For one thing, the burden of proof is not on cessationism but on those who say that what happened did not in fact happen. I use the term "cessationism" only for convenience sake. We really should be discussing the remarkable theory that would be called "no ceasing-ism" or something like that, since it is the anti-cessationists who are the dissenters from the standard Christian position and the ones issuing the challenge to it.
Were there periods in history where miracles and healing were rare? Probably. But cessationism goes beyond that. Cessationists believe these gifts are not available. There is absolutely no reason at all to think that the gifts of healings or the working of miracles are not given to members of the body as the Spirit wills. I Corinthians 12 teaches that this is the case. What evidences to cessationists have for this not being true.
Taking 'whether there be tongues, they shall cease' to mean the actual gift of tongues will cease is a huge leap. The thing is, if people pray in tongues, we may not see that in any kind of historical record. I don't see why someone who actually searches through historical and hagiographical writings that deal with prophecies, visions, miracles and the like would actually conclude that history shows that these gifts have ceased. I think the issue is, you just haven't read up on the topic, but you act as if you know all there is to know about the topic in church history.
It's irrational for you to take the stance that history shows these things have ceased, when you haven't read the historical documents on the topic that show that they continue. If you find someone who says that he hasn't seen these things himself, that's not strong evidence for your claim when there are writings from those who experienced these things.
As far as the burden of proof goes, doctrinally, it rests on the cessationits who would have us believe that I Corinthians 12, which says that the Spirit gives certain gifts as He wills, no longer applies. It rests on the shoulders of those who would tell us not to obey the exhortations to desire spiritual gifts, despise not prophesyings, etc.
I mentioned St. Patrick as an example of someone who reported seeing a vision and hearing an audible voice. There was an biography written about Columba shortly enough after his death for people actually to have witnessed the miracles. There are also miracles attributed to Francis of Assisi and numerous other historical figures. The Ante-Nicene period has plenty of references to either experiences of spiritual gifts or leading figures in their church affirming their experience with them. There are entire books devoted to these topics. This is not very obscure stuff.
Beyond that, I've found that there really is no debating this matter with those who say "it says here that X will not happen, so although it did, we must continue to insist that it could not have." Sometimes, they will fall back upon certain, predictable, excuses such as "God blinded our eyes to what happened" or "History didn't record what actually was going on" or "Secret bands of real Christians continued to worship in the right way for hundreds of years...unnoticed." Sometimes, they water down part of their own argument by insisting that an incident of a purported gift being demonstrated here or there, once in awhile, constitutes a continuing presence of the gifts. Of course, there's no continuation in that at all--by definition.
If it's still going on from time to time, there is continuation. I'm not saying that every church everywhere was charismatic, and that were miracles every week, or that everyone spoke in tongues or prophesied. Sure, prophesying held a more dominant role in church meetings in the first century, or ideally should have, according to Paul's writings, and eventually kind of got pushed off to the side. But that doesn't mean it did not still occur.
As far as cessationism as a doctrine is concerned, the issue is not how frequently these spiritual gifts showed up in history, but whether the Spirit ceased to give them. That is not something the scripture teaches. And if the Spirit gave them from time to time throughout history, that is evidence AGAINST cessationist doctrine.
The Bible teaches 'Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings.' Biblically, we should expect that if churches, not only do not obey the exhortation to 'earnestly desire spiritual gifts, especially that ye may prophesy', but actually reject prophesying by not allowing it in gatherings of the church or reject it when it occurs, that it would be rare.
And worst of all, some will say that they did cease but were rediscovered or reintroduced into the church by certain sects in the 18th or 19th centuries, which, as everyone else knows is not a refutation of cessation since any break represents a ceasing.
So when the apostles and other disciples finally went to sleep at night after baptizing 3000 people on the day of Pentecost after the Spirit came, if no one was doing a miracles, speaking in tongues, etc., that's proof of cessationism? Your approach to what constitutes 'cessationism' isn't very helpful. The issue is whether gifts are available or not.
It does make sense that if believers actually pray for and appreciate spiritual gifts, that they may occur more. Why would Paul say to earnestly desire spiritual gifts if earnestly desiring spiritual gifts didn't have anything to do with their being given? If it's possible to quench the Spirit by despising prophecy, our attitude toward spiritual gifts may have something to do with whether they are given. And it certainly makes sense in light of scripture to think that if we ask in faith for something God is willing to give us that we will recieve.
For one thing, the burden of proof is not on cessationism but on those who say that what happened did not in fact happen. I use the term "cessationism" only for convenience sake. We really should be discussing the remarkable theory that would be called "no ceasing-ism" or something like that, since it is the anti-cessationists who are the dissenters from the standard Christian position and the ones issuing the challenge to it.
Cessationism goes against the historical position on spiritual gifts. But you are defining cessationism in a weird hyperliteral way that isn't really helpful for the discussion.
Beyond that, I've found that there really is no debating this matter with those who say "it says here that X will not happen, so although it did, we must continue to insist that it could not have." Sometimes, they will fall back upon certain, predictable, excuses such as "God blinded our eyes to what happened" or "History didn't record what actually was going on" or "Secret bands of
real Christians continued to worship in the right way for hundreds of years...unnoticed." Sometimes, they water down part of their own argument by insisting that an incident of a purported gift being demonstrated here or there, once in awhile, constitutes a continuing presence of the gifts. Of course, there's no continuation in that at all--by definition. And worst of all, some will say that they did cease but were rediscovered or reintroduced into the church by certain sects in the 18th or 19th centuries, which, as everyone else knows is not a refutation of cessation since any break represents a ceasing.
But most often, a couple of Bible verses are cited without any attempt to explain how it is possible that tongues, etc. ceased in every way that is in keeping with the kind of worship of church life that these people insist is essential.
Since that is the case, there is no possibility of really discussing the matter.[/QUOTE]
