Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

[Saint Steven]

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

Tell it to the Prophets.

 

[Saint Steven]

Salvation is clearly seen in opposition to cult behavior.

I agree, but can it be sufficiently verified? Should be headline news, right?
I mean, if it was real, everyone would want it. Right?

 

[JAL]

Scripture bears witness with the Holy Spirit who provides understanding.

Umm...sorry. That nebulous language might pass muster on the average naive Christian pew member, but it won't wash here. I don't care how many theologians regurgitate such cliches - if you can't be specific as to what those words mean, it's just a smokescreen. Keep it to yourself. Meanwhile, shall we proceed with the debate?

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

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]

What we've established is that you DIDN'T based your decision to convert on the Bible.

No, we haven't.

It doesn't make sense to claim, 'I believe that the Bible is inspired because it says so.'

You have a point there. We are Christians--or, speaking for myself, I am a Christian--
because I believe the Bible. It is possible not to believe the Bible and not to be a Christian. Millions of the worlds Hindus and Buddhists, for example, do not. For them the question about Sola Scriptura is irrelevant.

Here, however, we supposedly are having a discussion between Christians about the Christian religion, between people who believe that the Bible IS indeed the revealed word of God. The question must be, therefore, if it is an adequate quide to Christian doctrine. If a Hindu were to come onto this forum, against the CF rules, it would probably be useless to argue whether or not the Bible is worth believing.

If we both are Christians, and we believe the Bible, and it is God's word according to our religion, then what beats it when it comes to knowing his will for us? Or equals it? Obviously, I would say, nothing does or can. The term for that is Sola Scriptura.

 

[NBB]

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??

I just say why no one trust eye witness accounts when also bible has eye witness accounts.

 

[JAL]

No, we haven't.



You have a point there. We are Christians--or, speaking for myself, I am a Christian--
because I believe the Bible. It is possible not to believe the Bible and not to be a Christian. Millions of the worlds Hindus and Buddhists, for example, do not. For them the question about Sola Scriptura is irrelevant.

Here, however, we supposedly are having a discussion between Christians about the Christian religion, between people who believe that the Bible IS indeed the revealed word of God. The question must be, therefore, if it is an adequate quide to Christian doctrine. If a Hindu were to come onto this forum, against the CF rules, it would probably be useless to argue whether or not the Bible is worth believing.

Yep, 500 posts deep into this thread, and your'e still too afraid tell us your basis for accepting Scripture as inspired, since doing so would obviously contradict the Sola part of Sola Scriptura.

And by the way, I do believe that the Bible is the revealed (written) Word of God. It's not the divine Word (see John 1:1) that created the world, of course. Nor is it the power of God. It's fundamentally a history book except with a degree of accuracy afforded by an infallible Writer. But nothing more than an accurate description of history and doctrine. Don't over-glorify it. Glorify the divine Word.

 

[Albion]

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.

Then why would you present that to us as some proof of the existence of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit in operation??

 

[Albion]

I just say why no one trust eye witness accounts when also bible has eye witness accounts.

No one said that eye witness accounts are not to be trusted.

 

[Saint Steven]

I just say why no one trust eye witness accounts when also bible has eye witness accounts.

Thanks.
That was exactly my point with this previous post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"If you refuse to accept an eye-witness account, what do you do with this?
Does anything verify it?

1 John 1:3
We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. "

 

[Saint Steven]

No one said that eye witness accounts are not to be trusted.

@Dave L certainly inferred it.
He is demanding "verified" evidence. (thus dismissing eye witness accounts, including mine)

 

[Dave L]

@Dave L certainly inferred it.
He is demanding "verified" evidence. (thus dismissing eye witness accounts, including mine)

Let's say, if Paul or Peter were here today, it would be all over YouTube and network news.

 

[Albion]

Yep, 500 posts deep into this thread, and your'e still too afraid tell us your basis for accepting Scripture as inspired, since doing so would obviously contradict the Sola part of Sola Scriptura.

The question is not, and never has been, whether or not to believe Scripture!

As I explained in my last post, it is whether or not people who DO accept Scripture as divine revelation, i.e. Christians, believe it is without equal when it comes to defining essential Christian doctrine.

 

[Dave L]

Umm...sorry. That nebulous language might pass muster on the average naive Christian pew member, but it won't wash here. I don't care how many theologians regurgitate such cliches - if you can't be specific as to what those words mean, it's just a smokescreen. Keep it to yourself. Meanwhile, shall we proceed with the debate?

The witness of the Spirit is the verification that what you read is true.

 

[Dave L]

Tell it to the Prophets.

If there were any I would.

 

[Saint Steven]

Then why would you present that to us as some proof of the existence of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit in operation??

What should I call them that you would understand?

For instance, I speak in tongues, but I do not consider it to be the "gift" of tongues which is used to address the whole congregation with a prophetic message. What should I call it?

 

[Saint Steven]

Let's say, if Paul or Peter were here today, it would be all over YouTube and network news.

In support or denial?

 

[Albion]

@Dave L certainly inferred it.
He is demanding "verified" evidence. (thus dismissing eye witness accounts, including mine)

Well, misunderstandings sometimes happen with discussion board posts, but I re-read the relevant posts and could not find any hint of what you think he implied. But that's done now and you gave your explanation, so there is no need to talk further about it.

 

[Albion]

What should I call them that you would understand?

For instance, I speak in tongues, but I do not consider it to be the "gift" of tongues which is used to address the whole congregation with a prophetic message. What should I call it?

A prayer language?

I really don't think it matters what term is used so long as it is not mislabelled as one of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit that the Bible identifies for us.

 

[Dave L]

In support or denial?

You have nothing but hot air in this matter. No physical proof whatever.