Understanding the epistemologies of continuationists, cessationists and atheists

TruthSeek3r said:

Broadly speaking, Cessationists are Christians who believe that the supernatural gifts of the spirit were only meant for authenticating the authority of the 1st century apostles and establishing the foundation of the Church.

Click to expand...

TruthSeek3r said:

Preliminaries

From the Wikipedia article on Epistemology:

Epistemology [...] is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. [...] In these debates and others, epistemology aims to answer questions such as "What do we know?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", "What makes justified beliefs justified?", and "How do we know that we know?"​

For the purposes of this question, I will be using the word 'epistemology' more colloquially to mean the way a given individual processes and filters information in order to update their beliefs about reality. How do they know what they know (or claim to know)? Why do they believe what they believe? What kind of evidence do they find convincing, strong or compelling? What kind of evidence do they find unconvincing or weak?


Continuationists

Broadly speaking, Continuationists are Christians who believe that the supernatural gifts of the spirit (e.g. tongues, prophecies, words of knowledge, miracles, healings) are still in effect and available to the body of Christ, just like they were in the first century of the Church.

The primary source of evidence for Continuationism is testimonies.

Epistemologically speaking:

1. Continuationists find contemporary testimonies of miracles and supernatural spiritual gifts to be convincing and thus they accept them as justification for the belief in their continuation.
2. Continuationists find preserved manuscripts with eyewitness testimonies from the 1st century of Christianity to be convincing as well (thus supporting their belief in the resurrection of Jesus as attested in the gospels, all the miracles attested in the book of Acts, the epistles, etc.).

A continuationist would see both pieces of testimonial evidence as complementing each other and supporting each other, making each other much more believable.

Examples of notable continuationists:

• Jack Deere, author of Why I Am Still Surprised by the Power of the Spirit: Discovering How God Speaks and Heals Today.
• Sam Storms, author of Understanding Spiritual Gifts: A Comprehensive Guide
• Michael Brown, author of Authentic Fire: A Response to John MacArthur's Strange Fire

Cessationists

Broadly speaking, Cessationists are Christians who believe that the supernatural gifts of the spirit were only meant for authenticating the authority of the 1st century apostles and establishing the foundation of the Church. Thus, with the end of the apostolic age and the closing of the canon of scripture, the supernatural gifts of the spirit accomplished their purpose and ceased.

Epistemologically speaking:

1. Cessationists find contemporary testimonies of miracles and supernatural spiritual gifts to be unconvincing and thus they reject them as justification for the belief in their continuation.
2. In contrast, Cessationists find preserved manuscripts with eyewitness testimonies from the 1st century of Christianity to be convincing (thus supporting their belief in the resurrection of Jesus as attested in the gospels, all the miracles attested in the book of Acts, the epistles, etc.).

In other words, a Cessationist has an easier time accepting claims of miracles from the 1st century, but a much harder time accepting claims of miracles after the 1st century (or after whatever other date they may think the supernatural gifts ceased).

Examples of notable cessationists:

• John Calvin, known for being the first to formulate the doctrine of cessationism during the Reformation (source).
• Jonathan Edwards (see for example the article Jonathan Edwards and Why I am a Cessationist).
• John MacArthur, author of Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship.

Atheists

Broadly speaking, atheists (and I should probably include here agnostics, skeptics and naturalists in general) tend to be people who are extremely skeptical of any claim about the supernatural, a spiritual realm, etc.

Epistemologically speaking:

1. Atheists find contemporary testimonies of miracles and supernatural spiritual gifts to be unconvincing hearsay and thus they reject them as justification for the belief in their continuation.
2. Atheists find preserved manuscripts with eyewitness testimonies from the 1st century of Christianity to be unconvincing hearsay and thus they reject them as justification for the belief in the miraculous during the first century as well (this includes a rejection of the belief in the resurrection of Jesus, the miracles performed by the apostles, etc.).

Put simply, atheists view any claim or testimony about the supernatural as unconvincing hearsay. Period.

Examples of notable atheists (who actively reject 1st century miracles, and miracles in general):

• Bart D. Ehrman, author of How Jesus Became God : the Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee.
• Richard Carrier, author of Why I Am Not a Christian: Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith.
• Matt Dillahunty, who had interesting debates against Trent Horn and against Mike Winger on the resurrection of Jesus.

Question

When it comes to assessing the reliability of testimonial evidence, we can see clear epistemological differences between continuationists, cessationists and atheists. It should be very obvious that they do not share a common standard of what is considered to be convincing and and what is considered to be unconvincing. Why is it so? What are the underlying principles governing the epistemologies of these three groups and how do they justify their epistemologies in the first place?

On a personal note, I see continuationists as a group with a positive attitude toward testimonial evidence in general, which makes it easier for them to accept miracle claims both during and after the apostolic age on the basis of eyewitness testimony. On the other extreme, atheists are extremely skeptical of any claim about the supernatural, which makes them reject miracle claims in any century. Cessationists are somewhat in between, accepting miracle claims from the first century but rejecting miracle claims afterward, which I'm still struggling to understand and can't help but interpret as some sort of inconsistent double standard. But that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

TruthSeek3r said:

On a personal note, I see continuationists as a group with a positive attitude toward testimonial evidence in general, which makes it easier for them to accept miracle claims both during and after the apostolic age on the basis of eyewitness testimony. On the other extreme, atheists are extremely skeptical of any claim about the supernatural, which makes them reject miracle claims in any century. Cessationists are somewhat in between, accepting miracle claims from the first century but rejecting miracle claims afterward, which I'm still struggling to understand and can't help but interpret as some sort of inconsistent double standard. But that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

TruthSeek3r said:

When it comes to assessing the reliability of testimonial evidence, we can see clear epistemological differences between continuationists, cessationists and atheists. It should be very obvious that they do not share a common standard of what is considered to be convincing and and what is considered to be unconvincing. Why is it so? What are the underlying principles governing the epistemologies of these three groups and how do they justify their epistemologies in the first place?

Click to expand...

TruthSeek3r said:

Preliminaries

From the Wikipedia article on Epistemology:

Epistemology [...] is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. [...] In these debates and others, epistemology aims to answer questions such as "What do we know?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", "What makes justified beliefs justified?", and "How do we know that we know?"​

For the purposes of this question, I will be using the word 'epistemology' more colloquially to mean the way a given individual processes and filters information in order to update their beliefs about reality. How do they know what they know (or claim to know)? Why do they believe what they believe? What kind of evidence do they find convincing, strong or compelling? What kind of evidence do they find unconvincing or weak?


Continuationists

Broadly speaking, Continuationists are Christians who believe that the supernatural gifts of the spirit (e.g. tongues, prophecies, words of knowledge, miracles, healings) are still in effect and available to the body of Christ, just like they were in the first century of the Church.

The primary source of evidence for Continuationism is testimonies.

Epistemologically speaking:

1. Continuationists find contemporary testimonies of miracles and supernatural spiritual gifts to be convincing and thus they accept them as justification for the belief in their continuation.
2. Continuationists find preserved manuscripts with eyewitness testimonies from the 1st century of Christianity to be convincing as well (thus supporting their belief in the resurrection of Jesus as attested in the gospels, all the miracles attested in the book of Acts, the epistles, etc.).

A continuationist would see both pieces of testimonial evidence as complementing each other and supporting each other, making each other much more believable.

Examples of notable continuationists:

• Jack Deere, author of Why I Am Still Surprised by the Power of the Spirit: Discovering How God Speaks and Heals Today.
• Sam Storms, author of Understanding Spiritual Gifts: A Comprehensive Guide
• Michael Brown, author of Authentic Fire: A Response to John MacArthur's Strange Fire

Cessationists

Broadly speaking, Cessationists are Christians who believe that the supernatural gifts of the spirit were only meant for authenticating the authority of the 1st century apostles and establishing the foundation of the Church. Thus, with the end of the apostolic age and the closing of the canon of scripture, the supernatural gifts of the spirit accomplished their purpose and ceased.

Epistemologically speaking:

1. Cessationists find contemporary testimonies of miracles and supernatural spiritual gifts to be unconvincing and thus they reject them as justification for the belief in their continuation.
2. In contrast, Cessationists find preserved manuscripts with eyewitness testimonies from the 1st century of Christianity to be convincing (thus supporting their belief in the resurrection of Jesus as attested in the gospels, all the miracles attested in the book of Acts, the epistles, etc.).

In other words, a Cessationist has an easier time accepting claims of miracles from the 1st century, but a much harder time accepting claims of miracles after the 1st century (or after whatever other date they may think the supernatural gifts ceased).

Examples of notable cessationists:

• John Calvin, known for being the first to formulate the doctrine of cessationism during the Reformation (source).
• Jonathan Edwards (see for example the article Jonathan Edwards and Why I am a Cessationist).
• John MacArthur, author of Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship.

Atheists

Broadly speaking, atheists (and I should probably include here agnostics, skeptics and naturalists in general) tend to be people who are extremely skeptical of any claim about the supernatural, a spiritual realm, etc.

Epistemologically speaking:

1. Atheists find contemporary testimonies of miracles and supernatural spiritual gifts to be unconvincing hearsay and thus they reject them as justification for the belief in their continuation.
2. Atheists find preserved manuscripts with eyewitness testimonies from the 1st century of Christianity to be unconvincing hearsay and thus they reject them as justification for the belief in the miraculous during the first century as well (this includes a rejection of the belief in the resurrection of Jesus, the miracles performed by the apostles, etc.).

Put simply, atheists view any claim or testimony about the supernatural as unconvincing hearsay. Period.

Examples of notable atheists (who actively reject 1st century miracles, and miracles in general):

• Bart D. Ehrman, author of How Jesus Became God : the Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee.
• Richard Carrier, author of Why I Am Not a Christian: Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith.
• Matt Dillahunty, who had interesting debates against Trent Horn and against Mike Winger on the resurrection of Jesus.

Question

When it comes to assessing the reliability of testimonial evidence, we can see clear epistemological differences between continuationists, cessationists and atheists. It should be very obvious that they do not share a common standard of what is considered to be convincing and and what is considered to be unconvincing. Why is it so? What are the underlying principles governing the epistemologies of these three groups and how do they justify their epistemologies in the first place?

On a personal note, I see continuationists as a group with a positive attitude toward testimonial evidence in general, which makes it easier for them to accept miracle claims both during and after the apostolic age on the basis of eyewitness testimony. On the other extreme, atheists are extremely skeptical of any claim about the supernatural, which makes them reject miracle claims in any century. Cessationists are somewhat in between, accepting miracle claims from the first century but rejecting miracle claims afterward, which I'm still struggling to understand and can't help but interpret as some sort of inconsistent double standard. But that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

TruthSeek3r said:

Preliminaries

From the Wikipedia article on Epistemology:

Epistemology [...] is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. [...] In these debates and others, epistemology aims to answer questions such as "What do we know?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", "What makes justified beliefs justified?", and "How do we know that we know?"​

For the purposes of this question, I will be using the word 'epistemology' more colloquially to mean the way a given individual processes and filters information in order to update their beliefs about reality. How do they know what they know (or claim to know)? Why do they believe what they believe? What kind of evidence do they find convincing, strong or compelling? What kind of evidence do they find unconvincing or weak?


Continuationists

Broadly speaking, Continuationists are Christians who believe that the supernatural gifts of the spirit (e.g. tongues, prophecies, words of knowledge, miracles, healings) are still in effect and available to the body of Christ, just like they were in the first century of the Church.

The primary source of evidence for Continuationism is testimonies.

Epistemologically speaking:

1. Continuationists find contemporary testimonies of miracles and supernatural spiritual gifts to be convincing and thus they accept them as justification for the belief in their continuation.
2. Continuationists find preserved manuscripts with eyewitness testimonies from the 1st century of Christianity to be convincing as well (thus supporting their belief in the resurrection of Jesus as attested in the gospels, all the miracles attested in the book of Acts, the epistles, etc.).

A continuationist would see both pieces of testimonial evidence as complementing each other and supporting each other, making each other much more believable.

Examples of notable continuationists:

• Jack Deere, author of Why I Am Still Surprised by the Power of the Spirit: Discovering How God Speaks and Heals Today.
• Sam Storms, author of Understanding Spiritual Gifts: A Comprehensive Guide
• Michael Brown, author of Authentic Fire: A Response to John MacArthur's Strange Fire

Cessationists

Broadly speaking, Cessationists are Christians who believe that the supernatural gifts of the spirit were only meant for authenticating the authority of the 1st century apostles and establishing the foundation of the Church. Thus, with the end of the apostolic age and the closing of the canon of scripture, the supernatural gifts of the spirit accomplished their purpose and ceased.

Epistemologically speaking:

1. Cessationists find contemporary testimonies of miracles and supernatural spiritual gifts to be unconvincing and thus they reject them as justification for the belief in their continuation.
2. In contrast, Cessationists find preserved manuscripts with eyewitness testimonies from the 1st century of Christianity to be convincing (thus supporting their belief in the resurrection of Jesus as attested in the gospels, all the miracles attested in the book of Acts, the epistles, etc.).

In other words, a Cessationist has an easier time accepting claims of miracles from the 1st century, but a much harder time accepting claims of miracles after the 1st century (or after whatever other date they may think the supernatural gifts ceased).

Examples of notable cessationists:

• John Calvin, known for being the first to formulate the doctrine of cessationism during the Reformation (source).
• Jonathan Edwards (see for example the article Jonathan Edwards and Why I am a Cessationist).
• John MacArthur, author of Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship.

Atheists

Broadly speaking, atheists (and I should probably include here agnostics, skeptics and naturalists in general) tend to be people who are extremely skeptical of any claim about the supernatural, a spiritual realm, etc.

Epistemologically speaking:

1. Atheists find contemporary testimonies of miracles and supernatural spiritual gifts to be unconvincing hearsay and thus they reject them as justification for the belief in their continuation.
2. Atheists find preserved manuscripts with eyewitness testimonies from the 1st century of Christianity to be unconvincing hearsay and thus they reject them as justification for the belief in the miraculous during the first century as well (this includes a rejection of the belief in the resurrection of Jesus, the miracles performed by the apostles, etc.).

Put simply, atheists view any claim or testimony about the supernatural as unconvincing hearsay. Period.

Examples of notable atheists (who actively reject 1st century miracles, and miracles in general):

• Bart D. Ehrman, author of How Jesus Became God : the Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee.
• Richard Carrier, author of Why I Am Not a Christian: Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith.
• Matt Dillahunty, who had interesting debates against Trent Horn and against Mike Winger on the resurrection of Jesus.

Question

When it comes to assessing the reliability of testimonial evidence, we can see clear epistemological differences between continuationists, cessationists and atheists. It should be very obvious that they do not share a common standard of what is considered to be convincing and and what is considered to be unconvincing. Why is it so? What are the underlying principles governing the epistemologies of these three groups and how do they justify their epistemologies in the first place?

On a personal note, I see continuationists as a group with a positive attitude toward testimonial evidence in general, which makes it easier for them to accept miracle claims both during and after the apostolic age on the basis of eyewitness testimony. On the other extreme, atheists are extremely skeptical of any claim about the supernatural, which makes them reject miracle claims in any century. Cessationists are somewhat in between, accepting miracle claims from the first century but rejecting miracle claims afterward, which I'm still struggling to understand and can't help but interpret as some sort of inconsistent double standard. But that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

TruthSeek3r said:

Do you believe miracles of any sort still happen? If so, on what basis?

Click to expand...