Convince me of Continuationism.

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Along with all Christians of the first 1400+ years. Cessationism was not even considered until the reformation

That turns out to be incorrect.

Augustine, for example, explicitly takes the Cessationist position in his 6th Homily on 1 John: "In the earliest times, the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spoke with tongues, which they had not learned, as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts of the Apostles 2:4). These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away. In the laying on of hands now, that persons may receive the Holy Ghost, do we look that they should speak with tongues? Or when we laid the hand on these infants, did each one of you look to see whether they would speak with tongues, and, when he saw that they did not speak with tongues, was any of you so wrong-minded as to say, These have not received the Holy Ghost; for, had they received, they would speak with tongues as was the case in those times?"

There are large numbers of languages

True. But we can get a fair idea whether a sample of speech is one of those languages from the set of phonemes used, and the ways in which they are combined.

and linguists weren't able to translate some languages until we got the Rosetta Stone

The Rosetta Stone related to written language.

The language of the hieroglyphs was an ancient form of what is now called Coptic.

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.

No, if it's a repetitive random mix of English phonemes, then it won't be some other language.

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

You only need a few fake cases to question whether the movement is really the Holy Spirit at work.

Particularly telling to me is the fact that fakes are so universally tolerated.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Jamsie
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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 !!!

I believe the Spirit can still guide a believer into all truth whereby they would not have any need that any man would teach them (1 John 2:27). This is not to say that God still does not use human teachers, but it is saying that a believer can have the anointing of the Holy Spirit to know all things.

I believe this applies to the believer today in guiding the faithful follower of Christ into what His Word (the Bible) alreadys says. The Bible is pretty big. It says a lot. God can surely guide our life by the Bible in many unique ways. I know. I have experienced this for myself many times. So I do not have any need for any new communicated message via a vision, dream, a prophecy, or a new holy book, etc.; I have a complete Bible. His Word is enough and God has talked to me many times using His Word. To go outside His Holy Word is to simply add to His Word. For Revelation talks about how we are not to add to the prophecy of this book. Revelation ends the book we know as the whole of the Bible. So we cannot add words to the Bible.

This to me is one of the biggest proofs for Cessationism.
For the moment we say prophecy is still in effect, is the moment we must add another holy book or writing to the Bible (When that would be adding to God's Holy Word).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Using your same logic no one has given all to the poor and no one has given up their life. This is blatantly untrue.

You have missed Paul's point. Paul is using hyperbole. Giving EVERYTHING you own to the poor (including the clothes you wear), and giving up your own life, are the highest conceivable degrees of the gift of giving. Not the common usage of the gift. Paul's point is that even IF you had gifts to such a superlative degree, without love it would be worthless.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
A man of God died for not listening solely to God's Word alone. He was deceived into listening to a message from another false prophet that made him go up against what God's Word said.

Behold, the scene in God's Word:

15 “Then he said unto him, Come home with me, and eat bread.
16 And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place:
17 For it was said to me by the word of the LORD, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest.
18 He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him.
19 So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water.
20 And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the word of the LORD came unto the prophet that brought him back:
21 And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee,
22 But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the LORD did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers.
23 And it came to pass, after he had eaten bread, and after he had drunk, that he saddled for him the ass, to wit, for the prophet whom he had brought back.
24 And when he was gone, a lion met him by the way, and slew him: and his carcase was cast in the way, and the ass stood by it, the lion also stood by the carcase.” (1 Kings 13:15-24).
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
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.

The next 2 verses explain what Jesus said in v29. Who are the people who would not see Christ in the flesh but still believe in the resurrection? Those who believe the gospel accounts of course. Who else would Jesus be referring to?
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
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.

The 1st century church has already provided all the authenticating signs and wonders we need. People only have to open the scriptures to find them. If they still need more it demonstrates a lack of faith.

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.

Mostly the experts do agree. If the rare cases they don't we look at the evidence they provide to see which is most rational.

Relying on God? How does that work in determining which videos are fake?
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You have missed Paul's point. Paul is using hyperbole. Giving EVERYTHING you own to the poor (including the clothes you wear), and giving up your own life, are the highest conceivable degrees of the gift of giving. Not the common usage of the gift. Paul's point is that even IF you had gifts to such a superlative degree, without love it would be worthless.

I agree. 1 Corinthians 13:2 says, “And though I... understand
all mysteries, and all knowledge;”

Surely Paul is not referring to how we literally can understand ALL mysteries, and ALL knowledge. I believe that would be impossible. Only God is Omniscient to possess ALL mysteries, and to have ALL knowledge.

So Paul in context is using a figure of speech involving exaggeration.
So the phrase, “I speak with the tongues... of angels” is a figure of speech. Paul is not literally saying that a believer will speak using the tongues of angels. Paul is correcting the Corinthians on the misuse of tongues and thus he is subtly insulting them. His goal is to get them to speak with an interpreter present so that there may be understanding and edification (building up) of other believers. To do this is to love them. To give them the understanding is loving towards them. To speak gobbledygook was the problem and it was not a loving thing they were doing. So he was mocking them in love with artful words. If they were careful to listen and take the correction, it would help them to love and lead them to benefit as proper functioning members in the body of Christ (to the glory of Jesus Christ).
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
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.

This is what Heb 2:3-4 says....

After it [the message of salvation] was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us [the writer and his colleagues] by those who heard [the apostles], God also testifying with them [the apostles], both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.

It was the apostles who testified by signs and wonders and gifts of the Holy Spirit to corroborate their message. Christ did not need a gift of the Spirit before he could perform his works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jesus is YHWH
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
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.

A record in scripture is the ultimate proof.


Not to mention numerous other references that go through the second and into the third century from 2nd generation Christians onwards.

Although tongues was testified by the early church fathers, the later fathers maintained that the gift had ceased. I will dig out the quotes for you.


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.

I think you missed my point. From what I found the Catholic churchmen themselves never claimed to speak in tongues themselves, nor was there any record at the time of them doing so. The claims came after their death from fans who wanted them to be made saints (raising an immediate suspicion).
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
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.

I thought that was your argument? That the long ending of Mark was a later 2nd century addition, therefore tongues were present in the 2nd century. If not why say it was written in the 2nd century?

Since one of the arguments for continuationism comes from the long ending of Mark, I am happy to engage the text on the assumption that it is authentic Mark. Dismissing it by saying "That verse should not be in your bibles" doesn't really wash.

But seeing as there is a doubt among scholars about it's authenticity, we should be wary of drawing doctrine from it without some corroboration from other scriptures. However in regard to the continuist interpretation of v17-18 there is none.
 
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

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
For the moment we say prophecy is still in effect, is the moment we must add another holy book or writing to the Bible (When that would be adding to God's Holy Word).
(Sigh). Always repeating that same tired old propaganda...Read 1Cor 14. Seems pretty evident that plenty of prophecies were never canonized. The only reason you argue for canonizing all prophecy is to leverage this "conclusion" as a weapon against continuationism. Sheer propaganda.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
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.

Not true. The later church fathers (from around 250ad) were cessationists.

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.

You are comparing apples with oranges. The Egyptian Hieroglyphics on the Rosetta Stone was not a spoken language. It was a writing system. And it was translatable long before the Rosetta Stone was discovered. The Rosetta Stone (dated at 196BC) was itself a translation from Hieroglyph into Greek.

Linguists can immediately tell if a spoken language is genuine simply by studying the structure of phonemes. The task is made all the easier if there is an interpretation into English. Professional linguists who have studied today's 'tongues' have categorically ruled it out as being a human language or a language of any kind. The most respected study is by Dr. William Samarin of the University of Toronto who did a 10 year study of Pentecostal tongues. Here are some excerpts from his study:

"There is no mystery about glossolalia. Tape recorded samples are easy to obtain and to analyze. They always turn out to be the same things: strings of syllables made up of sounds taken from among all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but which nevertheless emerge as word-like or sentence-like units”

"The speaker controls the rhythm, volume, speed and inflection of his speech so that the sounds emerge as pseudo- language -- in the form of words and sentences. Glossolalia is language-like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language.”

"All specimens of glossolalia that have ever been studied have produced no features that would even suggest that they reflect some kind of communicative system.”

"When the full apparatus of linguistic science comes to bear on glossolalia, this turns out to be only a facade of language; although at times a very good one indeed. For when we comprehend what language is, we must conclude that no glossa, no matter how well constructed, is a specimen of human language, because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives."

"...a meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead."

“And it has already been established that no special power needs to take over a person's vocal organs; all of us are equipped with everything we need to produce glossolalia”

"Glossolalia is not a supernatural phenomenon....It is similar to many other kinds of speech humans produce in more or less normal circumstances, in more or less normal psychological states. In fact, anybody can produce glossolalia if he is uninhibited and if he discovers what the "trick" is"​
 
Upvote 0

Jesus is YHWH

my Lord and my God !
Supporter
Dec 15, 2011
3,496
1,726
✟389,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Not true. The later church fathers (from around 250ad) were cessationists.



You are comparing apples with oranges. The Egyptian Hieroglyphics on the Rosetta Stone was not a spoken language. It was a writing system. And it was translatable long before the Rosetta Stone was discovered. The Rosetta Stone (dated at 196BC) was itself a translation from Hieroglyph into Greek.

Linguists can immediately tell if a spoken language is genuine simply by studying the structure of phonemes. The task is made all the easier if there is an interpretation into English. Professional linguists who have studied today's 'tongues' have categorically ruled it out as being a human language or a language of any kind. The most respected study is by Dr. William Samarin of the University of Toronto who did a 10 year study of Pentecostal tongues. Here are some excerpts from his study:

"There is no mystery about glossolalia. Tape recorded samples are easy to obtain and to analyze. They always turn out to be the same things: strings of syllables made up of sounds taken from among all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but which nevertheless emerge as word-like or sentence-like units”

"The speaker controls the rhythm, volume, speed and inflection of his speech so that the sounds emerge as pseudo- language -- in the form of words and sentences. Glossolalia is language-like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language.”

"All specimens of glossolalia that have ever been studied have produced no features that would even suggest that they reflect some kind of communicative system.”

"When the full apparatus of linguistic science comes to bear on glossolalia, this turns out to be only a facade of language; although at times a very good one indeed. For when we comprehend what language is, we must conclude that no glossa, no matter how well constructed, is a specimen of human language, because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives."

"...a meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead."

“And it has already been established that no special power needs to take over a person's vocal organs; all of us are equipped with everything we need to produce glossolalia”

"Glossolalia is not a supernatural phenomenon....It is similar to many other kinds of speech humans produce in more or less normal circumstances, in more or less normal psychological states. In fact, anybody can produce glossolalia if he is uninhibited and if he discovers what the "trick" is"​
Yes the modern counterfeit tongues practiced today have nothing to do with the authentic tongues we see practiced in the early first century church.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
(Sigh). Always repeating that same tired old propaganda...Read 1Cor 14. Seems pretty evident that plenty of prophecies were never canonized. The only reason you argue for canonizing all prophecy is to leverage this "conclusion" as a weapon against continuationism. Sheer propaganda.

Revelation was not written yet when the Corinthian letters were put forth by Paul. After Revelation, no new words of God could be added that His Word did not already talk about. Surely there are missing books in the Bible that even the Bible refers to. But they were not included in the Holy Bible for a reason by God. There were many things done that were not recorded. But this does not mean God wants us to look for these records so as to add them to the Bible. For example: Noah was given instructions that were specific to him. We are not told to build a boat so as to avoid a flood. Sure, we can look at the story of Noah as being profitable for instruction in righteousness, and doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16-17), but we are not told to build a boat. Revelation is not considered a separate book from the Holy Bible. It is connected to the Holy Bible now. The Bible is THE book of God for people today. Men who seek to add to God's Word by prophecies and visions today usually speak contrary to what His Word says. Proof? Show me a prophet today who has visions who does not contradict God's Word in some way.

The story in 1 Kings 13 about the man of God who died for disobeying God's Word over listening to another supposed prophet (trying to get him to disobey God's Word) should send chills up your spine. The question is: Will you heed or listen to the lesson of the story?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Revelation was not written yet when the Corinthian letters were put forth by Paul. After Revelation, no new words of God could be added that His Word did not already talk about. Surely there are missing books in the Bible that even the Bible refers to. But they were not included in the Holy Bible for a reason by God. There were many things done that were not recorded. But this does not mean God wants us to look for these records. For example: Noah was given instructions that were specific to him. We are not told to build a boat so as to avoid a flood. Sure, we can look at the story of Noah as being profitable for instruction in righteousness, and doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16-17), but we are not told to build a boat. Revelation is not considered a separate book from the Holy Bible. It is connected to the Holy Bible now. It is THE book of God for people today. Men who seek to add to God's Word by prophecies and visions today usually speak contrary to what His Word says. Proof? Show me a prophet today who has visions who does not contradict God's Word in some way.
Now you're fighting a different battle, suddenly. You are arguing against those who are TRYING to enlarge the canon. Interestingly no Continuationist in church history has ever tried to do that, as far as I know, so it's an unrealistic concern. That's how propaganda works - it creates fear by raising unrealistic concerns and then preys on that fear to propagate a point of view.

Now back to the original issue. Is prophecy for today? Yes, because the NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180, and please note that it was YOU I was addressing on those two old posts, and I don't think you ever responded). So we can simply ask - Is evangelism for today?
 
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

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The story in 1 Kings 13 about the man of God who died for disobeying God's Word over listening to another supposed prophet (trying to get him to disobey God's Word) should send chills up your spine. The question is: Will you heed or listen to the lesson of the story?
You'd first have to convince me that you understand the lesson of the story. Based on your words, it's pretty clear that you don't understand it at all.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I thought that was your argument? That the long ending of Mark was a later 2nd century addition, therefore tongues were present in the 2nd century. If not why say it was written in the 2nd century?

Since one of the arguments for continuationism comes from the long ending of Mark, I am happy to engage the text on the assumption that it is authentic Mark. Dismissing it by saying "That verse should not be in your bibles" doesn't really wash.

But seeing as there is a doubt among scholars about it's authenticity, we should be wary of drawing doctrine from it without some corroboration from other scriptures. However in regard to the continuist interpretation of v17-18 there is none.

I don't believe there is any problem if a believer accepts Mark 16:17-18 as authoritative Scripture. These verses are merely referring to the early church and not all believers throughout time. It may seem like a contradiction if we read these verses in a vacuum, but taking into account other verses simply lets us know that this would be in reference to the apostles and the early church. For the following verses appear to allude or strongly lean towards Cessationism (Ephesians 2:20 (cf. Ephesians 4:8, & Ephesians 4:11), Revelation 22:18, 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 (cf. James 1:21-25), John 20:29 (cf. Hebrews 11:1), and comparing Acts of the Apostles 19:12 with 1 Timothy 5:23).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Now you're fighting a different battle, suddenly. You are arguing against those who are TRYING to enlarge the canon. Interestingly no Continuationist in church history has ever tried to do that, as far as I know, so it's an unrealistic concern. That's how propaganda works - it creates fear by raising unrealistic concerns and then preys on that fear to propagate a point of view.

Now back to the original issue. Is prophecy for today? Yes, because the NT defines evangelism as prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180, and please note that it was YOU I was addressing on those two old posts, and I don't think you ever responded). So we can simply ask - Is evangelism for today?

If a prophecy today is genuine and truly of God (i.e. They are new words or a new form of communication from Him), then this should be added to the Bible because the Bible is a record of God's holy words. Most false prophets are not so bold to actually reprint the Bible with their false prophecies added to the back of the Bible, but that is unofficially what they are doing even if they don't print such a Bible to put their prophecies up on the same level as Scripture.

“And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord GOD, when the LORD hath not spoken.” (Ezekiel 22:28).
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
For the following verses appear to allude or strongly lean towards Cessationism (Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 22:18, 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 (cf. James 1:21-25), John 20:29 (cf. Hebrews 11:1)).
Wrong on all counts. Let's consider Eph 2:20. Here's a rebuttal of the cessationist position on that verse.

Heck - forget THAT rebuttal. Here's a simpler/shorter one. Paul defined a church like this:

"In the church God has appointed first of all apostles, then prophets, then...." (1Cor 12:28).

Any ALTERNATIVE definition of a church did NOT come from Scripture. Thus the cessationist is SIMPLY LYING TO HIMSELF when he claims that his views are "based on Scripture". Period.

That doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong - it IS theoretically possible that the biblical definition of a church expired (although that position appears to be total nonsense). But the point is that the cessationist's definition did NOT come from Scripture. He needs to be honest about where it came from. Either:
(1) He made it up
(2) Or, he got special understanding (Direct Revelation !!!!) from the Holy Spirit.

Notice that #2 means that prophecy (Direct Revelation) is INDEED for today.
 
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

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You'd first have to convince me that you understand the lesson of the story. Based on your words, it's pretty clear that you don't understand it at all.

I asked for Continuationists to convince me of Continuationism. A few of them appeared to mock that idea. As if defending things from Scripture from their point of view is a futile task. This appears to be a theme so far. Mock the person or the idea of explaining Continuationism instead of providing answers with Scripture with love and respect.
 
Upvote 0