Christianity with your ignorant posts here. There's absolutely no truth to the claim that cessationists whether among the leadership or rank and file have better fruit than charismatics. In fact many, if not most, Christians with rotten lives are cessationists because they do not let the Holy Ghost work in their lives. And some Charismatics' interest in the anointing helps them to lead clean lives so as not to soil the gift they have.

And why do you suggest that American evangelical and American cessationist are synonyms? Prompting you to call MacArthur the face of American evangelicals? Obviously, you don't know what you're discussing.

I'm sorry but yours is an annoying post that makes me question the value of this thread. I'm sure you'll interpret my observation as an insult. But that's neither my interest nor intent. The truth is.

nlMediator:
[size=4pt]This is one of the most ridiculous posts you've ever written. So because you know a handful of cessationists and they have good fruit, that concludes that cessationists leaders generally have good fruit? I doubt that among Christians who know what they're talking about that John MacArthur would hold a candle to Jack Hayford in terms of integrity, intellectualism and length of service.

You're really doing a lot of damage to Christianity with your ignorant posts here. There's absolutely no truth to the claim that cessationists whether among the leadership or rank and file have better fruit than charismatics. In fact many, if not most, Christians with rotten lives are cessationists because they do not let the Holy Ghost work in their lives. And some Charismatics' interest in the anointing helps them to lead clean lives so as not to soil the gift they have.

And why do you suggest that American evangelical and American cessationist are synonyms?[/size] Prompting you to call MacArthur the face of American evangelicals? Obviously, you don't know what you're discussing.

[size=5pt]I'm sorry but yours is an annoying post that makes me question the value of this thread. I'm sure you'll interpret my observation as an insult. But that's neither my interest nor intent. The truth is.[/size]

Hold the fire. You chose a wrong battle, there aren't any battleground here, the battlefront likely is elsewhere

Ease off nlMediator, OP said "...MacArthur has been a face of American Evangelicalism for over 40 years..."
and not "MacArthur the face of American evangelicals" as you make
- notice the difference in OP's "a face" and yours "the face"

Considering the thread is about MacArthur or the 2013 Strange Fire Conference and not about Jack Hayford or Foursquare, it is understandable any harping about John MacArthur and no one else
- favouritism is bound to happen, and the star of the thread, John MacArthur, bounds to get the favors, you cant hold that against OP

BabaGnoni:

Hold the fire. You chose a wrong battle, there aren't any battleground here, the battlefront likely is elsewhere

Ease off nlMediator, OP said "...MacArthur has been a face of American Evangelicalism for over 40 years..."
and not "MacArthur the face of American evangelicals" as you make
- notice the difference in OP's "a face" and yours "the face"

Considering the thread is about MacArthur or the 2013 Strange Fire Conference and not about Jack Hayford or Foursquare, it is understandable any harping about John MacArthur and no one else
- favouritism is bound to happen, and the star of the thread, John MacArthur, bounds to get the favors, you cant hold that against OP

Ok. But that still does not justify the claim he's making.

It appears he has made up his mind about cessationism and MacArthur that he sees or hears no evil about them. For him to conclude that because a handful of cessationists he knows have no public scandal, somehow cessationism has better fruit than charismatics, especially when he judges the charismatics by a few public scandals. BTW, where does he classify Ted Haggard who was the president of the National Association of Evangelicals when his issue arose?

For some good critiques of cessationism, I commend the following links:

https://bible.org/article/uneasy-conscience-non-charismatic-evangelical

http://samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/not-all-cessationists-are-of-macarthurs-spirit

Read also the comments in the second link.

Wisdom is known by its fruit. We'll get to know how wise those creating and perpetuating all these divisions in the Body of Christ have been.

BabaGnoni:

I think vooks' and nlmediator's postures or stances are quite and crystal clear (i.e. I dont think either will come out flogging a dead horse)

The former is pro- & forthtelling, but insists that foretelling has turned spurious, with fake prophets abound. he also agrees that Agabus was the last recorded NT bible foretelling prophet

The latter, on the other hand,foretelling gravitates towards forthtelling, and hints that foretelling metamorphosed into word of knowledge, word of wisdom and discerning of spirits

PS: Personally dont think Agabus got it wrong as well, as his prediction came to pass.
As a matter of fact, the prophecy (i.e. the foretelling) wasnt even a warning to Paul, rather it was an affirmation that something is about to happen to him, which to Paul's credit and glory to God, he took it on the chin (i.e. didnt complain that something bad is about to happen to him, instead he chided and told off those feeling sorry and weeping for him)

You pretty much summed up my position. You seem like a smart person. Seriously.

One error on the OP's part is that because he stumbled on some of these issues recently, he thinks it's the same with the rest of us. We've heard these arguments before, evaluated them and know what our position is. We don't need to change that position simply because of rehashed arguments.

nlMediator:
Ok. But that still does not justify the claim he's making.

It appears he has made up his mind about cessationism and MacArthur that he sees or hears no evil about them. For him to conclude that because a handful of cessationists he knows have no public scandal, somehow cessationism has better fruit than charismatics, especially when he judges the charismatics by a few public scandals. BTW, where does he classify Ted Haggard who was the president of the National Association of Evangelicals when his issue arose?

For some good critiques of cessationism, I commend the following links:

https://bible.org/article/uneasy-conscience-non-charismatic-evangelical

http://samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/not-all-cessationists-are-of-macarthurs-spirit

Read also the comments in the second link.

Wisdom is known by its fruit. We'll get to know how wise those creating and perpetuating all these divisions in the Body of Christ have been.

This is part of the reason, I am averse to labelling (e.g. Cessationists, WoF, Charismatics, Calvinist, Pentacolist, RCC etcetera)

Interesting links, picked up a new phrase from the first link (i.e. concentric cessationism and linear cessationism)
the second link, had varied reviews and opinions about the John MacAthur and/or cessationists

Personally IMHO, it is akin to skating on thin ice making emphatic and authoritative statements because one presently finds certain things inexplicable

BabaGnoni:

Hold the fire. You chose a wrong battle, there aren't any battleground here, the battlefront likely is elsewhere

Ease off nlMediator, OP said "...MacArthur has been a face of American Evangelicalism for over 40 years..."
and not "MacArthur the face of American evangelicals" as you make
- notice the difference in OP's "a face" and yours "the face"

Thank you BBG for this keen observation. The thread will simply continue with a summary of the last post by Nathan Busenitz.

I have suddenly become overwhelmed with both personal and other works and might not be as regular in my posts as I would have preferred to be.

I hope those following the thread will read the latest posts whenever they come up and I desire your contributions still.

I have intentionally refused to respond to the latest uncharitable comments from nlmediator because responding to him will lead the thread in a direction not intended. And to ignore him might be the wisest thing to do since he is simply living up to my expectation of the sect he advocates.

nlMediator:

For some good critiques of cessationism, I commend the following links:

https://bible.org/article/uneasy-conscience-non-charismatic-evangelical

I hope every professing Cessationist gets to read this.

If I had read these links before commenting on this thread, I'd have posted less than a quarter of what I have

nlMediator:


For some good critiques of cessationism, I commend the following links:

https://bible.org/article/uneasy-conscience-non-charismatic-evangelical

http://samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/not-all-cessationists-are-of-macarthurs-spirit

Read also the comments in the second link.

Wisdom is known by its fruit. We'll get to know how wise those creating and perpetuating all these divisions in the Body of Christ have been.

WinsomeX:


I hope every professing Cessationist gets to read this.

It is quite obvious that the writer came from the place of EMOTIONS. Unfortunately, the word of God does not work that way -When doctrine is snubbed, religion goes along for a while on generalised emotion and ethical intention and then loses the strength of its impulse, even the substance of its being.

Therefore, there would be no urgent proclamation of salvation, none for eternal judgement just a call to live right and love one another.

shdemidemi:

It is quite obvious that the writer came from the place of EMOTIONS. Unfortunately, the word of God does not work that way -When doctrine is snubbed, religion goes along for a while on generalised emotion and ethical intention and then loses the strength of its impulse, even the substance of its being.
Therefore, there would be no urgent proclamation of salvation, none for eternal judgement just a call to live right and love one another.

It's possible sir you missed the thrust of his message. The Strange Fire conference is a critique of a movement in the body of Christ. That article is a self appraisal of both the speaker and the critics. There is a place for both. If the cesaationist reject this criticism, they will not be any different from those they criticize.

I have witnessed the issues that writer speaks about. How because of a commitment to Sola Scriptura, we loose a lively relation with the Holy Spirit. This ought not to be.

And incidentally, these are my reservations against Cessationism and the reason I have not been able to affirm myself authoritatively as Cessationist.

Shdemidemi, MacArthur is right and Wallace is right. May we have capacity to hear them both.

WinsomeX:


It's possible sir you missed the thrust of his message. The Strange Fire conference is a critique of a movement in the body of Christ. That article is a self appraisal of both the speaker and the critics. There is a place for both. If the cesaationist reject this criticism, they will not be any different from those they criticize.

I have witnessed the issues that writer speaks about. How because of a commitment to Sola Scriptura, we loose a lively relation with the Holy Spirit. This ought not to be.

And incidentally, these are my reservations against Cessationism and the reason I have not been able to affirm myself authoritatively as Cessationist.

Shdemidemi, MacArthur is right and Wallace is right. May we have capacity to hear them both.

I don't think I agree that our relationship with the Holy Spirit suffers due to our commitment to scriptures alone. On the contrary, I think it flourish and burgeon.

I feel people don't generally understand what it takes to walk with God. I am sure you know it is not rosy at all. As far as the flesh is concerned- It is uncomfortable, unpleasant, painful to the body to mortify our flesh but at such time God is glorified. Its quite a task to tell that to a new convert or a weak believer because he might not be fit to endure and persevere- He might question God. I believe knowing the truth about God attracts persecution from all angles. If we can't get to a place in our thinking where everything can go but God, we will continually come up with doctrines(another gospel) that ministers to our flesh.

I will really like to know what you would rather have a cessationist do differently. I would also like to know those things you think they are missing however small you think they are.

The author posed a question I have never thought of; what is Holy Spirit doing in your life today?
(11) Finally, a question: To what does the Spirit bear witness? Certainly the resurrection of Christ. How about the scriptures? A particular interpretation perhaps? Eschatological issues? Exegetical issues? Don't be too quick to answer. Some of this needs rethinking . . . In fact, my challenge to each of you is this: reexamine the New Testament teaching about the Holy Spirit. Don't gloss over the passages, but wrestle with what they mean. If the Spirit did not die in the first century, then what is he doing today?

When you answer that, as honestly without resorting to politically correct spiritual answers, we will get somewhere

shdemidemi:



I don't think I agree that our relationship with the Holy Spirit suffers due to our commitment to scriptures alone. On the contrary, I think it flourish and burgeon.

I feel people don't generally understand what it takes to walk with God. I am sure you know it is not rosy at all. As far as the flesh is concerned- It is uncomfortable, unpleasant, painful to the body to mortify our flesh but at such time God is glorified. Its quite a task to tell that to a new convert or a weak believer because he might not be fit to endure and persevere- He might question God. I believe knowing the truth about God attracts persecution from all angles. If we can't get to a place in our thinking where everything can go but God, we will continually come up with doctrines(another gospel) that ministers to our flesh.

I will really like to know what you would rather have a cessationist do differently. I would also like to know those things you think they are missing however small you think they are.