Convince me of Continuationism.

[swordsman1]

I think that was my point also. Read the Bible and a plain reading of scripture indicates that there is a group of gifts given by the Holy Spirit and that they are there for the church to use. There is no explicit teaching anywhere that there was an end date for these gifts, indeed both Acts and 1 Corinthians appear to teach them for general use... indicating that the authors had no expectation of an end.

There is no explicit statement that says they would continue either. Just because the charismatic gifts were present in apostolic times doesn't automatically mean they must continue throughout all the church age. The bible also speaks of apostles and doesn't specifically say they would cease. Does that mean we have authoritative, miracle working, scripture writing apostles today?

1 Co 13:8-13 - since the remainder of 1 Co 12-14 give an indication that the gifts are for continued usage, it requires eisegesis to interpret this particular piece of scripture to mean anything other than the fact that tongues will cease when perfect love is around - i.e. as you say there is no references to 66 books of the Bible, meaning this is certainly not a reference to the completion of the canon of scripture.

Not so. Nowhere in 1 Cor 12-14 does it say the gifts would continue throughout the church age. And 1 Cor 13:8-13 is very specific - tongues and prophecy would cease sometime after Paul write his letter, when "the perfect" or "completeness" comes. Continuists interpret this as being the return of Christ based on the words "perfect" and "face to face". However if you read it the text doesn't say we see Christ face to face, nor is "perfect" the best translation of the Greek word teleios - "completeness" is a better word as per NIV and others.

as you say there is no references to 66 books of the Bible, meaning this is certainly not a reference to the completion of the canon of scripture.

Non sequitur. It does not follow that because there is no mention of 66 books, 1 Cor 13 cannot be referring to scripture.

Eph 2:20 - this is a reference to particular roles (apostles and prophets) not to the spiritual gifts or tongues and anyway this is not a reference to those gifts ceasing at all, but rather that the church is built on that foundation - which could mean that those roles continue to be a foundation for the church.

Apostleship and prophecy were both spiritual gifts. Apostleship is listed in 2 of the gift lists in scripture. And prophecy is listed in all 4 so you certainly cannot say prophecy was not a gift.

Eph 2:20 says apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, with Christ being the cornerstone. When the foundation of a building is completed, there is no longer any need for further foundation stones. Instead we start building upon that foundation.

Note also Paul also used the past tense "having been built", not "being built" or "will be built" as you would expect if it these were ongoing activities.

Heb 2:4 - Also does not appear to refer to the cessation of gifts but explaining the past by means of signs and wonders and if anything is an indicator that the signs and wonders should continue.

Heb 2:4 says people had the ability to perform miracles for authentication purposes. Notice the past tenses, "God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles...", not "God testifies..." which you would expect if the gift was ongoing.

I don't think that there are a few dubious stories. My reading suggests that there are a lot of references in the early church including some of the church fathers.

If you have proof of tongues speaking after around 3rd century then let's see it. The only accounts I found were from either heretics or Catholics wanting to canonize one of their churchmen. Sainthood is only granted if the candidate has been shown to have performed a miracle. In every case the person in question never claimed to speak in tongues themselves, it was always their fans making the claim of a miracle sometime after they died.

I'll post a few quotes from the church fathers myself later.

If they seem as vague as Acts 19 is, that doesn't make them dubious... unless you decide beforehand that they are dubious because you have already decided that the gifts ceased to function at some seemingly arbitrary date.

If your sources are as vague as Acts 19, then they certainly would be dubious. Acts 19 is infallible scripture so we know it is true. However a vague reference about tongues from a medieval nobody is a wholly different matter

Mark 16 (longer ending) is generally dated to early 2nd century and references the expectation of tongues in the life of the believer. So the author still thought of this as valid at that time - after the apostles were all dead.

If you maintain that the long ending of Mark was written in the 2nd century then it is was a later addition by a scribe, not authentic Mark and should therefore be ignored. Most commentators on Mark believe that which is why they offer no commentary on Mark 16:9 onwards.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

If Continuationism is a part of the faith (i.e. God's Word or Scripture), then we should have no problem demonstrating its truthfulness from the Scriptures and bring down any teaching that runs contrary to that.

While I am not suggesting that you or anyone else trying to convince me is not genuine, I still do not know if they are with 100% certainty. Jesus warned that even the enemy can bring forth false miracles to deceive. So my confirmation of the truth is not in the miracle but it is in what God's Word says. I know His Word is true. So this is where the truth must be determined.

I notice in the scriptures that Jesus had the apostles as His disciples, but the next generation wasn't doing so hot according to Paul. So a lack of faith would be the biblical explanation why the faith became a scholastic faith over an in-your-face miracle working faith. I rely on the giftings that some say are ceased, so the scriptures I start with may not be of help to someone who doesn't think it's possible such as the texts implying that we just don't have the right quality (not amount, quality) of faith when miracles and healing st.

it hasn't "ceased" it's just a lack of proper understanding and then applying said understanding for years.

 

[Carl Emerson]

While God can speak in a way via by nature, it is not where we derive core doctrine, core instruction in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect unto every good work. Now stop for a moment and think. If we can be perfect unto all good works via by Scripture according to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, then what on Earth can anything else offer us? More visions? More prophecies? Surely not. The Bible even ends with warnings not to add to the prophecy of this book. Revelation is the closing book of the Bible that we know today. We do not separate Revelation from the other books of the bible. All the books of the BIble breath together as a whole. God ultimately wants us to trust in His Word. No doubt there will be tests for us believers to trust in His Word. I choose the Bible as my final and only word of authority in matters of the faith. God has already spoken to me plenty with the Bible, and I know He will continue to do so. For the moment we accept another vision, or revelation is the moment we can be the next JW cult, etc.

You have confirmed exactly what I was saying...

The position you take on God's Word is motivating the discussion and colours your interpretation of scripture.

With this position comes a spirit of fear suggesting that anything that might be God speaking apart from reading the pages of the bible is demonic.

This is blasphemy because the Holy Spirit Within us - the third person of the trinity is not silent but is living, comforting, guiding, leading us into all truth.

Yes this realisation comes with a risk of deception in some instances, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is folly.

Without the Holy Spirit dynamically guiding you, you wont last 5 minutes among addicts or in any situation being contested by Satan.

Having a form of Godliness while denying His power within simply wont cut it.

And am I well grounded in the Scripture? Yes - I have attended two Bible Colleges, and taken 5 years out of my life reading devotionally nothing but scripture, it is central to my walk.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You have confirmed exactly what I was saying...

The position you take on God's Word is motivating the discussion and colours your interpretation of scripture.

With this position comes a spirit of fear suggesting that anything that might be God speaking apart from reading the pages of the bible is demonic.

This is blasphemy because the Holy Spirit Within us - the third person of the trinity is not silent but is living, comforting, guiding, leading us into all truth.

Yes this realisation comes with a risk of deception in some instances, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is folly.

Without the Holy Spirit dynamically guiding you, you wont last 5 minutes among addicts or in any situation being contested by Satan.

Having a form of Godliness while denying His power within simply wont cut it.

And am I well grounded in the Scripture? Yes - I have attended two Bible Colleges, and taken 5 years out of my life reading devotionally nothing but scripture, it is central to my walk.

I already admitted to you that God can talk to us via the creation. Why would you think that I believe that God cannot guide us by His Spirit? The thing is that I believe that when the Spirit guides me it is in harmony always with His Word. There is no instance that God would act contrary to His Word or act outside of it. For He magnifies His Word above His own name. The difference between us is that I am not looking for any new words from God. His Word (the Bible) is enough. There is plenty in His Word alone to live by and die by. What else do you see as missing in His Holy Word (the Bible)?

 

[swordsman1]

Why? That certainly isn't the teaching of scripture.

It is if you understand 1 Cor 13:10-13 as referring to the canon.

 

[swordsman1]

In person no less. The rest of us have to make do with anecdotal evidence as we often do in life.

If it was right for Thomas to be supplied with hard evidence before he would believe, then why can't we? It doesn't have to come from the lips of Jesus.

In an age when everyone has a video camera on their phone is it too much to ask for evidence of miracles happening in front of the camera; dead people in their coffins being raised to life; or fluent foreign tongues speaking on camera from someone verified not to know the language. All the videos of miracles I have seen from Charismatic sources so far have been obvious fakes.

If anecdotal evidence (aka hearsay) is inadmissible in a court of law, why should we have to accept it?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There is no explicit statement that says they would continue either. Just because the charismatic gifts were present in apostolic times doesn't automatically mean they must continue throughout all the church age. The bible also speaks of apostles and doesn't specifically say they would cease. Does that mean we have authoritative, miracle working, scripture writing apostles today?



Not so. Nowhere in 1 Cor 12-14 does it say the gifts would continue throughout the church age. And 1 Cor 13:8-13 is very specific - tongues and prophecy would cease sometime after Paul write his letter, when "the perfect" or "completeness" comes. Continuists interpret this as being the return of Christ based on the words "perfect" and "face to face". However if you read it the text doesn't say we see Christ face to face, nor is "perfect" the best translation of the Greek word teleios - "completeness" is a better word as per NIV and others.



Non sequitur. It does not follow that because there is no mention of 66 books, 1 Cor 13 cannot be referring to scripture.



Apostleship and prophecy were both spiritual gifts. Apostleship is listed in 2 of the gift lists in scripture. And prophecy is listed in all 4 so you certainly cannot say prophecy was not a gift.

Eph 2:20 says apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, with Christ being the cornerstone. When the foundation of a building is completed, there is no longer any need for further foundation stones. Instead we start building upon that foundation.

Note also Paul also used the past tense "having been built", not "being built" or "will be built" as you would expect if it these were ongoing activities.



Heb 2:4 says people had the ability to perform miracles for authentication purposes. Notice the past tenses, "God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles...", not "God testifies..." which you would expect if the gift was ongoing.



If you have proof of tongues speaking after around 3rd century then let's see it. The only accounts I found were from either heretics or Catholics wanting to canonize one of their churchmen. Sainthood is only granted if the candidate has been shown to have performed a miracle. In every case the person in question never claimed to speak in tongues themselves, it was always their fans making the claim of a miracle sometime after they died.

I'll post a few quotes from the church fathers myself later.




If your sources are as vague as Acts 19, then they certainly would be dubious. Acts 19 is infallible scripture so we know it is true. However a vague reference about tongues from a medieval nobody is a wholly different matter



If you maintain that the long ending of Mark was written in the 2nd century then it is was a later addition by a scribe, not authentic Mark and should therefore be ignored. Most commentators on Mark believe that which is why they offer no commentary on Mark 16:9 onwards.

Well, besides your point on the “Mark 16:9 onwards thingy” (For I believe it belongs in my Bible), I totally agree with you.

Well said.

I particularly like your point on Ephesians 2:20. This to me suggests Cessationism. For the saints were built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (With Jesus obviously being the chief cornerstone). Being an apostle was a gift (Ephesians 4:11). Clearly “apostles” being the foundation means that there is no more foundation continuing to be laid after the believers at Ephesus were built upon them.

 

[swordsman1]

I agree, but how would you verify it? Nobody around to translate it, even supernaturally.

If the tongues in Acts 10 was something fundamentally different from Acts 2 Luke would certainly have told us. In the absence of any new description it must be presumed to be the same.

There were plenty of people able to recognise the language spoken. It wasn't just Peter who visited Cornelius that day, there was a whole group of them.

My point is that it is dangerous to make a theology out of only one instance

What is far worse is to make a theology out of ZERO instances in scripture, which is precisely what the idea of tongues being a non-human language does!!!!

In Acts 10 the purpose of the tongues is to convince Peter and hence the rest of the brethren that gentiles were included. It is quite possible that the purpose of the original use of tongues was different from the ongoing use, particularly as they including other signs such as tongues of fire.

Exactly and Peter wouldn't have been able to do that if the tongues were different. Peter even tells us the gentiles had "received the Holy Spirit just as we did". If it was anything different the despised Gentiles would never have been accepted into the church.

I would suggest that the obvious conclusion is that tongues is other languages, but that making a dogmatic doctrine of it would be a mistake because other references don't actually confirm or deny it.

That's an argument from silence. Like claiming Noah may have built two arks and saying well you can't prove otherwise because there is no scripture to confirm or deny it.

There is only one type of tongues described in scripture and if continuationism is true then today's tongues would be the same as that description. Otherwise it is not a continuation. But 99% of them are not (and the other 1% is hearsay).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If it was right for Thomas to be supplied with hard evidence before he would believe, then why can't we? It doesn't have to come from the lips of Jesus.

In an age when everyone has a video camera on their phone is it too much to ask for evidence of miracles happening in front of the camera; dead people in their coffins being raised to life; or fluent foreign tongues speaking on camera from someone verified not to know the language. All the videos of miracles I have seen from Charismatic sources so far have been obvious fakes.

If anecdotal evidence (aka hearsay) is inadmissible in a court of law, why should we have to accept it?

I believe the situation with Thomas is another link in the chain for Cessationism. Jesus said blessed are they who don't see and yet believe. Miracles are all about what you see. God is interested in us having faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). I believe Jesus was prophetically talking about a time when the miracles He was doing and the miracles the early church would do would at some point cease and men who did not see these miracles would simply believe by faith (i.e. to believe without seeing). To simply trust in what God's Word says alone.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I already admitted to you that God can talk to us via the creation. Why would you think that I believe that God cannot guide us by His Spirit? The thing is that I believe that when the Spirit guides me it is in harmony always with His Word. There is no instance that God would act contrary to His Word or act outside of it. For He magnifies His Word above His own name. The difference between us is that I am not looking for any new words from God. His Word (the Bible) is enough. There is plenty in His Word alone to live by and die by. What else do you see as missing in His Holy Word (the Bible)?

Yes the way you use language indicates your position.

You interchangeably use the words - "Word of God" and the Bible.

You make no distinction between the Living Word of God and the Scripture, yet we are told plainly that knowledge of the Scripture does not always lead to knowledge of God.

Without new words from God guiding me specifically every day regarding how to act I would be toast in no time.

This matter is of grave concern to me as is shuts down His work among us.

It is this refusal to allow for His Spirit to be speaking afresh to us that extends to insisting that He must not be operating prophetic gifts in this age.

So this is the real question we should be asking that answers the OP of this thread.

Is His Spirit active within us to speak as we walk daily with Him - or did this cease when the bible was written?

Should we expect a fresh Word from God revealed within by His living presence that guides us through our daily challenges, or was this revelation closed when the bible was written?

And support your answer from scripture.

I think some of us have so elevated scripture so much as to eclipse the dynamic and personal conversation with us that He intended.

 

[Carl Emerson]

What is far worse is to make a theology out of ZERO instances in scripture, which is precisely what the idea of tongues being a non-human language does!!!!

Wrong...


1 Cor 13
1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal.

 

[swordsman1]

Wrong...


1 Cor 13
1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal.

In this verse Paul is not saying he or anyone else actually speaks the language of angels. Paul is portraying an exaggerated scenario to make a point. He is saying even if someone could speak in tongues to the ultimate degree conceivable (speaking the language of angels), but not have love, it would be worthless. We know this because he does the same with 3 other gifts in the following verses - having the gift of prophesy to the ultimate degree of knowing ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie. omniscience); having the gift of faith to the ultimate degree of moving mountains; and having the gift of giving to the ultimate degree of giving up ALL you possess to the poor and even giving up your own life. Paul is saying that even if someone had gifts to such a superlative degree, without love, it would be to no avail.

 

[swordsman1]

I believe the situation with Thomas is another link in the chain for Cessationism. Jesus said blessed are they who don't see and yet believe. Miracles are all about what you see. God is interested in us having faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). I believe Jesus was prophetically talking about a time when the miracles He was doing and the miracles the early church would do would at some point cease and men who did not see these miracles would simply believe by faith (i.e. to believe without seeing). To simply trust in what God's Word says alone.

I preached on Thomas a few months ago. People blame Thomas for not believing an anecdotal report, but it wasn't only Thomas who didn't believe an anecdotal report of the resurrection. Mark 16:11 says none of the disciples believed the women's original report. They were all Doubting Thomas's! All of the disciples needed hard evidence before they believed.

As you say nowadays we have the scriptures which provides an infallible record of all the miracles we need cause us to believe. Immediate after John's account of Thomas it says,

"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."​

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

If it was right for Thomas to be supplied with hard evidence before he would believe, then why can't we? It doesn't have to come from the lips of Jesus.

In an age when everyone has a video camera on their phone is it too much to ask for evidence of miracles happening in front of the camera; dead people in their coffins being raised to life; or fluent foreign tongues speaking on camera from someone verified not to know the language. All the videos of miracles I have seen from Charismatic sources so far have been obvious fakes.

If anecdotal evidence (aka hearsay) is inadmissible in a court of law, why should we have to accept it?

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed.

That is the whole point of referring to doubting Thomas.

Additionally while it would be nice to have incontrovertible evidence via video, I’m not sure how valid it would be given the ease with which it is possible to fake or edit video now. Which brings us again back to Jesus’ words above.

If someone you know and trust has had an experience, you don’t start out by thinking they are making it up or delusional. If you yourself has had an experience, you would want others to take you seriously.

The Biblical method is to accept the testimony of two witnesses who agree... not to rely on video evidence.

 

[Carl Emerson]

If it was right for Thomas to be supplied with hard evidence before he would believe, then why can't we? It doesn't have to come from the lips of Jesus.

In an age when everyone has a video camera on their phone is it too much to ask for evidence of miracles happening in front of the camera; dead people in their coffins being raised to life; or fluent foreign tongues speaking on camera from someone verified not to know the language. All the videos of miracles I have seen from Charismatic sources so far have been obvious fakes.

If anecdotal evidence (aka hearsay) is inadmissible in a court of law, why should we have to accept it?

Just maybe God is not interested in putting effort into convincing those in unbelief but rather reveals to those who rejoice...

However check out Canon Andrew White who speaks of a baby in the fridge in a morgue in Iraq who was removed by believers prayed for and is alive today.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

It is if you understand 1 Cor 13:10-13 as referring to the canon.

But is it referring to the canon. Paul certainly wasn’t referring to the canon when he was writing it he was writing of the time to come.

 

[Albion]

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed.

That is the whole point of referring to doubting Thomas.

Yes, but what he was to believe was the reality of the return of Christ from the dead. It isn't as though the statement is saying to believe just anything that someone tells you.

The Biblical method is to accept the testimony of two witnesses who agree...

I know two people who have witnessed faith healers at work and they testified that it was faked. So, must I believe their conclusion to be correct?

 

[swordsman1]

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed.

That is the whole point of referring to doubting Thomas.

Read the next 2 verses.

Blessed are those that have not seen the Jesus in the flesh but believe what they read in scripture. Not a hearsay report.

Additionally while it would be nice to have incontrovertible evidence via video, I’m not sure how valid it would be given the ease with which it is possible to fake or edit video now. Which brings us again back to Jesus’ words above.

A video is certainly better than hearsay. Fakes can generally by spotted, especially by experts.

If you yourself has had an experience, you would want others to take you seriously.

No, I don't think I would. I would put myself in their shoes. And I certainly wouldn't expect a stranger to change their theology based on my anecdotal report (which is what is expected on this forum).

The Biblical method is to accept the testimony of two witnesses who agree... not to rely on video evidence.

That is referring to multiple witnesses in a court of law, testifying in person under oath. Not a single internet stranger with a "story".

Video evidence is certainly accepted in courts today and, if they were around, in biblical times as well I'm sure. But hearsay is not admissible evidence in a court of law.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I know two people who have witnessed faith healers at work and they testified that it was faked. So, must I believe their conclusion to be correct?

In this age the veracity of witnesses must be established first.

 

[swordsman1]

But is it referring to the canon. Paul certainly wasn’t referring to the canon when he was writing it he was writing of the time to come.

I've written an exposition demonstrating why 1 Cor 13:8-13 is referring to the canon and not the return of Christ as is commonly believed. I'll post it later.