Didn't Tertullian say to the Romans that they should judge if any person was a true believer by if they were able to cast out a demon?
Seems very unlikely.
Upvote
0
Didn't Tertullian say to the Romans that they should judge if any person was a true believer by if they were able to cast out a demon?
Tertullian in his Apology to the Roman Empire also had several very interesting things to say about demonic deliverance: "Let any one be brought before your tribunals, who it is agreed is possessed by a demon. That spirit, when commanded to speak by any Christian you like to select, will as truly confess that he is a demon, as elsewhere he will falsely claim to be a god.
Actually neither the title nor the OP says anything specific to that effect. And even if it had, I would have responded the same way, i.e. let's begin the debate with the recognition that no burden of proof is incumbent upon Continuationism.That was the premise of the thread title.
After Moses there wasn't a time of Silence: there was Joshua, then the Judges and then Samuel. Judges includes a prophetess and numerous miracle workers. Samuel was a prophet.
How long was those 'years of silence' in Judges? I'm sure any timeline would say they are just years, not decades, centuries or millennia. And given that you still have multiple chapters of Judges to go, not to mention Samuel and Nathan, I think the point that there were gaps isn't a a case for cessationism, just human nature, particularly given the nature of Judges where the people fail to follow Yahweh and there were consequences of that.Gideon mentioned the years of silence in Judges 6
13 “Pardon me, my lord,” Gideon replied, “but if the Lord is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our ancestors told us about when they said, ‘Did not the Lord bring us up out of Egypt?’ But now the Lord has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian.”
At multiple points Jesus ministry includes healing, but in his home town he could not. I'm pretty certain that doesn't support cessationism.At one point in his ministry Paul was able to heal:
Act 28:8 And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him.
Act 28:9 So when this was done, others also, which had diseases in the island, came, and were healed:
At another point, Paul was no longer able to heal:
2Ti 4:20 Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.
10. The context of I Corinthians is rebuking 13 errors, such as tongues, and it is not recommending tongues.
The Corinthian church was filled with problems that Paul corrects in this book, such as:
(a) They were following their favourite human leaders causing divisions. 1:11-14
(b) " " favouring human wisdom. 1:18-2:13
(c) " " carnal, living for self, not controlled by the Spirit. 2:14-3:7
(d) " " forgetting the future Judgment Seat of Christ. 3:8-23
(e) " " proud, thinking of themselves more highly than they ought. 4:1-21
(f) " " failing to discipline, by tolerating a fornicator. 5:1-13
(g) " " taking fellow believers to court. 6:1-20
(h) " " confused about marriage. 7:1-40
(i) " " confused about liberty thinking it meant licence to do as they please, even stumbling others. 8 ,9 ,10.
(j) " " confused about clothing, long hair on men and Lord's Supper. 11
(k). " " confused about spiritual gifts, especially tongues. 12-14
(l) " " confused about the resurrection. 15
(m) " " confused about the collection. 16
As we can see the Corinthian church was deep in error and false doctrine. It was the only church that emphasized tongues as today's Charismatics do. Charismatics therefore place themselves in very bad company.
Charismatics fail to understand that Paul is not endorsing tongues, but is rebuking the wrong use of tongues and is strongly regulating tongues contrary to today's Charismatics. Today's emphasis on assemblies with more than on person speaking at the same time is plainly wrong (1 Corinthians 14:27). Paul feared that even one person speaking in tongues without proper interpretation would give the appearance of barbarians or insanity (1 Corinthians 14:11) (1 Corinthians 14:23). What would he think of today's mass hysteria?
Exactly. You can't get even a faint sense of logical rigidity when reading Bible Highlighter's posts - indeed at times it seems like he's using random verses as springboards for jumping to cessationist conclusions. I plan to highlight some of his fallacies myself.It is odd that you go from misuse of tongues in the modern church immediately to cessation. Paul, didn't do that so why should you?
Not quite random, but definitely guilty of starting from the premise of cessationism and then making the scriptures fit that viewpoint... to the point of ignoring anything to the contrary.Exactly. You can't get even a faint sense of logical rigidity when reading Bible Highlighter's posts - indeed at times it seems like he's using random verses as springboards for jumping to cessationist conclusions. I plan to highlight some of his fallacies myself.
Exactly the same as he thought of the Corinthians and if he were writing today, he'd be writing the same thing - to churches to control their misuse, not prevent their use.
Strictly speaking, you are right about that. I don't want to diminish it, but at the same time, when the question of cessationism vs continuationism is raised, it is common for continuationists to say "Look at our churches. The Holy Spirit is obviously moving there!"It is odd that you go from misuse of tongues in the modern church immediately to cessation. Paul, didn't do that so why should you?
1.Tongues and prophecy have ceased ~ 1 Corinthians 13:8-13. Verse 8 says, “...whether there be prophecies, they shall fail;” and verse 8 says, “whether there be tongues, they shall cease;” The question is when do tongues and prophecies cease? Verse 10 says “ when that which is perfect is come”; And verse 11 says, “when I became a man, I put away childish things.” Are we going to be children (and not men) upon this Earth until Christ takes us home?.... By 96 AD the childish gifts of prophecy, tongues and knowledge had ceased, and church manhood had been reached.
To begin with, 1Cor 14:21 is a rather obscure passage - and thus an extremely questionable foundation for a major doctrine. In any case, Paul's conclusion here is the superiority of prophecy over tongues during public proclamations, which is hardly a foundation for cessationism.3. Tongues were for a sign that the Jews looked for. 1 Corinthians 1:22 says, “For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:” But Jesus says, “ An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign;” (Matthew 12:39). Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. (1 Corinthians 14:22). "In the law it is written, with men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people (Jews); and yet for all that (all the tongues) will they (Jews) not hear me (warning ignored), saith the Lord". 1 Corinthians 14:21. Tongues here clearly are a warning to the Jews that they ignore. 1 Corinthians 14:21 is quoting from Deuteronomy 28:49 where God warns of judgment coming from "a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand."
Poor reasoning, for example the tired old argument that the gifts are no longer 'strictly necessary'. Tell me, what is strictly necessary? Absolutely nothing. An omnipotent God is perfectly capable of building a church without Bibles, pastors, electronic media, and human evangelists. Why then does He use miracles, for example, if not 'strictly necessary'? Personal preference (see here) - and since His preferences do not change, cessationism cannot be true.4. The three greatest prophets and miracle workers in the Bible are Moses, Elijah, and Jesus. We see that the miracles that they performed were a way to authenticate them as a messenger from GOD and the Word of God that they provided (that would be immortalized into Scripture). We notice that after each of these prophets, there was a time of silence where no miracles were done. Just like with the prophets Moses, Elijah, and Jesus, miracles authenticated the apostles' message as from God. "And they (apostles) went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the Word with signs (tongues, prophecies, healing, etc.) following. Amen." Mark 16:20. Today the need for tongues and miracles has ceased. God has authenticated the apostles and the New Testament that they penned. This proves the temporary nature of tongues and miracles.
Correct. The Inward Witness can do it without miracles, but Yahweh prefers to glorify Himself via miracles. Thus any lack of miracles in the church indicates our failure to walk in the fullness of His favor.Miracles authenticated the apostles' message as from God.
Luke wrote 25% of the NT and ends with a major history book, at the close of which, Paul is still healing an entire island of people. That flies in the face of a decline. Paul couldn't even heal the thorn in his own flesh. That's probably because Paul and his coworkers, being on the front lines, were targeted for a higher degree of suffering than most of us. The devil has limited jurisdiction from God and will likely capitalize on it, therefore, to attack the front-line laborers.5. We can see that after the book of Acts, the gifts no longer operated in Paul’s life like they once had....He could heal all the sick on the island in Acts 28:9, but he couldn’t heal any of his closest co-workers—Timothy, Epaphroditus, Trophimus—after the close of the Book of Acts (See this article here for the full explanation).
You're alluding to Mark 16.7. While God can heal people directly Himself today, the gift of miracles is not given to any one believer that we know today. No Charismatic can always heal. Yet, the Bible says that they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. This means 100% recovery all the time.
For one thing, the context is referring to the Book of Revelation. Have we added to it? Absolutely. We added to it the other 65 books of the Bible, as to form a complete canon. Continuationists at large are certainly not voting for adding new paragraphs to the Book of Revelation, under the false pretense that John wrote them.8. New revelation (prophecy) or new words from God are not to be added (Revelation 22:18-19). If a person were to add to God’s Word, the plagues that are within the book known as the Bible (not the plagues in Revelation) would be added to them. We have occurrences of this actually happening. See these two links here: Bible Correctors lose Voice Bible Corrector Loses Voice on Ankerberg Sho
Unclear. Ignored.9. The Apostles and Prophets were merely the foundation built upon the foundation of Jesus.
No he most certainly did not. He was chronologically last in the list of apostles mentioned in that particular context.Paul called himself the “last prophet.” (1 Corinthians 15:8-9).
Paul most certainly does prize tongues in that chapter, albeit not corporately.10. The context of I Corinthians is rebuking 13 errors, such as tongues, and it is not recommending tongues.
My only experience of continuationism is in response to cessationism. The first time I spoke in tongues was also the same time I became a Christian. Within two weeks I had begun a Bible study on the subject to make sure it wasn't some weird cult I had joined.Strictly speaking, you are right about that. I don't want to diminish it, but at the same time, when the question of cessationism vs continuationism is raised, it is common for continuationists to say "Look at our churches. The Holy Spirit is obviously moving there!"
It is rare that any quarter is given by continuationists, even if you are wise enough yourself to say, as you did, that Paul warned against misuse.
It is not unreasonable, therefore, to think that continuationism (which is not a tightly defined term) includes a defense of just about any sort of expression, so long as it is said by someone to be one of the gifts in action.
My only experience of continuationism is in response to cessationism.
I understand, although I should think that everyone would appreciate that what it does not say isn't a scriptural directive, proof, or revelation.Like I say, a plain reading of the New Testament does not indicate that the gifts should cease and that was the conclusion I made from my study.
This sounds like something a professional counselor might say, but the Bible doesn't tell us anything like this., but if we don't pray it won't happen. We may speak a false word of knowledge, but if we don't speak at all no knowledge will happen and so on.
Well, can you blame them for that? We have Continuationists and we have Cessationists, and if the tongues or the gifts did cease as history indicates was the case, why would the Cessationists need to go into more elaborate defenses?So in summary, I'd much rather be defending a right use of gifts versus a wrong one, but that is not what cessationists want - they want to show that the gifts have ceased and therefore it is not possible to respond in any other way.
Well, if that happens, it is not a proof of Continuationism, That much is certain. Would you agree with that?Witness Radagast's earlier accusation against my testimony, essentially his view is that tongues have ceased therefore any example of tongues is by default false.
...and my only connection with cessationism is knowing that there was a ceasing, meaning that all the arguments that insist that they could not cease are moot.
.I understand, although I should think that everyone would appreciate that what it does not say isn't a scriptural directive, proof, or revelation.
And that is one of the reasons (as I have been saying) for my coolness towards Continuationism, if not to Charismatic Christians themselves. The defenders of Continuationism come armed with all sorts of ways around the basic facts, almost admitting in so doing that the reasonable objections of other people simply must be countered, no matter what mental gymnastics are necessary to do that.
Well, can you blame them for that? We have Continuationists and we have Cessationists, and if the tongues or the gifts did cease as history indicates was the case, why would the Cessationists need to go into more elaborate defenses?
If they ceased, the argument ends there. You cannot continue something that isn't there to be continued.
Yes I would. I can't even prove that Jesus rose from the dead, even though I suspect that both of us believe that to be true.Well, if that happens, it is not a proof of Continuationism, That much is certain. Would you agree with that?