Convince me of Continuationism.

[swordsman1]

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....

I do not believe the charismatic gifts ceased the moment the last apostle died, but rather gradually as the completed canon of scripture was distributed among the churches.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I'm going to comment on that because I have heard it often enough from others.

No! All that a cessationist needs is certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that the gifts did not continue from the beginning to the present. That's not difficult to do.

All the Scripture references that the other side cites are taken by those people to be guarantees that what has happened cannot have happened. That, however, is a matter of interpretation and there are many different interpretations.

Evidentialism I believe is the term that describes.

Evidentialism - Wikipedia.


I mostly associate that term with atheism. But after debating atheists and talking to one philosophical inclined person on the board, I realize I am Evidentialist myself in some ways.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

In the absence of any much specific evidence in scripture, then 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.

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 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. 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.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I do not believe the charismatic gifts ceased the moment the last apostle died, but rather gradually as the completed canon of scripture was distributed among the churches.

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

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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?

Yes, this is true in a direct sense or openly. But I have come to discover that unique words that are found in each of the 66 chapters of Isaiah can also be found in the 66 books of the Bible. In other words, the book of Isaiah is kind of like a microbible. I was thinking of maybe creating a thread on it sometime (Lord willing).

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).

Agreed.

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.

Unless it involves the history of the King James Bible, or looking up quickly the origin of a false religion or set of beliefs, the study of the history of Christianity is something I have put aside for now. For I don't want to be influenced by what men think but I want to be wholly influenced by the Word of God. For many look to Christians in the past to base what they believe the Bible teaches today.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Scripture is where we base our faith upon (Romans 10:17). If the Scriptures slowly show Paul not being able to heal anymore, for whatever the reason, it is not the sole doctrine for Cessationism, but it is merely one link in the chain that shows the miraculous gifts have most likely ceased.

James 1 is key. James 1 describes both a “mirror” (i.e. glass), and something that is “perfect” in regards to the communicated Word of God (i.e. Scripture). Paul also talks about a mirror and this perfect ceasing in 1 Corinthians 13. Coincidence? Well, Christians are to be like good Bereans and compare Scripture with Scripture. We also see long periods in the Bible where no miracles were done after Moses and Elijah, as well. This again shows us a pattern in Scripture. Another coincidence? The purpose of the sign gifts was to confirm the Word (Mark 16:20).

I have yet to have a Continuationist explain these points to me with Scripture or offer a counter explanation that has deep spiritual meaning for me according to what God's Word says. Hence, the reason why I created this thread. I am open to hearing the Continuationist case so as to explain these things.

Concerning what you said on the Church Fathers and Church history.... If you want to talk about things like logic etc. don't you have to consider them, a long with other things of course when talking about the Scriptures etc?

From what I can tell you do, assuming you are sincere in the OP... Because you have what in System's theory is a closed system, one that cannot change at all. It is basically closed to the outside world beyond it. So you more or less doomed to a kind of "self fulfilling prophesy" of having the same conclusion of things as when you started. (Since I'm guessing you have already been through the scriptures with those same assumptions and interpretations). Anyway, if you want to do something other than "Confirmation Bias" then you need to open up your viewpoint, otherwise this thread is either just a waste of time, or something that was made just to make you feel more certain in the position that you already mapped out for yourself.

 

[Albion]

So were you lying when you described yourself as Anglican?

I have a feeling that you haven't been reading most of the posts on this thread.

I say that because I made mention, in other posts, of facts that your later posts show no awareness of .

 

[Word and Spirit]

I have a third Biblical concern with the idea of tongues as an "ecstatic prayer language." That's not what Acts of the Apostles 2:6-11 is talking about.

In light of 1 Corinthians 14:2, what do you surmise happened on the Day of Pentecost that doesn't contradict this rule?

 

[Radagast]

@Radagast

Responding to your "Cessionist believe in miracles" quote.

I hear what you say. I'm sure there are people out there who disbelieve in miracles, but it's very bad theology, even from a Cessationist point of view.

Anyway the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement has rapid growth over the decades doubling in size world wide I think every decade.

Very true. But there's a lot of variety within the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement.

It would not surprise me if Cessionist Apologist positions and tactics have changed because of that.

Not really, because the Cessationist point of view is fundamentally reactive, it seems to me. One notices the seeming absence of genuine "sign gifts" and one tries to make theological sense of that.

Faced with proof that a particular "sign gift" hasn't ceased, I for one would just cross it off the list of "gifts that have ceased." That wouldn't bother me at all.

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

Possibly. I call myself a "soft Cessationist." I'm aware that others are not so "soft."

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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

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

 

[Albion]

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.

Of course that's so. However, the issue here is not about the gifts being real but whether they continued to be a feature of the church from the beginning until the present.

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.

But once again, you are deliberately ignoring the fact that they did end. That's the 'heart and soul' of this dispute, and it either has to be confronted or the discussion might as well be ended.

 

[Radagast]

But once again, you are deliberately ignoring the fact that they did end. That's the 'heart and soul' of this dispute, and it either has to be confronted or the discussion might as well be ended.

Well, if they've ceased, some kind of Cessationism has to be true.

And if they've continued, some kind of Continuationism has to be true.

So the first half of the debate is really a factual dispute about whether genuine "tongues," genuine prophecy, and the genuine "gift of healing" still exist.

That's made difficult by a certain ambiguity in meaning for all 3 of those gifts:

• tongues as foreign languages (A) vs tongues as "ecstatic speech" (B)
• fallible (C) vs infallible (D) prophecy
• healing following prayer (E) vs commanding people to be healed (F).

On tongues, we have claims for both (A) and (B) on this thread. I'm sceptical of (A) continuing, though, and I'm not sure that "tongues" in the NT were actually (B). On prophecy, there seems a consensus that (D) has ceased. I'm sceptical whether a gift of fallible prophecy (C) ever existed, though. On healing, the claims mostly seem to be for (E), which Cessationists believe in, but with a few claims of (F).

Edit: I stand by what I wrote, but I've also just realised that I misinterpreted your point.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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.

I agree, but how would you verify it? Nobody around to translate it, even supernaturally. My point is that it is dangerous to make a theology out of only one instance, particularly when that instance (praising god in the language of the visitors). 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.

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.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Concerning what you said on the Church Fathers and Church history.... If you want to talk about things like logic etc. don't you have to consider them, a long with other things of course when talking about the Scriptures etc?

From what I can tell you do, assuming you are sincere in the OP... Because you have what in System's theory is a closed system, one that cannot change at all. It is basically closed to the outside world beyond it. So you more or less doomed to a kind of "self fulfilling prophesy" of having the same conclusion of things as when you started. (Since I'm guessing you have already been through the scriptures with those same assumptions and interpretations). Anyway, if you want to do something other than "Confirmation Bias" then you need to open up your viewpoint, otherwise this thread is either just a waste of time, or something that was made just to make you feel more certain in the position that you already mapped out for yourself.

I was sincere with the creation of the thread and my intention. I do want to be convinced of Continuationism if it is true. I even prayed for God to bring someone here in this thread to explain the Continuationist viewpoint if indeed it is true. While I know God may not be obligated to answer my prayer in my timing, I know that if I keep asking, He will give me the answer in His timing. So far, I see the Continuationist argument to be bankrupt involving Scripture. But like I said, I am open to seeing Scripture verses that support their viewpoint and verses that will help make sense out of those verses I believe clearly defends Cessationism. Already there are some here who are not qualified to help me. Some believe that Aimee Mcpherson's Foursquare Church, and or the Azusa Street Revival were legitimate workings of God (When I do not believe that to be the case based upon the reports I read); However, I still hold out hope that somebody else may come forth who may not agree with these churches and who may able to explain things with Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Well, if they've ceased, some kind of Cessationism has to be true.

I think that's so.

However, I've never met and discussed this matter with a Continuationist who would accept that as reasonable to think.

And if they've continued, some kind of Continuationism has to be true.

Agreed. Some kind.

So the first half of the debate is really a factual dispute about whether genuine "tongues," genuine prophecy, and the genuine "gift of healing" still exist.

Yes.

That's made difficult by a certain ambiguity in meaning for all 3 of those gifts:

• tongues as foreign languages (A) vs tongues as "ecstatic speech"

• 
  
• Or that familiar fallback position: (B.2) "If they're not real foreign languages or ecstatic speech, then they're a 'prayer language' or the language of angels."

• fallible (C) vs infallible (D) prophecy
• healing following prayer (E) vs commanding people to be healed (F).

On tongues, we have claims for both (A) and (B) on this thread. I'm sceptical of (A) continuing, though, and I'm not sure that "tongues" in the NT were actually (B). On prophecy, there seems a consensus that (D) has ceased. I'm sceptical whether a gift of fallible prophecy (C) ever existed, though. On healing, the claims mostly seem to be for (E), which Cessationists believe in, but with a few claims of (F).

 

[Radagast]

Or that familiar fallback positionB.2) "If they're not real foreign languages or ecstatic speech, then they're a 'prayer language' or the language of angels.

Which, I think, relies on a complete misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:1.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The letters were written to groups and individuals to teach on various subjects the recipient needed teaching on. If this were not so, each letter would be very long and very repetitive. 1 Corinthians was written during the period covered by Acts, but then so was Galatians (no mention of tongues), Colossians (no mention of tongues), James (no mention of tongues) and 1 Peter (no mention of tongues) for example. Most important is the fact that 2 Corinthians does not mention tongues, so by your reasoning tongues had ceased completely in the period between 1 and 2 Corinthians, despite Paul teaching on how to use tongues correctly.

Further, Acts was written AFTER the Pastoral letters (unless you hold to the position that the Pastorals are pseudonymous and early 2nd century) and Luke does not downplay tongues, but actually makes it an important part of the story, but makes no mention of the gift ceasing or going to cease, despite being in a position to know that by then.

You are reading a cessation of the gifts where there is no such indication. The Letter to Philemon makes no mention of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, are we then to suppose that it had ceased to be relevant in the church at that time?

For something to be Biblical it needs to be taught in the Bible. There is not explicit teaching on the gifts ceasing and there is explicit teaching that the gifts were expected to continue (Acts; 1 Co 12 & 14).

There is an old saying: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I think you need to do a lot better than saying that there is no reference to tongues in the later New Testament, particularly when historically there is reference to the gift continuing well into the 3rd century.

You said before that you have not read anything in Acts about how the gifts have ceased. This is true. But we do get indications of the gifts not operating in Paul's life when he talked with Timothy. Paul recommended that he drink a little wine in his water for the infirmities in his stomach. Paul once healed by sending out pieces of clothing that could heal. Why didn't he make an attempt at doing this with Timothy? It's more reasonable to assume that Paul no longer had the gift of healing like he once had at one time. Meaning, the gift had ceased or it served its purpose of function within his life.

The sign gifts WERE in operation to warn the Jew of the coming judgement on their temple as recorded in the gospels... but that is not actually the purpose of the gift of tongues and so is irrelevant to the argument that they ceased.

“For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:”
(1 Corinthians 1:22).

So yes. I believe that the Jews were warned by the sign gifts.
Once the temple was destroyed, and Scripture was complete, the sign gifts would have no longer served any purpose anymore. The perfect (the perfect law of liberty with the completion of the Bible canon) then would have came and the Jews were warned by the signs that they sought after.

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).

At the Azusa Street church:

“…a woman…stood shaking from head to foot…a man in front of her slid down out of his chair and became unconscious…the man…was…under high nerve pressure…He arose, staggered to them and began to shake his hand in front of their faces and wave his arms over their heads and moan…Then he put his hands on the heads of the women and began to shake their hair. Some of them lost control of themselves and went under an hypnotic spell. He rubbed a man’s jaw until the victim tumbled over on the floor and lay for half an hour, then suddenly began to jabber. Those who had received their ‘Pentecost’ cried out, ‘He has the baptism, he has the baptism!’.

One of the three men…leading the meeting…was praying…kneeling upon an open Bible…He was almost beside himself with excitement, His arms waved and his body swayed. I thought…that he might be heard two blocks away. In this meeting there was barking like dogs, hooting like owls, and the like…After adjourning, one of the leaders remarked in my hearing ‘God had a wonderful hold on this meeting for a little while, didn’t He?’. (The same man then added) ‘God’s got a crowd ‘o folks here that’s willin’ to let him make fools of ‘em if he wants to.’ ”​

Source:
Azusa Street Revival
(Note: I agree with the article, but that does not mean I may agree with everything this author or website teaches or believes).

Keep in mind that this revival is the birth of Pentecostalism (i.e. the latter rain movement). If the events described above is something you ascribe to, please take no offense, but you are not qualified to help me to find the truth on the Scriptures that talk about Continuationism (if such a position is indeed true).

 

[topher694]

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

So, if Jesus supplied proof to Thomas, why doesn't everyone believe? Proof is proof after all.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

ou said before that you have not read anything in Acts about how the gifts have ceased. This is true. But we do get indications of the gifts not operating in Paul's life when he talked with Timothy. Paul recommended that he drink a little wine in his water for the infirmities in his stomach. Paul once healed by sending out pieces of clothing that could heal. Why didn't he make an attempt at doing this with Timothy? It's more reasonable to assume that Paul no longer had the gift of healing like he once had at one time. Meaning, the gift had ceased or it served its purpose of function within his life.

Did you not read my assessment of the Pastorals and why they don't include lots of things, so cannot be used as evidence that the gifts were no longer in operation.

As for Paul's recommendation, you should also consider that Paul talks about the thorn in his flesh in earlier works and the gospels portray Jesus as unable to heal in his hometown. Neither is an indication that the gifts ceased for short periods, but rather that there are caveats to their usage. So even today most sensible Christians will take a paracetamol to cure a headache as well as praying. They don't suddenly think that the gifts of the spirit suddenly overcome common sense.

So it seems that you are imparting a loss of the gifts to the apostle when he actually makes no such claim. Nor does he make any claim that the gifts were departing.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Source:
Azusa Street Revival

Keep in mind that this revival is the birth of Pentecostalism (i.e. the latter rain movement). If the events described above is something you ascribe to, please take no offense, but you are not qualified to help me to find the truth on the Scriptures that talk about Continuationism (if such a position is indeed true).

The Latter Rain began twenty years earlier than Azuza street, but also included speaking in tongues. I don't ascribe to the description provided though I have seen such things as part of the Toronto Blessing of the 1990's.

I'm not sure how that does not qualify me to talk about Continuationalism, whether I believed it or not. Continuationalism is the belief that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit continue to be of relevance up to the modern day and that is what I think, so that qualifies. me.