Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

JAL said:

That's the problem. God isn't raising them up because the church isn't doing her part to incline Him in that direction. That needs to change. (Haven't I been clear on all this?).

Paul wrote to the Galatians in a manner suggesting that he was DISGUSTED with how far off-track they were. And as Andrew Murray noted, the church at large still doesn't understand the Galatian error, and doesn't realize they are still making the same mistake.

Even continuationists at large are still making that same mistake. But at least I do agree with them about the need for the gifts.

Click to expand...

The church Satan cannot prevail against is not doing her part?

JAL said:

How is it a strawman argument for me to cite Paul's MULTIPLE DIRECT EXPLICIT COMMANDS to seek the gift of prophecy? (And to point out that he NEVER commanded the congregations to go out and evangelize?) Does Scripture carry no weight with you? Is every Bible-based argument a strawman? Oh, that's right, you cessationists tend to base your position on your (facile) analysis of HISTORY, not on the ACTUAL TEACHINGS of Scripture.

Click to expand...

It's not a straw man is you stay on topic. You're breaking up posts into a bunch of little posts without the quotes, making it hard to keep track of what goes where.

Scripture carries most of the weight. Like I said, I don't base my doctrines on inferences. You're whole argument is based on an inference. Paul was a babe compared to Christ and that that is what the maturity is about. That's a inference and without it your argument falls apart.

Also, the adhominem doesn't help your argument. I base my argument on Scripture and the history supports it. You claim cessationists don't base our position on actual teachings of Scripture. Do you realize that the Scripture don't teach? What you claim are the "actual teachings of Scripture" are actually people's interpretations of Scripture. You think you're correct because you think you understand the Scriptures correctly. What if you don't? What if there is something that you're missing, something that you have wrong? Peter said that some of Paul's writings were hard to understand. He was there. You've admitted that you don't understand why Paul said Tongues was for a sign. What if there are other things you have wrong. Having a wrong foundation usually means the rest is wrong. One wrong inference and lead to other wrong conclusion. My point is that too often people don't consider that they could be wrong. we think because we read something and understand it a certain way that that is what it means. Maybe, maybe not.

Albion said:

From what I can tell upon re-reading this comment...there was no misrepresentation of the message. Other than for that, my comments were about continuationists and cessationists in general and as I have come to know the views of both from their own mouths.

Click to expand...

Ok let's take a look at a clear example of the misrepresentation. He said, "Cessationists are cessationists simply because they recognize that there was a cessation."

Cessationism is more than that. It's the claim that the gifts IRREVOCABLY ceased.

Many proponents of present-day apostleship would acknowledge that the gifts WANED after the 1st century - but not irrevocably. There's a huge difference between empirical cessation and irrevocable cessation. That distinction is largely pivotal to the debate, and yet here he conveniently blurs that distinction to score more strawman points.

JAL said:

Actually it's not irrelevant. Greek grammar is actually far more complicated than Spanish grammar, because the number of verb forms in Greek exceeds that of Spanish.

Given that complexity, your grammar-based argument carries a huge burden of proof. Please don't shift it on me.
In meeting that burden of proof, you'll want to start with a considerable amount of scholarly citations backing up your specific verb-based conclusions at 1Cor 13.

Click to expand...

I'm not the one who shifted the burden. You said that it could be used in numerous ways. I simply asked you for some evidence of that. I see you declined.

JAL said:

I'm not aware of basing any of my arguments on appeals to emotion.

Prophecy's ability to edify the church, as love does, HAS NO BEARING on the debate as to whether God terminated it?

Anyway you're missing the point here. YOU raised the question as to whether the gifts are still 'needed'. YOU seemed to regard that issue as central to the debate. And then when I respond accordingly, now suddenly it's an irrelevant question? I guess now it no longer fits the narrative?

Click to expand...

No I didn't raise the issue of whether or not the gifts are still needed. This is why I keep telling you're making straw man arguments

Butch5 said:

It's not a straw man is you stay on topic. You're breaking up posts into a bunch of little posts without the quotes, making it hard to keep track of what goes where.

Scripture carries most of the weight. Like I said, I don't base my doctrines on inferences. You're whole argument is based on an inference. Paul was a babe compared to Christ and that that is what the maturity is about. That's a inference and without it your argument falls apart.

Click to expand...

Ridiculous. Show me an exegetical conclusion that is NOT an inference. Scripture itself isn't a direct revelation to us, in the order of prophetic revelation, it doesn't screamingly STIPULATE the conclusions, as exegetes we must rather INFER them from the text.

I did MORE than just draw some random inference - I demonstrated that competing interpretatoins of 1Cor 13 (namely cessation) FLATLY CONTRADICT the constructs existing in the text. And to boot, the key elements of that analysis are already acknowledged by noted cessationist scholars.

So here your negative evaluation/assessment is unwarranted, shallow, if anything it borders on, or even spills into, pure ad hominem. There is no argumentation, no point by point rebuttal, nothing substantive.

Butch5 said:

I'm not the one who shifted the burden. You said that it could be used in numerous ways. I simply asked you for some evidence of that. I see you declined.

Click to expand...

You're the one who raised the middle-voice argument. I see you've declined to back it up. No problem here. Moving on.

JAL said:

Regardless of this non-sequitur argument (an argument that I never actually made), you conveniently ignore a spot-on argument in defense of the need for direct revelation in evangelism.

Yes, they were given Spirit-inspired speech. As Luke put it, the Spirit gave them utterance. That was prophecy, and precisely what Peter dubbed it. That was the embodiment of Christ's promise to give them power to speak/witness/evangelism.

Let's not sidestep the cruciality of that paradigm.

Click to expand...

Were they no evangelizing before they got the Holy Spirit?

Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
4 And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart.
5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
6 And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where. (Lk. 9:1-6 KJV)

They had power and authority to preach before Pentecost. It seems to me that you're all over the place. Why are you breaking the posts down into little pieces? I suspect I know why, but would rather hear it from you. It's getting a little ridiculous running back and forth between all of these posts.

JAL said:

You're the one who raised the middle-voice argument. I see you've declined to back it up. No problem here. Moving on.

Click to expand...

I raised it and you claimed it could be used in numerous ways. I asked you to give me some evidence that it could be used in numerous ways. You haven't. Anyone can pick up a grammar and see what the middle voice is.

Butch5 said:

I
Also, the adhominem doesn't help your argument. I base my argument on Scripture and the history supports it. You claim cessationists don't base our position on actual teachings of Scripture. Do you realize that the Scripture don't teach? What you claim are the "actual teachings of Scripture" are actually people's interpretations of Scripture. You think you're correct because you think you understand the Scriptures correctly. What if you don't? What if there is something that you're missing, something that you have wrong? Peter said that some of Paul's writings were hard to understand. He was there. You've admitted that you don't understand why Paul said Tongues was for a sign. What if there are other things you have wrong. Having a wrong foundation usually means the rest is wrong. One wrong inference and lead to other wrong conclusion. My point is that too often people don't consider that they could be wrong. we think because we read something and understand it a certain way that that is what it means. Maybe, maybe not.

Click to expand...

Thank you so much for raising that point. You've just reiterated what is perhaps the most compelling argument on the need for present-day direct revelation. Yes what if we got something wrong, when practicing biblical exegesis?

After all, 100 billion people have lived and died since the world began. We can't afford to get things wrong in evangelism. GIVEN THOSE STAKES, we can't afford to RISK proceeding without having the pursuit of infallible inspiration (the sort of infallibility that wrote Scripture) as TOP PRIORITY. KNOWING that, a benevolent and wise God would move us in that direction. Example, "Follow the way of love, but eagerly desire spiritual gifts, ESPECIALLY the gift of prophecy." Another good example is Pentecost, where evangelism SPRINGS FROM PROPHETIC INSPIRATION. (This is all common-sense).

You know what? Even if I'm wrong I'm still right. Why? Because even if we DON'T need infallible revelation, I still need, given the stakes (100 billiion souls), to be INFALLIBLY SURE that we DON'T NEED IT. Hence there's no escaping it, logically. If I'm acting as a responsible Christian - if I'm not being irresponsible - I WILL prioritize direct revelation.

Conclusion: When you raise the specter that I might be wrong, you're only further buttressing continuationism, not refuting it.

Butch5 said:

I raised it and you claimed it could be used in numerous ways. I asked you to give me some evidence that it could be used in numerous ways. You haven't. Anyone can pick up a grammar and see what the middle voice is.

Click to expand...

Sure Greek is just that simple. Some 200 forms in the conjugation of a verb (as opposed to some 4 or 5 in English, and about 35 in Spanish).

Can't believe those guys bother with seminary to learn that stuff. Piece of cake.

Butch5 said:

Were they no evangelizing before they got the Holy Spirit?

Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
4 And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart.
5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
6 And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where. (Lk. 9:1-6 KJV)

They had power and authority to preach before Pentecost.

Click to expand...

Pentecost was just a revival,albeit one of the greatest revivals in church history, paralleled only by the days of Moses.

I don't believe in any OT-NT distinctions (other than superficial ones). So yes, evangelism before Pentecost was taking place. Thanks for the example you cited.

Evangelism is the preaching of a message given to you by God (in this case God speaking face to face with the apostles in the form of Christ) but can also include other ministries such as healing the sick and casting out devils. Sure.

Dave L said:

The church Satan cannot prevail against is not doing her part?

Click to expand...

The existing harvest - what meager success we've seen to date - isn't by virtue of a church faithful, but rather by virtue of a King determined to carve Himself a bride DESPITE our infidelities. Thought I was clear on that?

Butch5 said:

No I didn't raise the issue of whether or not the gifts are still needed. This is why I keep telling you're making straw man arguments

Click to expand...

According to you, your basis for accusing me of strawmen is that I falsely accused you of raising the, "Are the gifts still needed issue." Well, then, I hope you'll withdraw that accusation, because you did in fact raise that issue. Here's what you said (and I'm pretty sure this wasn't the only post where you did it, if I recall correctly).

"He's alluding to Isaiah 28. Tongues was sign to Israel. Isaiah 28 is a judgment against Israel in the day of Christ. Isaiah said that God would speak to this people Israel with another tongue, yet they would not hear. That's what happened. That's why Paul said it was a sign to unbelievers. It was unbelieving Israel. In Corinthians 13 Paul uses a different word for tongues ceasing than he uses for the other two and it's in the middle voice which means tongues will cease of their own accord. Since tongues was a sign of the coming judgment, the destruction of Jerusalem, there would be no need for tongues after the judgment came about."

JohnB445 said:

knowledgable Pentecostals and Charismatics/ other denominations would point out that there are many counterfeits out there masking the real gift.

usually, the Cessationist will use the worst examples out there to rest their case, while the Constitutionalist will point out that the evidence they showed, only showed the counterfeit version of the gift and not the genuine real gift of the Holy Spirit.

For example from what I heard from a Pentecostal, "Speaking in tongues is not weird babblings, but like speaking a fluent language that no one knows" They do not speak the language through their own power.

They would say there are real tongues, and then there is the counterfeit one.


I haven't studied scripture enough to side with either one, so my position is (I don't know which doctrine is true yet).

But for those who have studied it, is this an easy doctrine to figure out?

I don't want to be missing out on the 9 gifts of the Holy Spirit, but at the same time, I want to be cautious.

Click to expand...

Not easy in the times we live in. One needs to examine Scripture, and it helps to study Church history on the topic, and finally side with conscience. To the continualist I recommend exercising caution, to the cessationist I recommend refraining from judgements in general, only in the most obvious instances, both need to exercise discernment.

Butch5 said:

But, the question isn't, is it needed? The question is, what did God intend? As I pointed out in another post, Jesus is needed here on earth too, but He's not here. When this subject is studied in depth it becomes quite clear that they ended. For one thing, if you look through the Scriptures you'll find that no one in the NT received the gifts without the presence of an apostle. Luke tells us that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles hands. Paul calls this, the gift of an apostle. He also writes to Timothy reminding him of how he received his gift.

6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. (2 Tim. 1:6 KJV)

So according to Scripture the way people got the gifts was through the apostles. How would someone get those gifts after the apostles were gone?

Paul started the church at Corinth and he said this.

3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: (1 Cor. 1:3-7 KJV)

We see that the Corinthians were not lacking in the miraculous spiritual gifts. He said they were enriched in all utterance and knowledge. That's prophecy and knowledge. Now look at the Church at Rome that was not started by an apostle.

4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. (Rom. 12:4-8 KJV)

Notice here that apart from prophecy these gifts are not supernatural. They're natural gifts that most anyone can have. This church didn't have the miraculous gifts like the church at Corinth had. The gift of Prophecy was likely with the person who had founded the church. So why didn't this church have the miraculous gifts that the Corinthian Church had? Paul said this.

11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. (Rom. 1:11-12 KJV)

Notice that Paul wants to go there and impart spiritual gifts to them. Again this indicates that the gifts were given through the apostles. Again, how would one get the gifts when the apostles aren't here anymore?

Click to expand...

Spend some time in other nations where no one has even heard of your language, and then come tell me whether tongues is "necessary". .

All the spiritual gifts turn out to be incredible useful and encouraging for the life of a church, and many churches, when used correctly. An argument on what is "necessary" doesn't make sense to me anyway - who am I to decide what is necessary or not for the growth of God's church? It's not my church, it's His.

The gifts are "grace" gifts (charis). God decided to give gifts to make the work He gave work better. That's his decision, obviously.

As for the argument around the apostles needing to lay hands on people for the gift, that would mean that Paul had to have laid hands on everyone in Corinth who had the gift, implying that any new people who came in didn't have any gifts because Paul was not there. That certainly doesn't seem to be the case. Rather, it appears a lot of new people were misusing the gift and Paul had to teach them. Why did he have to teach them? Why is it that the Corinthian church could misuse the gifts and yet those gifts are still labelled by cessationists as genuine, but a modern day misuse of gifts is a sign of the gifts not being genuine? I'm afraid this is a contradiction in the cessationist argument that is never answered satisfactorily.

Secondly, your quotation of Romans disproves your point. You don't have any evidence that an apostle planted that church and laid hands on people and gave then the gift of prophecy. You've simply stared that obviously it must have been some sort of apostle - a case of eisegesis.

Thirdly, it appears that all 120 that were in the upper room in Acts 2 got the gift of tongues. Now, were all these 120 apostles? If so, who else was an apostle that we don't know about? And why then could there not be apostles today?

To be frank, the problem I find with most cessationist churches (not all, but most) is they are incredibly homogenous, they don't know how to deal with people of different races, and they lack a great deal in evangelicalistic zeal. If you only ever stick to your neighbourhood and class you're not going to see the "necessity" of the gifts. Get out a bit more and the need for them becomes patently obvious.

JAL said:

The existing harvest - what meager success we've seen to date - isn't by virtue of a church faithful, but rather by virtue of a King determined to carve Himself a bride DESPITE our infidelities. Thought I was clear on that?

Click to expand...

You are viewing things as a skeptic. I see an entire different state of the Church. Even if smaller than what you actually see calling itself the church.

Dave L said:

The church Satan cannot prevail against is not doing her part?

Click to expand...

I think you keep harping on this question on account of a tunnel-vision (on your part!). You seem to think that, if there are any shortcomings in the church (such as the ones I've alleged), then hell has prevailed. But don't we both agree on the existence of shortcomings? Was Paul ecstatic about the situation in Corinth? Galatia?

Why are we debating what we both agree on?

Butch5 said:

No, I didn't claim that. What I said was that praying for some to be healed is not the first century gift of healing.

Click to expand...

When exactly do you think this scripture was written?

James 5:13-15
Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.

Butch5 said:

No I didn't raise the issue of whether or not the gifts are still needed. This is why I keep telling you're making straw man arguments

Click to expand...

At Post 122 you said:

"If tongues will end on its own and it is a sign of judgement to unbelieving Israel in Christ's day, what need is there for it after that judgment that it was foretelling has passed? The maturity has no bearing on the ending of tongues."