Convince me of Continuationism.

[Guojing]

Can you provide a link confirming that the attempt was successful?

No, it failed. That was why I used the conditional "If"

Now if faith was really a factor in that, surely no one would deny that the entire Bethel church were praying and believing that what Jesus said to Martha before he raised Lazarus, will also be true here.

Still, because signs and wonders are no longer for today, the kid was finally buried.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Well, the cut and paste job was a list that was a work that was built upon what another started. Half of the list is my own original work. But I did reword what another said in their original list (so as not to directly copy what they wrote). When I started to add to the list: God just kept showing me more and more.



So you are not convinced that I believe the Living Word and the Communicated Word are different?

Thanks for asking...

My issue is that the indwelling and resting presence of the Holy Spirit and His work of leading us into all truth, comforting and guiding and empowering did not change when the Scripture was written, His voice was not closed off, His revelation continued as normal. His empowering for ministry continues. The Scripture bears witness to His promised continuing activity and scripture is definitely not the sole source of His inspiration but does stand as a final arbiter of truth.

I think the work of the Holy Spirit with us is way underrated - like the poorer person of the trinity who does something inside but we are not sure what.

This is the very presence of the fullness of God for goodness sake...

No wonder John said we don't need a teacher because the anointing of His Spirit is the teacher.

And so it is - and who knows that the Holy Spirit has seven aspects mentioned in Isaiah 11.

And who knows that His indwelling Fear seals us against disobedience.

The Scripture is brilliant but the Gift is Him and without Him the Scripture is useless if not deadly as we saw at Christs temptation.

Just imagine where we would be if Jesus followed Satans quotes from Scripture !!!

 

[Radagast]

My issue is that the indwelling and resting presence of the Holy Spirit and His work of leading us into all truth, comforting and guiding and empowering did not change when the Scripture was written, His voice was not closed off, His revelation continued as normal.

We no longer have infallible prophecy, however.

Your posts on CF are not the inspired word of God.

No wonder John said we don't need a teacher because the anointing of His Spirit is the teacher.

BCV please. I'm not a big fan of vague out-of-context Scripture references.

And, since you are referring to a passage of Scripture intended to teach people, I doubt that the passage mean what you think it means.

 

[Carl Emerson]

In this verse Paul is not saying he or anyone else actually speaks the language of angels. Paul is portraying an exaggerated scenario to make a point. He is saying even if someone could speak in tongues to the ultimate degree conceivable (speaking the language of angels), but not have love, it would be worthless. We know this because he does the same with 3 other gifts in the following verses - having the gift of prophesy to the ultimate degree of knowing ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie. omniscience); having the gift of faith to the ultimate degree of moving mountains; and having the gift of giving to the ultimate degree of giving up ALL you possess to the poor and even giving up your own life. Paul is saying that even if someone had gifts to such a superlative degree, without love, it would be to no avail.

Using your same logic no one has given all to the poor and no one has given up their life. This is blatantly untrue.

 

[Carl Emerson]

We no longer have infallible prophecy, however.

Your posts on CF are not the inspired word of God.



BCV please. I'm not a big fan of vague out-of-context Scripture references.

And, since you are referring to a passage of Scripture intended to teach people, I doubt that the passage mean what you think it means.

You should know your bible and where I am quoting from.

I find you last remark very offensive and from this point I will ignore your posts.

 

[Carl Emerson]

No, it failed. That was why I used the conditional "If"

Now if faith was really a factor in that, surely no one would deny that the entire Bethel church were praying and believing that what Jesus said to Martha before he raised Lazarus, will also be true here.

Still, because signs and wonders are no longer for today, the kid was finally buried.

Or that stream of church was deceived...

 

[Radagast]

You should know your bible and where I am quoting from.

I find you last remark very offensive and from this point I will ignore your posts.

I stand by what I said.

I think that you are grossly misinterpreting the specific Scripture passage that you are alluding to, which I assume is 1 John 2:18-27 (why did you refuse to provide BCV?).

For one thing, if God didn't want people to be taught, there wouldn't be so many verses in the N.T. about the importance of teaching.

 

[Guojing]

Or that stream of church was deceived...

From their perspective, they are not.

From a cessationalist perspective, they are.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Read the next 2 verses.

Blessed are those that have not seen the Jesus in the flesh but believe what they read in scripture. Not a hearsay report.

Err... no. Jesus said "Blessed are those who have not seen [me] and yet believe".

The author of the gospel then goes on to say that there are many things not recorded in the gospel about Jesus. The two are not linked.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

A video is certainly better than hearsay. Fakes can generally by spotted, especially by experts.

And sceptics. It really helps to not believe anything you see rather than try and believe two impossible things before breakfast (via Alice).

This is why the gift of discernment should be in operation. Discernment and scepticism are not the same thing.

The scriptures show signs and wonders in the lives of the believers. If the church is authentic then, I would expect to see signs and wonders. I don't start from the non-Biblical stance of cessationism and see everything through those eyes. I have seen signs and wonders and I have seen fakery. For anyone not immediately gullible it is not usually that difficult to see the difference. And fakery isn't always because someone wants some kind of kudos. Occasionally it is someone trying to work up something they had previously, but doing it in the flesh. They may not always be aware of it.

Also there is the problem of 'experts'. When experts don't always agree, what do the rest of us do? Well actually what should always be doing - relying on God.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I know two people who have witnessed faith healers at work and they testified that it was faked. So, must I believe their conclusion to be correct?

Were they women? You know what the scriptures say about women as witnesses (...stirs up a hornet's nest )

 

[Radagast]

The scriptures show signs and wonders in the lives of the believers. If the church is authentic then, I would expect to see signs and wonders.

That's just assuming Continuationism is true.

I have seen signs and wonders and I have seen fakery.

Thank you, brother. At last someone who admits that the fakery exists.

I endeavour to keep an open mind, but personally, I have only seen fakery.

Also there is the problem of 'experts'.

The level of expertise here relates to "is that really Russian?" and "was that person really healed?" Nothing particularly problematic.

 

[Radagast]

Were they women? You know what the scriptures say about women as witnesses (...stirs up a hornet's nest )

Please tell us. BCV, please.

And on behalf of my sisters in Christ, I find your implication grossly offensive.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Heb 2:4 says people had the ability to perform miracles for authentication purposes. Notice the past tenses, "God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles...", not "God testifies..." which you would expect if the gift was ongoing.

Not so. It is referring to the beginning of salvation. Unless one is of the opinion that salvation began with the apostles rather than with Jesus this reference to signs and wonders refers to our saviour, Jesus, not to what came after.

And since Acts and Paul's letters show that it did not cease after Jesus had returned to the Father, then this does not refer to apostolic signs and wonders.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

If you have proof of tongues speaking after around 3rd century then let's see it. The only accounts I found were from either heretics or Catholics wanting to canonize one of their churchmen. Sainthood is only granted if the candidate has been shown to have performed a miracle. In every case the person in question never claimed to speak in tongues themselves, it was always their fans making the claim of a miracle sometime after they died.

The word 'proof' gets bandied around a lot. If the same proof was provided as there is for say Jesus' resurrection (i.e. a handful of accounts) would that satisfy?

Probably not.

And my reading of the subject is that the evidence is also very vague... but it is there.

I'm not sure why speaking in tongues would have been considered a reason for sainthood given that the scriptures indicate that all believers could avail themselves of the gift and this was the least of the gifts (according to Paul).

On the other hand, it makes little difference if one can prove it or not, after all if the argument that the gifts had ceased by AD96 (as proposed in the OP) that can be dismissed easily by the presence of Mark 16 ending where tongues and miracles are seen as signs that come with belief by 1st century authors.

Not to mention numerous other references that go through the second and into the third century from 2nd generation Christians onwards. Arguably it was the Catholic obsession with sainthood that caused the death knell of miracles - I suspect those who got canonised weren't doing it to join some exclusive club. They were doing it because it was natural for Christians to do these things when they believed. Catholics made miracles exclusive to Saints, but the scriptures indicate that all should and did engage in them.

And that should apply today also.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

If you maintain that the long ending of Mark was written in the 2nd century then it is was a later addition by a scribe, not authentic Mark and should therefore be ignored. Most commentators on Mark believe that which is why they offer no commentary on Mark 16:9 onwards.

So you are of the opinion that Mark 16:9+ are not part of scripture. Hmm!

You are and I are not on the same page then.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

That's just assuming Continuationism is true.

Along with all Christians of the first 1400+ years. Cessationism was not even considered until the reformation and then it seems to me to be a response to Roman Catholic Tradition rather than specifically gifts of the Holy Spirit, including tongues.

Thank you, brother. At last someone who admits that the fakery exists.

I endeavour to keep an open mind, but personally, I have only seen fakery.

Then I feel sorry for you, but I'm not totally surprised - there is far too much of it about. And too much gullibility among the general populace too.

The level of expertise here relates to "is that really Russian?" and "was that person really healed?" Nothing particularly problematic.

Not necessarily - unless there is a claim that it was Russian. There are large numbers of languages and linguists weren't able to translate some languages until we got the Rosetta Stone, despite copious amounts of it. Small phrases and sentences in 'some random gibberish' is either going to be recognised by a native speaker or not recognised at all. Only in the former case can we be certain that there was no language.

On the other hand I can remember someone who spoke in tongues by repeating the same word over and over.... which is hardly speaking in tongues. It has stuck in my mind even though I was a new Christian at the time and wet behind the ears.

Are all fake? No.

Are all genuine? No.

But you only need one genuine case to disprove cessationism (hard cessationism, I think you refer to).

 

[Carl Emerson]

From their perspective, they are not.

From a cessationalist perspective, they are.

Why should they not be from a continuationists perspective?

One can be blind to ones own deception...

 

[Guojing]

Why should they not be from a continuationists perspective?

One can be blind to ones own deception...

From a typical Charismatic, the belief is usually, "Our job is to trust in the Lord, its his job to make the miracle happen."

 

[Carl Emerson]

I appreciate what you are saying...

The way I see it is that Faith comes from hearing the Word of Christ.

They clearly did not hear the Word of Christ or it would have happened.

Faith is not a mindset that you can manufacture.