Convince me of Continuationism.

[Albion]

Given that your Anglican church has drifted so deeply into unbelief and deception, its not surprising there has been no witness of the gifts.

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.

 

[Albion]

I agree and the fact that the Bible does not explicitly say that they will end is good reason to suppose that they shouldn't end.

Wayne, I would accept that IF we did not know the testimony, the record, of actual history.

So because the gifts did cease (except perhaps for a suggestion every now and then that one of them was associated with some saint or other, which is not even to claim any continuity), we MUST take account of that when making a decision about the matter.

And arguing that it is 'one' man's perception when you have already mentioned others who have had similar experiences seems a bit odd.

It's a common expression. Is your position made secure if I were instead to say two or three or several or a few men said....?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ask yourself, during the span of the Old Covenant, the ministry of death, from Mt. Sinai to the Day of Pentecost (same anniversary) when the New Covenant started, what changed during the old covenant?

Matthew 5:18
For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

The same is true of the New Covenant, the ministry of the Spirit. Nothing of the Spirit will change until we see God face to face. 1 Corinthians 13:12. That includes the gifts of the Spirit.

Jesus, the I AM, started the Old Covenant, and only He could end it, and start the new one. And only His second coming will end the New Covenant. And the covenant will stay in tact from beginning to end with nothing ceasing.

Cessationism is wishful thinking of those without the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Just like everything spiritual, the gifts are given according to your faith. Those with unbelief or disdain, will never receive anything from the Lord to their shame. I remember one Cessationist preacher write in a book against tongues, that if the gifts of the Spirit were available today, then he would most certainly have been given them. Such humility.

Regarding the laws of each covenant. They are similar as they are both based on the eternal laws of God, (love God with all your heart, mind and body, and love your neighbor as yourself), but the signs of a covenant cease when the covenant ceases. The Sabbath was the sign of the Old Covenant, and it ceased as Jesus is its substance, our Rest. And the sign of the New Covenant is the Cup, representing the blood of the covenant. 1 Corinthians 11:25.

The change of the Law (Hebrews 7:12) shows that God is into changing things and not keeping things the same. The Old Covenant Law is no more (the 613) as a whole or package deal. So I do not see this as a good argument for Continuationism. A better argument would be Paul attaining perfection by entering Heaven and his knowing all things in Heaven vs. knowing in part while here on this Earth. But, I believe the “mirror” (i.e. KJV says “glass”) (in 1 Corinthians 13) is referred to as the Word of God in James 1:23, and so this fits the Cessationist view that the mirror is a representation of the communicated Word of God. For where is attaining knowledge in Heaven referenced as looking through a glass or mirror? Again, I am not trying to undermine the Continuationist position. I am merely seeing if it has Biblical merit or not.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Proof is irrefutable evidence. To say that the speaker saw (or heard of) someone who raised the dead to life or was speaking French is not proof of anything.

Well let's drop the 'raised from the dead' issue and I've heard loads of people speaking in French, particularly when I was in France on holiday, but I never thought it was the gift of tongues and I doubt they did either.

So what do you really mean by 'irrefutable evidence'. I have it. I have prophesied and it was God speaking; I have spoken words of Wisdom and it was divinely given; I have spoken in tongues (and it certainly wasn't French); I have interpreted tongues without understanding the language spoken (English is my first and only language).

There are books filled with examples, including examples of people I knew. To me this is all 'irrefutable'.

That is not to say that there isn't refutable evidence - I've come across plenty of examples over the years of 'hustlers' who have spiritual words for situations they know about and I thank God for the Spirit of Discernment (or skepticism in normal English), but they are a minority of my experience.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Is it possible to raise a cessationist from the dead?

Can I speak to him in a language he understands to convince him of his error?

 

[Albion]

Well the evidence is there. All it needs is evaluation.

Well, 'it's there' isn't saying much. If it is there, you should be able to present it to us who don't know what it is you are referring to.

And experienced as well. Having spoken in tongues, prophesied, spoken words of wisdom, interpreted tongues and had words of knowledge (in addition to the other 1 Co 12 gifts), I have all the evidence I need.

I'm sure that's so. You are convinced. However, our experiences convince us of the opposite.

In addition, we also have the record of the history of the church and its experiences to support our conclusion. If tongues, for instance, never had ceased, it would be almost an open and shut case for the continuationists, but because they did cease, the evidence (other than for personal feelings) goes the other way.

Having read the scriptures, I'm quite happy that this is normal activity in the church.

In some churches, yes. Not in most.

But that aside, I am quite happy for you. What became the issue early in this thread, however, was that something was wrong with the rest of us for belonging to other churches with other doctrines. "Dishonest" was the word used, in fact.

 

[Albion]

So what do you really mean by 'irrefutable evidence'. I have it. I have prophesied and it was God speaking; I have spoken words of Wisdom and it was divinely given; I have spoken in tongues (and it certainly wasn't French); I have interpreted tongues without understanding the language spoken (English is my first and only language).

That is hearsay or an allegation. Proof is independent evidence. Even in Scripture we have Jesus raising a man, Lazarus, from the dead and that person had been dead for four days and was laid in a tomb. That's hard to refute! But if someone says that they raised somebody from the dead, and the fact is that he had merely been unconscious before another man prayed over him, then mistakenly thinking that he had brought him back from the dead...that wouldn't be a verification, proof, that anyone was raised from the dead or that a gift of the Holy Spirit was involved.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Wayne, I would accept that IF we did not know the testimony, the record, of actual history.

So because the gifts did cease (except perhaps for a suggestion every now and then that one of them was associated with some saint or other, which is not even to claim any continuity), we MUST take account of that when making a decision about the matter.

This would sound like something out of a Monty Python sketch... if it weren't for the fact that you admit that the 'gifts' are actually making a noise.

And if one investigates, copious evidence of various gifts can be found well into the third century... long after the apostolic age had ended. That they began to dwindle after that is more likely to be an indication of the state of the church than the fact that there was an actual cessation.

Moreover the continuationists don't maintain that the gifts continued to be used unbroken, but that they continue to be available to be used (in line with the book of Acts which clearly doesn't indicate that everyone spoke in tongues all of the time).

If cessationists say that the gifts ceased after the apostles died... then ANY evidence that the gifts were used after that time (even if by only one person) is evidence that the gifts did not cease. And here is multiple pieces of evidence: over a hundred years of Pentecostalism and over 50 years of the Charismatic Movement. And that is only the recent evidence. There is Edward Irving and before that the Primitive Methodists and Hildegarde of Bingham and numerous other names and groups that I have long since forgotten about.

It's a common expression. Is your position made secure if I were instead to say two or three or several or a few men said....?

No but then I am not saying two or three or several, I am saying that these gifts are and have been used regularly by hundreds of thousands of people over the years. How many people do you consider 'proof'. Would the same burden apply to other things... such as the resurrection of Jesus, which has far less witnesses and yet we can both agree it happened.

 

[topher694]

Let's say it a more accurate way. I was drawing from several different comments that have already been posted and, presumably, read by the readers here.


But you wrote that you are dismayed or perplexed or just plain surprised that that they are not convinced of your POV after allegedly being given proof.

And yet, you're not about to present any of that proof to us?

I have medical proof that my daughter was healed of 75% hearing loss. I have a test results from one doctor then a week later from a specialist. One states the 75% hearing loss, the other states perfectly normal hearing. In between there we specifically laid hands on her ears for healing. This was the result. I have presented that evidence before (not here). Obviously I hide personal information. So guest what happens? I get accused of being dishonest. That could be from 2 different people. The information could be "doctored". The first doctor probably made a mistake and so on. I'm not putting my daughter's personal information on the internet. Even if I did it I'd still be accused of "doctoring" the information. THAT is why I don't play the "proof" game anymore. THAT is why I say that cessationism is founded in deception and accusation, because it is their default position. I don't need to provide proof of anything to know that such attitudes do not line up with the character and nature of Jesus.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Didn't people do that there on that thread? Why bring it up again? Was there insufficient argument given?

You are arguing that we should not discuss this issue because it has been discussed beforehand? If such is the case, then we should not discuss any more topics involving Christianity because they all have been discussed before. I am asking not to argue, but I am asking for evidence in Scripture to back up Continuationism. Obviously I am asking because I do not believe the evidence in the Bible merits me to hold to it without question. There are some great verses that appear to teach Cessationism. I am on the fence, and I lean towards Cessationism. If you are a Continuationist, surely you will want to defend your view with the Bible. If not, then by all means do not contribute to the thread and move on. You are assuming that everybody knows what you know, so we shouldn't discuss it so as to learn.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

That is hearsay or an allegation. Proof is independent evidence. Even in Scripture we have Jesus raising a man, Lazarus, from the dead and that person had been dead for four days and was laid in a tomb. That's hard to refute! But if someone says that they raised somebody from the dead, and the fact is that he had merely been unconscious before another man prayed over him, then mistakenly thinking that he had brought him back from the dead...that wouldn't be a verification, proof, that anyone was raised from the dead or that a gift of the Holy Spirit was involved.

I'm quite happy to agree on the subject of Lazarus... but I didn't say I'd witnessed someone being raised from the dead, nor am I making a case for it.

What I want to know is what proof you want for me speaking in tongues or prophesying? Saying that it is hearsay or an allegation is the same reasoning that skeptics use for saying that the gospels are wrong and there are only four of those....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have medical proof that my daughter was healed of 75% hearing loss. I have a test results from one doctor then a week later from a specialist. One states the 75% hearing loss, the other states perfectly normal hearing. In between there we specifically laid hands on her ears for healing. This was the result. I have presented that evidence before (not here). Obviously I hide personal information. So guest what happens? I get accused of being dishonest. That could be from 2 different people. The information could be "doctored". The first doctor probably made a mistake and so on. I'm not putting my daughter's personal information on the internet. Even if I did it I'd still be accused of "doctoring" the information. THAT is why I don't play the "proof" game anymore. THAT is why I say that cessationism is founded in deception and accusation, because it is their default position. I don't need to provide proof of anything to know that such attitudes do not line up with the character and nature of Jesus.

I do not doubt that God can heal today, and that God healed your daughter. What we do not find today is a person who can touch people and they ALWAYS heal 100% of the time as a part of having the gift of healing. The apostles who healed were able to heal all that came to them during the time of the early church when they had that gift. Paul healed a whole bunch of people, but later in his life, and he even sent clothes to heal others. It did not appear he had this same ability later on in his life because he was recommending Timothy to drink a little wine in his water for the infirmities of his stomach. Paul did not send him a healing cloth so as to 100% cure his condition. This to me suggests the temporary nature of the gifts (Which was to confirm the Word).

 

[Albion]

And if one investigates, copious evidence of various gifts can be found well into the third century... long after the apostolic age had ended.

How does that show that the gifts never ceased or could not cease? And does your mention of this conflict with anything I've written? I don't think so.

That they began to dwindle after that is more likely to be an indication of the state of the church than the fact that there was an actual cessation.

I don't know what you mean by this. Are you saying that the gifts were less often in evidence but that there was always a continuity of them? I don't think that's verified by history.

Moreover the continuationists don't maintain that the gifts continued to be used unbroken, but that they continue to be available to be used...

Now, wait a minute. That line of argument makes continuationists into cessationists.

...in line with the book of Acts which clearly doesn't indicate that everyone spoke in tongues all of the time).

Has anyone ever claimed that they everybody was gifted or that those who were "did it" nonstop? I disagree.

If cessationists say that the gifts ceased after the apostles died... then ANY evidence that the gifts were used after that time (even if by only one person) is evidence that the gifts did not cease.

That's a solid argument, yes, although it's not argued that the death of the last Apostle is somehow special to this issue. And there is an answer.

There doesn't seem to be any historical evidence--but there would be if it were true--of a continuity of the experiencing of the gifts, even if they were less common. If the continuity was broken, then cessation occurred.

And here is multiple pieces of evidence: over a hundred years of Pentecostalism and over 50 years of the Charismatic Movement. And that is only the recent evidence. There is Edward Irving and before that the Primitive Methodists and Hildegarde of Bingham and numerous other names and groups that I have long since forgotten about.

How is this purported revival evidence that the gifts did not cease at some time during, say, the Dark Ages?

No but then I am not saying two or three or several, I am saying that these gifts are and have been used regularly by hundreds of thousands of people over the years.

But not over ALL the years since the time when the gifts were a major feature of the Church.

How many people do you consider 'proof'.

You took exception to my using a common expression about "one man's" opinion, so I was acceptable to changing that to some men or something like that. There's nothing more to argue about with this.

Would the same burden apply to other things... such as the resurrection of Jesus, which has far less witnesses and yet we can both agree it happened.

In that case, we believe not only because of the account but because we believe Holy Scripture to be God's own word.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In that case, we believe no only because of the account but because we believe Holy Scripture to be God's own word.

Yes. I agree. For me: If God's Word clearly taught Continuationism and we did not see any evidence in history or today of Continuationism, then I would simply believe God's Word by faith and not by what my two eyes can see or confirm. For example: I believe the Bible teaches that we can overcome grievous sin in this life (like lying, hating, idolatry, adultery, theft, etc). I do not base this truth or belief on what I can see and or experience myself, but I take it by faith based on the numerous verses that talk about that (Galatians 5:24, 1 Peter 4:1-2, 2 Corinthians 7:1).

 

[Albion]

I'm quite happy to agree on the subject of Lazarus... but I didn't say I'd witnessed someone being raised from the dead, nor am I making a case for it.

I understand, but I'm dealing with the whole issue here, and the whole thread, not with just what a single poster says is his own experience. The topic is, after all, about Cessationism as a concept vs. Continuationism as a concept.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Given that your Anglican church has drifted so deeply into unbelief and deception, its not surprising there has been no witness of the gifts.

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).

 

[Albion]

I agreed, but you are referring, I think, to the Church of England as was our friend. And you probably also have the Church of Ireland in mind. Those are two well-known Anglican churches out of hundreds of different and autonomous Anglican church bodies in the world.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I must say that I don't fully understand the Catholic position.

The Catholic Catechism #1508 states "The Holy Spirit gives to some a special charism of healing," which seems Continuationist.

However, the preferred Catholic mode of healing seems to the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, which seems Cessationist.

Anointing of the sick sometimes heals people and sometimes it prepares them for death. We pray for sick people AND we build hospitals and medical schools, so you could say we are continuationalist AND cessationist. I would say we are open to God working through medicine AND prayer without getting all dogmatic about it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It might mean that; or it might be a theological compromise to satisfy Charismatic Catholics.

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

 

[Tra Phull]

Tongues, prophecy, and Word of Knowledge are the 3 gifts subject to CEASING. I don't know how HEALING got on the list as something that would cease. Apostleship is an office, not a gift, and not subject to this ceasing.

The focus should be on THE PERFECT, complete, mature. What is it and has it come?

As to whether a Cessationist can be raised from the dead, I don't know.