Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

[JAL]

Cessationism has a way of nipping in the bud practically all cults (in the negative sense of the term) because in almost all instances their founders are considered "prophets". Personally do not have the time or motivation to sort through thousands of cults which are founded on the presuppositon of continualism to conclude they're all false and Christianity is true. Neither do I feel any urgency to give them the time or day or consideration while they prey upon spiritual sensitivities and offer help with struggles in the physical world.

You might want to look at my post #210. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not an acceptable option, given what's at stake.

And I'm not sure why you would feel the need to 'sort through thousands of cults'. Since no one but you has asked you to do that, it's an inadequate excuse for side-stepping the debate.

I certainly don't spend my time doing any such thing.

Finally, the criterion for recognizing a prophet seems pretty self-evident; anyone can figure it out by common-sense, as far as I can see (and no, it's not Sola Scrptura). I therefore feel no inclination to 'research' self-proclaimed 'prophets'. Upon meeting a real prophet, I would know it immediately, if God wanted me to know it.

 

[JAL]

That's seems to be the problem. You're reading others arguments into what I say. I didn't intimate that tongues was sign, I stated it plainly. It was a sign. Paul plainly said it was a sign. I'm simply repeating what Paul said. He said it was a sign to unbelievers. The Gifts were signs. The purpose of the gifts was to confirm the apostles message.

3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? (Heb. 2:3-4 KJV)

The Lord was confirming the apostles message with signs, wonders, diverse miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit. The gifts were a conformation that the message of the apostles was from God.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. (Mk. 16:15-20 KJV)

Again, Jesus said that these signs would follow those who believed the apostles Gospel. This goes right along with Hebrews, that these signs confirm the apostles message. Ever notice though that you don't see many claiming to have the gift of taking up serpent and drinking deadly things? Hmm...

Who is misreading WHOM? I never denied that gifts were used as signs. What I denied is that they were MERELY used as signs, and disappeared when the signs 'were no longer needed'.

By and large, cessationists have done nothing to convince me that signs are no longer needed. Cessationists say, 'Now we have the canon. No need for signs.' Really? Suppose a man converts to Christ today. What church should he join? Which denominiation is the true church? Cathholic? Orthodox? Episcopalian? Should he take a wild guess?

Signs and wonders helped to bolster the authority of the TRUE apostles in the eyes of the people, thereby bringing a degree of unity and proper administration to the church. Again, in every region, we need apostles to lay down the foundation afresh.

 

[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.

Here you go.
You don't remember claiming that healing today is not like the first century?

No, I didn't claim that. What I said was that praying for some to be healed is not the first century gift of healing.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

You might want to look at my post #210. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not an acceptable option, given what's at stake.

Sprinkle the baby in the bathwater and dedicate them to the Lord.

And I'm not sure why you would feel the need to 'sort through thousands of cults'. Since no one but you has asked you to do that, it's an inadequate excuse for side-stepping the debate.

I certainly don't spend my time doing any such thing.

Sorry you do not understand the point of the comment, cannot help you there. I wasn't waiting for someone to ask to give a thought on the subject, like so many in this "discussion", I expressed a thought.

Finally, the criterion for recognizing a prophet seems pretty self-evident; anyone can figure it out by common-sense, as far as I can see (and no, it's not Sola Scrptura). I therefore feel no inclination to 'research' self-proclaimed 'prophets'. Upon meeting a real prophet, I would know it immediately, if God wanted me to know it.

Ask the follower of Islam or a Mormon how they know their faith is true, their answer will likely be very similar to yours. If anyone could figure it out by common sense, we would not have so many disagreements, so many deceptive cults, false prophets etc. It is not for a lack of common sense people get sucked into deceptive cults and false religions.

 

[JAL]

Sprinkle the baby in the bathwater and dedicate them to the Lord.



Sorry you do not understand the point of the comment, cannot help you there. I wasn't waiting for someone to ask to give a thought on the subject, like so many in this "discussion", I expressed a thought.



Ask the follower of Islam or a Mormon how they know their faith is true, their answer will likely be very similar to yours. If anyone could figure it out by common sense, we would not have so many disagreements, so many deceptive cults, false prophets etc. It is not for a lack of common sense people get sucked into deceptive cults and false religions.

Well, common sense is not the criterion. I'm just saying that identifying the criterion is well within the pale of common sense.

Let's start with some basic scenarios. How did Abraham know that the Man who appeared to him time and again was the true God? And why obey a voice commanding him to slaughter his own son? Is that the proper way to behave? Why or why not?

Sadly, even though this topic should be Christianity 101, nobody gives it much thought, pastors rarely or never speak of it, and people like you remain deceived into thinking that no good answer exists, or that it lies far beyond the pale of common sense. What a shame.

 

[Butch5]

Who is misreading WHOM? I never denied that gifts were used as signs. What I denied is that they were MERELY used as signs, and disappeared when the signs 'were no longer needed'.

By and large, cessationists have done nothing to convince me that signs are no longer needed. Cessationists say, 'Now we have the canon. No need for signs.' Really? Suppose a man converts to Christ today. What church should he join? Which denominiation is the true church? Cathholic? Orthodox? Episcopalian? Should he take a wild guess?

Signs and wonders helped to bolster the authority of the TRUE apostles in the eyes of the people, thereby bringing a degree of unity and proper administration to the church. Again, in every region, we need apostles to lay down the foundation afresh.

I didn't say you denied it. But you're missing the point. The signs were for Jesus' apostles. The text says that God went with them. It doesn't say He went with anyone else. Whether signs are needed any longer or not is not what the text is dealing with. We can't just claim, we need the signs today so they never ceased. I'm not trying to convince you that they're no longer needed because it's not relevant to the discussion.

The signs and wonders were to confirm the apostles message as the text says. Well, the apostles aren't here so they won't be laying down the foundation afresh.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Well, common sense is not the criterion. I'm just saying that identifying the criterion is well within the pale of common sense.

Scripture, the Spirit, and discernment or the logic of God given by the Spirit. Common sense is a phrase used more to belittle intelligence and let's face it, not everyone has common sense, or very little of it, or lack of motivation to heed the wisdom of it.

Let's start with some basic scenarios. How did Abraham know that the Man who appeared to him time and again was the true God? And why obey a voice commanding him to slaughter his own son? Is that the proper way to behave? Why or why not?

Well that would require Scripture alone to answer, but you've denied that as a basis.

Sadly, even though this topic should be Christianity 101, nobody gives it much thought, pastors rarely or never speak of it, and people like you remain deceived into thinking that no good answer exists, or that it lies far beyond the pale of common sense. What a shame.

Sorry you're resulting to character assisination to try and win an argument, and I gave a good reason, so yeah, it's not my position a good answer does not exist. Since you deny the Sola Scriptura position and probably think it rules out tradition, which it does not, perhaps you could provide a brief history of continualism pre-1700, thanks.

 

[JAL]

I didn't say you denied it. But you're missing the point. The signs were for Jesus' apostles. The text says that God went with them. It doesn't say He went with anyone else. Whether signs are needed any longer or not is not what the text is dealing with. We can't just claim, we need the signs today so they never ceased. I'm not trying to convince you that they're no longer needed because it's not relevant to the discussion.

The signs and wonders were to confirm the apostles message as the text says. Well, the apostles aren't here so they won't be laying down the foundation afresh.

But that's not really a response to my point of view, is it? A strawman argument means to erect a postulation non-critical to the debate, pretend it IS the essence of the debate, demolish that postulation (knock down the strawman), and then pretend to have won the debate.

On my assumptions apostles ARE supposed to exist today, but for the church's shortcomings over the least 2,000 years. You know very well this fact about me, several hundred posts deep into this thread.

 

[JAL]

Scripture, the Spirit, and discernment or the logic of God given by the Spirit. Common sense is a phrase used more to belittle intelligence and let's face it, not everyone has common sense, or very little of it, or lack of motivation to heed the wisdom of it.

It's just that I know I'm not very smart. Yet I've reached a few conclusions that, over the years, have shown themselves logically impregnable, at least I've seen no evidence of pregnability for them. So if I can figure out a (seemingly impregnable) criterion, I'm pretty sure it is indeed, for most people, being much smarter than I, merely a matter of common-sense.

Well that would require Scripture alone to answer, but you've denied that as a basis.

Use your head, man. I'm SURE you're smarter than I am. Do you really think Abraham NEEDED Scripture to recognize a real vision or voice from heaven?

Sorry you're resulting to character assisination to try and win an argument...

I'm not sure whose character I assassinated, or how I managed to do so. I think you're misunderstanding me.

...and I gave a good reason, so yeah, it's not my position a good answer does not exist. Since you deny the Sola Scriptura position and probably think it rules out tradition, which it does not, perhaps you could provide a brief history of continualism pre-1700, thanks.

What is continualism pre-1700?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

But that's not really a response to my point of view, is it? A strawman argument means to erect a postulation non-critical to the debate, pretend it IS the essence of the debate, demolish that postulation (knock down the strawman), and then pretend to have won the debate.

It is the equivocation fallacy to suggest defining a strawman argument is the same as debunking a strawman argument. It is a red herring fallacy to call an argument a strawman without debunking it, if this were a formal debate, which it is not.

On my assumptions apostles ARE supposed to exist today, but for the church's shortcomings over the least 2,000 years. You know very well this fact about me, several hundred posts deep into this thread.

Actually I didn't know that fact about you, unfortunately you assumed I've read 200+ posts, sorry to disappoint. What do you mean by apostles are supposed to exist today? On what basis do you make such an assumption?

 

[JAL]

It is the equivocation fallacy to suggest defining a strawman argument is the same as debunking a strawman argument. It is a red herring fallacy to call an argument a strawman without debunking it, if this were a formal debate, which it is not.



Actually I didn't know that fact about you, unfortunately you assumed I've read 200+ posts, sorry to disappoint. What do you mean by apostles are supposed to exist today? On what basis do you make such an assumption?

Sorry I think we got our lines crossed there. On that one I thought I was responding to someone else.

 

[JAL]

I need a little time away from this thread to catch up on some work. Hope to return at some point.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Use your head, man. I'm SURE you're smarter than I am. Do you really think Abraham NEEDED Scripture to recognize a real vision or voice from heaven?

Ah ha, false prophets claim God speaks to them in the same way God spoke to Abraham. Does God speak today in the same manner He spoke to the Prophets of the Old Testament?

I'm not sure whose character I assassinated, or how I managed to do so. I think you're misunderstanding me.

Sorry if I misunderstood, apologies.

What is continualism pre-1700?

That's what I want to know, where is the evidence in Christian history pre-1700, and the reason for that particular date is because prior to the Methodists and the movements that came out from them, I've seen precious little to no evidence encouraging continualism. I mean come on, there has to be a few outspoken orthodox Christians from the first 1700 years of Christianity supporting continualism to encourage it after 1700 right? Help?

 

[Butch5]

But that's not really a response to my point of view, is it? A strawman argument means to erect a postulation non-critical to the debate, pretend it IS the essence of the debate, demolish that postulation (knock down the strawman), and then pretend to have won the debate.[.quote]

I'm not sure where you're going with the straw man statement. Unless you're referring to your own post. I've made no attempt to argue whether or not the signs are needed today. You seem to be arguing from your past encounters with cessationists again. My argument deals with the first century, not today.

On my assumptions apostles ARE supposed to exist today, but for the church's shortcomings over the least 2,000 years. You know very well this fact about me, several hundred posts deep into this thread.

I figured that might be what you meant, but didn't want to make that assumption. I disagree that there are apostles today. I don't know of anyone who has been personally sent by Christ today. As for the foundation it's already been laid. There's no need to do it again. We just need people to believe it.

 

[JAL]

I figured that might be what you meant, but didn't want to make that assumption. I disagree that there are apostles today. I don't know of anyone who has been personally sent by Christ today. As for the foundation it's already been laid. There's no need to do it again. We just need people to believe it.

A foundation can only be laid once? No sir. Churches are local institutions (local buildings). Every BUILDING needs a foundation laid afresh - and laid by experts (the apostles and prophets).

Don't take my word for it - just listen to Paul. Please address post 89 where I discuss what Paul had to say about it.

 

[JAL]

Ah ha, false prophets claim God speaks to them in the same way God spoke to Abraham. Does God speak today in the same manner He spoke to the Prophets of the Old Testament?

I thought the question we were addressing is whether there was a simple way to recognize a true prophet without Scripture. I'd like to start with Abraham. Once we figure out how Abraham handled it, I think it might be easier to form an opinion, from there, whether that same technique could conceivably prove reusable today.

That's what I want to know, where is the evidence in Christian history pre-1700, and the reason for that particular date is because prior to the Methodists and the movements that came out from them, I've seen precious little to no evidence encouraging continualism. I mean come on, there has to be a few outspoken orthodox Christians from the first 1700 years of Christianity supporting continualism to encourage it after 1700 right? Help?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Typically I challenge apparent misconceptions prevalent for the last 2,000 years. I find I can discredit some of those assumptions effectively even without recourse to some large body of orthodox scholarly support, because I simply look for logical problems, which are easy to spot.

Case in point. Abraham is the paradigm of faith for ALL BELIEVERS. His obedience to the voice commanding him to slaughter his son was championed in Hebrews 11 as one of the most righteous acts of FAITH in human history. Attempted murder? That's what FAITH looks like? Abraham's FAITH, according to hebrews 11, is a PARADIGM FOR ALL BELIEVERS TODAY.

If we can't make good sense of WHY Abraham did what he did, then we shouldn't pretend to be a people who understand what it means to walk in faith. If you can't find the simple solution, fine, but please don't suppose that it's okay to dismiss Abraham as an irrelevant relic of the past.

And it is in fact precisely my contention that the church still does NOT understand faith. The Galatians were in the same quandary, and Paul was FURIOUS about it.

And if you don't figure it out, it won't be for any lack of brains. The problem, rather, is that, when certain modes of thinking have been shoved down our throats for 2000 years, brainwashing us, it becomes virtually impossible to think outside the box.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I thought the question we were addressing is whether there was a simple way to recognize a true prophet without Scripture. I'd like to start with Abraham. Once we figure out how Abraham handled it, I think it might be easier to form an opinion, from there, whether that same technique could conceivably prove reusable today.

But you wouldn't know anything about Abraham without Scripture....nothing.

Case in point. Abraham is the paradigm of faith for ALL BELIEVERS. His obedience to the voice commanding him to slaughter his son was championed in Hebrews 11 as one of the most righteous acts of FAITH in human history. Attempted murder? That's what FAITH looks like? Abraham's FAITH, according to hebrews 11, is a PARADIGM FOR ALL BELIEVERS TODAY.

If we can't make good sense of WHY Abraham did what he did, then we shouldn't pretend to be a people who understand what it means to walk in faith. If you can't find the simple solution, fine, but please don't suppose that it's okay to dismiss Abraham as an irrelevant relic of the past.

And it is in fact precisely my contention that the church still does NOT understand faith. The Galatians were in the same quandary, and Paul was FURIOUS about it.

And if you don't figure it out, it won't be for any lack of brains. The problem, rather, is that, when certain modes of thinking have been shoved down our throats for 2000 years, brainwashing us, it becomes virtually impossible to think outside the box.

So God speaks to you with an audible voice just as He did in Old Testament times to Abraham? Maybe you could capture it on a voice recorder? Nevermind I only asked these to prove a point, one you seen intent on ignoring.

Thinking outside the box of those before us speaks greatly to how the faith of those before us is undervalued and how puffed up we are in our thinking to think those before us had not common sense or better yet divine wisdom and influence on their thoughts revealed to us in their writings and such. You're definitely out of the box in equivocating attempted murder with faith. Abraham (I imagine through much struggle and anguish) reasoned in his heart that if he sacrificed his son, the son promised to him by God, that God could/would raise him from the dead. This is a shadow of the atonement of Christ to come. God provided the lamb sacrifice for Abraham, a substitutional sacrifice in place of his son, and God provided the substitutional sacrifice of His only begotten son in place of undeserving sinners according to His plan. The command from God was nothing less than a test of Abraham's faith, and Abraham passed the test. The act of faith, did not make Abraham nor the act righteous, but it is written that Abraham believed the Lord and it was credited (imputed) to him as righteousness.

 

[JAL]

But you wouldn't know anything about Abraham without Scripture....nothing.

From what I've seen, the litmus test in question is logically unavoidable in any religious system (meaning any attempt to avoid the conclusion leads to logical contradictions). Abraham himself really has nothing to do with it, but I do like giving examples from Scripture, especially Abraham since is championed for us all as a model to emulate.

So God speaks to you with an audible voice just as He did in Old Testament times to Abraham? Maybe you could capture it on a voice recorder? Nevermind I only asked these to prove a point, one you seen intent on ignoring.

Not sure what all this means. I gave you a pretty straightforward challenge about Abraham. I'd like to stay on that topic for a while, if you don't mind.

Thinking outside the box of those before us speaks greatly to how the faith of those before us is undervalued and how puffed up we are in our thinking to think those before us had not common sense or better yet divine wisdom and influence on their thoughts revealed to us in their writings and such.

The motto of the Reformation was, 'Reformed, but always reforming.' That's my goal on theses forums.

You're definitely out of the box in equivocating attempted murder with faith.

Well no, if you think I mean to imply that anyone who attempts murder is walking in faith, of course not. (Did I really need to spell that out?). I'm just pointing out the FACT that Abraham's attempted murder WAS celebrated as an exemplary act of faith, and we need to make good sense of WHY that is, if we are going to claim to be a people who understand faith, and walk in faith.

Abraham (I imagine through much struggle and anguish) reasoned in his heart that if he sacrificed his son, the son promised to him by God, that God could/would raise him from the dead. This is a shadow of the atonement of Christ to come. God provided the lamb sacrifice for Abraham, a substitutional sacrifice in place of his son, and God provided the substitutional sacrifice of His only begotten son in place of undeserving sinners according to His plan. The command from God was nothing less than a test of Abraham's faith, and Abraham passed the test. The act of faith, did not make Abraham nor the act righteous, but it is written that Abraham believed the Lord and it was credited (imputed) to him as righteousness.

Ok, so at least you've submitted a theory at this point. That's progress. Your theory is that Abraham attempted murder because he REASONED it was the correct course of action in his scenario. That's a good starting theory, but it's subject to a couple of problems.
(1) That's not a kind of faith that I can celebrate, or emulate. If I tried to murder my son largely because I reasoned that God could raise him from the dead, that would make me a monster.
(2) You talk about Abraham having good motives, such as obedience, but you're still not clear on how Abraham KNEW it was a voice from the true God.
(3) Let's suppose you're right. Let's suppose that his CONTROLLING IMPETUS - the force driving his volition to murder his son - was based on having REASONED that it was the right thing to do. He failed, then, right? I mean, he never actually followed through! Why celebrate a man with right intent if he BACKS OFF?

Looks like your theory isn't holding up. Apparently reason was NOT the driving force. The driving force was the Voice.
(1) The Voice told him to kill his son. He obeyed.
(2) At the last minute, the Voice told him to abstain. He obeyed.

Now we're back to where we started. HOW did Abraham authenticate the Voice? How did he know it to originate from the true God? How does one reliably authenticate a voice, vision, prophet, angel (or whatever it may be)?

There's a very simple answer here. And bear in mind that 'Sola Scriptura' is NOT a simple answer. People who spend many years in seminary are still prone to drawing wrong conclusions from the text.

And I'm not denying that Abraham did some reasoning. But clearly it wasn't the driving force.

 

[Dave L]

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed answer. I appreciate the effort.

So, 1Cor.13 was the only clue to this that we were left with?
All the other arguments seem to stem from there.

You mentioned that "the tongues and prophecy messages were written and collected". Where did those end up? If you know.

I would have imagined that any tongues or prophecy in the churches would have been like today. For the purpose of "strengthening, encouraging and comfort." - 1Cor.14:3

1 Corinthians 14:3
But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.

First realize that apart from the two outpourings, the gifts came only through the hands of an apostle. Paul said; “For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established;” (Romans 1:11) (NASB95) So this limits the time frame the gifts operated in.

And the tongues and prophecy messages were the New Covenant words not found in the Old Covenant. These form our scriptures today, being written and collected by the early NT church.

We now have a full revelation, no longer seeing through a glass darkly, but face to face.

 

[Saint Steven]

First realize that apart from the two outpourings, the gifts came only through the hands of an apostle. Paul said; “For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established;” (Romans 1:11) (NASB95) So this limits the time frame the gifts operated in.

And the tongues and prophecy messages were the New Covenant words not found in the Old Covenant. These form our scriptures today, being written and collected by the early NT church.

We now have a full revelation, no longer seeing through a glass darkly, but face to face.

I appreciate your position on this, but it seems a bit... unlikely that with two or three prophets and two or three tongues messages with interpretation were being evaluated (weighed carefully) by the churches and that somehow these revelations ended up in the NT texts. Just the math is astounding. Six messages times 52 weeks/yr at one church times how many decades times how many churches equals a lot of prophecy.