Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

[Saint Steven]

Salvation shows up in lifestyle.

People from all sorts of diverse backgrounds have a change in lifestyle.
If you converted to Islam would that require a change in lifestyle? (especially if you were a woman)

 

[JAL]

Once again, what cessationists have is the fact that the gifts ceased. It is no theological mumbo jumbo, not a clever reinterpretation of Scripture. Nothing like that. If the gifts had not ceased to be a standard part of church life, every one of today's cessationists would be continuationists.

So a historical analysis counts as a FINAL AUTHORITY on the charismatic debate?

This is what we are talking about. If the gifts were for today, you would see them just as they did in the first century.

And yet Sola Scriptura means that any belief on spiritual matters is warranted only if backed up explicitly in Scripture, right? Therefore you can't look to historical and empirical data. That's a methodological contradiction. How can you rely on post-biblical history to draw religious conclusions? What happened to Sola Scriptura? How convenient to blatantly contradict yourselves whenever expedient. As already noted, there isn't any rationality to the cessationist movement.


Do you ever pray for guidance? For example, if your spouse or children were missing, would you pray ? I guess not,right, because Scripture is the only information available to us from God. He's totally opposed to any further revelations that might clarify life, doctrine, and practice.

Again, what is your basis for accepting Jesus as Lord and the Bible as inspired? Do you base it on:
(1) a historical analyis?
(2) Conscience?
I proposed conscience (arguably under the influence of God's voice - Jn 10:27), in accordance with Calvin's doctrine of the Inward Witness. We say that the Holy Spirit convicts (convinces) the sinner of fundamental truths when the gospel is preached, by creating feelings of certainty. This doctrine implies that consience is authoritative. Note that Calvin's theory is almost UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED among evangelical theologians. (I don't much care what pastors think these days, seems many of those guys will believe ANYTHING).

But everyone on this thread seems to disavow authoritative conscience. Ok so apparently they are opting for option 1 above:
(1) a historical analyis
So that's the only reliable basis for accepting the fundamental truths? Let's see how this pans out, shall we? Suppose you're preaching the gospel to an audience of a thousand sinners. The Holy Spirit descends upon the assembly convicting them, inflaming their hearts to a degree commensurate with Jeremiah's experience, 'The Word of God is in me like a burning fire, shut up in my bones, I CANNOT hold it in.' In an agonized appeal, they cry out, 'OK! Enough! We're convicted! We're convinced! What shall we do?' In a similar scenario, here's what Peter told them: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."

What would YOU do? I think you would say this, 'Cmon guys. Don't rely on FEELINGS. Don't rely on CONSCIENCE to draw religious conclusions! That's crazy! You need to do a HISTORICAL ANALYSIS. For STARTERS, you need to spend several years comparing the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to determine if we even HAVE a correct Bible.'

But if you currently accept the Christian gospel based on historical analysis (and this is still your biggest daily decision in life), then your core religious beliefs ARE NOT based on Sola Scriptura. You've methodlogicallly contradicted yourselves.

So why do you people insist on promulgating a blatant LIE? And why do you consider it appropriate to indulge in methodological contradictions, whenever expedient to a debate?

 

[Saint Steven]

I was only showing how crazy those claiming visions can be.

Do you think I am crazy, Dave?

 

[Albion]

I testified that I saw someone healed when I prayed with them. You showed zero interest.

We take for granted that God can heal people. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are or were gifts to us. WE are gifted if we have received them in the way you claim. In this account that you gave us of a healing, you admit that it is God who did it, not you.

What if you prayed for a friend to get a new job--and it happened? Would we then have the gift of employment? The Bible doesn't list that as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Or what if you prayed to win the lottery and God complied? Would there be a gift of gambling finesse? No. And prayer, which ALL believers are called to do, is not one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, either.

 

[Dave L]

Do you think I am crazy, Dave?

I hope that you are not. But voices in the head and seeing things are not the marks of mental well being.

 

[Dave L]

People from all sorts of diverse backgrounds have a change in lifestyle.
If you converted to Islam would that require a change in lifestyle? (especially if you were a woman)

Salvation is clearly seen in opposition to cult behavior.

 

[Saint Steven]

So a historical analysis counts as a FINAL AUTHORITY on the charismatic debate?

The Cessationists have their historical analysis wrong.
This link might help.
The_Manifestations of_the_Spirit_in_Church_History - from IHOP/Mike Bickle

http://www.mikebickle.org.edgesuite...estations_of_the_Spirit_in_Church_History.pdf

 

[Albion]

So a historical analysis counts as a FINAL AUTHORITY on the charismatic debate?

If they ceased, they ceased. It's that clear-cut. End of discussion unless you can show that nothing has, in fact, changed with this matter.

 

[JAL]

Knowing the meaning of a Greek word is not up there with chasing after voices in the head.

But you don't KNOW the meaning of any Greek word, by chasing after the voices of men.

If you REALLY want to know the meaning of a verse, do what Jesus did. Do what Paul did. Chase after the Father's voice.

You really think that the voice of men can assure you the meaning of Greek words? After 2,000 years, the church still doesn't even know the real name of the Third Person !!! See posts 3 and 5 on this thread.

 

[JAL]

If they ceased, they ceased. It's that clear-cut. End of discussion unless you can show that nothing has, in fact, changed with this matter.

As usual, you avoid the charges of methodological contradiction. One thing's clear. Sola Scriptura isn't Sola at all. It is therefore a lie.

 

[Albion]

Sola Scriptura isn't Sola at all. It is therefore a lie.

So what do YOU follow as your supreme authority in the matter of doctrine? Conscience? We have established that I follow the Bible and that you disagree.

Let's see how that works, then. Define some essential religious/Christian doctrine without resorting to the Bible. Then maybe we can see better how that works. Perhaps something basic like God, a spirit, becomes a human being. How does the "Conscience" answer that? Or can it be reasoned out?

 

[Dave L]

But you don't KNOW the meaning of any Greek word, by chasing after the voices of men.

If you REALLY want to know the meaning of a verse, do what Jesus did. Do what Paul did. Chase after the Father's voice.

You really think that the voice of men can assure you the meaning of Greek words? After 2,000 years, the church still doesn't even know the real name of the Third Person !!! See posts 3 and 5 on this thread.

I think we can determine the meaning of a Greek word. Voices in your head I do not trust.

 

[NBB]

The few healed were an example of the few saved among the masses of professing believers. The true believers are always that few in number.

Hey the bible is hearsay too!!, people who witnesed events... i told you that testimony about that minister in the other thread you of course don't believe, it was 'gifted' enough what happened, something to open your eyes in awe almost. But well too bad i can't transfer my thoughts to another person.

 

[JAL]

So what do YOU follow as your supreme authority in the matter of doctrine? Conscience? We have established that I follow the Bible and that you disagree.

LOL. What we've established is that you DIDN'T based your decision to convert on the Bible. It doesn't make sense to claim, 'I believe that the Bible is inspired because it says so.'

That was your biggest decision in life - and it wasn't a decision of the PAST. It's present. EVERY DAY, you either continue to believe the Bible or disbelieve it. On what basis?

Historical analysis? Reason? Conscience? Why won't you tell us your basis? Because to do so would be an admission that Sola Scriptura isn't Sola. You prefer to persist in contradictions.

 

[Albion]

Hey the bible is hearsay too!!, people who witnesed events... i told you that testimony about that minister in the other thread you of course don't believe, it was 'gifted' enough what happened, something to open your eyes in awe almost. But well too bad i can't transfer my thoughts to another person.

But the Bible is God's record of events. It even states that itself.

How, then, does the opinion of one of us compare to the reliability or credibility of God??

 

[JAL]

I think we can determine the meaning of a Greek word. Voices in your head I do not trust.

Post 554 applies to you as well. Tell me your basis for believing that Scripture is inspired.

 

[Dave L]

Hey the bible is hearsay too!!, people who witnesed events... i told you that testimony about that minister in the other thread you of course don't believe, it was 'gifted' enough what happened, something to open your eyes in awe almost. But well too bad i can't transfer my thoughts to another person.

But the bible is scripture and multitudes witnessed the miracles. Not so today. It's all "so and so knew this guy who had an uncle"..... and so on.

 

[Dave L]

Post 554 applies to you as well. Tell me your basis for believing that Scripture is inspired.

Scripture bears witness with the Holy Spirit who provides understanding.

 

[Saint Steven]

We take for granted that God can heal people. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are or were gifts to us. WE are gifted if we have received them in the way you claim. In this account that you gave us of a healing, you admit that it is God who did it, not you.

What if you prayed for a friend to get a new job--and it happened? Would we then have the gift of employment? The Bible doesn't list that as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Or what if you prayed to win the lottery and God complied? Would there be a gift of gambling finesse? No. And prayer, which ALL believers are called to do, is not one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, either.

To be clear, I wasn't claiming to have "the gift" of healing.
I was testifying, as you stated, that God healed someone through me.

I take no credit except obedience to what I was called to do in that moment. I will share more here. (see below) It seemed evident to me that there was more going on than simply praying for someone in faith and having them receive healing at some point.

The healing was extraordinary, complete, and immediate. Here's what happened. I think I have shared this before and Dave has read my testimony, yet denies it could happen. (correct me if I am wrong, @Dave L - I apologize in advance if I have overstated anything in that regard)

We were having an evening service with an emphasis on healing. At the end of the service we called forward anyone had wanted prayer for healing. I was the last one in line. The leaders started at the other end of the line. (the front) And asked us in line to pray for those next to us. The man next to me had come in hobbling on a cane. He said he had terrible pain that was forcing him to use a cane to walk. A temporary situation. I interviewed him about his level of pain (1-10) and where it hurt. (lower back) I began to pray for him and noticed a heat on the palms of my hands. After praying for a minute, I checked in to see what he was feeling. He said the pain had come down noticeably and he felt a tremendous heat on his back. I had said nothing to him about the heat I was feeling on my palms.

Since we were making progress, I suggested that we press in and continue. I began to pray in tongues, interceding for him in the Spirit. I continued to interview him periodically as the level of pain reduced. Finally, he stepped away declaring that he had been healed. He was waving the cane over his head and praising God.

The next Sunday he testified that he had been healed and voluntarily identified me as the one who prayed with him.

 

[JAL]

Let's see how that works, then. Define some essential religious/Christian doctrine without resorting to the Bible. Then maybe we can see better how that works. Perhaps something basic like God, a spirit, becomes a human being. How does the "Conscience" answer that? Or can it be reasoned out?

LOL. You just don't get it. You do realize, don't you, that most people accept Jesus as Lord BEFORE having read the Bible? Our most important theological conclusions are drawn prebiblically, for most of us anyway.

Calvin explained all this via his doctrine of the Inward Witness. The basis of our fundamental Christian theology is CONSCIENCE, not SCRIPTURE. And if you can't comprehend this, you'll never understand why Paul continually appealed to the prophet Abraham as the paradigm of faith. He didn't have a Bible - all he had was the Voice!

You think Paul is stupid? Do you think God is stupid? If Sola Scriptura is the goal, why make Abraham the most oft-mentioned OT figure in the NT, second only to Moses (who in turn relied on the Voice?)