Let's Return to Cessationism.

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

Let's Return to Cessationism.

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

"Impartation" theology
Re:

For those interested only - On Cessationism. (Christopher Yip)
Re:

For Christopher (Bill )
Re:

Bill, Read Powell's Article (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Reply for All to Read (Bill )
Date: 2001, Jul 02
From: Christopher Yip CKHY

Dear Bill,
YOU: My point is that Christians who want to know the truth listen not to me or you or our "Theology" but to the Scriptures themselves. I am I wrong here? If so then show me Scripture to that effect and be able to back it up.
ME: And when Scriptures are hard to understand, we need all the scholarly help we can get. Read Powell. That IS scholarly exegesis. He is of course fallible but I share his exegesis to a large extent.
ME: So, you are of the opinion that sign gifts are given only to those those who believe they continue to exist today? Isn't this a bit chicken and egg?
YOU: What ? Wher did that comne from ? Please don't put words in my mouth. Chickens and eggs don’t cut it with me. That is feeble. I did not say that or imply any such thing (please reread).
ME: OK. Flashback - "And I would suppose it likely that if one grew up in a Church that believed and taught that the spiritual gifts had ended and were invalid, then it stands to reason that that person would not have experienced those gifts nor would he have persued them. This alone cannot validate their view or theology."
According to your hunch above, you said that if one grew up being taught and believing cessationism, it is reasonable that he would not have experienced those sign gifts. So, faith is involved here. I'm just paraphrasing the above thought and trying to confirm it with my question - does one believe first before one can see signs and wonders or does one see signs and wonders first, then believe? Chicken or egg first?
YOU: I might, But I am more interested in YOUR personal understanding of the Scripture not Powell's. I assume you do have some personal understanding of Scripture.
ME: Read Powell. We have a lot in common.
YOU: But to be real plain. I do not believe in cessationism. The arguments are too weak and it takes a real leap of non-faith to go there.
ME: Have you read Powell already? I have yet to see your interaction with Powell's exegesis.
YOU: Nontheless, Christopher, who decides what is "authoritive" ? Christopher Yip ?, Bill Roth, Calvin, Luther, the pope, the ante -nicean church fathers, or the the "councils" of muderous men. This is not rhetoric. Who decides ?
ME: This sort of argument always amuses me. I offer an exegesis (mine or from those giants upon whose shoulders I stand), my opponent comes back with a sermonette repleted with verses from OT and NT about the sole authority of the written Word. This is supposed to show that while I quote and depend on mere men's "opinions" (this is preferred to "exegesis"), my opponent sticks with the Scriptures. The funny thing is when the sermonette is finished, my opponent, who just told me how important it is to listen to the Scriptures and not to man, offers up HIS EXEGESIS. So, each time I offer up an exegesis, it is man's word and opinion against God's Word; but when my opponent tells you what this Greek word or construction means in history and Greek literature, that is supposed to be sticking with Scriptures. Mind boggling.
The Reformers taught that no one, including the Church, could teach, preach, command, or practice anything contrary to Scriptures, even for good reason. No creeds, councils, church, denomination, popes, or anyone have spiritual authority, except they have it under the authority of the written Word. The Word overrules everything else. I hope this clarifies my position.
Read Powell, Bill.
YOU: Many Christians that are weak in the faith and in knowledge of Scripture find it easier to follow a code of faith or a particular theology than go to the scriptures themselves as they are not encouraged to search the scriptures daily to see whether these things are so.
ME: Then, Bill, all the more we should encourage them to read up scholarly works such as that of Powell's. Do you really think that a person who wishes to use the bible beyond devotion can do without the works of scholars? Sure, these evangelical scholars are by no means divinely inspired or infallible; I don't think anyone who quotes them (except perhaps for the Roman Catholic apologist when he quotes the Pope or the Magisterium) ever imagines for a moment that they are. So please don't beat this straw man to pulp.
Don't mind if I share some exegesis tips. Take John 1:14 - ho logos sarx egeneto (the Word became flesh) for instance. Simply put, this is God the Son taking on humanity in order to redeem Man. That would be the straightforward meaning and probably most would be satisfied with this. But to the bible student, to understand what it means for God the Son to become flesh - egeneto, he would need more than just the NIV bible. He would need to study in sequence, considering their proximity to the target text,
1. The Usus Loquendi - the particular usage of the word egeneto by the author of this target text. How does John use egeneto in his works and among those examples, the more significant ones would be those usages that are in the same context as John 1;14, same work, same period of time, thus, he would have to study the three other epistles of John and the Revelation
2. Next, he would have to consider the rest of the NT usage. How do the other biblical authors use the word egeneto.
3. Then he needs to study how the LXX used the word egeneto. Why? Because the biblical authors were Jews and their native tongue was Aramaic and the OT they used was the LXX. So the bible student would need also to consider how egeneto is used in the LXX OT.
4. Following that, the bible student would need to study the patristic literature. The closer to the time of the targeted text, the more important the patristic work. This would mean that the apostolic fathers' works would rank first in significance followed by the ante-nicene, then post-nicene fathers' works. How did these fathers understand the usage of egeneto.
5. Are we done? Unfortunately no. The bible student would proceed next to writings of Jewish Greek writers. These would be Philo's, Aristeas' and Josephus' works as well as the Greek pseudepigraphal literature. These authors all share the same semitic background as the biblical writers and so their understanding and usage of egeneto would be significant to our understanding.
6. So far, the bible student has consulted all the Greek works that are directly relevant to the bible. Next, he would need to move outwards - beginning with semi-relevant Greek works. The bible did not exist in a world of its own. The non-semitic hellenistic writings co-existed with the bible and we know they share the same koine language. How do these non-semitic Greek writings use egeneto? We refer to all those letters, memos, receipts, correspondence found in the papyrus dumps and graves as well as the literary works of men such as Plutarch, Epectitus and Polybius. Without the semitic influence, these quite truly expressed the Koine Greek of 333BC-333AD, replacing the classical Greek of Plato, Socrates, etc. After 333AD, we have the byzantine greek.
7. FINALLY, at long last, we have the Classical and Byzantine Greek literature. How do these literature understand and use egeneto?
Now, only when we reach this stage can we say that we have enough accurate and pertinent information regarding egeneto to interpret ho logos sarx egeneto - what the Incarnation means.
Such a task is obviously not for the faint-hearted. Not only access to such information is difficult, collating such information into a coherent whole is as challenging as climbing Everest. But thank God - there are those nuts (aka scholars) whose only passion perhaps is to do this sort of collation work! Lexicons, dictionaries, grammars, commentaries, etc. are all important to the bible student. Hence, when you said ...
YOU: Many people just want to be led. That is what they have been taught. And many of out so called learned scholars are like the Pharisees in Matthew 22: Matthew 22:29 (KJV) Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
ME: I am really curious to know what you propose for a bible student to arrive at an accurate understanding of the target text without reference to scholarly works. I mean if a bible student refers to some scholar's work (eg. Tischendorf, Westcott, Hort, Strong, Thayer, BAGD, Bruce, Metzger) indicates that he just want to be led and is in fact erring, not knowing the Scriptures, what should he do?
YOU: I think though that we almost agree about the Old Testament as it relates to "doctrine/learning. My point there was not the doctrine of doctrine. But our willingness to conform the the Word of God and not force it to conform to our pre-conceived theology.
Maybe we so called theologians should all get together and go back to Vacation Bible School and all hold hands and Sing "Jesus Loves Me This I know For The Bible Tells Me So" untill we all forget our theology. And then all we would know is that Jesus Loves us. Then we could have some unity and then start over from there.
ME: We will still get to this same point, Bill. The very theology and scholarly works you are rejecting will just get re-invented. You can't be that naive. There may be incompetent scholars, scholars with ulterior motive, etc. but there are also good ones. If we are locked in a room (using Deere's analogy again) with the Hebrew, Greek, Latin and all 20+ English versions of the bibles, WITH NOTHING ELSE, I am pretty certain there will be many things about the bible of which we know absolutely nothing about.
We have spent quite a bit of time arguing how and what we should argue here instead of the real issue of cessationism. We got sidetracked because you took issue with me quoting Powell and Schaff on the assumption that I somehow hold them infallible or that they are merely expressing their opinions off the top of their heads without biblical and historical bases.
My point is that indeed we must search Scriptures and that Scriptures alone is our ultimate authority but Scriptures must be interpreted and exegeted to yield its meaning and this is a human task, albeit superintended by the Holy Spirit but nevertheless a human endeavour. And the results of such works should not simply be dismissed as mere men's opinions - they represent attempts by devout scholars whose sole aim too is to hear what God has revealed about Himself, and His redemptive acts. And the excellent quality and reliability of their work has basically help established many of the theological positions as facts faithful to the original meaning of Scriptures. Of course, no one is asking the bible student to surrender his reasoning faculty to some degrees but it would be foolish to ignore such scholarly conclusions.
Regards, Christopher