Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

Dave L said:

You are unwilling to look at the evidence objectively. You need to view scripture in a way that enhances your opinions.

Click to expand...

As predicted, more rambling, no Scripture.

Dave L said:

How is it this is all scripture now and when combined in that format, we have the full picture, not just the pieces of the puzzle which the gifts could only provide?

Click to expand...

Not sure I follow you.
What I am saying is that this is all a single statement.
There are three "I will..." statements.

"In the last days...
I will pour out my Spirit on all people...
I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below...
...before the coming of the great
and glorious day of the Lord."

The time period is bookended.
With the outpouring at Pentecost on one end,
and "the great and glorious day of the Lord" on the other.

Acts 2:17-20
“‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great
and glorious day of the Lord.

Saint Steven said:

Not sure I follow you.
What I am saying is that this is all a single statement.
There are three "I will..." statements.

"In the last days...
I will pour out my Spirit on all people...
I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below...
...before the coming of the great
and glorious day of the Lord."

The time period is bookended.
With the outpouring at Pentecost on one end,
and "the great and glorious day of the Lord" on the other.

Acts 2:17-20
“‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great
and glorious day of the Lord.

Click to expand...

If you realize scripture, the complete revelation, replaced the partial and fragmented revelation, it continues as written.

Dave L said:

If you realize scripture, the complete revelation, replaced the partial and fragmented revelation, it continues as written.

Click to expand...

And how will we, as fallible human beings, manage to properly comprehend Scripture? You do realize, don't you, that Jesus understood scripture better than His peers IN VIRTUE OF revelations from the Father that SHED LIGHT ON it? We say that the Holy Spirit ILLUMINATES Scripture.

The question is whether illumination would seem to NECESSITATE direct revelation. I see only two options here:
(1) He illuminates by increasing our analytical skills when we read Scripture. This essentially has the effect of raising our IQ. In a word, we become better scholars. Using these newfound skills, we draw our OWN conclusions from the text.
(2) He illuminates us by directly telling us the MEANING of the verses. HE draws the conclusions, in other words.

Now, which model is best evidenced in Scripture? If IQ-magnitude were the key to comprehending Scripture, then:
(1) The Bible scholars (such as the Pharisees) would abound in understanding, penetrating and fathoming all the mysteries of Scripture, as the quintessential examples of 'illuminated people'. Their minds would be filled with the light of all spiritual wisdom and understanding.
(2) By comparison, the mind of a typical unscholarly prophet would reside in comparative DARKNESS.

But isn't that the reverse of the situation? Jesus put it like this, "At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned (i.e. the scholars), and revealed them to little children" (Mat 11:25). That word for 'revelation', as noted cessationists admit, consistently betokens the KIND of revelation given to prophets.

Even a babe can comprehend revelation, because divine illumination is NOT a matter of scholarship. A babe simply hears what his Father says, and accepts it, not on the basis of having reasoned it out over four years of seminary classes, but rather on the perceived authority of his Father's voice.

As an example, at Luke 4:24-27 Jesus expressed some opinions about Elijah. How did He acquire these conclusions? By exegesis? Problem is, it's impossible for any scholar to reach such conclusions on a purely exegetical basis, as they involve information not found in the texts.

Dave L said:

If you realize scripture, the complete revelation, replaced the partial and fragmented revelation, it continues as written.

Click to expand...

The time frame is echoed later in the chapter.

Note the use of the word "all" twice.
The outpouring that Joel spoke of is for "all who are far off..."
and for "... all whom the Lord our God will call." Not to mention that far-reaching time frame of "you and your children". No doubt there were those barely of age who believed and received the Holy Spirt that day. And their children could have easily out-lived the Apostles. Now add those who are far off and all whom the Lord our God will call. And then add Joel's prophecy time frame. This is far-reaching. From Pentecost to the last day.

Acts 2:39
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—
for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

JohnB445 said:

knowledgable Pentecostals and Charismatics/ other denominations would point out that there are many counterfeits out there masking the real gift.

usually, the Cessationist will use the worst examples out there to rest their case, while the Constitutionalist will point out that the evidence they showed, only showed the counterfeit version of the gift and not the genuine real gift of the Holy Spirit.

For example from what I heard from a Pentecostal, "Speaking in tongues is not weird babblings, but like speaking a fluent language that no one knows" They do not speak the language through their own power.

They would say there are real tongues, and then there is the counterfeit one.


I haven't studied scripture enough to side with either one, so my position is (I don't know which doctrine is true yet).

But for those who have studied it, is this an easy doctrine to figure out?

I don't want to be missing out on the 9 gifts of the Holy Spirit, but at the same time, I want to be cautious.

Click to expand...

Personally, I'd love to be a cessationist. Life would be so much easier. But I can't find their arguments for their point convincing and, in fact, see it as a bad case of eisegesis.

Also, there is a certain amount of arbitrariness to the cessationist view. They try and create an arbitrary separation between "miraculous" gifts as opposed to other gifts, which not only takes the miraculous nature out of certain gifts like teaching and pastoring (which pretty much takes the power out of teaching the Word) but also gifts like administration. The Bible, for its part, claims that all gifts given are empowered by the Holy Spirit and given by God - both those that we see to be more supernatural and those who we see to be more natural. The Bible makes a habit of bringing the natural and the spiritual together, a fact that cessationists in other areas of theology will happily admit, but in this case they seem to want to create weird categories.

Theologically, therefore, from both sides I have to admit that the charismatics are more correct. The issue isn't whether the gifts have passed or not (which gifts? Why didn't teaching pass? Why just the miraculous gifts?) but how those gifts are practiced. Figuring that out takes hard work and can be embarrassing, and I think psychologically, cessationists might just take the stand they take to avoid the work and the embarrassment.

Experientially, I myself have prophesied pretty accurately, have prayed for people and seen them healed instantly (admittedly, only minor things), have been prayed for and healed instantly, have casted out demons (yes, they're real) and have seen some pretty crazy things. I do struggle to understand the point of tongues, though, but I've shelved that one until the time seems right to make up my mind about it. I only say this to make the point that once you've experienced some genuine stuff, cessationism really seems like a weird idea. Once again though, I've seen really bad practice of the spiritual gifts, but I've been fortunate enough to spend most of my adult life in an environment where spiritual gifts are practiced in a very helpful, healthy, and non hypey way. There is a middle way and it doesn't need to be either all the weird or none of it.

Butch5 said:

If tongues will end on its own and it is a sign of judgement to unbelieving Israel in Christ's day, what need is there for it after that judgment that it was foretelling has passed? The maturity has no bearing on the ending of tongues.

Click to expand...

It seems that tongues is more a sign of all the nations coming in to the church under one head, Christ - a reversal of Babel under the proper King. The nations still need such a sign today. Racial tensions and prejudice is still alive and well, and reconciliation between people groups is still a pressing need. The world needs the sign of tongues and what it represents. The promise to Abraham from the beginning was God would bring all the nations into unity. That's a running theme throughout the Bible, and tongues are a sign that visibly proves it.

This is why I struggle with tongues being a "heavenly language" but as for tongues still being needed, I believe that it most certainly is.

As an interesting aside, I find it fascinating that tongues was such a strong thing at Azusa street - which was well-known for being a group where black people and white people could worship together. In fact, if you look at the history of tongues, it seems to always correlate with people groups coming together.

HatGuy said:

There is a middle way and it doesn't need to be either all the weird or none of it.

Click to expand...

That's a great point.
Many of the opponents of gifts for today choose the fringe activities of a few to present as the norm. This is just not the case.

Dave L said:

If you realize scripture, the complete revelation, replaced the partial and fragmented revelation, it continues as written.

Click to expand...

You're confusing a possible medium of revelation (a book) with actual revelation (experienced revelation). Suppose for example a blind man has a Bible but not a braille version. To use your terminology, has he received 'the complete revelation'? Hardly. Or suppose a mentally handicapped person has a Bible. Has he received 'the complete revelation'? Or suppose an ordinary person has a Bible, but no seminary library. Same problem. He perhaps has, in that book, much potential revelatoin, but at any moment in time, only actual revelation has value.

Potential revelation is of no benefit in itself. Therefore 1Cor 13 anticipates a maturing of actual revelation. For example, 'potential knowledge' isn't knowledge, and 'potential prophechy' isn't prophecy.

So if you're going to maintain that the church received, via the advent of the canon, the 'complete or mature revelation' of 1Cor 13 - understood to be an ADVANCEMENT over prior revelation - you need to argue that church members have been, since the NT canon, ACTUALLY more enlightened than those saddled with the 'lesser revelations' (such as prophecy). And in fact some cessationists actually make that argument. One went so far as to say, as I recall, that we know more than Paul!

This is actually heresy, because it insinuates that the church is more enlightened than The Prophet (Christ), on account of Him being saddled with inferior, 'fragmented' revelation (prophecy) to use your term. The passage, moreover, is about maturity. Christ, then, is an exemplar of the spiritual immaturity existing prior to the advent of the canon. That's the upshot of your view, and it's pure heresy.

Stop preaching heresy.

Saint Steven said:

Not sure I follow you.
What I am saying is that this is all a single statement.
There are three "I will..." statements.

"In the last days...
I will pour out my Spirit on all people...
I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below...
...before the coming of the great
and glorious day of the Lord."

The time period is bookended.
With the outpouring at Pentecost on one end,
and "the great and glorious day of the Lord" on the other.

Acts 2:17-20
“‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great
and glorious day of the Lord.

Click to expand...

Blessings in Christ Jesus! Why do you spend so much time confronting unbelievers. Saying that the gifts of The Holy Spirit have ceased, they say that The Holy Spirit has ceased.He has not, and the prophecy above will continue until The Lords (The Perfect) return. Let us continue to walk in the joy of The Spirit as the scoffers continue to scoff. Perhaps The Lord may have mercy and heal their unbelief.

GTW27 said:

Why do you spend so much time confronting unbelievers.

Click to expand...

2 Corinthians 10:5
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

JAL said:

You're confusing a possible medium of revelation (a book) with actual revelation (experienced revelation). Suppose for example a blind man has a Bible but not a braille version. To use your terminology, has he received 'the complete revelation'? Hardly. Or suppose a mentally handicapped person has a Bible. Has he received 'the complete revelation'? Or suppose an ordinary person has a Bible, but no seminary library. Same problem. He perhaps has, in that book, much potential revelatoin, but at any moment in time, only actual revelation has value.

Potential revelation is of no benefit in itself. Therefore 1Cor 13 anticipates a maturing of actual revelation. For example, 'potential knowledge' isn't knowledge, and 'potential prophechy' isn't prophecy.

So if you're going to maintain that the church received, via the advent of the canon, the 'complete or mature revelation' of 1Cor 13 - understood to be an ADVANCEMENT over prior revelation - you need to argue that church members have been, since the NT canon, ACTUALLY more enlightened than those saddled with the 'lesser revelations' (such as prophecy). And in fact some cessationists actually make that argument. One went so far as to say, as I recall, that we know more than Paul!

This is actually heresy, because it insinuates that the church is more enlightened than The Prophet (Christ), on account of Him being saddled with inferior, 'fragmented' revelation (prophecy) to use your term. The passage, moreover, is about maturity. Christ, then, is an exemplar of the spiritual immaturity existing prior to the advent of the canon. That's the upshot of your view, and it's pure heresy.

Stop preaching heresy.

Click to expand...

When you want the truth more than anything else, you will initiate and objective study and find the truth.

Saint Steven said:

The time frame is echoed later in the chapter.

Note the use of the word "all" twice.
The outpouring that Joel spoke of is for "all who are far off..."
and for "... all whom the Lord our God will call." Not to mention that far-reaching time frame of "you and your children". No doubt there were those barely of age who believed and received the Holy Spirt that day. And their children could have easily out-lived the Apostles. Now add those who are far off and all whom the Lord our God will call. And then add Joel's prophecy time frame. This is far-reaching. From Pentecost to the last day.

Acts 2:39
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—
for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Click to expand...

And we receive the promise just as they did, through the spoken word and repentance. But we have the complete view now in scripture. They had only the OT and fragments of truth.

Dave L said:

And we receive the promise just as they did, through the spoken word and repentance. But we have the complete view now in scripture. They had only the OT and fragments of truth.

Click to expand...

When you wrote "just as they did", it reminded me of what Peter said at the house of Cornelius.

And how was that promise received? Through the spoken word and repentance? No, through the manifestation of tongues and prophecy.
Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

JAL said:

I see it as irresistible logic. Paul was a babe relative to whom? Fill in the blank. Problem is, there are no known plausible candidates for that blank other than Christ.

And even if it were SOME OTHER BELIEVER, the chapter nonetheless coincides spiritual maturity with prophetic maturity.

Click to expand...

You can call it irresistible logic, but it's an inference. And, I don't even believe it's a logical inference. Christ isn't in the context. Again, Paul didn't say prophesying in part will end when I become mature or when you Corinthians become matures. He said when the maturity comes.

That doesn't make sense as an argument for a ceasing of the gifts. Suppose I know in part. Then finally comes the day when I know in full. So this means, that my knowing has ceased? Full knowledge means - a cessation of knowledge? Can anyone make sense of this?

Which is precisely where the aforementioned cessationists backpedal. Their 'solution' (having already conceded all my main points) is to claim that at the point of full revelatory knowledge, a different KIND of knowledge now ensues (non-revelatory knowledge, namely biblical exegesis). Does that work, logically? Nope it's the same logical contradictoin that I just exposed in your statement. Namely, the FULLNESS of revelatory knowledge cannot be taken to mean the CESSATION of revelatory knowledge.

Again, the 'babe' has PARTIAL revelatory knowledge. The 'man', therefore, has FULL revelatory knowledge. NEITHER of these states betokens a CESSATION of revelatory knowledge. Fullness is not a cessation. It's maturation. If manhood is a LOSS of all revelatory knowledge, then the man has regressed to a state worse off than the babe! That's a ludicrous reading.

"For we know in part, and we prophecy in part, but when the mature comes..." What is the mature? It's a transition from prophesying in part to prophesying in full. Period. End of story.

Click to expand...

Sure it makes sense. The question above is what is the maturity or completion. What was in part? It was their understanding of the message. As I pointed out, Jesus told the apostles that He had much to teach them, but that they couldn't bear it at the time. He said He would send the Helper to teach them. We see this in Acts and the letters to the churches. We see it in Paul's going to Jerusalem to consult with the other apostles about the Jduaizers claims that the Gentiles need to keep the Law of Moses. WE see the Holy Spirit intervene.

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
(Acts 15:24-29 KJV)

They were learning the message as they went. Their understanding of the message was in Part. That's why their prophecy was in part. However, there came a time when the message was mature or complete. They had the full message. I posted the passage where Paul told the Ephesian elders that he had declared to them the full council of God. He had the full message at that point. Likewise Jude speaks of the faith that was "once" delivered to the saints. Jude indicates that the message was complete. It was no longer in part. Once the message was complete there was no need for further revelation about the message, it was complete.

JAL said:

And why wouldn't the same problem have existed in Israel? Your claim is that they 'should have immediately thought of Isaiah 28'. Ridiculous. That's like expecting a Jew, who happens to stumble upon a bunch of present-day charismatics speaking in tongues, to 'immediately think of Isaiah 28'. On the contrary, he would regard them as off their rockers.

My assessment is valid - Paul's account is confusing.

Click to expand...

Making an arbitrary statement doesn't make it so. It seems to me that you're not taking the historical events into account The Jewish leadership knew their Scriptures. You're claiming I'm wrong yet you're giving me inferences and arbitrary statements.

JAL said:

What 'need' is therefore it? One of cessationism's favorite slogans is, 'The gifts are no longer 'strictly necessary'.

I've got news for you. For an all-powerful God, NOTHING is 'strictly necessary'. Do you really think God is totally incapable of building a following without Bibles, church-buildings, and pastors? Instead of asking, 'Are these gifts strictly necessary', we should be asking questions like, 'Are these gifts beneficial? Does God LIKE these gifts? Are they good?" As Jesus said, 'For how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those that ask him?" (Mat 7:11).

You seem to have tunnel-vision. You seem to think that, if tongues was a sign, it can have NO OTHER BENEFIT. Yet Paul said that prophecy edifies the church (14), and he implied in that same chapter, that tongues, when interpreted, achieves the stature of prophecy.

Note the parallel:
(1) Love edifies the church.
(2) Prophecy edifies the church.
According to Paul, then, tongues and prophecy have the same effect on the church as love !!!!

Click to expand...

An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy. You can ask those questions, but unless we find them in the Scriptures, they're just irrelevant questions.

Yes, Prophecy did edify the church. Tongues did have a purpose. However, that has no bearing on the question of whether or not they have ceased. Jesus' presence would also be helpful and edifying to the Church. Is He here on earth?

Saint Steven said:

When you wrote "just as they did", it reminded me of what Peter said at the house of Cornelius.

And how was that promise received? Through the spoken word and repentance? No, through the manifestation of tongues and prophecy.
Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Click to expand...

“Therefore, [says Peter] if God gave them the same gift that He also gave to us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, how could I possibly hinder God?”” (Acts 11:17) (HCSB)

The Apostles already had the Holy Spirit before Pentecost.

JAL said:

It's hardly wild speculation.

A parallel. We know that jesus commanded His apostles/prophets to evangelize. Show me where Paul clearly commands entire congregations (people like yourself) to evangelize? I don't think he did. Yet, you probably believe we should evangelize. And you wouldn't call it wild speculation.

So in the absence of clear didactic Scripture, you draw a conclusion, and you don't deem it wild speculation. And yet here I give you didactic text:
"Follow the way of love, and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especailly the gift of prophecy" (14:1).
"Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues(14:39).
"Eagerly desire the greater gifts" (12:31).

and you accuse ME of wild speculation? You do realize what you're doing, right? You're encouraging people to disregard Paul's EXPLICIT COMMANDS. Lovely.

More precisely, maturity of gifting (by Pauline standards of gifting and maturity) is indeed spiritual maturity. Paul's high standard is actually clarified a bit in chapter 2, but I didn't have time to cover that chapter as yet.

And don't think for a moment that I'm contradicting 13:2, as that verse merely poses a hypothetical/hyperbole. Aside from all such HYPOTHETICAL scenarios, REALISTICALLY a believer at Paul's level of giftedness cannot possibly be immature. Won't happen, because God is too wise to allow it to happen.

Click to expand...

Now you're creating straw man aguments. What I said was speculation, was your statement that since Christ received revelation we will. I didn't call it wild speculation, I simply called it speculation which it is. Now you've brought up some argument you're making from Paul's writing and claiming I'm encouraging people not to listen to Paul.

Do you have an argument? I'm not going to defend things I didn't say.

JAL said:

Voice isn't the only issue on the table here, right? It's a totally different verb. The middle voice in Greek plays a role similar to the reflexive pronoun in Spanish. But if we take Spanish as an example, there's no absolute consistency. In Spanish, a reflexive pronoun, depending on the word and the context, can be:
(1) consistently reflexive
(2) occasionally reflexive
(3) consistently traditional, i.e. totally meaningless and thus ommittable.
(4) consistently passive
(5) occasionally passive
(6) consistently self-serving
(7) occasoinally self-serving.
Grammatically, you're just opening a can of worms with no decisive adjudication.

Any switch to a different voice could be for any number of reasons. First and foremost, since Paul was switching to a different verb, he may have opted for a voice believed by him to be more in line with the tradition of that word. Or he may have made a stylistic switch. Any number of grammatical factors could be in play here. It's not much to go on.

Furthermore, it's hard to debate unclear statements. You said,

Tongues ceased by their own accord? God's not in charge here? Likewise, maturity CAUSES prophecy and tongues to cease? God's not in charge here either? You seem to be rambling. The dots that are you at pains to connect seem far removed from reality.

Click to expand...

Well, Paul didn't write in Spanish so that'ts irrelevant. Can you give some references for your claim that the switch could be for any number of reasons?

It's seems you're getting emotional. I didn't say anything about God not being in charge. Paul is the one who wrote the letter. He is the one who chose the words. If we believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then Paul's words were given to him by God. He chose to use two different words and different verb tenses.