Hello W2L.
Two categories, ministries and gifts.
Evangelism is a ministry of the Holy Spirit, but knowledge is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 13:8
Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.
If knowledge has passed, then cessationism is true.
If the gift of knowledge has not passed, then cessationism is a heresy.
Continualism and Sola Scriptura do not mix well...
Hello Apologetic_Warrior.Continualism and Sola Scriptura do not mix well, I see evidence to support this in every false religion, perversions of Christianity and abuses in evangelical Christianity. New relevations, New visions, "the Lord told me", sigh.
I dont quite understand
Continualism and Sola Scriptura do not mix well, I see evidence to support this in every false religion, perversions of Christianity and abuses in evangelical Christianity. New relevations, New visions, "the Lord told me", sigh.
Cessationism is based on the premise of Sola Scriptura, which says that I only listen to scripture and never special revelation. Scripture validates special revelation. You've got a problem, there.
Hello Apologetic_Warrior.
I hope your not claiming that cessationism in itself, has never abused or corrupted Christianity. That would be a very risky claim to make.
Once again, if the gift of knowledge has ceased, then cessationism is true.
If the gift of knowledge is current, then cessationism is simply quenching the Spirit.
Hello Apologetic_Warrior.Hi, no I would not make that claim, however I dare say the abuses of continualism by far outweigh cessationist abuses. Although I understand the line of reasoning, let's try not to make strawmen of the cessationist position. I have not come across any cessationist that would even try to argue that all gifts have ceased, so it's a moot point.
Hello Apologetic_Warrior.
Thanks for your reply.
You replaced your previous claim with another claim.
I don't think that we could honestly make a call, on which position has done more damage.
Both groups have been responsible for major damage to the reputation of Christianity.
If even one gift is still available, then all gifts are obviously still available, because the perfect has not yet arrived. There is no other way to understand this point.
Cessationism is based on the premise of Sola Scriptura, which says that I only listen to scripture and never special revelation. Scripture validates special revelation. You've got a problem, there.
I don't listen to George, because I only listen to Bob. Bob tells me to listen to George, but I refuse, because I strictly follow Bob (which is obviously false, or I would listen to George).
If you are cessationist, then you are necessarily not an adherent of Sola scriptura, by direct logical contradiction. You can post all you want about the ills brought upon the faith by special revelation, but none of that changes anything. We were commanded to test all prophecy. You know that, if you're a Sola scriptura kind of guy. There is only one way to do that. The alternatives are to either accept all prophecy uncritically, or reject all prophecy uncritically. Both of the alternatives are equal opposites, meaning that both cause the same degree of damage. One is a positive behavior and causes positive damage that everyone can see, and the other is a negative behavior and causes damage not readily seen. It is a preventative harm. You can't see the damage that you have done, because you cannot show the good that you have prevented. You can sit back and point to your equal and opposite heresy and denounce them for the damage they've caused, while your own damage remains veiled.
Test all prophecy. If you reject it outright, then you're not obeying scripture. If you accept it too freely, then you're not obeying scripture.
Nah, no problem here. The problem comes when claims of special revelations do not agree with previous special revelation, that is the Bible. For the sake of staying on topic arguments over canon, would not be beneficial. Continualism has more often than not created mass confusion, used by false prophets to subordinate the Scriptures, used by well meaning Christians to justify their own views and words. In this day and age, a person is wiser to err on the side of caution, as to be deceived by sensationalistic false teachers.
it seems paul had similar issues with the Corinthians church, his response from abuse of these gifts was not to sweep them under a rug but rather to still encourage their use just more responsibly saying "earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order".
There are no doubts that there is abuse in the charismatic church who often like the Corinthians church are over zealous with a specific set of gifts and adding "in the spirit" at the end of any verb to validate it. How could they encourage such behaviour and still affirm sola scriptura? This seems to be heavily weighted on experience over scripture. But how can we reject these gifts and still affirm sola scriptura? Is not citing that these gifts "left" the church years back also not in the same spirit of experience over scripture? Lets take our human experience out of it and teach doctrines with scripture.
Well, it seems to me that Pentecostal Christians have made it be a doctrine. But no, it is not a doctrine that anyone else recognizes, so there is not really a controversy over it...except that it is precious to Pentecostals and essential to their POV.I'm not talking about new doctrines.
Certainly, but it is not the case that anyone involved has ignored or discarded Sola Scriptura, which is what I understood you to be saying. What we are dealing with in this matter is simply a disagreement among people, all of whom subscribe to Sola Scriptura, concerning the proper interpretation of the Scripture.you may disagree with a church's position on the gifts/manifestation of the Holy Spirit and that can be a different conversation. What I'm talking about is using scripture to develop our doctrines of the church including those that teach how the Holy Spirit operates. If a church has missed the mark then should we not use scripture to affirm the correct position?
Well, it seems to me that Pentecostal Christians have made it be a doctrine. But no, it is not a doctrine that anyone else recognizes, so there is not really a controversy over it...except that it is precious to Pentecostals and essential to their POV.
Certainly, but it is not the case that anyone involved has ignored or discarded Sola Scriptura, which is what I understood you to be saying. What we are dealing with in this matter is simply a disagreement among people, all of whom subscribe to Sola Scriptura, concerning the proper interpretation of the Scripture.
Well, it seems to me that Pentecostal Christians have made it be a doctrine. But no, it is not a doctrine that anyone else recognizes, so there is not really a controversy over it...except that it is precious to Pentecostals and essential to their POV.
Certainly, but it is not the case that anyone involved has ignored or discarded Sola Scriptura, which is what I understood you to be saying. What we are dealing with in this matter is simply a disagreement among people, all of whom subscribe to Sola Scriptura, concerning the proper interpretation of the Scripture.
Because they did cease. I remember making this point earlier.by your own admission scripture does not point to the gifts ceasing as cessationist claim age so if scripture teaches the gifts but does not teach in their ceasing by what authority do you claim these gifts have ceased?
it doesn't mention this mysterious time as well but it doesn't stop you from saying it does.
Of course cessationist who use this passage ignore the context which starts at the beginning of chapter 12. If one gift is removed they all are removed
There are loads of very clear references to the return of Christ
and Eph 2:20 is about as cryptic of reference to this period as 1 Corinthians 13 is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?