Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As expected. Cessationists can't provide a straight answer on those three questions without exposing cessationism as self-contradictory. Hence they conveniently remain moving targets all the while pretending that cessationism is an "actual position". In a word, cessationism is obstinacy in the face of incriminating evidence.
Unsubstantiated distinctions, failure to establish relevance, and nebulous language. Here too, as usual, the Agenda is to push Cessationism at all costs, without regard to cogency. For example you claim that God speaks silently? And you don't acquiesce to the huge burden of proof against charges of an oxymoronic position? Those who wish to object to Continuationism need to first get their ducks in a row, instead of spewing forth random verbiage that no one can even make sense of.
Bible Highlighter said:
Standard in religion. Par for the course. You can't convince someone if he wants to believe something else. But when I layout 3 clear questions and you refuse to answer them for fear of contradiction, it's pretty clear where the problem is.
I showed you proof that English supports the same kind of reading. You ignored that argument. How convenient.
Lovely. Prophets were called "seers" (see-ers of visions). And Jesus showed up as The Prophet par excellence. Yet you just devalued HIS prophetic ministry of seeing visions as extraneous to spiritual maturity. Care to speculate that Jesus was maybe a little bit wiser than you are? Have you ever considered THAT possibility? No? Let me help me out. I'll tell you why you need visions - and why even Jesus Himself needed them.
You do realize, don't you, that "ears to hear and eyes to see" denotes those who see and hear Christ (in visions) in contrast to the spiritually blind? Take a hard look at Isaiah 6. When he saw God face to face, what was the immediate effect upon him? He suddenly realized that everyone around him was spiritually blind! John picks up this theme in John chapter 12 - there he confirms that Isaiah spoke of spiritual blindness because he saw the glory of the Lord. The gospel of John is prolific with references to the absolute primacy and preeminence of revelatory visions in the life of a believer - most exegetes don't realize this fact because he often omits the actual word "vision". John's preoccupation with visions might seem most apparent in the Book of Revelation (that whole book is a book of visions), but it's highly prevalent in his gospel. Wish I had time to discuss all those verses in depth.
So it's okay for God to give us "vague impressions" (this is 'silent talking' in your view) but not actual words (this is 'real talking' in your view). You've now opposed both visions and words. What kind of "impression" remains? What's actually left here? Care to be specific? I'm pretty sure you don't have any specifics. You dogmatically affirm your position without regard to cogency.
Specifics please? What does that even mean? He is for us an audio recording that replays the verses again and again - and nothing more? And these words replayed count as - silent talking? Huh?
1800's or earlier !!!! That deserved multiple exclamation points. Why did you just put one? I mean, your point is that anything prior to 1897 MUST be dismissed as insignificant - including all the church fathers. That's the thrust of your big exclamation point, right? I'll comment a bit more on this post - but first I'd like YOU to do something. I've charged that cessationism is not a real position - you can't call it a real position because it has no anchored stances. Cessationists are moving targets. So prove me wrong, by simply answering the kinds of questions that Bible Highlighter refused to answer.
I didn't check the date on that commentary, nor did I check whether contemporary opinion had shifted. Frankly I don't much care if it shifted - the force of my citation is still monumental. Here's why. For the last 500 years, the overwhelming majority of Bible scholars have been of the Sola Scriptura party - they deny the independent authority of Direct Revelation. As a result, they regard the early Apostles (capital-A) as uniquely foundational in the sense of being uniquely privy to authoritative Direct Revelation. Thus even scholars who believe in modern days "apostles" tend to envision them with lowercase-A (so to speak) even if that fact isn't always made explicit.
