Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

[Butch5]

Is healing one of the "first century miraculous gifts" you claim have ceased?
God doesn't heal the sick we pray for anymore?

Are you familiar with the first century miraculous gifts? They were power bestowed on individuals to perform miracles. That's not praying for the sick. It was a gift where an individual could perform a miracle. Could God do it again if He chose to? Sure. However, we have no indication that He has. What we do have is Christians being warned that in the end times there would be lying signs and wonders.

 

[Butch5]

I'm not saying it's a stretch to claim that tongues in some (confusing) sense was a sign. It's a stretch to claim that 1Cor 13 is tying the cessation of gifts to eschatological judgments upon Jerusalem. That thesis isn't clearly articulated in 1Cor 13.

What IS clearly articulated, however, are these concepts:
1. Babes
2. Maturity
3. Maturity of prophecy
Why should I make a huge stretch given the crystal clarity of concepts in the immediate context? A stretch to what? To a conclusion that seems to FLATLY CONTRADICT the principles clearly articulated in the chapter?

As You said before, it's the logical conclusion. If tongues will end on its own and it is a sign of judgement to unbelieving Israel in Christ's day, what need is there for it after that judgment that it was foretelling has passed? The maturity has no bearing on the ending of tongues.

 

[Butch5]

Let me give an example of why I find 14:21-22 confusing. A 'sign' normally conveys something. If the intended audience doesn't grasp the import, it has failed in its mission (seems to me). In the passage, WHICH gift successfully conveys the message?
(1) Tongues? Nope. Nobody understands the tongues-gift of 1Cor 14.
(2) Prophecy? Yes
So...Isn't prophecy therefore the sign? As it DOES manage to convey a message? Look at verse 23:

So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who are uninstructed or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds? (14:23)

Was that an effective sign? They just think we're insane! Now look at verse 24 - it shows the potentially EFFICACIOUS role of prophecy as a sign:

"But if an unbeliever or uninstructed person comes in while everyone is prophesying, he will be convicted and called to account by all, 25and the secrets of his heart will be made clear. So he will fall facedown and worship God, proclaiming, “God is truly among you!”

Paul seems to be saying one thing, but his EXAMPLES seem to prove the opposite. It's very confusing. And you seriously want me to predicate a doctrine of cessationism on this foggy passsage?

It's not confusing. The letter to the Corinthians is a rebuke for this misuse of the gifts. It seems that speaking in tongues was getting out of hand and Paul is reigning it in. The sign was to unbelieving Israel, the leadership in particular. Isaiah points the judgement at them. When the apostles started speaking in tongues at Pentecost the Jewish leaders should have immediately thought of Isaiah 28. God had told them this was going to happen. It was in their Scriptures. He had given them a description of the judgement that was coming on Jerusalem. However, it seems they either didn't see it or didn't heed the warning.

In 1 Corinthians Paul is addressing speaking in tongues in the church. When it was outside it was sign to Israel. In the church it wasn't needed, they were believers. Sure if someone walked into a church and heard a bunch of people all speaking different languages they might think they're off their rockers. The point is that it wasn't for the church, it wasn't for Christians. That's why he emphasizes prophecy. Prophecy was for Christians and in the church.

 

[JAL]

There it is, the inference. it's not that the passage says that, it's an inference. It's interesting that you import Christ into the passage when Paul makes not such reference.

I see it as irresistible logic. Paul was a babe relative to whom? Fill in the blank. Problem is, there are no known plausible candidates for that blank other than Christ.

And even if it were SOME OTHER BELIEVER, the chapter nonetheless coincides spiritual maturity with prophetic maturity.

So what did they know in part and prophesy in part. It was the message that God was giving them. Jesus had told His disciples that He had much more to teach them but they couldn't handle it yet, but that the Holy Spirit would teach them. So they were learning as they went. Their knowledge was in part and their prophesying was in part. However, once that knowledge matured they would no long know and prophesy in part. The question is did that ever happen? Yes, it did.

That doesn't make sense as an argument for a ceasing of the gifts. Suppose I know in part. Then finally comes the day when I know in full. So this means, that my knowing has ceased? Full knowledge means - a cessation of knowledge? Can anyone make sense of this?

Which is precisely where the aforementioned cessationists backpedal. Their 'solution' (having already conceded all my main points) is to claim that at the point of full revelatory knowledge, a different KIND of knowledge now ensues (non-revelatory knowledge, namely biblical exegesis). Does that work, logically? Nope it's the same logical contradictoin that I just exposed in your statement. Namely, the FULLNESS of revelatory knowledge cannot be taken to mean the CESSATION of revelatory knowledge.

Again, the 'babe' has PARTIAL revelatory knowledge. The 'man', therefore, has FULL revelatory knowledge. NEITHER of these states betokens a CESSATION of revelatory knowledge. Fullness is not a cessation. It's maturation. If manhood is a LOSS of all revelatory knowledge, then the man has regressed to a state worse off than the babe! That's a ludicrous reading.

"For we know in part, and we prophecy in part, but when the mature comes..." What is the mature? It's a transition from prophesying in part to prophesying in full. Period. End of story.

 

[JAL]

It's not confusing. The letter to the Corinthians is a rebuke for this misuse of the gifts. It seems that speaking in tongues was getting out of hand and Paul is reigning it in. The sign was to unbelieving Israel, the leadership in particular. Isaiah points the judgement at them. When the apostles started speaking in tongues at Pentecost the Jewish leaders should have immediately thought of Isaiah 28. God had told them this was going to happen. It was in their Scriptures. He had given them a description of the judgement that was coming on Jerusalem. However, it seems they either didn't see it or didn't heed the warning.

In 1 Corinthians Paul is addressing speaking in tongues in the church. When it was outside it was sign to Israel. In the church it wasn't needed, they were believers. Sure if someone walked into a church and heard a bunch of people all speaking different languages they might think they're off their rockers. The point is that it wasn't for the church, it wasn't for Christians. That's why he emphasizes prophecy. Prophecy was for Christians and in the church.

And why wouldn't the same problem have existed in Israel? Your claim is that they 'should have immediately thought of Isaiah 28'. Ridiculous. That's like expecting a Jew, who happens to stumble upon a bunch of present-day charismatics speaking in tongues, to 'immediately think of Isaiah 28'. On the contrary, he would regard them as off their rockers.

My assessment is valid - Paul's account is confusing.

 

[JAL]

As You said before, it's the logical conclusion. If tongues will end on its own and it is a sign of judgement to unbelieving Israel in Christ's day, what need is there for it after that judgment that it was foretelling has passed? The maturity has no bearing on the ending of tongues.

What 'need' is therefore it? One of cessationism's favorite slogans is, 'The gifts are no longer 'strictly necessary'.

I've got news for you. For an all-powerful God, NOTHING is 'strictly necessary'. Do you really think God is totally incapable of building a following without Bibles, church-buildings, and pastors? Instead of asking, 'Are these gifts strictly necessary', we should be asking questions like, 'Are these gifts beneficial? Does God LIKE these gifts? Are they good?" As Jesus said, 'For how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those that ask him?" (Mat 7:11).

You seem to have tunnel-vision. You seem to think that, if tongues was a sign, it can have NO OTHER BENEFIT. Yet Paul said that prophecy edifies the church (14), and he implied in that same chapter, that tongues, when interpreted, achieves the stature of prophecy.

Note the parallel:
(1) Love edifies the church.
(2) Prophecy edifies the church.
According to Paul, then, tongues and prophecy have the same effect on the church as love !!!!

 

[JAL]

This is speculation. Yes, Christ was given revelation. That doesn't mean we will be.

It's hardly wild speculation.

A parallel. We know that jesus commanded His apostles/prophets to evangelize. Show me where Paul clearly commands entire congregations (people like yourself) to evangelize? I don't think he did. Yet, you probably believe we should evangelize. And you wouldn't call it wild speculation.

So in the absence of clear didactic Scripture, you draw a conclusion, and you don't deem it wild speculation. And yet here I give you didactic text:
"Follow the way of love, and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especailly the gift of prophecy" (14:1).
"Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues(14:39).
"Eagerly desire the greater gifts" (12:31).

and you accuse ME of wild speculation? You do realize what you're doing, right? You're encouraging people to disregard Paul's EXPLICIT COMMANDS. Lovely.

So, by spiritual maturity you mean giftedness. Is that correct?

More precisely, maturity of gifting (by Pauline standards of gifting and maturity) is indeed spiritual maturity. Paul's high standard is actually clarified a bit in chapter 2, but I didn't have time to cover that chapter as yet.

And don't think for a moment that I'm contradicting 13:2, as that verse merely poses a hypothetical/hyperbole. Aside from all such HYPOTHETICAL scenarios, REALISTICALLY a believer at Paul's level of giftedness cannot possibly be immature. Won't happen, because God is too wise to allow it to happen.

 

[JAL]

Paul's use of the passive and middle voice verbs shows that tongues would cease of it's own accord and prophecy and knowledge would cease when something caused them to cease, ie, the maturity or completion. From this we see two different causes for the cessation of tongue and then Prophecy and knowledge. Paul uses passive verbs in regard to prophecy and knowledge indicating that something would cause these two to end as opposed to tongues which would end on it's own accord. Paul didn't say when we become mature or you become mature. When he writes of the completion or maturity coming he uses the definite article, the. One would think he would say you or we.

Voice isn't the only issue on the table here, right? It's a totally different verb. The middle voice in Greek plays a role similar to the reflexive pronoun in Spanish. But if we take Spanish as an example, there's no absolute consistency. In Spanish, a reflexive pronoun, depending on the word and the context, can be:
(1) consistently reflexive
(2) occasionally reflexive
(3) consistently traditional, i.e. totally meaningless and thus ommittable.
(4) consistently passive
(5) occasionally passive
(6) consistently self-serving
(7) occasoinally self-serving.
Grammatically, you're just opening a can of worms with no decisive adjudication.

Any switch to a different voice could be for any number of reasons. First and foremost, since Paul was switching to a different verb, he may have opted for a voice believed by him to be more in line with the tradition of that word. Or he may have made a stylistic switch. Any number of grammatical factors could be in play here. It's not much to go on.

Furthermore, it's hard to debate unclear statements. You said,

Paul's use of the passive and middle voice verbs shows that tongues would cease of it's own accord and prophecy and knowledge would cease when something caused them to cease, ie, the maturity or completion.

Tongues ceased by their own accord? God's not in charge here? Likewise, maturity CAUSES prophecy and tongues to cease? God's not in charge here either? You seem to be rambling. The dots that are you at pains to connect seem far removed from reality.

 

[Pethesedzao]

If one is a Christian, they have the baptism of the Holy spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 is the central passage in the Bible regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit: “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink” (1 Corinthians 12:13). Notice that we “all” have been baptized by the Spirit—all believers have received the baptism, synonymous with salvation, and it is not a special experience for only a few.

There are 3 baptisms: the one that saves is what takes place immediately on conversion. The baptism with the Spirit is a separate experience and water baptism is an outward sign of what has taken place when we become born again.

 

[Dave L]

See my recent post #98.

Like I said, you can't see it because you don't want to see it. And nothing will change your mind until you want the truth in the matter.

 

[Dave L]

Except that's not an argument. It's an expression of your own personal bias.

It is the way it works. You cannot see it unless you want to.

 

[Dave L]

What about Joel's prophecy? (prophecy in the last days)

Acts 2:17-20
“‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great
and glorious day of the Lord.

It was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost and continued until the complete revelation put it in print.

 

[JAL]

Like I said, you can't see it because you don't want to see it. And nothing will change your mind until you want the truth in the matter.

Unbelievable. Your inability to produce any substantive support for your position is becoming increasingly obvious.

 

[Dave L]

Unbelievable. Your inability to produce any substantive support for your position is becoming increasingly obvious.

I have quite a bit proving my position from scripture. But you will reject it until you want the truth in the matter. It's there for you to see if you advance beyond digging out "proof texts" to bolster your position.

 

[Saint Steven]

Are you familiar with the first century miraculous gifts? They were power bestowed on individuals to perform miracles. That's not praying for the sick. It was a gift where an individual could perform a miracle. Could God do it again if He chose to? Sure. However, we have no indication that He has. What we do have is Christians being warned that in the end times there would be lying signs and wonders.

What do you make of this?

James 5:13-15
Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.

 

[Saint Steven]

It was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost and continued until the complete revelation put it in print.

The printing press must have exploded.

That would account for the "fire and billows of smoke."
Not to mention the "sun will be turned to darkness..."

But it doesn't account for "wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below", nor "the moon to blood",
nor "the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord."

How do you explain that?

Acts 2:17-20
“‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great
and glorious day of the Lord.

 

[JAL]

This is speculation. Yes, Christ was given revelation. That doesn't mean we will be.

Speculation? Right now I'll show that even the most ELEMENTARY analysis of Scripture easily demonstrates the primacy of the direct revelations known as prophecy. Specifically I'm referring to the Great Commission. Incidentally I prefer to call it the Great Omission since evangelism was encharged to apostolic/prophetic ministers, not to the whole church. AnyWho, Jesus enunciated it in these words: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8).

What does a witness do? In large part, he testifies. He SPEAKS. Simple question. Were the disciples mute up to this point? I mean, here He claims to give them power to speak!!!! Wow. Thanks God, but I thought they already had that capability?

In a nutshell, the text doesn't make sense unless what He had in mind was Spirit-inspired speech. In a word, Christ's DEFINITION OF EVANGELISM hinges on PROPHETIC UTTERANCE. You know what, I think Paul was a bit smarter than you and I. Here's what Paul did:
(1) He NEVER commands the congregations to go out and evangelize.
(2) He REPEATEDLY urges them to seek (ESPECIALLY) the gift of prophecy, that is, to seek it above all other gifts.
Why? For the obvious reason that, where prophecy abounds, evangelism will eventually be taken care of. Jesus put it like this, "It will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of my Father speaking through you."

That's a simple logical analysis of Acts 1:8. Let's now look at the EMPIRICAL support for this conclusion in chapter 2. When the Spirit falls, the 120 begin speaking Spirit-inspired utterances (just as I predicted). Peter calls it the fulfillment of Joel's promise, "I shall pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and they SHALL prophesy." Notice that Joel did NOT say, 'And they just MIGHT prophesy." No. Those who partake of this kind of outpouring SHALL prophesy.

And there is more. Let's bear in mind the historical significance of Pentecost. The book of Acts is encharged with LAYING DOWN A PARIDIGM OF EVANGELISM FOR ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS. The cruciality of Pentecost, then, is that God, if He is a wise teacher, must be at pains to highlight/emphasize of that date the very CORE DEFINITION of evangelism. Therefore if Pentecost was prophecy - and it was - the only REASONABLE conclusion is that such is God's definition of evangelism.

 

[JAL]

I have quite a bit proving my position from scripture. But you will reject it until you want the truth in the matter. It's there for you to see if you advance beyond digging out "proof texts" to bolster your position.

Take a look at my latest post #137. While you keep rambling on without a shred of biblical support, I'll keep demonstrating my position exegetically.

 

[Dave L]

The printing press must have exploded.

That would account for the "fire and billows of smoke."
Not to mention the "sun will be turned to darkness..."

But it doesn't account for "wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below", nor "the moon to blood",
nor "the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord."

How do you explain that?

Acts 2:17-20
“‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great
and glorious day of the Lord.

How is it this is all scripture now and when combined in that format, we have the full picture, not just the pieces of the puzzle which the gifts could only provide?

 

[Dave L]

Take a look at my latest post #137. While you keep rambling on without a shred of biblical support, I'll keep demonstrating my position exegetically.

You are unwilling to look at the evidence objectively. You need to view scripture in a way that enhances your opinions.