Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

[JAL]

God can gift anyone he wants to gift and at any time; we have to agree to that. However, whole congregations today are merely going through the motions imitating the "gifts" that are the easiest to imitate. And sometimes not even that.

Agreed. There doesn't seem to be any authenticity in most of the events touted as charismatic today. A lot of it looks totally ludicrous, I'm sad to say.

In my understanding, grace was supposed to be cumulative. Meaning, a semi-godly generation raises godly children who, as such, can acquire a greater outpouring than their parents, and so on.

But nothing like that has happened in church history. In my opinion it's largely because the church has been far off the mark doctrinally and thus in practice, all the while pretending to know exactly what they're doing (see my signature). All the churches are partially built on a lie which, in my opinion, is intolerable to God, namely, 'We know exactly what we're doing. We know [for sure] the correct doctrines. We know how to build a church, how to run a church, how to evangelize, how to run various ministries, and how to conduct missions."

The early church DID know what they were doing because they were led by bona fide apostles and prophets. Right now we have no business operating under such pretenses. Who are we trying to fool? Unfortunately many men are fooled by it, but we're certainly not fooling God.

 

[Tree of Life]

Cessationists believe that the Bible is a closed book. God has nothing more for us. But I believe anything is possible. The books were chosen because they are considered inspired, not written because the writers felt they were inspirited.

When the Israelites had their backs to the Red Sea and the Egyptians were coming after them, who could have foreseen that the Red Sea would part and they would walk through on dry land? Or that the walls of Jericho would tumble. Or that axe heads would float. Or that tongues of fore would separate and come to rest on the heads of those who began speaking in tongues.

Could God send forth a new Apostle or twelve? Why not? Could additional inspired works be written? Why not?

I rest my case.

 

[JAL]

You are adding to scripture to make the gift of tongues more than it ever was.

I didn't put tongues on a pedestal. I merely gave you a DEFINITION.

The gifts ceased when he said they would. Bogus gifts today support this.

Where did Paul say the gifts would cease? And at what date?

 

[Dave L]

I didn't put tongues on a pedestal. I merely gave you a DEFINITION.
Where did Paul say the gifts would cease? And at what date?

It's there if you want to see it. But you will never see it unless you want to.

 

[Dave L]

Did knowledge and prophecy also cease?

Yes. Scripture replaced them with the full revelation.

 

[PloverWing]

As Habihh and Albion have noted, God can do what God chooses to do. So the claim "All miraculous gifts have ceased" will be hard to prove, because 1) How can I know what's going on in every corner of the world?, and 2) God could overturn any proof I had at any moment by performing a miracle through someone.

For the positive claim, "Miraculous gifts continue today and are commonly practiced in some branches of the church", an empirical test should settle it. The most easily verified gifts, I think, are healing and speaking in unknown human tongues. (For the latter, I have in mind the kind of gift that was seen in Acts 2, not ecstatic prayer speech.) So, in Pentecostal and Charismatic congregations, what percentage of your members with cancer, Alzheimer's, spinal injuries, etc., are healed on a regular basis? And when you have a visitor whose native language is Spanish or Vietnamese or Gujarati, how often is one of your members gifted with the ability to speak to the visitor in their native language? Those statistics would help me assess the frequency with which people experience miraculous gifts.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes. Scripture replaced them with the full revelation.

What about Joel's prophecy? (prophecy in the last days)

Acts 2:17-20
“‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great
and glorious day of the Lord.

 

[Saint Steven]

I rest my case.

So you also believe that God is done with us?

Acts 2:17-20
“‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great
and glorious day of the Lord.

 

[JAL]

I suppose only that the Holy Spirit elsewhere says that the gift of apostleship is a foundational gift (Ephesians 2:20). A foundation can only be laid once. And the Holy Spirit seems to give parameters to the apostolic office which would exclude anyone after the time of the apostles (Acts 1:21-22).

Stop blindly regurgitating cessationist dogma. Let's read the text for ourselves, shall we? Specifically, we want answers to a few important questions.
(1) What is the foundation?
(2) Who lays it down?
(3) How many times can it be laid?
You're free to reach different conclusions than I, but at least it should become clear, shortly, that mine proceed from Scripture.

The Greek phrase 'foundatoin of apostles and prophets' can mean EITHER
(1) that the apostles and prophets themselves are the foundation
(2) OR that the foundation is something laid down BY them.

So we'll have to look to other verses for clarification. Here's what Paul actually said on the matter:

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1Cor 3:11). Interesting. The foundation is here said to be Christ, not 'the gift of apostleship'.

Who lays it down? "According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilledb master builder I laid a foundation" (verse 10). Thus the apostles and prophets LAY DOWN the foundatoin. Why? He just told you why! Because no one wants to live in a building whose foundation was laid down by a NOVICE. If that were God's will, it would make Him an IRRESPONSIBLE LEADER. Rather, he insists that the foundatoin be laid down by men of the highest expertise (apostles and prophets).

What does it mean exactly that Christ is the foundation, laid down by the apostles? If I had to speculate, I would guess it refers to an OUTPOURING of Christ. It's an endument of power (for instance the ability to confer giftings via the laying of hands), but such work must be done with proper RESTRAINT and WISDOM - with apostolic/prophetic expertise.

Moving on to questoin #3, How many times can it be laid? "It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation" Rom 15:20). It is REGIONAL. It needs to be laid afresh in EVERY REGION.

Cessationists equiovocate on this issue. They'll say: "The apostles and the prophets were the foundation" (who are all dead now?). So now our building has lost its foundatoin? No wonder it has crumbled into ruins. The church is a mess today. Then they will reply, 'No we still have the foundation. They laid down the foundatoin once-for-all'

Well, which is it? Are they the foundation? Or the ones who lay it down. Make up your mind, please, cessationists. I can't debate with you if you're a moving target.

 

[JAL]

It's there if you want to see it. But you will never see it unless you want to.

Except that's not an argument. It's an expression of your own personal bias.

 

[ilovejcsog]

What about Joel's prophecy? (prophecy in the last days)

Acts 2:17-20
“‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great
and glorious day of the Lord.

Seems like post 81 is an answer. As generations come and go they are less Godly each time.
Why should God poor out his spirit on a Godless society?

 

[Saint Steven]

Seems like post 81 is an answer. As generations come and go they are less Godly each time.
Why should God poor out his spirit on a Godless society?

Those things aren't really connected.
The outpouring was not a reward for a godly society.
Society had crucified our Lord just 50 days prior to Pentecost.

 

[Butch5]

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.

 

[Butch5]

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.

The first century miraculous gifts have ceased. Paul said the gifts would end and the history of the early church shows that. Some of the writers around the year 200 AD speak of just a remnant of the gifts remaining.

 

[Saint Steven]

The first century miraculous gifts have ceased.

Who should we blame for that?

 

[Butch5]

Who should we blame for that?

blame?

 

[JAL]

Those things aren't really connected.
The outpouring was not a reward for a godly society.
Society had crucified our Lord just 50 days prior to Pentecost.

Revival CAN be an act of divine mercy and, as such, can even fall upon an ungodly society. Nonetheless godly societies are more likely to get it.

Further, revival can be largely evangelistic in focus, falling first upon the faithful but ultimately targeting the ungodly as well.

And it wasn't the godly who had "crucified our Lord just 50 days prior to Pentecost." The revival began with the faithful.

Moreover Christ is the best possible tutor. For three years, He had personally trained 12 men to change the world. Apparently in God's mind, then, the time was ripe for revival. Hence Pentecost.

 

[JAL]

The first century miraculous gifts have ceased. Paul said the gifts would end and the history of the early church shows that. Some of the writers around the year 200 AD speak of just a remnant of the gifts remaining.

Paul said the gifts would cease? I'm so tired of hearing this bogus dogma repeated on this thread without scriptural support that I've finally decided to address it, briefly. I can only assume this is an allusion to 1Cor 13.

Only I'm totally cheating myself here because this epistle's REAL basis for continuationism begins in 1Cor 2. Suffice it to say here (to keep this woefully short):
(1) In chapt 2 Paul begins to contrast MATURE BELIEVERS, and MATURE SPEECH (Spirit-inspired speech aka prophecy) with the immature. Starting with verse 6.
(2) This climaxes in ch. 3 where Paul refers to the Corinthians as immature, using the term babes.

Chapter 12 hasn't deviated from this motif. Neither has 13. For example, 13 uses the same Greek word for 'babes' found in ch 3, as WELL AS, the same word for 'mature' used in chap 2. Here's my rendering:

Love never ceases. As for prophecies, they will cease; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will cease. For we [apostles and prophets] know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the mature comes, what was in part will cease. When I was a babe, I spoke like a babe, I thought like a babe, I reasoned like a babe. When I became a [mature] man, I ceased from baby things (13:8-11, my translation).

He's not talking about the cessation of the gifts, but their maturation. The immature manifestations inevitably cease when replaced by mature embodiments.

To make his point, Paul creates a trio of three babe-activities, parallel to three GIFTS (tongues, prophecies, and knowledge). "When I was a [immature] babe, I spoke like a babe, I thought like a babe, I reasoned like a babe. When I became a [mature] man, I ceased from baby things."

In what SENSE did the three babe-activities cease? Did the babe stop speaking, thinking, and reasoning? No! He merely MATURED in those things.

Some noted cessationist scholars actually concede the above analysis, albeit with a huge amount of last-minute back-pedaling in a hopeless attempt to salvage their cessationism. They call it relative maturity. Why? Because the process continues. RELATIVE to the Corinthian babes, Paul was mature. But relative to Christ, he was still an immature babe ANTICIPATING maturity. Every maturation brings Paul closer to Christ, and yet remains a babe relative to Him. It's an endless cycle.


There is NOTHING in this passage about a cessation of gifts - not back then, not now, and not in heaven.

 

[Butch5]

Paul said the gifts would cease? I'm so tired of hearing this bogus dogma repeated on this thread without scriptural support that I've finally decide to address it, briefly. I can only assume this is an allusion to 1Cor 13.

Only I'm totally cheating myself here because this epistle's REAL basis for continuationism begins in 1Cor 2. Suffice it to say here (to keep this woefully short):
(1) In chapt 2 Paul begins to contrast MATURE BELIEVERS, and MATURE SPEECH (Spirit-inspired speech aka prophecy) with the immature. Starting with verse 6.
(2) This climaxes in ch. 3 where Paul refers to the Corinthians as immature, using the term babes.

Chapter 12 hasn't deviated from this motif. Neither has 13. For example, 13 uses the same Greek word for 'babes' found in ch 2, as WELL AS, the same word for 'mature'. Here's my rendering:

Love never ceases. As for prophecies, they will cease; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will cease. For we [apostles and prophets] know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the mature comes, what was in part will cease. When I was a babe, I spoke like a babe, I thought like a babe, I reasoned like a babe. When I became a [mature] man, I ceased from baby things (13:8-11, my translation).

He's not talking about the cessation of the gifts, but their maturation. The immature manifestations inevitably cease when replaced by mature embodiments.

To make his point, Paul creates a trio of three babe-activities, parallel to three GIFTS (tongues, prophecies, and knowledge). "When I was a [immature] babe, I spoke like a babe, I thought like a babe, I reasoned like a babe. When I became a [mature] man, I ceased from baby things."

In what SENSE did the three babe-activities cease? Did the babe stop speaking, thinking, and reasoning? No! He merely MATURED in those things.

Some noted cessationist scholars actually concede the above analysis, albeit with a huge amount of last-minute back-pedaling in a hopeless attempt to salvage their cessationism. They call it relative maturity. Why? Because the process continues. RELATIVE to the Corinthian babes, Paul was mature. But relative to Christ, he was still an immature babe ANTICIPATING maturity. Every maturation brings Paul closer to Christ, and yet remains a babe relative to Him. It's an endless cycle.


There is NOTHING in this passage about a cessation of gifts - not back then, not now, and not in heaven.

Thanks for your interpretation. However, you completely ignored the historical evidence. Some of the early church writers noted that the gifts were disappearing.

Regarding your interpretation, Paul didn't say they they mature what was in part would end. He said when that which is mature or complete came that which was in part would end.

Regarding tongues in particular, he stated plainly that tongues was a sign for the unbeliever. It was a sign to Israel. It was sign of coming judgment.

 

[JAL]

Thanks for your interpretation. However, you completely ignored the historical evidence. Some of the early church writers noted that the gifts were disappearing.

As already noted, I don't base doctrine on purely conjectural speculations about history. I look to the didactic statements of men like Christ, Paul, Peter, and James, to name a few.

Regarding your interpretation, Paul didn't say they they mature what was in part would end. He said when that which is mature or complete came that which was in part would end.

Huh? Could you form some complete sentences please? I don't understand you.

Regarding tongues in particular, he stated plainly that tongues was a sign for the unbeliever. It was a sign to Israel. It was sign of coming judgment.

I don't find that statement particularly 'plain'. I'm certainly not going to build a whole theology on it.