Scripturalism and the Cessation of Continued Revelation

faithhealer

In his voluminous online writings Cheung calls cessationism (1) blasphemy, (2) heresy, (3) false doctrine, (5) unbiblical, (6) Satan’s ultimate protection, (7) the master heresy, (8) evil and dangerous, (9) incompatible with Christianity, (10) more dangerous and destructive than the heresies of the charismatics, (11) demonic, (12) a counter-Christian religion, (13) the reverse Gospel, (14) an anti-Apostolic cult, (15) the cessation of faith in God, (16) as serious and sinister as any heresy, (17) the great apostasy, (18) transgression, (19) not a doctrine to be argued about but a sin to be repented of, (20) amounting to preaching another Gospel, (21) one big middle finger in the face of Jesus, (22) among other heresies embraced by the Reformed tradition, (23) polytheism, (24) heathenism, (25) a revival of ancient polytheism and heathenism, and (26) the easiest and laziest of fake religions.

Source: Scripturalism and the Cessation of Continued Revelation

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Theology

12 Comments on “Scripturalism and the Cessation of Continued Revelation”

  1. Matt Anderson Says:

    Don’t forget “Cessationists are in imminent danger of committing the unforgivable sin of speaking against the Holy Spirit.”

  2. Sean Gerety Says:

    I think Luther had the best response when he said to the Continuationsist of his day; “I ought to smack your ‘spirit’ on its snout.”

  3. LJ Says:

    Sean, you missed number 4 …

    It’s ok though I ran out of fingers at 10 anyway 🙂

  4. Sean Gerety Says:

    I didn’t write it. It’s Doug Douma’s piece, I just provided a quote and link.

  5. LJ Says:

    I know I saw the missing 4 in his original. I’m still stuck with 10 fingers though …

  6. Hugh McCann Says:

    Goodness – Cheung’s written my c.v.!

  7. Tom McClintock Says:

    Vincent seems to downplay to the extreme the testimony of the church in ages past. I think this is unwise. Did not the past have “any” faithful preachers?

    In his latest writing on tongues he does seem to say that they are known languages, which is good, but I wonder if he has actually witnessed tongue speaking of languages not known to the speaker and will he give us testimony to that fact?

  8. justbybelief Says:

    “but I wonder if he has actually witnessed tongue speaking of languages not known to the speaker and will he give us testimony to that fact?”

    Either way, whether a language known or unknown to the speaker, tongues has ceased because new revelation has ceased, but according to the Bible the tongues speaker did indeed know what he himself was saying:

    One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself;… 1Cor. 14:4

    Others, absent an interpreter, would not be edified. There would be no fruit among the hearers:

    For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.1 Cor. 14:14

    and

    For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. 1 Cor. 14:17

    Eric

  9. Tom McClintock Says:

    Maybe I should have used the word “learned” instead of known.

    I see in Vincent’s latest attack on the Reform faith that many of the promises of God should always take place in this life predicated upon sufficient faith. This sounds word-faithish. Although, Vincent has said in many ways this brand of theology is more orthodox than Calvinism. One of those promises is deliverance…..deliverance in times of trouble? I’m not sure. Anyway, I wonder if Vincent is denigrating all those martyrs of the faith in times past and even present who, no doubt, prayed for that earthly deliverance but were killed. Not enough faith no doubt.

    I would ask Vincent about these things, but the last time I wrote him the exchange was pretty unpleasant.

  10. Sean Gerety Says:

    Curious … why was it unpleasant Tom?

  11. Tom McClintock Says:

    Hi Sean

    My first post to you on the unpleasantness of my e-mail exchange with Vincent described his answers as harsh. I guess you didn’t get that comment.

    I went back and reread the brief e-mail exchange with Vincent. Please know that after rereading it I will have to retract the term “harsh”. I would describe it more as really to the point and blunt. I’m sure you’ve read some Vincent, so the e-mail was very similar to how he writes publicly.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: