Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

[Dave L]

I appreciate your position on this, but it seems a bit... unlikely that with two or three prophets and two or three tongues messages with interpretation were being evaluated (weighed carefully) by the churches and that somehow these revelations ended up in the NT texts. Just the math is astounding. Six messages times 52 weeks/yr at one church times how many decades times how many churches equals a lot of prophecy.

Where did the New Covenant words come from?

 

[Saint Steven]

Where did the New Covenant words come from?

I thought they came from Christ.

 

[JAL]

Apologetic_Warrior:

No further comments? I still hope to get from you a solid answer on Abraham, but meanwhile I'm thinking that a couple of NT scenarios might help shed light on the manner. This should make it easier.

Scenario 1. A man walks up to you and says, "I'm God. Come follow me." How do you authenticate that? I mean, isn't that essentially what happened to Peter?

"As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 19“Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” 20At once they left their nets and followed him.

Scenario 2. You're riding a bike. You see a flash of lightning, brighter than the sun, and when you fall off your bike, you hear a voice. How do you authenticate that voice? Isn't that what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus?

 

[Dave L]

I thought they came from Christ.

Jesus fulfilled and taught the true understanding of the Old Covenant. Much of what he taught became the backbone of New Covenant ethics. The rest came from New Covenant revelation spoken in tongues and prophecy. It made clear what the OT only hinted at.

 

[Saint Steven]

Jesus fulfilled and taught the true understanding of the Old Covenant. Much of what he taught became the backbone of New Covenant ethics. The rest came from New Covenant revelation spoken in tongues and prophecy. It made clear what the OT only hinted at.

I can sort of see your point. But the concept sounds foreign to me. Do you see some scriptural references to this happening? That would help. Thanks.

 

[Dave L]

I can sort of see your point. But the concept sounds foreign to me. Do you see some scriptural references to this happening? That would help. Thanks.

I think it is obvious the prophets and those speaking in tongues were speaking truth not available in the OT. Or they would have relied on it for their main source of truth. The messages became the NT scriptures when written and collected. But the revelation was fragmentary until then. Also the Holy Spirit brought to mind all that Jesus had said. And the Apostles and NT writers imported all that pertains to the New Covenant. Some things didn't make the cut, but lots of it did.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think it is obvious the prophets and those speaking in tongues were speaking truth not available in the OT. Or they would have relied on it for their main source of truth. The messages became the NT scriptures when written and collected. But the revelation was fragmentary until then. Also the Holy Spirit brought to mind all that Jesus had said. And the Apostles and NT writers imported all that pertains to the New Covenant. Some things didn't make the cut, but lots of it did.

I guess I have been operating under the impression that the NT writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they did. In many cases it was letters to specific churches addressing the specific needs of those churches and general doctrinal themes. I don't recall any references to them distributing New Covenant revelations being handed on to them.

 

[Dave L]

I guess I have been operating under the impression that the NT writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they did. In many cases it was letters to specific churches addressing the specific needs of those churches and general doctrinal themes. I don't recall any references to them distributing New Covenant revelations being handed on to them.

My view is that tongues when interpreted and prophecy (is no different from OT prophecy) which is God speaking.

 

[Saint Steven]

My view is that tongues when interpreted and prophecy (is no different from OT prophecy) which is God speaking.

I agree in general. But after the outpouring (and even today, IMHO) it seems that prophecy is much more rhema than logos. (more individualized and less general) I keep coming back to the definition in 1Cor.14

1 Corinthians 14:3
But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm more likely to be on the receiving end of prophecy than the giving end. I have given at least one rather amazing prophecy. I heard God tell me directly to do it. And the results were incredible. But it hasn't happened since. Which seems to be typical with me. I will dramatically manifest a gift once and then never again. Not sure why other than my willingness to be obedient when it happens. Anyway...

I have received many prophetic spoken and written words over the years. I have quite a collection. And typically it is just a piece of the puzzle. I always wait for confirmation. And those who deliver messages do so apologetically, because they don't know what the puzzles piece represents any more than I do initially.

All this to say that they are never grand general revelation. Always personal and individualized rhema words.

 

[Butch5]

A foundation can only be laid once? No sir. Churches are local institutions (local buildings). Every BUILDING needs a foundation laid afresh - and laid by experts (the apostles and prophets).

Don't take my word for it - just listen to Paul. Please address post 89 where I discuss what Paul had to say about it.

OK, I looked at it. I don't see any validity to it at all. There are no more apostles of Jesus Christ. There isn't the "gift of apostleship." There is one foundation which is Jesus Christ. That is the foundation that everything is build on.

 

[JAL]

So th

OK, I looked at it. I don't see any validity to it at all. There are no more apostles of Jesus Christ. There isn't the "gift of apostleship." There is one foundation which is Jesus Christ. That is the foundation that everything is build on.

And thus the apostles and prophets are NOT the foundation (they are not a once-for-all foundatoinal-thing that cannot be repeated). God never intended to convey that, as you just conceded. That's just a figment of cessationist imagination (You'll deny this, but you cannot have it both ways, let's not equivocate on that word foundation). Rather, as Paul said (again see my post 89), the apostles and prophets are the experts needed to LAY DOWN that foundation in EVEVERY GENERATOIN AND EVERY REGION, where a region is defined, minimally, as 'somewhere Christ is not yet known' (the region-concept may be broader than that but at least Paul gives us that much of starting hint).

This reinforces the other statements of Paul. Look how Paul defines a church:
"In the church god has appointed first of all apostles, then prophets, then teachers, workers of miracles..." (1Cor 12:28).

Did Paul ever recant this definition? Nope. Paul didn't KNOW of an authentic church unfounded by apostles. Such is a figment of cessationist imagination. It doesn't come from Scripture.

"Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:11-13).

How many time does Paul need to repeat his definition before the cessationist will accept it?

 

[JAL]

Apologetic_Warrior, I'm beginning to think that you're not inclined to delve deeper into this issue. I will likely abandon this thread because it's distracting me from my work. Before I go, I will spell out an answer. Although it's a radical epistemology, and I won't likely be here to defend it, it all boils down to common sense.

How did Abraham authenticate the voice? Simple. Conscience. He realized he would be unable to disobey it in good conscience. The following statements are false:
(1) God is my authority
(2) The Bible is my authority
(3) Tradition is my authority.
The truth is rather:
(4) Conscience is my only authority (defined as a feeling of certainty as to what is right and wrong).

God honors the authority of conscience because anything less is evil and unjust. Why so? Suppose you tell your son to clean his room every day of the week. He FEELS CERTAIN you meant weekdays (5 days) but you actually meant 7 days. He's acting in good conscience. After that first week, what are you going to do? Give him a sound beating? You cannot fault a child for acting in good conscience. That would be EVIL. I don't care if the certainty came from the devil himself. You cannot fault someone who is DOING WHAT IS MORALLY RIGHT TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE. On the contrary, we properly fault someone WHO IS DOING WHAT IS MORALLY WRONG TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE.

Therefore when God speaks, He TAKES IT UPON HIMSELF to influence your conscience. He finds ways to raise your level of certainty. The Voice can influence the heart directly, although occasionally God takes glory in acting somewhat indirectly, that is, by using signs and wonders to increase certainty.

Calvin formalized this doctrine as the Inward Witness. We say that the Holy Spirit brings sinners to salvation by convicting (convincing) them of gospel truths. Calvin explicitly defined it as feelings of certainty. Although the Reformed theologians, and pretty much all of evangelicalism, has accepted Calvin's doctrine of the Inward Witness, they failed to concede authoritative-conscience as the (obviously) implied corollary.

How much certainty is needed? In most cases it need not be 100% to be effective. Suppose you feel undecided between two choices. You feel 60% certain that choice A is the right thing to do. If God wants you to go with choice B, technically He only needs to bring you to about 80% certainty on choice B, just enough to clearly trump A.

But in the case of Abraham's attempt to murder his son, it must have been 100% certainty. Why? Because some issues are so extreme that they DEMAND 100% certainty. Suppose I hear a voice telling me to kill my son, at 99% certainty. "I wasn't 100% certain, but I killed him anyway."

Was I acting in good conscience? Yes, if I'm a psychopath. A psychopath has a warped conscience. For him, 99% would be MORE than enough in that scenario. But Abraham was no psychopath. He wasn't a monster. He was a good man. Therefore, he MUST have experienced 100% certainty. It's a foregone conclusion.

What's of paramount importance, here, is that Hebrews 11 EQUATED Abraham's faith IN THAT SLAUGHTER (his 100% certainty) with PARADIGMATIC SANCTIFYING FAITH. The prophets REGULARLY walked in 100% certainty because they REGULARLY needed to authenticate God's voice. The prophetic paradigm (Abraham) is FOR ALL BELIEVERS, as I've argued throughout this thread (although earlier I was using a different set of arguments to defend prophecy. And I still have several more arguments that I just don't have time for right now).

Take a hard look at Hebrews 11. Several of the verses refer to acts of faith that called for 100% certainty, for example the endeavors of Moses and Joshua to go up and take the promised land. Would YOU slaughter 7 nations on less than 100% certainty? I wouldn't. You wouldn't. Moses wouldn't. Nor Joshua. They were good men.

100% certainty means an ABSOLUTE INABILITY TO RAISE QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, OR DOUBTS. It's a supernatural experience.

For 2,000 years, the church has taught that faith is often best practiced by LEAPS of faith, in other words by PARTIALLY BLIND faith (something less than 100% certainty). That's a terrible mistake. We are supposed to be waiting in God in prayer for prophetic revelation, that is, for 100% certainty, as to feel sure that we KNOW how to properly conduct the work of God. The Galatians made the same mistake - and there too, Paul appealed to Abraham as the corrective paradigm, specifically to the vision where he saw and heard God at Gen 15. Wish I had time to discuss all this.


Let's apply this to daily life. Suppose a man walks up to me in church and says, "I'm a prophet of God. Thus saith the Lord, Leave your hometown and go up to Nigeria to preach the gospel."

When he told me that, did I experience 100% certainty? If not, I'm not likely to do ANYTHING he tells me to do. In fact, I'd likely call security to escort him outside the building. (Well maybe I'm exaggerating a bit here, but you get my point). And THAT, in a nutshell, is the simple way to authenticate a voice, vision, dream, prophet, angel - whatever it may be. It doesn't require expertise in Hebrew and Greek, nor 4 years at seminary, nor even a Bible concordance. Just a conscience. Clear?


Is this system reliable? If it weren't, the Bible wouldn't even contain the word prophet. There could be no such ministry. God MAKES it reliable. The best way for Him to do this is to prevent the devil from giving us 100% certainty. But even if God permitted such, He still couldn't fault us for heeding conscience.

Cheers!

 

[Butch5]

So th

And thus the apostles and prophets are NOT the foundation (they are not a once-for-all foundatoinal-thing that cannot be repeated). God never intended to convey that, as you just conceded. That's just a figment of cessationist imagination (You'll deny this, but you cannot have it both ways, let's not equivocate on that word foundation). Rather, as Paul said (again see my post 89), the apostles and prophets are the experts needed to LAY DOWN that foundation in EVEVERY GENERATOIN AND EVERY REGION, where a region is defined, minimally, as 'somewhere Christ is not yet known' (the region-concept may be broader than that but at least Paul gives us that much of starting hint).

This reinforces the other statements of Paul. Look how Paul defines a church:
"In the church god has appointed first of all apostles, then prophets, then teachers, workers of miracles..." (1Cor 12:28).

Did Paul ever recant this definition? Nope. Paul didn't KNOW of an authentic church unfounded by apostles. Such is a figment of cessationist imagination. It doesn't come from Scripture.

"Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:11-13).

How many time does Paul need to repeat his definition before the cessationist will accept it?

I'm still trying to figure out where you get the idea that apostles are anyone other than those who Christ chose and sent out. He sent 12 apostles, that's it. No more. Again, your argument is built on inference.

 

[JAL]

I'm still trying to figure out where you get the idea that apostles are anyone other than those who Christ chose and sent out. He sent 12 apostles, that's it. No more. Again, your argument is built on inference.

Every exegesis involves inference. Stop faulting me for it.

Where did I get the idea that God can raise up more apostles when the conditions are ripe? Same place I got the idea he can raise up more prophets when the time is ripe. Scripture. That - and common sense? Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Also it's based on Paul's definition of a church. Since that definition involves apostles and prophets, and since it their job to lay down the foundation (regionally) it had to be God's will to raise up fresh apostles and prophets in every generation.

Where did you cessationists get the idea that pastors are supposed to appoint themselves, as they do today? In my Bible, the APOSTLES AND PROPHETS appoint them. At least my version came from Scripture, right?

I'm still trying to figure out where you get the idea that apostles are anyone other than those who Christ chose and sent out.

It's His will to keep 'choosing' and keep 'sending'. Our job is to put up enough prayer to move Him to do it: “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. 38 Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.”


It is theoretically possible (not likely) that God's definition of a church CHANGED. In the final analsysis, then, I can't know for sure that cessationists are wrong, because I'm not infallible (see my signature). What I CAN say, with a high degree of certainty, is that their position didn't come from Scripture. And that's the nature of THIS debate.

 

[Butch5]

Every exegesis involves inference. Stop faulting me for it.

Where did I get the idea that God can raise up more apostles when the conditions are ripe? Same place I got the idea he can raise up more prophets when the time is ripe. Scripture. That - and common sense? Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Also it's based on Paul's definition of a church. Since that definition involves apostles and prophets, and since it their job to lay down the foundation (regionally) it had to be God's will to raise up fresh apostles and prophets in every generation.

Where did you cessationists get the idea that pastors are supposed to appoint themselves, as they do today? In my Bible, the APOSTLES AND PROPHETS appoint them. At least my version came from Scripture, right?

It's His will to keep 'choosing' and keep 'sending'. Our job is to put up enough prayer to move Him to do it: “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. 38 Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.”


It is theoretically possible (not likely) that God's definition of a church CHANGED. In the final analsysis, then, I can't know for sure that cessationists are wrong, because I'm not infallible (see my signature). What I CAN say, with a high degree of certainty, is that their position didn't come from Scripture. And that's the nature of THIS debate.

I disagree that every exegesis requires inference. However, quite bit of you argument is based on inference. You've shown me nothing here that would indicate that there are apostles other than the 12 sent by Christ. In an earlier post you referenced Ephesians where is says that Christ gave some apostles. Note that it said "gave," past tense. It didn't say, He gives, or He will give, it says He gave. That's past tense. As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the Scriptures that speaks of the office of apostleship. Your insistence that they exist today is based solely on inference. An inference isn't a fact and can easily be wrong.

When I made my argument it was from clear statements in Scripture. When I said, tongues was a sign to unbelievers, I showed it in the Scriptures. When I said the gifts were a sign, I showed it from Scripture. When I said the gifts were a confirmation of the apostles message, I showed it from Scripture. When I said that tongues was a judgment against Israel I showed it in the Scriptures. They're plain statements in Scripture, not inferences.

I find is odd that you attack the cessationist position so vehemently when your argument is so thin. It's a house of cards built on inferences.

 

[JAL]

I disagree that every exegesis requires inference. However, quite bit of you argument is based on inference. You've shown me nothing here that would indicate that there are apostles other than the 12 sent by Christ.

Um..It's part of his definition of a church. Prove to me that there are pastors and teachers other than those in the early church.

You'll say, why do I need to prove that? Exactly. It's part of Paul's definition. That's all the proof needed.

In an earlier post you referenced Ephesians where is says that Christ gave some apostles. Note that it said "gave," past tense. It didn't say, He gives, or He will give, it says He gave. That's past tense.

Exactly. You're just proving my point. He GAVE some to be pastors and teachers. Past tense, right? So pastors and teachers have died out, by your logic?

Funny how you can infer as much as you want, but when I infer, it's unacceptable.

As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the Scriptures that speaks of the office of apostleship. Your insistence that they exist today is based solely on inference. An inference isn't a fact and can easily be wrong.

There you go again.

When I made my argument it was from clear statements in Scripture. When I said, tongues was a sign to unbelievers, I showed it in the Scriptures. When I said the gifts were a sign, I showed it from Scripture. When I said the gifts were a confirmation of the apostles message, I showed it from Scripture. When I said that tongues was a judgment against Israel I showed it in the Scriptures. They're plain statements in Scripture, not inferences.

Good for you. Except none of that was ever in debate here.

I disagree that every exegesis requires inference...I find is odd that you attack the cessationist position so vehemently when your argument is so thin. It's a house of cards built on inferences.

Actually I should thank you for bringing up the inference-issue. Just ground for another proof of the need for prophetic revelatoin. Should our doctrines come from God, or from men? From God, right? Which means that Sola Scriptura cannot be God's plan. Here's why. WHERE do you learn Greek and Hebrew?From a lexicon or grammar book. Who wrote it? MEN! Only direct revelatoin has the capacity to liberate us from the opinions of men!

You really think it was God's plan to build his Kingdom on the opinions of men? How dumb do you think He is, anyway?

Exegesis BEGINS with inference, and ends with it as well. You START with the inference that the lexicons and grammar books are roughly correct, and proceed from there. THEN you make inferences regarding the various possible translatoins, as to which one is correct. The whole ENDEAVOR involves inference.

 

[JAL]

I'm still trying to figure out where you get the idea that apostles are anyone other than those who Christ chose and sent out. He sent 12 apostles, that's it. .

I don't know why your mind cannot CONCEIVE the possibility of multi-generational apostleship and prophethood. A real tunnel-vision there. To counteract this, at post 137 I demonstrated that evangelism is prophetic utterance, and therefore prophecy is indeed multigenerational:
Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

That argument (unrefuted) used Acts 1:8 as the point of departure. Here, I want to adduce a second argument based on that same verse. "Ye shall be my witnesses" (Acts 1:8). What's a witness? The Greek word there occurs some 120 times in the NT. By and large, it regularly carries the same meaning that we ascribe to "witness" in English today.

A witness – a witness in court for example - is someone who has seen and heard a reality and then testifies (“witnesses”) about it. He bears witness to what is seen and heard. An unacceptable witness is one too far distanced from the event to have witnessed it with accuracy. An excellent witness, therefore, is one who beheld it in face-to-face proximity. Now what precisely is Acts wanting men to witness about? Christ. “Ye shall be my witnesses” (Acts 1:8, ASV, italics added). If the risen Christ has never appeared to a person face to face, he or she is not a witness - not a witness of Christ, and certainly not a witness of His resurrection. Clearly, then, evangelism was supposed to be the domain of prophetic ministry, because visions of Christ fall into that category.

Jesus could have selected a MULTITUDE of alternative terms to refer to evangelism. Instead, He chose the term "witness". HE chose to define the evangelist as someone who has seen and heard Him, and then bears witness to others of what was seen and heard. Still not convinced? Take a hard look at Acts 22:14-15 where God's plan for Paul was that he:

“see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be a witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard” (22:14-15, KJV, italics added).

And again, “I have appeared [visibly and audibly] unto thee [Paul] for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in which I will [later] appear unto thee” (26:16, KJV).

Witnessing (prophetic visions of Christ) is for all generations. Prophecy is multi-generational. Many Christians aren't aware of this fact - but that's what happens when the church tries to create doctrine based on Sola Scriptura, and the opinions of men. They are prone to overlooking all the main elements of truth.

I might expand a little more on this post, if I have time.

 

[JAL]

Again, your argument is built on inference.

I just remembered something. What about the whole cessationist doctrine that the completed cannon is the 'complete' prophecy and knowledge of 1Cor 13?

That chapter never even MENTIONS a cannon. That goes beyond inference. It sounds like wild speculation!

At least I look to concepts referenced in the immediate context for most of my conclusions about the gifts. Example. "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1). So it looks like Paul wanted us to pursue prophecy. Oh, right, I forgot. That's just an ungrounded baseless INFERENCE. I made up this stuff all in my head.

 

[JAL]

Butch5:

And the cessationist argument from history, how is that not an inference? Their argument goes like this.
(1) Looks like the gifts vanished.
(2) THEREFORE, that means they were SUPPOSED to vanish. That must be God's will.

Brilliant piece of reasoning! But did they ever stop to consider that maybe it's MAN'S fault?

Nope, much easier to blame it on God. He's apparently the kind of jerk who doesn't WANT to heal the sick anymore, for example. That's what cessationism insinuates (tacitly), isn't it?