Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

Saint Steven said:

I agree in general. But after the outpouring (and even today, IMHO) it seems that prophecy is much more rhema than logos. (more individualized and less general) I keep coming back to the definition in 1Cor.14

1 Corinthians 14:3
But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.

Click to expand...

I can only define "prophet" from scripture using the OT as the definition. Anything less is not a prophet. And tongues interpreted was its equal.

JAL said:

Exactly. You're just proving my point. He GAVE some to be pastors and teachers. Past tense, right? So pastors and teachers have died out, by your logic?

Click to expand...

Right. I was having the same problem with his past tense claim. This means that there could certainly be apostles and prophets today, just as there are pastors and teachers. All these were given to the church. The whole body needs all its parts.

I think this is why believers in smaller churches are super-gifted. (multiple giftings) There are less believers to distribute the gifts to.

Dave L said:

I can only define "prophet" from scripture using the OT as the definition. Anything less is not a prophet. And tongues interpreted was its equal.

Click to expand...

Wow.
Why would you disregard the NT definition of prophet under the new covenant?
Especially after what you said about the source of the new covenant.
Furthermore, are you not narrowing even the OT definition to fit your ideas?
No rhema words in the OT texts?

Isaiah 7:3-4
Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah.

Saint Steven said:

Wow.
Why would you disregard the NT definition of prophet under the new covenant?
Especially after what you said about the source of the new covenant.
Furthermore, are you not narrowing even the OT definition to fit your ideas?
No rhema words in the OT texts?

Isaiah 7:3-4
Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah.

Click to expand...

We do not know what a prophet is if not for the OT. That is no doubt how the early Christians thought of them. If we need to change the definition to fit our experience, which is lacking, nothing amounts to anything written in scripture.

JAL said:

I just remembered something. What about the whole cessationist doctrine that the completed cannon is the 'complete' prophecy and knowledge of 1Cor 13?

That chapter never even MENTIONS a cannon. That goes beyond inference. It sounds like wild speculation!

Click to expand...

Again, you're arguing with others. I haven't made this claim.

At least I look to concepts referenced in the immediate context for most of my conclusions about the gifts. Example. "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1). So it looks like Paul wanted us to pursue prophecy. Oh, right, I forgot. That's just an ungrounded baseless INFERENCE. I made up this stuff all in my head.

Click to expand...

/
You said, "So it looks like Paul wanted us to pursue prophecy." Why do you say, us? I wasn't in Corinth 1900 years ago and I'm pretty sure you weren't either. He wrote that to the Corinthians. People who had the gifts. He instructed them on how to use the gifts and what to seek. That doesn't mean he's talking about 21st century Christians. This is why I keep harping on the inference issue.

JAL said:

I don't know why your mind cannot CONCEIVE the possibility of multi-generational apostleship and prophethood. A real tunnel-vision there. To counteract this, at post 137 I demonstrated that evangelism is prophetic utterance, and therefore prophecy is indeed multigenerational:
Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

That argument (unrefuted) used Acts 1:8 as the point of departure. Here, I want to adduce a second argument based on that same verse. "Ye shall be my witnesses" (Acts 1:8). What's a witness? The Greek word there occurs some 120 times in the NT. By and large, it regularly carries the same meaning that we ascribe to "witness" in English today.

A witness – a witness in court for example - is someone who has seen and heard a reality and then testifies (“witnesses”) about it. He bears witness to what is seen and heard. An unacceptable witness is one too far distanced from the event to have witnessed it with accuracy. An excellent witness, therefore, is one who beheld it in face-to-face proximity. Now what precisely is Acts wanting men to witness about? Christ. “Ye shall be my witnesses” (Acts 1:8, ASV, italics added). If the risen Christ has never appeared to a person face to face, he or she is not a witness - not a witness of Christ, and certainly not a witness of His resurrection. Clearly, then, evangelism was supposed to be the domain of prophetic ministry, because visions of Christ fall into that category.

Jesus could have selected a MULTITUDE of alternative terms to refer to evangelism. Instead, He chose the term "witness". HE chose to define the evangelist as someone who has seen and heard Him, and then bears witness to others of what was seen and heard. Still not convinced? Take a hard look at Acts 22:14-15 where God's plan for Paul was that he:

“see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be a witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard” (22:14-15, KJV, italics added).

And again, “I have appeared [visibly and audibly] unto thee [Paul] for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in which I will [later] appear unto thee” (26:16, KJV).

Witnessing (prophetic visions of Christ) is for all generations. Prophecy is multi-generational. Many Christians aren't aware of this fact - but that's what happens when the church tries to create doctrine based on Sola Scriptura, and the opinions of men. They are prone to overlooking all the main elements of truth.

I might expand a little more on this post, if I have time.

Click to expand...

I agree with much if not most of what you say here. The exceptions that there are no more witnesses of Christ. He gave authority to 12 men. He didn't speak of appearing to people throughout history to be His witnesses. He spoke to the 12 and told THEM, 'you shall be my witnesses.'

I see no valid reason to accept your idea that this is multi generational. I don't find your argument that evangelism is prophesy valid. In the beginning when the apostles were learning, yes. However, as I've pointed out before Paul told the Ephesian elders that he had declared the whole council of God to them. That means there is no more. The Gospel was complete and there was no need for further revelation about it. I pointed out that Jude writes to contend for the faith that was once handed down to the saints. It was complete. People preaching today have the complete message. They may not understand it, but they have it.

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...

The issue of Cessationism is not contained in the tongues debate. Getting tied up in the tongues debate is a distraction that misses the real danger of their doctrine.

The issue is that Cessationists deny that the Holy Spirit is active in the way Jesus said He would be and the way the apostles experienced Him.

RDKirk said:

The issue of Cessationism is not contained in the tongues debate. Getting tied up in the tongues debate is a distraction that misses the real danger of their doctrine.

The issue is that Cessationists deny that the Holy Spirit is active in the way Jesus said He would be and the way the apostles experienced Him.

Click to expand...

The issue with Cessationists is that tongues did cease. It is not necessary to assign blame to anyone or explain how that which happened could be or to like or dislike what happened, but just to take account of what happened. That's what Cessationism means--acknowledging a cessation.

RDKirk said:

The issue of Cessationism is not contained in the tongues debate. Getting tied up in the tongues debate is a distraction that misses the real danger of their doctrine.

The issue is that Cessationists deny that the Holy Spirit is active in the way Jesus said He would be and the way the apostles experienced Him.

Click to expand...

This assumes the church has been in the dark until the early 1900s when the highly questionable sources of today's charismatic movement began acting like first century Christians. "Learning" how to speak in tongues, falsely so called. and acting like they had gifts that expired by the end of the first century.

JAL said:

Um..It's part of his definition of a church. Prove to me that there are pastors and teachers other than those in the early church.

You'll say, why do I need to prove that? Exactly. It's part of Paul's definition. That's all the proof needed.

Click to expand...

Where exactly do you see the definition of a church? The word eklesia means a called out gathering. I think you're reading a lot into the Scriptures for your doctrine

Exactly. You're just proving my point. He GAVE some to be pastors and teachers. Past tense, right? So pastors and teachers have died out, by your logic?

Click to expand...

Maybe something is getting lost in transition. In a literal sense, are there apostles today? Yes. Because the word apostle is essentially an emissary, someone who represents another with the authority of the sender. For example, if a church sends out a missionary, that missionary is an apostle of that church. The missionary is authorized to speak on behalf of that church. However, the context in which we are using the word apostle, it's an apostle of Christ, one who has the authority to speak on behalf of Christ. In this context( which we've been using) there are ONLY 12 men who have been given this authority. Jesus gave the apostles authority to act on His behalf. He told them whatever sins you forgive on earth will be forgiven in Heaven and whatever you bind of earth will be bound in Heaven. He gave them authority of demons, etc. These 12 men had the authority to speak on behalf of Christ. No one other than those 12 have been given that authority. That's why I said there are no apostles today. There are no apostles of Jesus Christ. Are there apostles of this or that church? Sure, But, they are NOT the apostles of Jesus Christ.


Back to pastors and teachers, yes there are pastors and teachers. However, like apostles, there are not a pointed by Christ. In the beginning He gave some apostles, He gave some pastors and teachers. They're gone. There are no more pastors and teachers appointed by Christ.

Funny how you can infer as much as you want, but when I infer, it's unacceptable.

Click to expand...

Firstly, I don't infer very much and when I do, I don't base doctrines on it. However, your inferences aren't a problem. What is the problem is that you're using them as facts. If you tell me I'm wrong, that's definitive statement. It needs to be backed up with facts, not inferences. An inference by nature can be wrong. Facts aren't wrong. An inference can change if one gets additional information. For example, Suppose I go to work and you call me all day and I don't answer your calls. You could infer that I'm ignoring you. You could infer that I lied to you and really didn't go to work. Let's assume you infer the first one and conclude I'm ignoring you. You get mad and you ignore me. Then a day or so later you find out that there was a phone outage in the building where I work. So, I never received any of you calls, which means you got mad and ignored me based on an inference you'd drawn, yet that inference was wrong and you realized that after receiving further information. This is the problem with inferences. When you learn something new in Scripture it can change inferences you've made regarding other passages of Scripture. This is why it's not good base doctrine on inference. An inference is always subject to change if additional information is presented. Facts don't change.

There you go again.

Click to expand...

But you didn't address it. As far as I'm aware there's nothing in the Scriptures about an office of apostleship.

Good for you. Except none of that was ever in debate here.

Click to expand...

Sure it was. In order to establish that the gifts have ended it was necessary to show their purpose. What I presented is right there in the text. If wasn't inferred.

Actually I should thank you for bringing up the inference-issue. Just ground for another proof of the need for prophetic revelatoin. Should our doctrines come from God, or from men? From God, right? Which means that Sola Scriptura cannot be God's plan. Here's why. WHERE do you learn Greek and Hebrew?From a lexicon or grammar book. Who wrote it? MEN! Only direct revelatoin has the capacity to liberate us from the opinions of men!

You really think it was God's plan to build his Kingdom on the opinions of men? How dumb do you think He is, anyway?

Click to expand...

I never argued for Sola Scriptura so I don't know why you're bringing up the arguments of others again. But, again, your argument doesn't follow. The Gospel message is complete. We don't need further revelation about it. That many don't take the necessary moves to do what is necessary to fully understand it doesn't change that fact. That's one reason there are so many denominations. Also, which denomination would you contend has the absolute pure truth of the Gospel. Would you argue that there is a group today that has a theology that is without error? I doubt you would. If so, then how can the gifts be bestowed that were to confirm the message. The apostles of Jesus Christ had the pure faith, and thus God confirmed their message with the gifts and miraculous signs. Which group today can claim that? I say none because all denominations have some error. I seriously doubt that God is going to confirm a message that contains errors

Exegesis BEGINS with inference, and ends with it as well. You START with the inference that the lexicons and grammar books are roughly correct, and proceed from there. THEN you make inferences regarding the various possible translatoins, as to which one is correct. The whole ENDEAVOR involves inference..

Click to expand...

I never claimed there is no inference. As I pointed out above, telling people they are wrong based on inference doesn't fly. It's essentially saying, you're wrong because when I read this and this I think this and that means you're wrong. I get these kinds of arguments all the time. Get into a discussion on OSAS or the Heavenly Destiny doctrine and you'll inferences til the cows come home.

Dave L said:

This assumes the church has been in the dark until the early 1900s when the highly questionable sources of today's charismatic movement began acting like first century Christians. "Learning" how to speak in tongues, falsely so called. and acting like they had gifts that expired by the end of the first century.

Click to expand...

And you're still trying to pretend it's all about tongues. Sorry, I recognize the tactic of using tongues as the stalking horse for the true Cessationist doctrine.

I used to think Cessationists were harmless until I observed how far in these forum debates you went in denying the work of the Holy Spirit. Now I believe that Cessationists are outright dangerous to the Body of Christ.

RDKirk said:

And you're still trying to pretend it's all about tongues. Sorry, I recognize the tactic of using tongues as the stalking horse for the true Cessationist doctrine.

I used to think Cessationists were harmless until I observed how far in these forum debates you went in denying the work of the Holy Spirit. Now I believe that Cessationists are outright dangerous to the Body of Christ.

Click to expand...

It's about you dividing yourself off from the body of Christ and thinking you have the inside skinny. And the Church has been in the dark until you came along in the 1900s through some very shaky people.

Butch5 said:

I wasn't in Corinth 1900 years ago and I'm pretty sure you weren't either. He wrote that to the Corinthians. People who had the gifts. He instructed them on how to use the gifts and what to seek.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting argument, but it runs up against your other post:

Butch5 said:

That means there is no more. The Gospel was complete and there was no need for further revelation about it.

Click to expand...

You argue that we need no more prophecy because the gospel is complete, and you argue that the exhortation to prophesy was given to the gifted people of Corinth. Yet, how many people of Corinth contributed to the Gospel? (none) If they were intended to contribute to the message, then they failed. If they were not intended to add to that message, then it means that having a completed canon does not preclude also having prophecy that will not contribute to it. The prophecies of today contribute no more to the canon than the prophecies that the Corinthians were told to seek. Therefore, the completion of one is irrelevant to the continuation of the other.

The same could be said of other prophets mentioned in the Bible (some being close friends of Elisha) who never were recorded in any lasting way. Their message was not, apparently, for all time, but they were still genuine prophets. Their message must necessarily have been for a temporary, limited or local purpose. Having a completed canon still has no effect on the need for prophecy with such a purpose.

Dave L said:

We do not know what a prophet is if not for the OT. That is no doubt how the early Christians thought of them. If we need to change the definition to fit our experience, which is lacking, nothing amounts to anything written in scripture.

Click to expand...

I am saying that your definition is limited by ignoring the rhema aspect of the OT prophets (as evidenced by scripture) and ignoring the NT definition provided in 1Cor.14 which is all about NT prophecy.

nonaeroterraqueous said:

That's an interesting argument, but it runs up against your other post:



You argue that we need no more prophecy because the gospel is complete, and you argue that the exhortation to prophesy was given to the gifted people of Corinth. Yet, how many people of Corinth contributed to the Gospel? (none) If they were intended to contribute to the message, then they failed. If they were not intended to add to that message, then it means that having a completed canon does not preclude also having prophecy that will not contribute to it. The prophecies of today contribute no more to the canon than the prophecies that the Corinthians were told to seek. Therefore, the completion of one is irrelevant to the continuation of the other.

The same could be said of other prophets mentioned in the Bible (some being close friends of Elisha) who never were recorded in any lasting way. Their message was not, apparently, for all time, but they were still genuine prophets. Their message must necessarily have been for a temporary, limited or local purpose. Having a completed canon still has no effect on the need for prophecy with such a purpose.

Click to expand...

I didn't argue that we don't need prophecy, I argued that we don't need prophecy about the Gospel. I've not argued whether or not the Church needs the gifts today. That's not relevant to the cessation argument. My argument has been the same from the beginning. The gifts were for a sign. The gift of tongues was a sign to unbelievers. Paul stated that plainly. I posted several passages that show that the gifts were to confirm the apostles message.

Butch5 said:

The gift of tongues was a sign to unbelievers. Paul stated that plainly.

Click to expand...

Plainly?
Only if you ignore the context.

Dave L said:

I can only define "prophet" from scripture using the OT as the definition. Anything less is not a prophet. And tongues interpreted was its equal.

Click to expand...

So do you believe the OT prophets were "edifying" like the NT prophets and interpreted tongues?

nonaeroterraqueous said:

That's an interesting argument, but it runs up against your other post:



You argue that we need no more prophecy because the gospel is complete, and you argue that the exhortation to prophesy was given to the gifted people of Corinth. Yet, how many people of Corinth contributed to the Gospel? (none) If they were intended to contribute to the message, then they failed. If they were not intended to add to that message, then it means that having a completed canon does not preclude also having prophecy that will not contribute to it. The prophecies of today contribute no more to the canon than the prophecies that the Corinthians were told to seek. Therefore, the completion of one is irrelevant to the continuation of the other.

The same could be said of other prophets mentioned in the Bible (some being close friends of Elisha) who never were recorded in any lasting way. Their message was not, apparently, for all time, but they were still genuine prophets. Their message must necessarily have been for a temporary, limited or local purpose. Having a completed canon still has no effect on the need for prophecy with such a purpose.

Click to expand...

I have made that exact point of their conflict before. Be assured that it's falling on deaf ears with regard to the people you're debating.

But continue--there are probably lurkers who would do well to see your post.

Butch5 said:

I didn't argue that we don't need prophecy, I argued that we don't need prophecy about the Gospel. I've not argued whether or not the Church needs the gifts today. That's not relevant to the cessation argument. My argument has been the same from the beginning. The gifts were for a sign. The gift of tongues was a sign to unbelievers. Paul stated that plainly. I posted several passages that show that the gifts were to confirm the apostles message.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, though, if you look at then instances tongues were pointed out in scripture, the "unbelievers" are always people who didn't believe the Holy Spirit would have descended on those particular people-groups. For instance, the Samaritans believed and were baptized by the deacon Philip--all that was required by Jesus. But Peter and John had doubts that Samaritans were to be included, so they had to see for themselves. The Holy Spirit manifested Himself in the Samaritans the exact same way He manifested Himself in the disciples, proving the point.

Then again, the Holy Spirit had to manifest Himself in Cornelius to prove to Peter that He was for gentiles as well. Peter made that point clear--it was only because the Holy Spirit had been manifest in exactly the same way was Peter convinced that gentiles were included in the invitation.

So we could ask the question if that particular manifestation of the Holy Spirit still occurs today, not because He won't do it, but because none of us any longer needs that proof that He is for everyone.

Butch5 said:

You said, "So it looks like Paul wanted us to pursue prophecy." Why do you say, us? I wasn't in Corinth 1900 years ago and I'm pretty sure you weren't either. He wrote that to the Corinthians. People who had the gifts. He instructed them on how to use the gifts and what to seek. That doesn't mean he's talking about 21st century Christians. This is why I keep harping on the inference issue.

Click to expand...

Obviously he wasn't talking DIRECTLY to us. That discrepancy is precisely why Sola Scriptura is imperfect science incapable of replacing direct revelation. A fact which totally blows cessationism out of the water, obviously.

But THIS debate is supposed to be about SCRIPTURAL evidence. Cessationism doesn't seem to have any. Rather, it is built four-square on inferences about history.

But then when I give you ACTUAL SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE, your reply is, 'That was written 1900 years ago.' Is this your idea of Sola Scriptura? We are NOT to pay much attention to its didactic writings? But if you don't want Scripture, and you don't want direct revelation, what DO you want?

Funny, though, when you find something YOU like in Scripture (such as 'pastors and teachers'), you'll happily cling to it. You don't mind cherrypicking the gifts you like. Why would you still believe in pastors and teachers defined 1900 years ago? Even when the so-called pastors and teachers of today don't even meet the biblical standard of being appointed by apostles and prophets?

You must not think God is wise. He didn't have to write much about gifts in the NT. He chose to. I remember once I was debating with someone, and showed him over 20 charismatic allusions in the first chapter of Mark as I recall. ONE CHAPTER!!!!

Now, how many verses can you find that report the gifts coming to a cessation? The only one I know of is 1Cor 13, but the babe in that chapter ceases only in the sense of maturing. So, none. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

In sum, the sheer abundance of charismatic content - for those of us who believe that God is a wise teacher - is too overwhelming for many of us to take cessationism seriously, as it doesn't have any verses of its side, it just has a few facile inferences.

And more than that. I don't even need a single verse of Scripture to cogently defend my position. While the cessationist analysis of history is too facile, there are irresistibly logical arguments for direct revelation (e.g. Calvin's doctrine of the Inward Witness as the only reliable way for man to identify the correct religion). I've presented some of these logical arguments already, and right now I can think of yet another one that I haven't even presented as yet. I've never seen any cogent refutation of Calvin's logical argument, nor of mine.

As for your dismissal of 1Cor 14:1 due to being written 1900 years ago, it's further impugned by Paul's discourse in chapter 2. I plan to come back to this later.