• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Cessationist and Sola Scriptura don't mix

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by DamianWarS, Dec 5, 2017.

  1. DamianWarS

    DamianWarS Follower of Isa Al Masih Supporter

    +453
    Christian
    Private
    I understand your point but "sola" is a latin word that essentially mirrors the word "solo", sole or only. "solo" is also a latin word that means dirt. The spirit of sola scriptura is that scripture is the final measure of our faith and practice. This is what the word means and we just can't throw in a clever homonym and claim they got it all wrong. Sola still means what it means in Latin and to me it's weak and inauthentic to begin comparing it to non-latin words that sound the same. Tradition and experience of the church are important elements that shape doctrine but if they counter the teachings of scripture they cannot be called "sola scriptura". Scripture teaches the gifts of the Holy Spirit as authentic practice within the church for edification when we say this doesn't count any more on what authority do we make this claim because it counters the teaching of scripture.
     
  2. gordonhooker

    gordonhooker Franciscan tssf Supporter

    904
    +426
    Anglican
    Married
    First of all I thought the smilies would have given it away, but the tongue in cheek answer to that question is how the Church traditionally interpreted the scripture. My Anglican brother Albion would have caught onto what I was saying.
     
  3. DamianWarS

    DamianWarS Follower of Isa Al Masih Supporter

    +453
    Christian
    Private
    what do you think 1 Cor 13:10 is talking about? What is the perfect? you seem to suggest cessationist don't use scripture do you still maintain this? Is not saying "it ceased because it ceased" with no scriptural basis a post-scripture revelation?
     
  4. Servant232

    Servant232 Active Member

    704
    +30
    United States
    Messianic
    Private
  5. swordsman1

    swordsman1 Well-Known Member

    +447
    Christian
    Just because a few foundational gifts were present in the unique historical times of Acts, doesn't automatically mean they must continue throughout the church age. In fact history demonstrates they didn't.
     
  6. swordsman1

    swordsman1 Well-Known Member

    +447
    Christian
    I never said 'face to face' was referring to seeing the Bible. Neither does it say 'face to face' is seeing Christ. 'Face to face' is referring to the analogy of a mirror. Before 'completeness' came God's word to the church in the form of prophecy was like seeing someone dimly in a poor mirror, but afterwards God's revelation to mankind was complete and far clearer - it was like looking at someone 'face to face'.
     
  7. DamianWarS

    DamianWarS Follower of Isa Al Masih Supporter

    +453
    Christian
    Private
    in context the text generally refers to all the gift. Paul multiple times in the context says only a few examples to make his point without the need of exhaustively list the body parts, or exhaustively listing the gifts to show love needs to operate in them all and this flows into the passage in question where again he uses a few as examples for them all.

    Eph does make claim to apostles/prophets as the foundation and we see these as unique gifts in 1 Cor 12. But this then get's grouped in with tongues and interpretation which are also listed as unique gifts in the same list. The hot topic of 1 Cor 13:10 is that tongues have ceased and where there is stronger support that the gift of apostles/prophets has ceased using the Eph text the support is absent for tongues.
     
  8. DamianWarS

    DamianWarS Follower of Isa Al Masih Supporter

    +453
    Christian
    Private
    does scripture demonstrate this?
     
  9. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Saved by Grace through Faith

    +585
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Can O' worms brother. Sola Scriptura does not mean solo, nor can it, the doctrine itself is not Scripture, nor spelled out in the form of a clear statement. People that try to argue for solo Scripture, themselves do not go to Church where everything is simply reading of Scripture. Any and I do mean any comment, commentary, exposition, statement of belief, and so on and so on, would not have any authority, meaningful authority under the assumption of solO scriptura. The historical meaning of Sola Scriptura, recognizes Scripture as the standard, the highest authority, by which all lesser authorities are measured. In some cases Sola Scriptura totally demolishes a lesser "authority" where there is contradiction, where in other cases Sola Scriptura and a lesser authority are complimentary in harmony with, agreement with one another.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  10. swordsman1

    swordsman1 Well-Known Member

    +447
    Christian
    Knowledge in this passage is referring to the revelatory gift of words of knowledge (1 Cor 12:8).
     
  11. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Saved by Grace through Faith

    +585
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    This is a key point, a weighty reason, why I slipped over the fence to embrace cessationalism. Church history is anything but in favor of continualism as they fully express it, and to gloss over history, is not an option anymore as far as I am concerned.
     
  12. klutedavid

    klutedavid Well-Known Member

    +562
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Hello swordsman.

    I am simply quoting from the passage below.

    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.

    It just says, 'knowledge'.
     
  13. Grandliseur

    Grandliseur New Member

    78
    +26
    Japan
    Christian
    Married
    There are two confirmations of sorts - of this, or two witnesses, if you want to put it that way.

    I have never run into the term 'Cessationist' before. It is a convenient term if all know it. Since you described what your subject was, I understood its reference. If the subject had been different, I wouldn't have; I would have thought it had to do with California leaving the US and becoming a country.:)

    While scripture doesn't give us a lot of information, there is the following:
    Acts 8:18: ASV: Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given. . .
    2 Timothy 1: 6 For which cause I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee through the laying on of my hands.
    Acts 19: 6 And Paul laying hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in languages and prophesied.​
    The teaching here is implicit and specific. The Apostles, the twelve, and Paul appointed specifically by Christ himself, had the authority to pass on the gift of the Holy Spirit by means of the laying of hands on a person when done with this purpose in mind. It wasn't just any touch from Paul that passed this on btw. Otherwise all manners of unbaptized people might be getting the gift.

    If then the Apostles had this gift, as it clearly tells us it was restricted to, the death of the Apostles would mean that the gifts of the Holy Spirit done in this manner could no longer be passed on. The apostle John would then be the most likely last apostle who had this ability so that by perhaps 150CE all these gifts had passed away.

    What needs to be taken into serious account is this:
    1 Corinthians 12: 27 And you are Christ's body, and members in part. 28 And God placed some in the church: firstly apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers; then works of power; then gifts of healing, helps, governings, kinds of languages. 29 Are all apostles? All prophets? All teachers? All workers of power? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak languages? Do all interpret? 31 But zealously strive after the better gifts.​
    We first notice that the gifts of the HS were not given so that one individual would have them all; rather, it seems that each individual had his or her own gift, be it prophesying, healing, works of power (?), languages, interpreting.

    What I especially think important for this discussion is the gift of healing. Why? Because if we look at Jesus and the apostles' healing, there were no obstacles to what was being healed. It was a full and complete healing, done mostly immediately, though at times, Jesus took a few minutes to talk a blind man through his healing. Nonetheless, there were no partial healings, no problems that could not be healed.

    This kind of healing does not exist today.

    The conclusion of the matter then is simple. We have the fact that the 'laying of hands from the apostles' bestowed these gifts, nobody else could bestow these gifts. Today, the healing is not what we see happening in the Bible. From this, we can conclude that the gifts have now passed into history. As it said,
    From this, we may conclude via Sola Scriptura and the present state of affairs - that it appears this has now transpired.
     
  14. swordsman1

    swordsman1 Well-Known Member

    +447
    Christian
    The same person in the mirror analogy who Paul says he saw dimly (mirrors were very poor quality in those days). 'Face to face' is part of the same analogy.
     
  15. swordsman1

    swordsman1 Well-Known Member

    +447
    Christian
    Yes, the lack of a noun indicates that 'teleios' (which can mean perfect, complete or mature) was describing something that could not be expressed in one or two words. Something like 'the completion and distribution of the canon and subsequent maturing of the church' for instance. If it was referring to Christ, Paul would have used the noun Christou. If it was referring to the second coming, Paul would have used the noun parousia. Ditto heaven, eternity, etc.
     
  16. DamianWarS

    DamianWarS Follower of Isa Al Masih Supporter

    +453
    Christian
    Private
    and how does that disagree with what I said? solo scriptura is made up and is not actually a thing. If one doctrine says we have it and another doctrine says we don't then should we not use scripture to balance out these "lesser" authorities? Scripture teaches the gifts of the HS so let's use scripture as the highest authority to continue to teach the gifts of the HS.
     
  17. swordsman1

    swordsman1 Well-Known Member

    +447
    Christian
    Just because Paul told the Corinthian church, in the absence of a New Testament, to desire prophecy to guide them in the faith, doesn't mean the same must apply to all churches throughout history, especially now we have the NT.
     
  18. DamianWarS

    DamianWarS Follower of Isa Al Masih Supporter

    +453
    Christian
    Private
    it's referring to an abstract and it would be irresponsible I think to say it uniquely refers to Christ or uniquely refers to the canon/church. It refers to an event that ushers in a time where the gifts of the HS are no longer needed because we are no longer limited by our inabilities. I feel it best refers to our incorruptible bodies ushered in from the second coming of Christ but it may also include death itself, being present with Christ. Face-to-face is a key word that I don't feel should be taken so metaphorically.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  19. DamianWarS

    DamianWarS Follower of Isa Al Masih Supporter

    +453
    Christian
    Private
    So instead you would rather take the exact opposite of what he said and forsake the gifts? This is better exegesis?
     
  20. swordsman1

    swordsman1 Well-Known Member

    +447
    Christian
    There is nothing in the text to indicate these 3 gifts are representative of all the gifts. You can only make that extrapolation if there is sufficient reason for doing so. Otherwise it is an unwarranted assumption.

    Just because Paul used representative examples in other passages doesn't mean every time he mentions something specific it must always be representative of other things.

    So you agree apostles and prophets have ceased? But tongues haven't?
     
Loading...