Strange Fire: Den Schlüsselfragen einer Debatte nachgehen

Es lohnt sich in einer Debatte den Schlüsselargumenten nachzugehen. Ich versuchte dies bei der Strange Fire-Konferenz (ansatzweise) zu tun. John MacArthur hat einige Tage nach der Konferenz am Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary ein Interview gegeben. Er stellt fest:

There was no negative response particularly coming from classic Pentecostals, like the Foursquare assemblies. Most of the heat coming at us was coming from evangelical continuationists.

Er sieht zwei entscheidende biblische Argumente in der gesamten Debatte:

If the apostles ceased, then there is a cessation. If the apostles cease, then the signs and wonders of an apostle cease—so the whole argument of apostleship is important.

The other argument in this book—that I think is really critical—is that the continuationists are saying that prophecy exists, but it is not infallible. Then, it is not what biblical prophecy is. Tongues exists, but it is not language. Then, it is not what biblical tongues were. Healings exist, but they are not like the healings of Jesus. If that is true, then you are essentially a de facto cessationist because you just said these are not that. So what are they? You are a cessationist who has invented something that is not in the New Testament.

There is no such thing in the Bible as fallible prophecy from God. There is no such thing as gibberish, and there is no such thing as moderate, indiscernible healing. So whatever it is that you are calling prophecy, healing, and tongues is not that. What I am trying to do with these guys is say, “You cannot call yourself a continuationist because, by your own admission, it is not the same. So, what is it, and why are you inventing it?”

Einen interessanten Ansatz entwickelte Vern Poythress mit seiner Systematisierung (1996).

Modern visions, auditions, and “prophecies” are not inspired, because the canon of the Bible is complete. However, these modern visions and auditions may be analogous to the Book of Revelation, just as modern preaching is analogous to apostolic preaching. … Modern preaching is analogous to Luke: in composing a sermon rationally explicit processes dominate. Modern “prophecy” or intuitive speech is analogous to Revelation. Intuitive processes dominate.

 

Ähnliche Beiträge