Convince me of Continuationism.

[Guojing]

None of that describes my theological position.

So if you do believe that the gospel of the kingdom is still valid today, I don't understand why you would hold the cessationalist view.

Aren't signs and wonders linked to that gospel? How did Jesus prove to the Jews that he was indeed the promised Messiah? What is the Gospel of John a record of?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well their seem to be different types and nuances. I was raised in a Cessionist Lutheran church, that believed that miracles "died out with the apostles" and they basically had no hope or Faith for any kind of a miraculous answer to prayer. And I've seen that a lot.

Yeah, that's wrong, for sure.

Lately, I have been watching some Calvinist Apologetics folks who go after the TV preachers etc. and they are a lot more nuanced in believing you can still have miracles via Faith etc. even though gifts like healing, which they define as "doing something by command" is not around anymore.

I am on the fence on the miraculous GIFTS being still in effect for today by believers. This is not a lack of faith, but this is purely based on what God's Word says and looking at the world around us. Things like the gift of tongues, the gift of interpretation of tongues, and the gift of healing do not appear to be around to our knowledge. If so, point me to these believers who are still doing such things. Granted, I understand that maybe if there are believers who have the gift of healing today might be in hiding because Jesus even told others not to tell anyone what He did. Also, if people knew that they could be healed, this person would be swamped with people all the time. If so, one has to explain what the mirror is talking about in 1 Corinthians. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation that fits the Continuationist view. I believe the mirror fits best as being the communicated Word of God whereby we would see the Living Word in the reflection of the mirror by the way we live for Christ.

 

[Albion]

Cessationism is saying that the miraculous gifts given to God's people have ended, but they do not deny that the Spirit gives gifts in regards to other non-miraculous gifts such as teaching, and evangelism, etc.

And I don't think that even this describes the POV of all Cessationists.

Many would say that occasional granting of some of the gifts named in Corinthians may have happened in modern times...but that the phenomenon as a significant and commonly witnessed feature of the Church ceased once the purpose (spreading the early church into a pagan world) had been accomplished.

 

[Radagast]

Things like the gift of tongues, the gift of interpretation of tongues, and the gift of healing do not appear to be around to our knowledge. If so, point me to these believers who are still doing such things.

A great many soft Cessationists have that view. They don't object in principle to those gifts still being around; they just have seen no reliable examples in their neighbourhood (this is why soft Cessationists are often open to a greater range of gifts in the mission field).

As a theological system, Cessationism is really about noticing that the more spectacular gifts are no longer around, and trying to make sense of that theologically.

In fact, soft Continuationism (with no more infallible prophecy and no more Acts of the Apostles 2:6-11) does exactly the same thing.

 

[Radagast]

Many would say that occasional granting of some of the gifts named in Corinthians may have happened in modern times...but that the phenomenon as a significant and commonly witnessed feature of the Church ceased once the purpose (spreading the early church into a pagan world) had been accomplished.

Only the barest handful of ultra-hard-core Cessationists would deny that.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

But clearly the gift of apostleship has ceased. Even some Continuationists believe this way. Paul referred to himself as the last apostle (1 Corinthians 15:8); And in Ephesians 2:20, it says that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Meaning, we are not laying any new apostles upon the foundation because the foundation has already been laid (with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone or base foundation of course).

I'm on the fence on that one

1) The more I am around Charismatics in "the Apostolic Movement" the more I am inclined to agree with you.


2) There is a notion out there of an apostle as some kind of trail blaizer person, especially when it comes to being a missionary, or pioneering some new kind of ministry etc.


I guess I can relate to people as Apostles who don't really call themselves that, but prove themselves by their deeds. In the past, their were some great missionary saints that have been called that etc. But I find myself often disbelieving based the more people use that a some kind of personal title. Their is an Orthodox term called "Prelest" which describes a kind of spiritual delusion and I think some people have an overly exalted view of themselves that cannot be supported by neither scripture or the facts.

 

[Albion]

Only the barest handful of ultra-hard-core Cessationists would deny that.

I wonder how many Continuationists are aware of either the POV or the number of people who take that view.

Judging from the debates I've witnessed, it's almost none. For them, it has to be all or nothing.

 

[Radagast]

I wonder how many Continuationists are aware of either the POV or the number of people who take that view.

Judging from the debates I've witnessed, it's almost none. For them, it has to be all or nothing.

Well, both Cessationism and Continuationism have "soft" and "hard extremes, I think.

... and then there are those people who seem uncertain of what their own position is.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So if you do believe that the gospel of the kingdom is still valid today, I don't understand why you would hold the cessationalist view.

Aren't signs and wonders linked to that gospel? How did Jesus prove to the Jews that he was indeed the promised Messiah? What is the Gospel of John a record of?

The three greatest prophets and miracle workers in the Bible are Moses, Elijah, and Jesus. We see that the miracles that they performed were a way to authenticate them as a messenger from GOD and the Word of God that they provided (that would be immortalized into Scripture). We notice that after each of these prophets, there was a time of silence where no miracles were done. Just like with the prophets Moses, Elijah, and Jesus, miracles authenticated the apostles' message as from God. "And they (apostles) went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the Word with signs (tongues, prophecies, healing, etc.) following. Amen."

So the purpose of the gifts was to confirm that the Word was indeed from God. No such gifts are needed today to confirm the Bible as being true or from God. Most today know that the Holy Bible is “the book” above all books, and it is God's Holy Word. There are many evidences today that back up the Bible.

I believe the gospel also progressed, as well. If you read the beginning of Mark 1, it references the words “the beginning of the gospel” and talks about John the Baptist being a forerunner for the coming of the Lord, etc.; Surely we are not still forerunning the 1st coming of Jesus' ministry still with John the Baptist as a part of the gospel. Jesus has already came, died on the cross, and was risen, and He went up to Heaven to sit down at the right hand of the Father. Before the cross: The disciples did not preach the ultimate fruition of the gospel (Which is 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 that says that we are to believe that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He was risen three days later for our salvation). So the gospel has evolved and progressed since it's original beginnings.

 

[Albion]

I guess I can relate to people as Apostles who don't really call themselves that, but prove themselves by their deeds.

Contrary to what was said in an earlier post, however, the "Gift of Apostleship" is not one of the "Gifts of the Holy Spirit."

Whichever way we look at the subject of "Apostleship," the scriptural basis is something else.

 

[Radagast]

Contrary to what was said in an earlier post, however, the "Gift of Apostleship" is not one of the "Gifts of the Holy Spirit."

Whichever way we look at the subject of "Apostleship," the scriptural basis is something else.

In Ephesians 4:11, "Apostle" seems to be one of a list of offices.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jas 5
13Is any one of you suffering? He should pray. Is anyone cheerful? He should sing praises. 14Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick. The Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power to prevail.

Surely if your theology denies these simple scriptures you will not be likely to see healing and you will take this as evidence of your 'correct' theology.

Is this not a circular sadness founded in unbelief...

When the church looses His power through compromise - the gifts cease.

When simple folk revisit the word in simplicity and faith - they read and believe once again and His healing grace returns.

This is not the miraculous gifts given to believers by the Spirit as a part of confirming the Word with signs like with the early church. This is simply praying, anointing, etc.

 

[topher694]

Not really. It's easy to say "Oh good, they continued after all!"

And indeed, there are a lot of "Soft Cessationists" who believe that the "sign gifts" might still occur in distant mission fields. That is, they are open to the possibility.



The TV has shown us so many false "prophecies," so many fake "healings," and so many "tongues" that are not tongues.

You must admit that a degree of scepticism is unsurprising.

And it really doesn't help when the Cessationist asking for evidence is accused of being un-Christian.

It's not the skepticism that is the issue, it is the MANNER it which it is continually done. I have no doubt there are some sincere skeptics out there, but they don't seem to be the ones asking questions. What I have seen - every single time - from those actually asking for "proof" is that they aren't looking for proof, they are trying to prove their own point and will immediately put down any proof that is given without a second thought. Every. Single. Time. Which is my point. That is not Christ-like behavior in the least.

Additionally, if TV is one's main source of truth for anything - especially Biblical ideas and principles - then they are not starting from an very solid foundation.

 

[Albion]

In Ephesians 4:11, "Apostle" seems to be one of a list of offices.

Yes, "office." That's not a miraculous gift.

 

[Radagast]

It's not the skepticism that is the issue, it is the MANNER it which it is continually done. I have no doubt there are some sincere skeptics out there, but they don't seem to be the ones asking questions.

Oh, they are asking questions.

But you have to admit that there has been some really large-scale fakery in some of the more unfortunate corners of Pentecostalism. That reinforces the scepticism of the sceptics.

It's also interesting that not one solid piece of evidence for "sign gifts" has been presented on this thread. Lot's of "you're so bad for being sceptics" and lots of deflection to other topics, but no solid evidence at all.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Contrary to what was said in an earlier post, however, the "Gift of Apostleship" is not one of the "Gifts of the Holy Spirit."

Whichever way we look at the subject of "Apostleship," the scriptural basis is something else.

1 Corinthians 12:28-31 appears to teach that this is so.
Paul was gifted with being an apostle. It was not something Paul chose for himself. God gifted him in being an apostle. Nobody could write a sign that said, “Hello everyone, I am an apostle” and hang it around there neck as confirmation that they were an apostle. Only God could have gifted that to a particular person back in the early church.

 

[Radagast]

1 Corinthians 12:28-31 appears to teach that this is so.
Paul was gifted with being an apostle. It was not something Paul chose for himself. God gifted him in being an apostle.

God appointed him to the office of apostle.

Being an apostle is not on the list of "spiritual gifts."

1 Corinthians 12:28-31 seems to mix gifts and offices together.

 

[Albion]

What I have seen - every single time - from those actually asking for "proof" is that they aren't looking for proof, they are trying to prove their own point and will immediately put down any proof that is given without a second thought. Every. Single. Time. Which is my point.

I, for one, will be won over if proof is provided.

So far, none has been. Lots of tales about things someone said they witnessed or experienced personally, but that's not proof of anything.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

God appointed him to the office of apostle.

Being an apostle is not on the list of "spiritual gifts."

Ephesians 4:7-12 says,

7 “But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:”​

Nobody can just be a teacher, or an apostle on their own power. God has to gift that ability to them. So it's a gift.

 

[eleos1954]

The case for cessationism is based on the fact that they did cease to be a feature of Christ's church at some point in the past.

The case for continuationism, at least as it has been made on these forums before, is based on saying "No, Christ promised that that would not happen so history must be wrong, no matter what the evidence is."

Which of those seems the more compelling argument?

The US constitution sets how our nation is supposed to be governed ... how our government is suppose to operate.

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. ... It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for due process of law and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the people or the States

Though connected in spirit, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are separate, distinct documents. The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776. ... The Constitution was written and signed in 1787.

The Declaration of Independence, which officially broke all political ties between the American colonies and Great Britain, set forth the ideas and principles behind a just and fair government, and the Constitution outlined how this government would function.

"No, Christ promised that that would not happen so history must be wrong, no matter what the evidence is."

Please provide some links where this was stated within this forum.