LBM Episode 77 – A critique of Continuationism and a defense of Cessationism – Part 3

Description:

In this episode Jason continues his critique of Continuationism and a defense of Biblical Cessationism. This is part 3, part 4 will be posted in several weeks. Jason also addressed the recent Freewill Debate (Featuring Flowers, Pritchett, Hernandez & Zachariades) and his thoughts and concerns with the debate and responses to it.

Video Podcast:

3 Comments
  1. Vanessa Cabassa 2 weeks ago

    Oh my. I agree that the debate went off the rails a bit and a calming tea should have been served bt I greatly disagree here. I loved your interview with LF, listened to it 3 times actually. Your character is gentle, clear, generous and strong, all of with are Christlike, their behavior is not your flavor. This particular debate was different from your interview. Since one cannot thwart the will of God, taking the spiritual or maturity condition of the audience as muzzle factor is not needed. LF needs to be scriptural man handled and they did just that. He is at war with Christ and while gentleness and kindness are warranted at all times, they do not come alone. A fierce and pointed reproach should follow when a teaching has been given and not merely rejected but warred against. This too is Christlike. I’ll add that I agree with your explaination of distinctions 100%. That only underscores that intensity with which LF and his cohorts should be rebuked apart from his followers who may (MAY) be less informed or educated. Still even when one who fits this category errs, even a new convert who knows next to nothing, there can be a wicked rebuke see Act 8:13-24

    As I see in scripture that kindness and hatefulness are to be balanced “Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good” Romans 12:9. LF and his teachings are to be abhorred with fierocity, publicly and without hesitation. For LF it is time to turn up the volume.

    • Author
      Jason Mullett 2 weeks ago

      Vanessa, I wanted to take a moment to answer your comment. I may not have spoken clearly enough or articulated my position as well as I could have so I will take a moment to clarify. What I was attempting to communicate was that I though the opening presentations made by Dr Zachariades and Sonny Hernandez were well done and I say “hurrah” not much disagreement here. I also applaud Dr Zachariades and Sonny for not being willing to refer to Flowers and Pritchett as brothers. I believe it is wrong for Christians to affirm as brothers those who falsely teach about the Gospel. Now when it comes to Flowers and Pritchett’s actual regeneration and status of salvation, I cannot assess that and it is not my job as a Christian to try to determine that. My responsibility is to teach the truth and call out men like these who contradict Scripture and trample the work of Christ. I would also challenge anyone that insists that they know that Flowers and Pritchett are unsaved all we do know for certain is they teach falsely about the Gospel. Now when it comes to the cross examination period, I do not believe the Calvinist’s behaved well. Reformed theology has robust and Biblical responses to all the objections that can be mustered by Flowers and Pritchett, they should be answered in a thorough and reasonable manner in order to benefit the listeners. Those seriously searching out the truth in this particular area of theology will not find many of their questions answered by this debate. They will have to go elsewhere, that is where the debate went off the rails. Now when it also come to the Canons of Dort and Dr. Zachariades’ statement that the Synod of Dort condemned Arminianism as heresy, I would not use that particular language. If all Dr. Zachariades means by heresy is that it contradicts Scripture then I would agree but if he holds to the historical use of the word heresy that if one believes it they are condemned and are not a Christian then I disagree. Read the Canons of Dort yourself, the word heresy is never used. It does repeatedly say “the Synod rejects the errors of those who teach”. The synod was focused on rejecting the errors of those who “teach” these doctrines not condemning all who happened to claim they believe them to the flames of hell. The canons do reference the Canons of the Council of Orange (529 AD) by the reference “For the ancient Church has long ago condemned this doctrine of the Pelagians according to the words of the apostle”. In the Canons of the Council of Orange it does say the following…..

      CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).

      The council of Orange does use some stronger language then the Synod of Dort did. I however hold to the assertion that I made in the podcast of the distinction that needs to be drawn between those who have had the doctrines of Grace thoroughly explained and presented to them from Scripture and yet they continue to exert all their efforts to teach against it and those who believe the doctrines of Arminianism out of tradition and poor teaching from the Bible.

      I do not agree with your statement “Since one cannot thwart the will of God, taking the spiritual or maturity condition of the audience as muzzle factor is not needed.” This seams to deny that God ordains the means as well as the end. We ought to be reasonable and willing to provide a careful defense for those who ask for a reason for the hope in us (1 Pe 3:15) because these are the means God uses to draw His elect. I want to be used as the means to draw not as the means to reject.

  2. […] very seriously your position on whether you are a cessationist or a continuist of these gifts, says Jason Mullet (minute 33 ff), a cessationist. He continues: “If I am wrong as a cessationist, then I would be […]

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

CONTACT US

Questions, comments, encouragements & condemnations welcome.

Sending

©2017 Bible Thumping Wingnut Network | A Ministry of Striving For Eternity

or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account