Convince me of Continuationism.

Bible Highlighter said:

A sequel to a movie is a continuation from the first movie. It does not mean that the first movie is an unending movie being aired 24/7 for all time. The New Testament is a continuation of the Old Testament, but there is obviously a gap of time between the testaments that we have in our Bibles.

Click to expand...

Yes, but we aren't talking about sequels. The Continuationist argument depends on there having been no break in the continuity. None.

The claim is that the absence of any gaps proves a Biblical point. The claim about there being a promise in Scripture is debatable, but the Continuationist argument says just that.

Albion said:

So even if one person here or there received a gift now and then, this doesn't show that there was actual continuity throughout church history, yet believing that is essential to the Continuationist argument.

Click to expand...

Essential? You're saying any subsiding of the gifts in church history proves cessation? So for example if Noah was in the ark for five months and lived a few days without performing a miracle, this proves cessationism? I guess Moses didn't perform any miracles, then, since the gifts had already ceased in Noah's day.

How can cessationists expect us to take them seriously when they put forth such "arguments" ?

Continuationism is solidly rooted in exegesis. It doesn't need absolute continuity in history.

JAL said:

Essential? You're saying any subsiding of the gifts in church history proves cessation? So for example if Noah was in the ark for five months and lived a few days without performing a miracle, this proves cessationism? I guess Moses didn't perform any miracles, then, since the gifts had already ceased in Noah's day.

How can cessationists expect us to take them seriously when they put forth such "arguments" ?

Continuationism is solidly rooted in exegesis. It doesn't need absolute continuity in history.

Click to expand...

Do you think miracles are the exception or the rule in scripture from Genesis through Acts ?

besides these few people below over a 4000 year period where are the miracles ?

1-God used Moses to perform the miracles to have His people released from bondage to Pharaoh.

2- God used a few prophets after Moses like Elijah and Elisha to perform miracles.

3- Then a huge gap in miracles until Jesus comes on the scene.

4- Then we see the Apostles performing miracles.

In each of these cases the Miracles validated their message that they were Gods mouthpiece and God uses those miracles, signs and wonders to authenticate the message came from God.

One thing that is often overlooked in discussions about signs and miracles is the timing and placement of them in the Scriptures. Contrary to popular belief, people in Bible times did not see miracles all the time. In fact, the miracles of the Bible are generally grouped around special events in God's dealing with mankind. Israel's deliverance from Egypt and entrance into the Promised Land were accompanied by many miracles, but the miracles faded away soon afterward. During the late kingdom years, when God was about to place the people in exile, He allowed some of His prophets to do miracles. When Jesus came to live among us, He did miracles, and in the early ministry of the apostles, they did miracles, but outside of those times, we see very few miracles or signs in the Bible. The vast majority of people who lived in Bible times never saw signs and wonders with their own eyes. They had to live by faith in what God had already revealed to them.

In the early church, the signs and wonders were primarily centered around the first presentation of the gospel among various people groups. On the day of Pentecost, we read that there were “Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven” gathered in Jerusalem (Acts 2:5). It was to these Jews, who had been raised in other lands, and spoke those foreign languages (v. 6-11), that the sign of tongues was first given. They acknowledged that they were hearing in their native tongues about the wonderful works of God, and Peter told them that the only appropriate response was to repent of their sins (v. 38). When the gospel was first presented among the Samaritans, we read that Philip did signs and wonders (Acts 8:13).

Again, when Peter was sent to Cornelius, a gentile, God gave a miraculous sign to confirm His work. “And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God” (Acts 10:45-46). When Peter was questioned by the other apostles, he gave this as evidence of God's leading, and the others “glorified God, saying, ‘Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life’” (Acts 11:18).

In every instance, the sign gifts were a confirmation of God's message and messenger, in order that people might hear and believe. Once the message was confirmed, the signs faded away. We typically don't have a need for those signs to be repeated in our lives, but we do need to receive the same gospel message. got ?

hope this helps !!!

JAL said:

Essential? You're saying any subsiding of the gifts in church history proves cessation?

Click to expand...

"any subsiding?"

This looks like one more exercise in tinkering with the meaning of Cessationism or Continuationism in order to find some slender leg to stand upon and hopefully make the Continuationist claim seem viable.

Jesus is YHWH said:

In each of these cases the Miracles validated their message that they were Gods mouthpiece and God uses those miracles, signs and wonders to authenticate the message came from God.

Click to expand...

The Inward Witness (Direct Revelation) can authenticate without recourse to external signs and wonders. One therefore has to ask, Why does God leverage signs and wonders? Personal preference! That's what Yahweh PREFERS (they glorify Him) - and He does not change. Therefore any lack of signs and wonders in the Christian community is evidence of a problem - evidence that we have not attained to walking in full favor with Him. Jesus "hinted" (cough) at it like this:

"I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27And there were many in Israel with leprosy g in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”

The lack of signs and wonders indicated a problem. The community of believers were actually under judgment.

Albion said:

"any subsiding?"

This looks like one more exercise in tinkering with the meaning of Cessationism or Continuationism in order to find some slender leg to stand upon and hopefully make the Continuationist claim seem viable.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps Continuationists scholars unanimously insist on unbroken continuity (can't go one milisecond without a miracle). I dunno. I certainly don't remember that question arising in the articles I read. I certainly don't hold to such a strict requirement.

Can you cite any Continuationists on this point? Do they really claim that any discontinuity would shatter their own doctrine of Continuationism?

JAL said:

Essential? You're saying any subsiding of the gifts in church history proves cessation?

Click to expand...

That's not what I said. In reply to another person's hypothetical scenario, I wrote:

So even if one person here or there received a gift now and then, this doesn't show that there was actual continuity throughout church history,...

Click to expand...

Albion said:

That's not what I said. In reply to another person's hypothetical scenario, I wrote:

Click to expand...

I don't understand. Are you backpedaling now? Here's what you said earlier:

"The Continuationist argument depends on there having been no break in the continuity. None."

JAL said:

I don't understand. Are you backpedaling now? Here's what you said earlier:

"The Continuationist argument depends on there having been no break in the continuity. None."

Click to expand...

I don't see the problem. The statement you quoted seems right.

JAL said:

Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps Continuationists scholars unanimously insist on unbroken continuity (can't go one milisecond without a miracle). I dunno. I certainly don't remember that question arising in the articles I read. I certainly don't hold to such a strict requirement.

Click to expand...

Well it is what I have heard from every Continuationist of my acquaintance.

And the word itself--which no Continuationist seems unwilling to use when debating on this subject--says it unequivocally.

If the granting of the gifts ceased during the Middle Ages or at some other time, but some Christians later on decided to start them up again, or even if the HS chose to grant them in large numbers for some purpose or revivalism or whatever...that would not be Continuationism, strictly speaking.

AND the argument that the modern version is real because, you see, the Bible promised that the gifts would not stop coming, ever, or that history shows, or something else of that sort, would be useless as a proof.

Albion said:

Well it is what I have heard from every Continuationist of my acquaintance.

And the word itself--which no Continuationist seems unwilling to use when debating on this subject--says it unequivocally.

If the granting of the gifts ceased during the Middle Ages or at some other time, but some Christians later on decided to start them up again, or even if the HS chose to grant them in large numbers for some purpose or revivalism or whatever...that would not be Continuationism, strictly speaking.

AND the argument that the modern version is real because, you see, the Bible promised that the gifts would not stop coming, ever, or that history shows, or something else of that sort, would be useless as a proof.

Click to expand...

Strawman argument. Misextrapolation of Continuationism. When the 120 prophesied (in other languages) on Pentecost, Peter it classified it as a fulfillment of Joel's promise, "They shall prophesy". Several types of Promised Land will always remain available:

"The promise [of Joel] is to you, and to your children, to all who are far off, to all whom the Lord your God shall call" (Acts 2:39).

Discontinuity does not impugn Continuationism but rather indicts the church of failing to go up and possess the Promised Land.

JAL said:

Strawman argument. Misextrapolation of Continuationism. When the 120 prophesied (in other languages) on Pentecost, Peter it classified it as a fulfillment of Joel's promise, "They shall prophesy". Several types of Promised Land will always remain available:

"The promise [of Joel] is to you, and to your children, to all who are far off, to all whom the Lord your God shall call" (Acts 2:39).

Click to expand...

Nothing about that conflicts with cessationism. Indeed, it's basically what we've said several times already.

Albion said:

Nothing about that conflicts with cessationism. Indeed, it's basically what we've said several times already.

Click to expand...

Actually I was just reinforcing that discontinuity proves nothing. On the other hand, since you mention it, I personally think Acts 2:39 does weigh somewhat against a cessationist hermeneutic. Joel's promised Spirit of prophecy appears to be intended for all believers.

JAL said:

Stop telling lies. Your fundamental assertion here has been a point of dissent for me for over 15 years! How is it backpedaling for me to stay consistent for 15 years?

Click to expand...

Do you think I am clairvoyant or something? All I can comment on are the posts that I see. All I have seen from you on that subject was the one I replied to. It's not my fault if you never expressed your opinion properly.

JAL said:

Here's your assertion:

" God gave prophecy in abundance to a spiritually immature church."

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with my assertion. God certainly did give prophecy in abundance to the spiritually immature Corinthians. And that was true direct-revelation prophecy, not todays fake 'prophecy' from feelings. There was so much prophesying at their meetings that they were interrupting each other. So Paul had to limit them to 2 or 3 per meeting speaking in turn. That means there must have been considerably more prophets than that in the congregation, let's say 6. When you consider the size of their congregation was only around 30 (enough to fit into a house), that means 20% of the church were prophets. Considering that was more prophets in a church than probably any time in history, and infinitely more than today, I think that qualifies for the term 'in abundance'.

JAL said:

Um...And I stand by those words. Do you NOT understand that the cornerstone is PART of the larger foundation?

Anyone monitoring this thread - can you please find a way to explain to this to him? He's not getting it.

Click to expand...

Um....my point was not whether you meant it or not. I was defending myself against your false allegation that I lied in stating you said "Christ is the foundation".

JAL said:

@swordsman1;

I find it laughable how you've utterly failed to muster a point-by-point rebuttal of my analysis of 1Cor 13:8-12. You may have fooled some spectators on this thread for a while, but I don't think you're fooling them anymore. You don't have any claims or rebuttals of substance in this debate.

Click to expand...

Perhaps there's something wrong with your memory. I told you I have already addressed your wacky theory on 1 Cor 13:8-12 in another thread which I linked to.

JAL said:

Extrapolation is not dishonesty.

Click to expand...

We've all seen what your "extrapolations" really are. Twisting someone's words to say something that never said, nor meant to say.

JAL said:

At post 533 I enumerated the operands and challenged YOU to do the math. What do his assertions amount to? WHAT specific things are coming to a cease/cessation? WHAT, in the opinion of Robert Thomas, are the immature "childish things" being "put away"? Is he NOT saying that prophecy is put away? And if the chapter is retaining these gifts instead of putting them away, isn't that Continuationism?

Click to expand...

JAL said:

Thomas is clear enough on this. The "immature" is done away. It came to a cease. What has ceased, in his view? The gifts! Prophethood! The definitive ministry of Christ! Yes, that DOES characterize Christ as immature, and it IS heresy. I'm sorry you don't like the implications of the bogus cessationist claims.

Click to expand...

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Robert Thomas. I don't agree with Thomas's view, but I hate seeing people misrepresented so I dusted off my copy of his book. Let's see if he said 'prophecy is immature' as you claimed...


Well Gee, what a surprise. It turns out you were telling fibs. He says it was the EARLY CHURCH that was immature, and subsequently matured. Nowhere does he say prophecy was immature as you dishonestly claimed.

If you have any decency shouldn't you now retract your misrepresentations and apologize for slandering the man?

swordsman1 said:

Considering that was more prophets in a church than probably any time in history, and infinitely more than today, I think that qualifies for the term 'an abundance'.

Click to expand...

Again nobody cares about your standards of charismatic abundance. And nobody cares about mine. It's Paul's standards that matter, as I dealt with in a six-part series. Again, here's the comparison:

(1) My claim. Paul gauged spiritual maturity by charismatic abundance. For example in 1Cor 13, the gauge was prophecy, knowledge, and tongues.
(2) Now a quote from cessationist Robert Thomas (confirming my position).
“By what criteria may maturity in the body of Christ be gauged?…The criterion before Paul in 1Corinthians 13, however, centers in knowledge, tongues, and prophecy...for special revelation and [miraculous] signs for verification of this revelation (cf. Heb 2:3-4).” (Robert L. Thomas, "Tongues…Will Cease", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol 17:2 (1974), p 88).

Being immature, obviously, the Corintians were NOT charismatically abundant by Paul's standards.

Perhaps there's something wrong with your memory. I told you I have already addressed your wacky theory on 1 Cor 13:8-12 in another thread which I linked to.

Click to expand...

Gotcha. Your cessationist friend Robert Thomas is quite the wacky theologian.

Obviously he backpedals later to rehabillitate his devastated cessationism, but that's no concern of mine.

swordsman1 said:

Gee, what a surprise. It turns out you were telling fibs. He says it was the EARLY CHURCH that was immature, and subsequently matured.

Click to expand...

Uh..Duh! Care to tell us something we don't know? I never denied that's PART of what he said. In fact I myself INSISTED on it (read my posts again if you don't believe me). Now deal with my specific points of question and objection showing that his view LEADS to the conclusion that the gifts are immature embodiments of spirituality.

If you have any decency shouldn't you now retract your misrepresentations and apologize for slandering the man?

Click to expand...

If you have any decency you'd stop evading the specific questions and objections about Robert Thomas position that I leveled in your direction.
That would entail post 483 and post 505, and post 533, and post 565 (most of which are redundant because you keep ignoring and evading the challenge). I literally BEGGED you to make some sense of his position in light of those questions and objections.

I'll grant that Thomas starts off on the right foot. He ADMITS that Paul guaged spiritual maturity by charismatic abundance. But then he backpedals - and that's where my questions and objections begin.

So please desist with your strawman comments regarding what we already know, and agree on, about Robert Thomas and start dealing with the questions and objections. That's the nature of a real debate.

JAL said:

Now a quote from cessationist Robert Thomas (confirming my position).
“By what criteria may maturity in the body of Christ be gauged?…The criterion before Paul in 1Corinthians 13, however, centers in knowledge, tongues, and prophecy...for special revelation and [miraculous] signs for verification of this revelation (cf. Heb 2:3-4).” (Robert L. Thomas, "Tongues…Will Cease", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol 17:2 (1974), p 88).

Click to expand...

It is a bit difficult for me to be an advocate for Robert Thomas when I don't agree with his view, but I am quite sure he is not saying the gifts are immature, nor can it be implied. If I were to ask "By what criteria can we tell if a infant has matured?....Is he still being breastfed, is he still wearing diapers, does he still use a carseat". That doesn't mean any of those things themselves are immature and childish. They are in fact very sensible and essential for the well-being of a child.

Unlike Thomas I do not think 'teleios' should be translated 'maturity' (not do any bible translations). Nor do I put undue emphasis on 1 Cor 13:11. That was just an analogy Paul uses, just like the analogy of the dim mirror in the next verse. Paul is not saying the early church was childish, any more that he is saying they were dim. His point with the analogies is that things changed for the better.

JAL said:

Uh..Duh! Care to tell us something we don't know? I never denied that's PART of what he said. In fact I myself INSISTED on it (read my posts again if you don't believe me). Now deal with my specific points of question and objection showing that his view LEADS to the conclusion that the gifts are immature embodiments of spirituality.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't lead to that conclusion. That is you "extrapolating" (twisting) - putting words into someone's mouth that they never said, nor meant. Actually it is worse than that. In post #505 you said "Thomas was clear" that prophecy was immature and done away. That was an outright lie, he said nothing of the sort. So yes you should apologize for slandering him.

JAL said:

Actually I was just reinforcing that discontinuity proves nothing.

Click to expand...

Yes. Except that it is essential to the Continuationist argument.

No continuation, no Continuationism. In that case, what's left is "The Holy Spirit gifts whomever he chooses, whenever he chooses" and there is no dispute separating Continuers from Cessationists.