Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

[Dave L]

I believe Paul wanted to personally discern prophetically what gifts went to whom.
He wasn't limiting how this could happen. In the scripture below the Elders in Ephesus discerned and bestowed a gift for Timothy. Not Apostles. Not Apostles. Not Apostles.

1 Timothy 4:14
Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

Why didn't the Samaritans receive the gifts from Philip who baptized them? But needed the Apostles to impart the gifts?

 

[Saint Steven]

The Holy Spirit turns them into believers. You cannot believe in any true sense otherwise.

What went wrong here?

Acts 8:15
When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit,

Acts 19:2
and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

 

[Saint Steven]

Why didn't the Samaritans receive the gifts from Philip who baptized them? But needed the Apostles to impart the gifts?

Because there are no formulas.
Did they Apostles lay hands on the three thousand new believers on the Day of Pentecost? Or the five thousand in Acts chapter four?

 

[Dave L]

Because there are no formulas.
Did they Apostles lay hands on the three thousand new believers on the Day of Pentecost? Or the five thousand in Acts chapter four?

Who says they spoke in tongues?

 

[Dave L]

What went wrong here?

Acts 8:15
When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit,

Acts 19:2
and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

All believers since Abel had the Holy Spirit. Faith is a fruit thereof. They did not have the baptism with the Holy Spirit until Pentecost except for a few OT prophets.

 

[JAL]

You are saying the gifts came in other ways without direct scriptural support. Scripture actually says they came through the two outpourings or an apostle's hands.

No, actually Scripture depicts outpourings across the history books from Genesis through Acts, proving that Christ's OLD TESTAMENT MINISTRY of outpouring Him hasn't ceased. (And if we had biblical history books beyond Acts, we see more of the pattern continuing). This is where some Christians get confused, thinking that He initiated it in the NT. No - He RELINQUISHED that glory for purposes of the Incarnation, and reassumed it afterwards.
Three proofs of these concepts:
(1) ON WHOM did Pentecost's outpouring fall? Only on 120 people! That's why more outpourings were needed (Acts 10 for example). You weren't alive back then. You partook of LATER outpourings.
(2) This ongoing stream of outpourings is formalized in the doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit. This procession is a THEOLOGICAL CONSENSUS in mainstream Christianity, but I take it you've never heard of it?
(3) We always need more outpourings because more people need to be saved. When Jesus taught His disciples to ask the Father for the Holy Spirit (11:13), He was teaching them how to pray DAILY. Note carefully some surrounding facts about Luke, because every writer has a purview:
(A) Luke is the only writer to record Christ's command to pray for the Holy Spirit (11:13).
(B) Luke wrote 25% of the NT, and more about prayer than anyone.
(C) Luke is the only writer to emphasize being filled with the Spirit, he uses the term about 13 times compared to one mention by Paul.
(D) Luke is the only writer to record that Jesus had to pray to be filled with the Spirit.
(E) Luke is the only writer to record that Jesus had to pray to be transfigured (which itself was an outpouring).
(F) Luke occasionally confirmed his formula of praying to receive outpourings -Pentecost being the prime example.

Conclusion: Your assumption that Christ has desisted His ministry of outpouring the Spirit flies in the face of EVERYTHING we see in Scripture. You shouldn't assume that, just because we have no history books beyond Acts, Christ forsook His ministry.

 

[JAL]

All believers since Abel had the Holy Spirit. Faith is a fruit thereof.

Agreed - well I think Adam and Eve got saved too, but yes.

They did not have the baptism with the Holy Spirit until Pentecost except for a few OT prophets.

Interesting. You think that all Christians got something new on Pentecost? Beyond the fruits of the Spirit? That would have to be a charismatic something, then, right?

Except the Spirit of prophecy fell only upon 120 saints on Pentecost. In reality, then, nothing has changed - charismatic anointings are largely in response to prayer, as Luke belabored, and thus aren't guaranteed to every Christian. In fact revivals can be pretty rare, if the people of God are misaligned.

Baptism simply means immersion. Prophets received charismatic anointings ('immersions') largely on account of being obedient, devout, prayerful, mature. The same is potentially our inheritance today.

 

[JAL]

One or two points I forgout about Luke.
(G) Redaction criticism has identified a very strong prophetic motif in Luke-Acts. Meaning, Luke wrote in the tradition of OT history books, emphasizing prophecy, albeit now for evangelism. (Example: The consummate evangelist John the Baptist was a prophet of Elijah-magnitude according to Luke). Thus when Luke records someone being filled with the Spirit, it's usually for an inspired speech (a prophetic utterance), typically for evangelism. In essence, Luke has simply rebranded the OT prophetic anointing as being 'filled with' or 'baptized in' the Holy Spirit.
(H) Luke consistently uses the same terminology and phenomenology before and after Pentecost, contrary to any notion that he postulated a dispensational change in pneumatology from OT to NT.

For a scholarly treatment of these last two points, see James Shelton's book, 'Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke Acts'.

 

[NBB]

I never noticed this post.

Actually I don't mind so much you disagreeing - it's the REASONS for disagreement that concern me.

Since hermeneutics is an imperfect science, it especially needs rules to avoid absolute chaos. It's not anything goes. Therefore if an interpretation:
(1) is an unprecedented use of Hebrew or Greek language
(2) Or is a violation of proper use of language as we know it
Then those who insist on that interpretation should be FORTHCOMING (openly admit) that they are embracing apparent insanity. That's all I ask. Do you admit this? Because I gave you two arguments that are virtually apodictic, meaning that the evidence OVERWHELMINGLY points in one direction.
- In post #3, I pointed out that it is a violation of language, as we know it, to distinguish same-typed beings by type. That argument stands unrefuted - I don't think anyone on that thread (several hundred posts) even ATTEMPTED to refute it.
- In post #5, I pointed out that, from the standpoint of CONTEXTUAL exgesis, the translatoin Breath/Wind trumps Spirit/Ghost hands-down. And not just contextually in the sense of CONNOTATION, but also in the sense of ACTUAL PHYSICAL DYNAMICS. Unlike a physical Wind, an intangible Spirit cannot push waters of the Red Sea apart.
Whoa....Hold up one moment. You can't use one illogical concept as a basis for 'proving' another. Creation ex nihilo appears to be an illogical concept. It appears to be insanity. Imagine for example, if I told you, 'I just pulled a hammer out of the empty toolbox', you'd think I was insane.

That in itself is problemmatical enough, but it's even worse when you tell me that a 'Spirit' did it - when you base the claim on a 'Spirit'. On a what? Some seemingly insane notion invented by philosphers? A little common sense here, please. If God were an intangible spirit, what could He do? NOTHING! He couldn't even push a pencil, as it would slip through His hands. Nevermind trying to perform surgery on the sick. That too would be impossible.

I'm sorry you've bought into apparent insanity created by philosophers and perpetuated by them for 2,000 years.

It's SUPPOSED to give you a bad feeling. When all of society has been brainwashed IN ONE DIRECTION for 2,000 years, any deviation from it will naturally upset your stomach. I get that.

Exactly. Because it makes zero sense. It's total insanity. You want to keep believing that stuff? Fine. Just be be forthcoming/open/honest with others about the fact that you've elected to embrace apparent insanity contrary to all reason.
Matter is by its very nature eternal. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

For me the notion of spirit is not that strange, it just something with a different nature than the physical, if you believe that matter cannot be created, you believe the universe is eternal then?? i don't believe that.
If the universe is eternal then God had to do the universe with what has been available meaning, and that present some problems of limit. And for what purpose this eternal universe exists? Also God is all powerful, i believe he can create matter perfectly. Also if he wants to create another universe he would run off materials?. I don't know saying God can't create matter creates a lot of problems. How you solve them?

Our spirit are supposed to be the 'breath of God' that he breathed on us, where do you get this is physical? just because it says wind? i believe its just a word used to illustrate something, and not a physical 'breath' or 'wind'.

The bible says God is spirit not philosophers.

Also, if you believe God is material, i'm really confused about this, i don't know i'm just letting my mind fly here, how he can see everything everywhere, at the same time too?

I think you have a bad perception of what spirit is and the physical makes more sense to you.

 

[NBB]

“For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end you may be established;” (Romans 1:11)

“And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,” (Acts 8:18)

Those sciptures don't cancel the others that says the spirit gives as he determines.

 

[Dave L]

Those sciptures don't cancel the others that says the spirit gives as he determines.

But only through the two outpourings or an apostle's hands. You need to balance your view with this fact.

 

[NBB]

But only through the two outpourings or an apostle's hands. You need to balance your view with this fact.

What were the two outpourings and why they stopped and why the holy spirit can't give outside of them? You have some short bible verses for that?

 

[Dave L]

What were the two outpourings and why they stopped and why the holy spirit can't give outside of them? You have some short bible verses for that?

Who knows? All we have is scripture that many go beyond in their treachery.

 

[NBB]

Who knows? All we have is scripture that many go beyond in their treachery.

You have a link?

 

[Dave L]

You have a link?

You need to stick with scripture and not go beyond what it says. It tells us the gifts came through an apostle's hands and mentions no other way. Except the Two Outpourings.

 

[NBB]

You need to stick with scripture and not go beyond what it says. It tells us the gifts came through an apostle's hands and mentions no other way. Except the Two Outpourings.

But i don't feel to read the whole nt just for this, and probably after reading it i would have a different conclusion, you don't have any material on this that you can share?

 

[Dave L]

But i don't feel to read the whole nt just for this, and probably after reading it i would have a different conclusion, you don't have any material on this that you can share?

Many good books on "cessation" of the spiritual gifts exist. Also ripe debate on the Internet giving both sides of the issue.

 

[NBB]

Many good books on "cessation" of the spiritual gifts exist. Also ripe debate on the Internet giving both sides of the issue.

Ah ok then thanks...

 

[Saint Steven]

Who says they spoke in tongues?

Why not?
Samaria was cared for but Jerusalem was ignored. ???
How does that work? (or not)

 

[Saint Steven]

All believers since Abel had the Holy Spirit. Faith is a fruit thereof. They did not have the baptism with the Holy Spirit until Pentecost except for a few OT prophets.

You come up with the craziest stuff.
Wow, that's a BROAD definition for "believers". Believers in what?
Which OT prophets had the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?