Dealing with Cessationists

[jiminpa]

Most of the cessationists I've met haven't been burned. They literally idolize their human teachers, and nothing will convince them to believe that their idols aren't more biblical than the bible. In fact it's them that are doing the burning.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

How do you deal with Cessationists?

If they are ignorant, let them remain ignorant.

Even if they see a miracle, they'll assume it's occult.

On a prophetic level, I see it as a new form of Saduceeism paving the path for the second coming.

 

[jiminpa]

If they are ignorant, let them remain ignorant.

Even if they see a miracle, they'll assume it's occult.

I couldn't agree more.

I have an otherwise good friend who's a fundy baptist, and I both want him to know my salvation testimony and am afraid that talking to him about spiritual things would end the friendship.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I couldn't agree more.

I have an otherwise good friend who's a fundy baptist, and I both want him to know my salvation testimony and am afraid that talking to him about spiritual things would end the friendship.

Then there's that thing where they pray for you, and get all their friends to "pray for you" but it's really just mind control. It all hits me, they aimed too low for it to reach God.

 

[RDKirk]

We have "prophets" who are telling us that God is speaking to the all the time, that "the Holy Spirit told me this or that"; but somehow the Holy Spirit never told them that Biden was going to win the U.S. election, the Taliban taking over Afganistan, Covid 19, the Capitol Building riot, the racial riots caused by the BLM movement. No New Zealand prophet predicted the Christchurch earthquake. All these were significant world events, but none of the prophets to whom "God is speaking" heard Him say anything about events that have changed many lives. So, is God really speaking to these "prophets". Definitely not!

However, Paul affirmed prophesies among the Corinthians, yet there isn't a single one of their prophesies recorded predicting a significant world events. If there had been, it would have qualified as "scripture"...which I don't think is intended. I believe it's much more likely that the prophesies among the Corinthians were intended only for the Corinthians...and the same for others and perhaps for other manifestations of the charisma.

I think a lot of Pentacostals and Cessationists are both carrying expectations of manifestations unintended by the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not a circus act nor is He a fairy godmother. He moves for His purposes, not ours.

 

[jiminpa]

My point is I follow people who can actually heal. The only ones I see are the apostles in scripture.

Thankfully, God is not bound to your field of vision. Miracles and healings happen all the time. Not enough, because we're like the people of Nazareth and hinder God with our unbelief, but that's our failure, not God's.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So you admire the apostle Paul for correcting false doctrine, but when someone tries to get you to see your own false doctrine it's rude. No irony here.

I'm not comparing myself to Paul. There is no comparison there.

The problem that we are facing is what is the motive for preaching the Gospel?
I would say that most of Gospel preaching is to get posteriors on seats in the evangelist's own church. Because Paul was an apostle to the whole body of Christ, he had no home church where any converts could go. Often he preached in placed where there was no Christian church, so when he got enough converts, he planted one and then appointed elders to run it. Then off he went to preach the Gospel in other regions as the Spirit led him. It was at Corinth and Ephesus that he worked for an extended period. In most of the other places he was either kicked out or had to leave on request, or for fear of his life. So, in those places he had to leave the converts to develop under the leadership of their own elders. After a while he would go back and visit those churches to encourage them in the faith.

But modern evangelists are linked to their own churches, and so there is a parochial motive for preaching the Gospel and any converts were expected to join the evangelist's church. It is interesting that when Billy Graham had his crusade in Johannesburg in South Africa in the late 1950s, most of the converts were lost because the churches fought over them to try to get as many into their churches as possible. As a result many of the converts became disillusioned and went back into the world.

So, because of the divisive nature of our denominational state of our churches, it will be very unlikely that there will be another "Paul" who will preach the Gospel in the same way he did.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Thankfully, God is not bound to your field of vision. Miracles and healings happen all the time. Not enough, because we're like the people of Nazareth and hinder God with our unbelief, but that's our failure, not God's.

After 12 years as an active Pentecostal, and a further 38 years having friends in the movement, I have yet to see or hear about anyone being actually healed from a serious heart condition or terminal cancer.

 

[jiminpa]

The problem that we are facing is what is the motive for preaching the Gospel?
I would say that most of Gospel preaching is to get posteriors on seats in the evangelist's own church. Because Paul was an apostle to the whole body of Christ, he had no home church where any converts could go. Often he preached in placed where there was no Christian church, so when he got enough converts, he planted one and then appointed elders to run it. Then off he went to preach the Gospel in other regions as the Spirit led him. It was at Corinth and Ephesus that he worked for an extended period. In most of the other places he was either kicked out or had to leave on request, or for fear of his life. So, in those places he had to leave the converts to develop under the leadership of their own elders. After a while he would go back and visit those churches to encourage them in the faith.

But modern evangelists are linked to their own churches, and so there is a parochial motive for preaching the Gospel and any converts were expected to join the evangelist's church. It is interesting that when Billy Graham had his crusade in Johannesburg in South Africa in the late 1950s, most of the converts were lost because the churches fought over them to try to get as many into their churches as possible. As a result many of the converts became disillusioned and went back into the world.

So, because of the divisive nature of our denominational state of our churches, it will be very unlikely that there will be another "Paul" who will preach the Gospel in the same way he did.

I would say that it is all the result of centuries of an unbelieving, powerless church idolizing our own understanding, which scripture says we are not to even lean on. Powerless, half-dead preachers gain there value by the membership numbers. But it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[RDKirk]

After 12 years as an active Pentecostal, and a further 38 years having friends in the movement, I have yet to see or hear about anyone being actually healed from a serious heart condition or terminal cancer.

Maybe the Holy Spirit didn't need them to be healed for His purposes. But you don't know those who were.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I would say that it is all the result of centuries of an unbelieving, powerless church idolizing our own understanding, which scripture says we are not to even lean on. Powerless, half-dead preachers gain there value by the membership numbers. But it doesn't have to be that way.

The role of a pastor/teacher is to improve members' understanding of what the Word of God is saying. The best preachers are expository - who take passages of Scripture and explain them. The worst preachers who use topical preaching to give members the benefit of their particular hobby horses. We find this a lot in Pentecostal churches, and the last church I was in during the late 1970s, was that preachers would decide their topics, and then go through the concordance to find proof texts to support their topic. As a consequence we didn't get a very wide range of Scripture teaching. In that church I always knew when the funds were getting low and the full time staff member was getting anxious about his salary. He would preach on tithing, and work through all the verses in the concordance about it. After hearing the same sermon a few times over the years (7) with that church, the preaching on tithing became a yawner and I would think of England green until the sermon was finished. Usually his sermons took up to an hour so you can imagine the internal groaning that would be going on in that congregation!

In the 1970s-80s Charismatic church I attended for 7 years, I hardly ever heard a sermon about the Cross of Christ and His finished work. I heard plenty of sermons on prophecy, tongues, receiving the Holy Spirit, importance of living a holy life, tithing (previously mentioned), and other preacher's hobby horses, all around the Gospel, but not actually the Gospel. I didn't see a lot of people receiving Christ for the first time. Most of the members came from other churches because they believed that the Charismatic church was advertised as being "at the cutting edge" of what God was doing in that city at the time. It was interesting that some good, mature men who dissented from the self-appointed "senior elder" (the church was an eldership run church) were quietly and firmly edged out. I didn't realise what was going on until after I left. About three years after I left there was a major three-way division in that church when three elders took parts of the congregation away with them to start their own churches. The "senior elder" took half the congregation and started a pyramid style Life Church in the city. Over the years I have heard reports of spiritual abuse of those in the lower levels of the pyramid style Charismatic Life Churches. This is a problem when you have the big man right at the top of the pyramid, and groups of ordinary members are placed in "cell groups" run by a wet-behind-the-ears relative novice who has unquestioned authority over them, and the ordinary members can't appeal to higher up leaders because of the pyramid authoritarian structure of the church.

So, it would be obvious with three separate Charismatic churches who claim to be at "the cutting edge" of God's purposes for the city, that there wasn't any observed effect on the culture of the city as a whole. Most of the city's population never knew that these churches were even there. So much for effective preaching of the Gospel to the unconverted - the major function of what the Christian church should have in a city.

 

[jiminpa]

The role of a pastor/teacher is to improve members' understanding of what the Word of God is saying. The best preachers are expository - who take passages of Scripture and explain them. The worst preachers who use topical preaching to give members the benefit of their particular hobby horses.

Paul taught topically.

In my observation teaching only sequentially is not exposing anything, and is a good way to disassociate related scriptures and deceive the congregation. It's why McArthurites can't see the larger picture of the Bible's teachings on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and other things, and ole Johnny Mac capitalizes on that, figuratively and literally.

Personally, I much prefer teachers who inspire me to draw nearer to God and grow in faith, and I quickly distance myself from preachers who think that they are more capable of understanding the Bible than everyone else. I can read my own Bible and those guys never line up with it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Paul taught topically.

In my observation teaching only sequentially is not exposing anything, and is a good way to disassociate related scriptures and deceive the congregation. It's why McArthurites can't see the larger picture of the Bible's teachings on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and other things, and ole Johnny Mac capitalizes on that, figuratively and literally.

Personally, I much prefer teachers who inspire me to draw nearer to God and grow in faith, and I quickly distance myself from preachers who think that they are more capable of understanding the Bible than everyone else. I can read my own Bible and those guys never line up with it.

For me, after being over 50 years of studying the Scriptures, I still don't trust my personal interpretation of them. But then my teachable attitude causes me to assume that my interpretation of Scripture isn't perfect by any means, and I use a number of literary mentors to test and compare my interpretation with theirs. As a result I have discovered many valuable nuggets of wisdom from them which I would not have discovered if I depended on my own interpretation exclusively.

Therefore, when I read John Calvin, I assume that he has a better knowledge of Scripture than I do, because he was fluent in Greek and Latin, which I am not, although in my declining years I am learning NT Greek. Also, the early church fathers are a valuable resource because their interpretation of Scripture is closer to the New Testament writers and therefore not influenced by later theologies nor corrupted by the apostate church and its heresies. D Martyn Lloyd-Jones is a reliable expository commentator who gives another perspective on the passage of Scripture I want to study, and I have Charles Spurgeon's Expository Encylopedia that contains many good insights that I would never have thought of.

So, why re-invent the wheel, when it has already been invented? I decided not to go the same way as Joe Smith who didn't like how the Scripture was interpreted by those in his church, so he invented his own Scriptures called the Book of Mormon. Ellen White decided that her interpretation of Scripture was superior to everyone else's so she wrote her book containing the doctrines of the Seventh Day Adventist church. A fellow called Russell decided that all the commentators were wrong, so he, without any training in Hebrew or NT Greek go his team together, none of whom also had any background training in the original languages, and came up with the New World translation of the Bible which agrees (surprise, surprise) with Jehovah's Witness doctrine. Of course, the early Pentecostals were anti-academic, so they had their own individual interpretations of the Bible, and this is why there are a plethora of different ways of looking at the Gospel and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. That is why the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements are so divided into many different "Spirit-filled" denominations, each saying they have the truth over and above the others.

So, in the light of all that, I would think myself quite arrogant if I thought that my personal interpretation of Scripture is superior to everyone else's.

 

[jiminpa]

For me, after being over 50 years of studying the Scriptures, I still don't trust my personal interpretation of them. But then my teachable attitude causes me to assume that my interpretation of Scripture isn't perfect by any means, and I use a number of literary mentors to test and compare my interpretation with theirs. As a result I have discovered many valuable nuggets of wisdom from them which I would not have discovered if I depended on my own interpretation exclusively.

Therefore, when I read John Calvin, I assume that he has a better knowledge of Scripture than I do, because he was fluent in Greek and Latin, which I am not, although in my declining years I am learning NT Greek. Also, the early church fathers are a valuable resource because their interpretation of Scripture is closer to the New Testament writers and therefore not influenced by later theologies nor corrupted by the apostate church and its heresies. D Martyn Lloyd-Jones is a reliable expository commentator who gives another perspective on the passage of Scripture I want to study, and I have Charles Spurgeon's Expository Encylopedia that contains many good insights that I would never have thought of.

So, why re-invent the wheel, when it has already been invented? I decided not to go the same way as Joe Smith who didn't like how the Scripture was interpreted by those in his church, so he invented his own Scriptures called the Book of Mormon. Ellen White decided that her interpretation of Scripture was superior to everyone else's so she wrote her book containing the doctrines of the Seventh Day Adventist church. A fellow called Russell decided that all the commentators were wrong, so he, without any training in Hebrew or NT Greek go his team together, none of whom also had any background training in the original languages, and came up with the New World translation of the Bible which agrees (surprise, surprise) with Jehovah's Witness doctrine. Of course, the early Pentecostals were anti-academic, so they had their own individual interpretations of the Bible, and this is why there are a plethora of different ways of looking at the Gospel and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. That is why the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements are so divided into many different "Spirit-filled" denominations, each saying they have the truth over and above the others.

So, in the light of all that, I would think myself quite arrogant if I thought that my personal interpretation of Scripture is superior to everyone else's.

Acts 17:11
These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

How can we compare teachings to the Bible, if we trust someone else's education, (someone's own understanding), more than what we read for ourselves in the Bible? God said He will preserve His word.

And every danger you cited above can very easily be equally applied to John Calvin. I read my Bible and the teachings ascribed to Calvin don't measure up, and it's not even close. God is not willing that any should perish.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Acts 17:11
These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

How can we compare teachings to the Bible, if we trust someone else's education, (someone's own understanding), more than what we read for ourselves in the Bible? God said He will preserve His word.

And every danger you cited above can very easily be equally applied to John Calvin. I read my Bible and the teachings ascribed to Calvin don't measure up, and it's not even close. God is not willing that any should perish.

I am an academic with two Mastorates. I know what good scholarship involves. It involves studying what all the relevant commentators and interpreters of Scripture have to say, and to test my interpretation of Scripture on what they are saying. If my interpretation on some aspect is out of step with the others, I then seek to find out why. I have then to determine whether I am correct, or they are correct. If the whole set of early church fathers, Calvin, Lloyd-Jones, the Puritan writers all say one thing and my interpretation is another, then who is out of step here? It's like Johnny the soldier being the only one in step in the marching platoon while everyone is out of step, or is it that everyone is in step, but Johnny is the only one out of step.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

I just tell them my God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow (which is biblical so they have to agree) and give them testimony of miracles I have witnessed like healings and deliverance from drugs. I may or may not, depending on how the conversation goes, challenge them on why they think a God who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and says its His will to heal would stop doing so.

 

[jiminpa]

I am an academic with two Mastorates. I know what good scholarship involves. It involves studying what all the relevant commentators and interpreters of Scripture have to say, and to test my interpretation of Scripture on what they are saying. If my interpretation on some aspect is out of step with the others, I then seek to find out why. I have then to determine whether I am correct, or they are correct. If the whole set of early church fathers, Calvin, Lloyd-Jones, the Puritan writers all say one thing and my interpretation is another, then who is out of step here? It's like Johnny the soldier being the only one in step in the marching platoon while everyone is out of step, or is it that everyone is in step, but Johnny is the only one out of step.

Which scholars do you trust, since none of them agree with each other, or with what the Bible actually says? I tried the kind of teachability that relied on the "scholars," and found that I was pulled in too many directions. So you have to pick the men who are wrong that you trust above the other men who are wrong, and believe them. It leaves you following the doctrines of some men over others, and what God says becomes an afterthought. No thanks.

 

[jiminpa]

I would also like to point out that the whole New Testament was written by men who under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit fully opposed the most learned scriptural scholars of the day, and possibly of all time. The men who led the chants of "Crucify" were those same learned scholars.

 

[jiminpa]

I am an academic with two Mastorates. I know what good scholarship involves. It involves studying what all the relevant commentators and interpreters of Scripture have to say, and to test my interpretation of Scripture on what they are saying. If my interpretation on some aspect is out of step with the others, I then seek to find out why. I have then to determine whether I am correct, or they are correct. If the whole set of early church fathers, Calvin, Lloyd-Jones, the Puritan writers all say one thing and my interpretation is another, then who is out of step here? It's like Johnny the soldier being the only one in step in the marching platoon while everyone is out of step, or is it that everyone is in step, but Johnny is the only one out of step.

No, it's like Johnny has the Plan of the Day and the radio, listening to the General, and everyone else is listening to a bunch of ensigns marching into to an ambush. Sure, Johnny probably gets killed too, but not because he was the one wrong. I'll take the word of my God over the word of man any day.

 

[Albion]

I am an academic with two Mastorates.

Which schools granted your Masterates?