Convince me of Continuationism.

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Again, I am not discounting that Continuationism may still be true amongst a sea of error.
I just need somebody to defend it using Scripture.

While it is commendable that you are reading critiques of historical events... you should also read the supporters too else you will definitely get a biased view of history.

You ask people to defend Continuationism using Scripture. Here it is: THERE IS NO MENTION THAT THE GIFTS WILL CEASE AT ANY TIME IN THE SCRIPTURES. Ergo, they haven't ceased.

 

[Francis Drake]

I would be amazed if you actually knew which church is mine or anything about it. But go ahead and name it. Otherwise, I'm not reading anything here that deserves a reply.

So were you lying when you described yourself as Anglican?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Well, to be honest, I will only draw definite conclusions about work in the mission field by going there myself.

A Doubting Thomas

 

[Francis Drake]

I'm not sure the Anglican Church has had no witness of the gifts... particularly when the current Archbishop has made a point of saying he speaks in tongues. I also know of dozens of Anglican churches where the gifts are in evidence (as well as a lot more where they aren't).

I agree with you, but was replying to a self declared Anglican who claimed there was no evidence of gifts.
But whilst there are God fearing and Spirit led Anglican congregations, in my view the institution as a whole has gone completely off the rails

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I agree with you, but was replying to a self declared Anglican who claimed there was no evidence of gifts.
But whilst there are God fearing and Spirit led Anglican congregations, in my view the institution as a whole has gone completely off the rails

Then I think we are on the same wavelength

 

[Radagast]

She tends to dissuade short term stays as the new converts from addiction need long term commitment.

That's not what I meant at all. I have no intention of visiting her.

There are other places I want to visit.

 

[Radagast]

A Doubting Thomas

And proud of it.

Discernment is a gift as well.

From Pentecostalism onwards the gifts of the spirit, including tongues, have continued in operation in a large number of churches, whether they are using them correctly or not (and a lot are probably not).

The word "tongues" describes two (or perhaps even more) totally different things.

That's one of the reasons why the Continuationist/Cessationist debate is difficult.

What do you think that "tongues" means?

 

[Radagast]

So were you lying when you described yourself as Anglican?

The point that @Albion made was that the word "Anglican" covers a wide range of radically different churches. A substantially wider range than, for example, the word "Baptist."

It would be very wrong of you to make assumptions about the his church based on some other church that has a similar name.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

And proud of it.

Discernment is a gift as well.

Don't mistake discernment for scepticism . I also operate in this particular gift and I've seen enough counterfeit uses of spiritual gifts to know that discernment is a highly underrated gift.

The word "tongues" describes two (or perhaps even more) totally different things.

That's one of the reasons why the Continuationist/Cessationist debate is difficult.

What do you think that "tongues" means?

The ability to supernaturally speak in languages other than ones own. The expectation that such speakings will be interpreted (as per 1 Co 14, but this is not guaranteed).

I have seen (and heard of) it operating in this way on a number of occasions. The most obvious was a lecturer of mine who told the story about preaching on the subject and randomly threw out some tongues as an example to his listeners. After the meeting, a lady came up to him and told him that he had told her in perfect Romany to give up smoking. There are others including me supernaturally interpreting tongues.

I concur, however that there is a second way that tongues are used that appears to have less Biblical support and which is far more common - the 'praying in tongues'. The only thing I can say in its support is that it does indeed edify the speaker, but no-one else. This one is, I think overused, but Paul does make a point of saying that he speaks in tongues more than anyone in Corinth

 

[Radagast]

I've seen enough counterfeit uses of spiritual gifts to know that discernment is a highly underrated gift.

It's a highly unwelcome gift.

The ability to supernaturally speak in languages other than ones own.

I assume that you mean actual human languages, like Welsh, Navajo, Haka, Kazakh, Tamil, Swahili, or Pitjantjatjara?

The claim to speak any such language is of course very easy to verify.

I concur, however that there is a second way that tongues are used that appears to have less Biblical support and which is far more common - the 'praying in tongues'.

Yes, this happens a lot. Like you, I feel that it has limited Biblical support.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I assume that you mean actual human languages, like Welsh, Navajo, Haka, Kazakh, Tamil, Swahili, or Pitjantjatjara?

The claim to speak any such language is of course very easy to verify.

I did mean that. I've seen people trying to make a case for a heavenly language ('If I speak in the tongues of angels and of men') but this appears to be making something of nothing particularly in the context of when it is used (the abuse of tongues and love being more important).

I'm not sure that it is always easily verifiable. I've heard someone use words in another person's language so that they can interpret it (my very first experience of tongues). I've also heard of cases like my lecturer's where a message was given in a language unknown to him but understood by somebody without supernatural intervention.

The issue is this: Both Speaking in Tongues and Interpretation of Tongues are supernatural gifts of the Spirit. If someone understands the language because they know it, then interpretation is not supernatural.

This does make verifying language and interpretation very difficult - and another reason for the discernment gift. I have had a situation where someone else interpreted a tongues in before I did, but their interpretation, while not word-for-word the same, was similar enough to mine for me to accept that they just got their first.

Possibly the only advice I would give for interpreters is the directionality of Tongues which is man speaking to God, whereas prophecy is God speaking to man. I have heard Interpreters essentially try to turn the interpretation into some kind of prophecy, which can confuse the issue (and I guess why Paul tries to give some instructions on its use). Interpretation of Tongues is an underrated gift!

 

[Radagast]

I'm not sure that it is always easily verifiable.

Well it's verifiable if you have a recording; you can run the recording past linguists.

To the best of my knowledge, every time that's been done, it's turned out not to be any of the human languages on the planet. Instead, it's turned out to be the sounds of the speaker's own language, rearranged into meaningless patterns.

 

[swordsman1]

Bringing this up to date, with historically verifiable cases (as opposed to vague references that may or may not indicate the usage of tongues). There is Edward Irving's church in the 1800's and the Azuza Street revival of 1906 which was followed by the Pentecostal revival where the gift of tongues (as well as other gifts) spread rapidly throughout the world. Following that there is the Charismatic Renewal of the 1950's and 60's and then the Catholic Charismatic Renewal of the 1970's. From Pentecostalism onwards the gifts of the spirit, including tongues, have continued in operation in a large number of churches, whether they are using them correctly or not (and a lot are probably not).

Cessationists need to explain how and why such groups operated in the Spiritual gifts and have continued to grow churches (in defiance of the general trend of decline) and how that fits with their theory that the gifts ceased after the first century.

What I believe Pentecostals discovered at the beginning of the 20th century is not the NT gift of tongues (it doesn't match the biblical description) but rather the natural phenomenon known to linguists as glossolalia where the human vocal organs go into autopilot and produce strings of random syllables (much like a baby talks nonsense when it is learning to speak). The phenomenon has been well studied by professional linguists and is found among pagan religions and other non-Christian groups (which rules it out as coming from the Holy Spirit). Rather it is a physiological technique that most people can discover how to practice.

The only description of tongues in scripture is found in Acts 2 and it is clearly foreign human languages. In fact the idea of non-human tongues was unheard of before the Pentecostal movement began around 100 years ago. From the writings of the Church Fathers immediately after the apostolic age, right up to the start of the 20th Century the church has always understood tongues to be foreign human languages. And, outside of a handful of dubious stories, it was also universally accepted that this miraculous gift ceased shortly after the apostolic age.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

@Radagast

Responding to your "Cessionist believe in miracles" quote. This is one of those positions that I think must have changed a lot in recent times.... But I will testify...

1) I went through 3 years of Lutheran Confirmation (Catechism Class) in the Wisconsin synod. My confirmation was held up 2 years because there was no local Lutheran church to start with in my home city of Ridgecrest. The first year we commuted to Victorville for it. The following year we had the pastor drive to our home town where we were starting a church plant. Besides all the commuting which made things sometimes happen every other week, instead of weekly, both myself and the girl that was in my class (a class of only 2 students by the last 2 years) we tended to get sick a lot and that also tended make it where classes could be canceled and that dragged things out more...
Anyway, my Confirmation lasted 3 times longer than normal, but that means I also had a much greater exposure to what the official teaching of the synod was...

And yes their position was pretty much what I said. I never once was told anything that a prayer of Faith might save someone today, or that there might be a miracle happen somewhere. Their position was quite clear, and I might add a bit depressing because in my teen age years I came to the conclusion that for the most part I was on my own. Now that wasn't part of their teaching, but it was what I concluded, based on dealing with reoccurring academic struggles etc. and other things that impacted my life.


2) Besides that I attended a Southern Baptist parochial school for six years. We had a weekly chapel, and daily devotions. Their position was very similar to the Lutheran one.

PS - I will also add, I also read Wisconsin Synod Bible Commentaries on certain books of the Bible, and paid especially attention to all the ones that had discussions about miracles, prophesy etc. since I found that subject especially fascinating.



Anyway the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement has rapid growth over the decades doubling in size world wide I think every decade. It would not surprise me if Cessionist Apologist positions and tactics have changed because of that. I'm talking about dialectics. If you find you are in a debate holding a weak position, and someone shoots a hole in it, that would cause most reasonable people to adjust their position. Which is what I think has happened....

But I don't think you realize how wide spread Full Cessionism was in the past...


And in closing after I left the Wisconsin synod, decades after that hearing from my parents who are devout members it looks like the younger pastors who took over are much more soft on their Cessionism. There was a funny story that happened where they were renovating their sanctuary, and renting a jack hammer to tear up the concrete cobble stone floor, that they were forced to "pray for" the expensive rented machine that had died halfway through the work. Their budget was out of money, but sort of had to. But the pastor, had the faith and led the work party in a prayer for the jack hammer that it would resume working when everyone else expected this was a mini-disaster.... And the jack hammer immediately resumed it's normal functioning..... I was actually happy for the pastor, because that sort of thing would have never happened in the churches I attended in the 1970s-1980s.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Well it's verifiable if you have a recording; you can run the recording past linguists.

To the best of my knowledge, every time that's been done, it's turned out not to be any of the human languages on the planet. Instead, it's turned out to be the sounds of the speaker's own language, rearranged into meaningless patterns.

Interesting thoughts. It would be interesting to see this, but it is not likely to change anything.

 

[swordsman1]

While it is commendable that you are reading critiques of historical events... you should also read the supporters too else you will definitely get a biased view of history.

You ask people to defend Continuationism using Scripture. Here it is: THERE IS NO MENTION THAT THE GIFTS WILL CEASE AT ANY TIME IN THE SCRIPTURES. Ergo, they haven't ceased.

Many things are not in recorded in scripture but that doesn't mean they are not true. There is nothing in scripture about there being 66 books in the bible. Does that mean we should expect there to be more?

The bible says very little about the charismatic gifts either ceasing or continuing. But there are more verses that debatably speak of them ceasing at the end of the apostolic age (eg 1 Cor 13:8-13, Eph 2:20, Heb 2:4, etc).

In the absence of much specific evidence in scripture, we must look outside scripture for further evidence of cessation or continuation. Did the charismatic gifts cease to operate in the church after the apostolic age? Apart from a few dubious stories, yes they did.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

What I believe Pentecostals discovered at the beginning of the 20th century is not the NT gift of tongues (it doesn't match the biblical description) but rather the natural phenomenon known to linguists as glossolalia where the human vocal organs go into autopilot and produce strings of random syllables (much like a baby talks nonsense when it is learning to speak). The phenomenon has been well studied by professional linguists and is found among pagan religions and other non-Christian groups (which rules it out as coming from the Holy Spirit). Rather it is a physiological technique that most people can discover how to practice.

The only description of tongues in scripture is found in Acts 2 and it is clearly foreign human languages. In fact the idea of non-human tongues was unheard of before the Pentecostal movement began around 100 years ago. From the writings of the Church Fathers immediately after the apostolic age, right up to the start of the 20th Century the church has always understood tongues to be foreign human languages. And, outside of a handful of dubious stories, it was also universally accepted that this miraculous gift ceased shortly after the apostolic age.

Glossolalia is just a technical term for tongues, not necessarily random syllables, or certainly as I have understood and used it in the past. Tongues as a phenomenon was found among inter-testamental Jews as well if memory serves.

The description of Tongues in Acts 2 isn't necessarily the only description. In Acts 10 Cornelius' household spontaneously spoke in tongues and Peter recognised it as such - there is no indication that he knew the language. Likewise other references to tongues. So, while it is likely that tongues are known languages, it is not a necessity (since the gift of Interpretation of Tongues is also a gift of the Holy Spirit and therefore not a natural phenomenon).

Your final sentence is incorrect. There were plenty of recorded cases in the first 3 centuries of Christianity, but it died out a lot later than the apostolic age. So I don't think that there was a universal acceptance of this... except among those who had no experience of the gift....

 

[Pavel Mosko]

No. It's way older than that. There is no particular adaptation needed for charismatic Catholics.

Their was a Charismatic movement in Eastern Orthodoxy that saw how the movement fit into some of the writings of one of their great theologian saints Symeon. But the movement itself, was much more controversial, and much less popular than the Catholic one.


Charismatic Renewal in the Ortho

 

[swordsman1]

A Doubting Thomas

What made Thomas believe? It was hard evidence, and Jesus willingly supplied it to him.

 

[swordsman1]

The description of Tongues in Acts 2 isn't necessarily the only description. In Acts 10 Cornelius' household spontaneously spoke in tongues and Peter recognised it as such - there is no indication that he knew the language. Likewise other references to tongues. So, while it is likely that tongues are known languages, it is not a necessity (since the gift of Interpretation of Tongues is also a gift of the Holy Spirit and therefore not a natural phenomenon).

There is no description in Acts 10 of the tongues the gentiles were speaking. In the absence of any description it must be presumed to be the same as that previous described a few chapters earlier in Acts 2.