- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
(Sigh) Albion, I've called you on this misleading language numerous times. Your responses deliberately blur the distinction between "a temporary lapse of gifts" (which is still Continuationism) versus an irrevocable lapse (the doctrine of Cessationism)....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.
And the whole position is based on the non-sequitur that a documented temporary lapse IMPLIES a permanent lapse. This "analysis of history" is self-contradictory, because any OT lapse,by that logic, would already have inaugurated Cessationism thereby precluding NT giftings.
Unbelievable. Literally outrageous. The pot is calling the kettle black. Let's be clear that the "basic facts" refers to your non-sequitur "analysis of history" in spite of explicit biblical data to the contrary (such as Paul's command to us at 1Cor 14:1).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.
Um...er..Does Scripture have any say in this? Or just skewed interpretations of history?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?
Non-sequitur. See above.If they ceased, the argument ends there. You cannot continue something that isn't there to be continued.
Not quite so fast. While I agree that MY subjective experience doesn't count as evidence FOR YOU, it does count as evidence FOR ME. That's how Direct Revelation operates. To disparage this dynamic is to repudiate Paul's conversion on the Road to the Damascus - indeed it repudiates the Inward Witness and thus the gospel itself.Well, if that happens, it is not a proof of Continuationism, That much is certain. Would you agree with that?
Upvote
0