Cessationist and Sola Scriptura don't mix

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Sigh, there is a diffrence between SolA Scriptura and SolO Scriptura, learn it please.

I understand your point but "sola" is a latin word that essentially mirrors the word "solo", sole or only. "solo" is also a latin word that means dirt. The spirit of sola scriptura is that scripture is the final measure of our faith and practice. This is what the word means and we just can't throw in a clever homonym and claim they got it all wrong. Sola still means what it means in Latin and to me it's weak and inauthentic to begin comparing it to non-latin words that sound the same. Tradition and experience of the church are important elements that shape doctrine but if they counter the teachings of scripture they cannot be called "sola scriptura". Scripture teaches the gifts of the Holy Spirit as authentic practice within the church for edification when we say this doesn't count any more on what authority do we make this claim because it counters the teaching of scripture.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: gordonhooker
Upvote 0

gordonhooker

Franciscan tssf
Supporter
Feb 5, 2012
1,883
1,045
Wellington Point, QLD
Visit site
✟274,602.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
What can tradition add to scripture?

First of all I thought the smilies would have given it away, but the tongue in cheek answer to that question is how the Church traditionally interpreted the scripture. My Anglican brother Albion would have caught onto what I was saying.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Because they did cease. I remember making this point earlier.

The verse you cited earlier about tongues and cessation must not, therefore, be correctly interpreted in your church.

what do you think 1 Cor 13:10 is talking about? What is the perfect? you seem to suggest cessationist don't use scripture do you still maintain this? Is not saying "it ceased because it ceased" with no scriptural basis a post-scripture revelation?
 
Upvote 0

Servant232

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2017
811
38
The High places of Jacob
✟38,799.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Do you belief in Sola Scriptura? read Acts and see what it says... should we not continue to believe the same?

Just because a few foundational gifts were present in the unique historical times of Acts, doesn't automatically mean they must continue throughout the church age. In fact history demonstrates they didn't.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
When was the last time a book looked at you face to face? No, the completeness definitely refers to the second coming of Christ.

I never said 'face to face' was referring to seeing the Bible. Neither does it say 'face to face' is seeing Christ. 'Face to face' is referring to the analogy of a mirror. Before 'completeness' came God's word to the church in the form of prophecy was like seeing someone dimly in a poor mirror, but afterwards God's revelation to mankind was complete and far clearer - it was like looking at someone 'face to face'.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It is no doubt one or the other.

The passage specifically says only 3 spiritual gifts cease, and only two of those are due to 'completeness' coming - prophecy and words of knowledge. Both of those are revelatory, so it makes sense that their replacement would also be revelatory.

If it was the 2nd coming of Christ or the eternal state, it wouldn't just be the revelatory gifts that cease. All the gifts would cease - there would no longer be a requirement for teachers, evangelists, pastors, etc. Yet only the 3 gifts are mentioned.

After those gifts have ceased, v13 says faith, hope, and love would remain. Those virtues are certainly present in the church age. But how can faith and hope remain once the return of Christ has become a reality? Scripture says "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 11:1) and "hope that is seen is not hope; who hopes for what he already sees?" (Rom 8:24).

But not in this passage there isn't. The return of Christ is something that has to be 'read into' the text.

Eph 2:20 makes it clear that apostles and prophets were only given for the foundation of the Church. Foundations are only laid once, at the start of a building. Few people believe that apostles are still around today - that is one thing most agree has ceased - so why not also prophets as the verse says?

in context the text generally refers to all the gift. Paul multiple times in the context says only a few examples to make his point without the need of exhaustively list the body parts, or exhaustively listing the gifts to show love needs to operate in them all and this flows into the passage in question where again he uses a few as examples for them all.

Eph does make claim to apostles/prophets as the foundation and we see these as unique gifts in 1 Cor 12. But this then get's grouped in with tongues and interpretation which are also listed as unique gifts in the same list. The hot topic of 1 Cor 13:10 is that tongues have ceased and where there is stronger support that the gift of apostles/prophets has ceased using the Eph text the support is absent for tongues.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Just because a few foundational gifts were present in the unique historical times of Acts, doesn't automatically mean they must continue throughout the church age. In fact history demonstrates they didn't.

does scripture demonstrate this?
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I understand your point but "sola" is a latin word that essentially mirrors the word "solo", sole or only. "solo" is also a latin word that means dirt. The spirit of sola scriptura is that scripture is the final measure of our faith and practice. This is what the word means and we just can't throw in a clever homonym and claim they got it all wrong. Sola still means what it means in Latin and to me it's weak and inauthentic to begin comparing it to non-latin words that sound the same. Tradition and experience of the church are important elements that shape doctrine but if they counter the teachings of scripture they cannot be called "sola scriptura". Scripture teaches the gifts of the Holy Spirit as authentic practice within the church for edification when we say this doesn't count any more on what authority do we make this claim because it counters the teaching of scripture.

Can O' worms brother. Sola Scriptura does not mean solo, nor can it, the doctrine itself is not Scripture, nor spelled out in the form of a clear statement. People that try to argue for solo Scripture, themselves do not go to Church where everything is simply reading of Scripture. Any and I do mean any comment, commentary, exposition, statement of belief, and so on and so on, would not have any authority, meaningful authority under the assumption of solO scriptura. The historical meaning of Sola Scriptura, recognizes Scripture as the standard, the highest authority, by which all lesser authorities are measured. In some cases Sola Scriptura totally demolishes a lesser "authority" where there is contradiction, where in other cases Sola Scriptura and a lesser authority are complimentary in harmony with, agreement with one another.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
1 Corinthians 13:8
Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

If knowledge has passed, then cessationism is true.

Knowledge in this passage is referring to the revelatory gift of words of knowledge (1 Cor 12:8).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Just because a few foundational gifts were present in the unique historical times of Acts, doesn't automatically mean they must continue throughout the church age. In fact history demonstrates they didn't.

This is a key point, a weighty reason, why I slipped over the fence to embrace cessationalism. Church history is anything but in favor of continualism as they fully express it, and to gloss over history, is not an option anymore as far as I am concerned.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Knowledge in this passage is referring to the revelatory gift of words of knowledge (1 Cor 12:8).
Hello swordsman.

I am simply quoting from the passage below.

1 Corinthians 13:8
Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

It just says, 'knowledge'.
 
Upvote 0

Grandliseur

Active Member
Nov 15, 2017
78
31
Naha
✟10,561.00
Country
Japan
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
you would think there would be something to confirm this?
There are two confirmations of sorts - of this, or two witnesses, if you want to put it that way.

I have never run into the term 'Cessationist' before. It is a convenient term if all know it. Since you described what your subject was, I understood its reference. If the subject had been different, I wouldn't have; I would have thought it had to do with California leaving the US and becoming a country.:)

While scripture doesn't give us a lot of information, there is the following:
Acts 8:18: ASV: Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given. . .
2 Timothy 1: 6 For which cause I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee through the laying on of my hands.
Acts 19: 6 And Paul laying hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in languages and prophesied.​
The teaching here is implicit and specific. The Apostles, the twelve, and Paul appointed specifically by Christ himself, had the authority to pass on the gift of the Holy Spirit by means of the laying of hands on a person when done with this purpose in mind. It wasn't just any touch from Paul that passed this on btw. Otherwise all manners of unbaptized people might be getting the gift.

If then the Apostles had this gift, as it clearly tells us it was restricted to, the death of the Apostles would mean that the gifts of the Holy Spirit done in this manner could no longer be passed on. The apostle John would then be the most likely last apostle who had this ability so that by perhaps 150CE all these gifts had passed away.

What needs to be taken into serious account is this:
1 Corinthians 12: 27 And you are Christ's body, and members in part. 28 And God placed some in the church: firstly apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers; then works of power; then gifts of healing, helps, governings, kinds of languages. 29 Are all apostles? All prophets? All teachers? All workers of power? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak languages? Do all interpret? 31 But zealously strive after the better gifts.​
We first notice that the gifts of the HS were not given so that one individual would have them all; rather, it seems that each individual had his or her own gift, be it prophesying, healing, works of power (?), languages, interpreting.

What I especially think important for this discussion is the gift of healing. Why? Because if we look at Jesus and the apostles' healing, there were no obstacles to what was being healed. It was a full and complete healing, done mostly immediately, though at times, Jesus took a few minutes to talk a blind man through his healing. Nonetheless, there were no partial healings, no problems that could not be healed.

This kind of healing does not exist today.

The conclusion of the matter then is simple. We have the fact that the 'laying of hands from the apostles' bestowed these gifts, nobody else could bestow these gifts. Today, the healing is not what we see happening in the Bible. From this, we can conclude that the gifts have now passed into history. As it said,
1 Corinthians 13:8-10 says "Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away"
From this, we may conclude via Sola Scriptura and the present state of affairs - that it appears this has now transpired.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
What does this mean? it means Paul uniquely makes this word an abstract where he could have easily made it a masculine gender better linking this with the "perfect/mature man" of Eph 4:12.

Yes, the lack of a noun indicates that 'teleios' (which can mean perfect, complete or mature) was describing something that could not be expressed in one or two words. Something like 'the completion and distribution of the canon and subsequent maturing of the church' for instance. If it was referring to Christ, Paul would have used the noun Christou. If it was referring to the second coming, Paul would have used the noun parousia. Ditto heaven, eternity, etc.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Can O' worms brother. Sola Scriptura does not mean solo, nor can it, the doctrine itself is not Scripture, nor spelled out in the form of a clear statement. People that try to argue for solo Scripture, themselves do not go to Church where everything is simply reading of Scripture. Any and I do mean any comment, commentary, exposition, statement of belief, and so on and so on, would not have any authority, meaningful authority under the assumption of solO scriptura. The historical meaning of Sola Scriptura, recognizes Scripture as the standard, the highest authority, by which all lesser authorities are measured. In some cases Sola Scriptura totally demolishes a lesser "authority" where there is contradiction, where in other cases Sola Scriptura and a lesser authority are complimentary in harmony with, agreement with one another.

and how does that disagree with what I said? solo scriptura is made up and is not actually a thing. If one doctrine says we have it and another doctrine says we don't then should we not use scripture to balance out these "lesser" authorities? Scripture teaches the gifts of the HS so let's use scripture as the highest authority to continue to teach the gifts of the HS.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
There is no reason why we should come to a place where we no longer test or come to a place where our testing deems everything as false. Paul concludes his correct of the gifts with "So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order" why should this be any different today?

Just because Paul told the Corinthian church, in the absence of a New Testament, to desire prophecy to guide them in the faith, doesn't mean the same must apply to all churches throughout history, especially now we have the NT.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, the lack of a noun indicates that 'teleios' (which can mean perfect, complete or mature) was describing something that could not be expressed in one or two words. Something like 'the completion and distribution of the canon and subsequent maturing of the church' for instance. If it was referring to Christ, Paul would have used the noun Christou. If it was referring to the second coming, Paul would have used the noun parousia. Ditto heaven, eternity, etc.

it's referring to an abstract and it would be irresponsible I think to say it uniquely refers to Christ or uniquely refers to the canon/church. It refers to an event that ushers in a time where the gifts of the HS are no longer needed because we are no longer limited by our inabilities. I feel it best refers to our incorruptible bodies ushered in from the second coming of Christ but it may also include death itself, being present with Christ. Face-to-face is a key word that I don't feel should be taken so metaphorically.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Just because Paul told the Corinthian church, in the absence of a New Testament, to desire prophecy to guide them in the faith, doesn't mean the same must apply to all churches throughout history, especially now we have the NT.

So instead you would rather take the exact opposite of what he said and forsake the gifts? This is better exegesis?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
in context the text generally refers to all the gift.

There is nothing in the text to indicate these 3 gifts are representative of all the gifts. You can only make that extrapolation if there is sufficient reason for doing so. Otherwise it is an unwarranted assumption.

Paul multiple times in the context says only a few examples to make his point without the need of exhaustively list the body parts, or exhaustively listing the gifts to show love needs to operate in them all and this flows into the passage in question where again he uses a few as examples for them all.

Just because Paul used representative examples in other passages doesn't mean every time he mentions something specific it must always be representative of other things.

Eph does make claim to apostles/prophets as the foundation and we see these as unique gifts in 1 Cor 12. But this then get's grouped in with tongues and interpretation which are also listed as unique gifts in the same list. The hot topic of 1 Cor 13:10 is that tongues have ceased and where there is stronger support that the gift of apostles/prophets has ceased using the Eph text the support is absent for tongues.

So you agree apostles and prophets have ceased? But tongues haven't?
 
Upvote 0