Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

JAL said:

And why are you contradicting yourself? You admitted there are no distinctions between OT and NT prophets. Therefore, if an OT prophet could arise without human intervention, ditto of the NT prophet.

Click to expand...

The Apostles were the last NT prophets.

Dave L said:

You are still all hat and no cattle. Nothing at all to back your claims.

Click to expand...

Another empirical argument? Sola Scripture does not admit of empirical arguments. All doctrine is supposed to be based on SCRIPTURE, not on empiricism. Stop contradicting yourself.

JAL said:

Another empirical argument? Sola Scripture does not admit of empirical arguments. All doctrine is supposed to be based on SCRIPTURE, not on empiricism. Stop contradicting yourself.

Click to expand...

I'm going to ignore you for a while. This has gone too far.

Dave L said:

The Apostles were the last NT prophets.

Click to expand...

Ah, there you have it! The Pope has spoken! Nevermind anything Paul said!

Dave L said:

They had prophets up until the Apostles died off.

Click to expand...

Well, that was very convenient for you.

Seriously? How does that work?
I'm trying to imagine the last prophet choking on his words
as the Holy Spirit withdrew, never to return.

Saint Steven said:

Well, that was very convenient for you.

Seriously? How does that work?
I'm trying to imagine the last prophet choking on his words
as the Holy Spirit withdrew, never to return.

Click to expand...

John was the last prophet and Revelation completed the canon.

Dave L said:

If you could prove one simple point about the distribution of the gifts happening beyond the two outpourings or through an apostles's hands, you could cease wearing yourself out dodging the issue.

Click to expand...

All of us are susceptible to a tunnel vision that can't see the forest for the trees. This makes it difficult to think outside the box. A debate like this can extricate us from the box, by allowing us to see someone else's perspective on the same set of data.

Here's mine. God, as a wise leader, ENDORSES His designated leaders, in an effort to discourage insubordination and self-aggrandization. None of us are at top of the totem pole, and leadership is in place to help keep us mindful of that fact, lest we become excessively prideful. That's one reason that God TYPICALLY imparted gifts at the hands of the apostles. It's just good, wise strategy. There's nothing dispensational or cessational about it, and it need not apply or be enforced in all situations. It's solely at the whim, will, and discretion of the only wise God.

Let's begin with an OT example. I've stated that an audience needs to experience the prophet's message at 100% certainty to fully authenticate it. So this means:
(1) The prophet got the message at 100% certainty.
(2) The people got the message at 100% certainty.
Why then the need for the prophet? Why did not God speak it directly to the people, on all occasions? Again, endorsement of leadership. A prophet was typically a very upstanding believer walking in high favor with God. The Lord did not want the people to have any prideful, self-aggrandizing delusions about their standing in equal favor with Him. The intermediary helps to remind them of that.

(2) Second example. And that's PRECISELY why God channeled the Spirit of prophecy through Moses to the 70 elders (Numbers 11:25).

You see the problem here? You're supposedly 'challenging' me with 'counterevidence' that in fact SUPPORTS and IS CONSISTENT WITH my own beliefs. You're regurgitating data that is already part and parcel of my own phenomenology. Such does not count as an argument against MY assumptions. It has more to do with yours.

JAL said:

And leaders should be leery of continually allowing members to publicly 'prophesy' who have never once managed to inspire 100% certainty in the leader himself. A real 'prophet' needs to prove himself.

Click to expand...

Let's share views on prophecy. Now that Dave L has bowed out. (with you anyway)
Curious about your 100% certainty requirement. ???

We may have different definitions of what that is and how it works today.
I'll start with a biblical definition. And share some experiential insights.

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

My experience with prophecy has been mostly on the receiving end. I have quite a collection of written messages I have received, saved from over the years. Some that I still have not completely absorbed. But all of which fit the biblical definition above. For the most part these were not predictions of things that would happen in my future, but more words of encouragement, comfort and strengthening. Again, per the definition.

I did have one instance on a forum when someone was posting a tirade that ended with something like: "Consult your Holy Spirit and get back to me!" I reeled when I read that, but God told me clearly to respond to him. (prophetically) I was stunned. I wasn't sure what to do. I wasn't a prophet and God hadn't "given" me a word to deliver, just a command to respond on behalf of the Holy Spirit.

Without dragging this out in detail, I'll give a brief description. I breathed a cleansing breath (sigh) and leaned over the keyboard. I began to type as if the Holy Spirit was doing it. And that appeared to be what happened. When I stopped typing, I corrected my typing errors and prepared to send the message to the recipient. I explained what I had done and offered the message as to what I thought the Holy Spirit was saying to him. Apologetically, really. What happened next was extraordinary.

The "prophecy" hit the nail on the head. He returned the post as a changed man. Pouring out his heart to me about what he had been through. Then he asked me to identify the color of hair of his wife that had died delivering their child. (if I remember this correctly) I said that wasn't what the gift was for, but had the impression that her hair was red. Bingo. The Holy Spirit nailed that one too.

Then the naysayers arrived to argue about what happened. I never heard from the guy again. But given what happened, I think God had a hold of his life. Otherwise, why do that?

Nothing like that has happened to me since. Just as well. I wasn't seeking it. Just something God asked me to do.

Anyway, that's a bit my experience with prophecy. Tell me about yours.

Dave L said:

If you could prove one simple point about the distribution of the gifts happening beyond the two outpourings or through an apostles's hands, you could cease wearing yourself out dodging the issue.

Click to expand...

One more rebuttal on this, as it literally got me giggling again, irrepressibly, for about 8 seconds. Funny how you blatantly acknowledge two exceptions (contradictions!) to your own rule and then have the gall to allege a burden of proof on ME. That isn't far short of being absolutely hilarious!

Folks - anyone monitoring this thread - when a writer begins postulating 'exceptions to the general rule', 'transitional periods', 'differing dispensations', and the like, run in the opposite direction. What he's really doing is masking the self-contradictions in his own theology.

While hermeneutics isn't apodictic, it behooves us to at least try to remain inclined to the most consistent theology available.

Dave L said:

John was the last prophet and Revelation completed the canon.

Click to expand...

Again. The canon was not "completed", it was collected writings.

Saint Steven said:

Let's share views on prophecy. Now that Dave L has bowed out. (with you anyway)
Curious about your 100% certainty requirement. ???

Click to expand...

Good question. Sure. The ACTUAL gift of prophecy, as defined in the OT, is infallible. That's a logical deduction. Based on what? Based on the fact that God was willing to stone them for errors.

This leads to the standard of 100% certainty. Why so? A prophet would be a real idiot (unless he WANTED to get stoned), to proclaim 'Thus saith the Lord', if he was less than 100% certain. Why take the risk? And if God is good, why would He EXPECT him to take the risk? That doesn't make a lot of sense. So the standard is pretty well locked down for us, in that regard:
(1) If he's less than 100% certain, he shouldn't refer to his opinion as a real prophecy.
(2) If he IS 100% certain, than it would be equally wrong to merely 'opine', that is, to say, 'Well this might not be the Lord speaking, but here's my mere opinion.' That would be a BLATANT LIE, seen from his standpoint, if we really understand and accept what 100% certainty entails (a supernaturally induced inability to doubt or question or feel any reservations about the message).

You might feel that NT prophecy is different. I'm not sure if I have time for that debate, although I might make one or two comments on the rest of your post.

Saint Steven said:

Let's share views on prophecy. Now that Dave L has bowed out. (with you anyway)
Curious about your 100% certainty requirement. ???

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. I've already defended the concept of fallible revelation (i.e. a revelation experienced at less than 100% certainty), which can indeed be useful and encouraging to others. I just want people to stop pretending to KNOW the words of God when in fact they are unsure. They don't need to always remain silent, mostly they just need to admit their uncertainty, admit that they are merely opining.

I'm not vehemently opposed to a leader who lets anyone stand up publicly to proclaim a message - as long as the message is prefaced with the proper disclaimer. Don't pretend to know that it's a real prophecy, if you're not sure. The leader should be leery of touting such people as prophets, if he has no personal prior track record of feeling 100% certainty from their messages.

Saint Steven said:

Let's share views on prophecy. Now that Dave L has bowed out. (with you anyway)
Curious about your 100% certainty requirement. ???

Click to expand...

It's easy to read too much into my strong words. Again don't get me wrong. I'm not purporting to be the absolute authority on where and when the term prophecy may be used. Rather 1 and 2:
(1) These two statements are very different:
(A) The Lord gave me a word of prophecy.
(B) I THINK the Lord gave me a word of prophecy.

So I do think it's okay to use the term 'prophecy' in a loose sense for any experience of a word of revelation, if the proper disclaimers are in place.

(2) On the other hand, we probably SHOULD be somewhat strict on condoning the term 'prophet' as an office or title, given the strict OT standard of infallibility. Otherwise we are doing people a disservice, by encouraging them to remain complacent with low standards of revelation, thereby cultivating the tendency to equate mere opining with prophethood.

Saint Steven said:

We may have different definitions of what that is and how it works today.
I'll start with a biblical definition. And share some experiential insights.

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

My experience with prophecy has been mostly on the receiving end. I have quite a collection of written messages I have received, saved from over the years. Some that I still have not completely absorbed. But all of which fit the biblical definition above. For the most part these were not predictions of things that would happen in my future, but more words of encouragement, comfort and strengthening. Again, per the definition.

I did have one instance on a forum when someone was posting a tirade that ended with something like: "Consult your Holy Spirit and get back to me!" I reeled when I read that, but God told me clearly to respond to him. (prophetically) I was stunned. I wasn't sure what to do. I wasn't a prophet and God hadn't "given" me a word to deliver, just a command to respond on behalf of the Holy Spirit.

Without dragging this out in detail, I'll give a brief description. I breathed a cleansing breath (sigh) and leaned over the keyboard. I began to type as if the Holy Spirit was doing it. And that appeared to be what happened. When I stopped typing, I corrected my typing errors and prepared to send the message to the recipient. I explained what I had done and offered the message as to what I thought the Holy Spirit was saying to him. Apologetically, really. What happened next was extraordinary.

The "prophecy" hit the nail on the head. He returned the post as a changed man. Pouring out his heart to me about what he had been through. Then he asked me to identify the color of hair of his wife that had died delivering their child. (if I remember this correctly) I said that wasn't what the gift was for, but had the impression that her hair was red. Bingo. The Holy Spirit nailed that one too.

Then the naysayers arrived to argue about what happened. I never heard from the guy again. But given what happened, I think God had a hold of his life. Otherwise, why do that?

Nothing like that has happened to me since. Just as well. I wasn't seeking it. Just something God asked me to do.

Anyway, that's a bit my experience with prophecy. Tell me about yours.

Click to expand...

My experience described at Post 321 is the closest I've come to receiving a real prophetic word. It sure seemed like one. Was it 100% certainty? The moment passed quickly, and hindsight is NOT actuaally 20/20. And yet at that moment, even looking back, it seems to have been an experience of 100% certainty. It was enough to persuade me that God spoke to me, but now I can only say that conclusion tentatively, especially after the fact, since I'm no longer experiencing that moment of certainty.

That was a DIRECT influence of the Spirit on my heart. I also have experienced fairly high levels of certainty indirectly (not as much as the direct experience, but substantial) on at least two occasions when a fellow church member 'read my mail' - when he proclaimed to know thoughts of mine that I had never shared with anyone, and was dead right. I just don't think anyone could know such things without revelation.

I also experienced a pretty impressive degree of certainty in a room where John Paul Jackson was ministering, although I didn't personally receive a word from him.

Unfortunately the above pretty much sums up the precious few bright spots of an otherwise somewhat-disappointing 12 years of experience in charismatic churches. I just don't think we're quite on track yet. Far from it.

Saint Steven said:

Again. The canon was not "completed", it was collected writings.

Click to expand...

Thoroughly furnished = nothing more to be added.

JAL said:

Don't get me wrong. I've already defended the concept of fallible revelation (i.e. a revelation experienced at less than 100% certainty), which can indeed be useful and encouraging to others. I just want people to stop pretending to KNOW the words of God when in fact they are unsure. They don't need to always remain silent, mostly they just need to admit their uncertainty, admit that they are merely opining.

I'm not vehemently opposed to a leader who lets anyone stand up publicly to proclaim a message - as long as the message is prefaced with the proper disclaimer. Don't pretend to know that it's a real prophecy, if you're not sure. The leader should be leery of touting such people as prophets, if he has no personal prior track record of feeling 100% certainty from their messages.

Click to expand...

That tracks pretty well with where I am at with it.

My experience has been prophecies coming to me like puzzle pieces.
The "prophet" was told by God to deliver a message, but they have no idea what it means, and in many cases whether it was really a prophecy at all. "I think the Lord wants me to tell you this. Here it is, if it fits, great, if not, that fine too."

None of the "Thus saith the Lord..." stuff.

Saint Steven said:

That tracks pretty well with where I am at with it.

My experience has been prophecies coming to me like puzzle pieces.
The "prophet" was told by God to deliver a message, but they have no idea what it means, and in many cases whether it was really a prophecy at all. "I think the Lord wants me to tell you this. Here it is, if it fits, great, if not, that fine too."

None of the "Thus saith the Lord..." stuff.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I see nothing wrong with opining in an honest way.

I remember a pastor who, on many occasions, believed himself to have received a word from the Lord, but he ALWAYS delivered it to people in the kind of language that you just used. And I always admired that aspect of him. Typically he would say, 'This could be the Lord talking, or the pizza that I just ate, but here's what I think I'm supposed to tell you....'

Dave L said:

Thoroughly furnished = nothing more to be added.

Click to expand...

It seems that you borrowed the word "furnished" from this passage.
But to what was this referring at the time it was written?
Not to the as yet "uncompleted" NT canonized collection.

Furthermore, the "thoroughly furnished" aspect is in reference to good works.
Not a limitation on continuing revelation. In fact Revelation had not yet been written at that point, correct? (2 Timothy = 67 AD - Revelation = 95 AD)

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I had said:
"Scripture is a subset of God's word.
God's word was spoken before it was written down.
What prevents God's word from being spoken again?"

To which you replied:
"Scripture thoroughly furnishes us."

JAL said:

'This could be the Lord talking, or the pizza that I just ate...

Click to expand...

I've heard that one too. So funny!

Dave L said:

Thoroughly furnished = nothing more to be added.

Click to expand...

I posted about six counterpoints to your reading of 2Tim 3:16-17. Also, I fail to see where that passage declares a cessation of the gifts. Shall we continue with counterpoint #7?

(7) To say that the OT saints had Scripture doesn't imply Sola Scriptura. On the contrary, as I noted earlier, Scripture reminded them, in about 50 places, using the Hebrew word 'qowl', to obey the Voice, which is anything BUT Sola Scriptura. The same is true here. The NT is indeed sufficient. It is sufficient PRECISELY IN THE SENSE of reminding us of the essentials, such as the need to seek the gift of prophecy (1Cor 14:1).

I'm sorry that you base your beliefs on an interpretation faced with at least 7 cogent counterpoints, whereas personally I look for evidence a bit more solid than that.