Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

[Saint Steven]

But that is not God changing his nature, its just changing his disposition towards people, i don't know.

Right. But how is the term typically used?
To defend the law, correct? As an example...
"The Ten Commandments are still in force because God doesn't change."
Have you heard that one? But what did Hebrews say about that? (obsolete)

 

[Saint Steven]

The whole thing is steeped in error.

That's a very unfortunate stance.
What possible good can come from declaring all-out war against something that you say did no harm to you.

 

[NBB]

The whole thing is steeped in error.

There is a lot of good people in pentecostal churches, by good i mean true childs of God, that met God because a pentecostal preached to them. This is true.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Who can't cut a physical soul in half? You? Me? God?

That's a silly argument, right?

No, it's not. If you don't understand the indivisibility of a soul, then you really haven't even begun to understand what a soul is. It's actually quite impossible to build any understanding on the subject without at least beginning there.

 

[NBB]

He had to have a first thought, just like any child. That's all I'm saying. Otherwise time goes back - forever? With no beginning? An infinite regress? THAT'S your position? How is that not insanity?

You'll then respond, 'God is timeless. He then created time.' Ok so when He was out there in this timelessness, was He conscious, that is, was He doing any thinking? I guess not, since a thought takes a moment of time. So he was essentially unconscious and then awakens to have His first thought? Isn't that MY position? Seems my position is inescapable.

He became holy. The term 'holy' refers to the sum total of all God's perfections (knowledge, zeal for righteousness, skills, etc).

Where did I say THAT? Created by whom? I said He was the first person to exist.

Huh? Why do YOU believe in an uncaused eternal?

If God had a beginning, where he came from? don't say the totality because then you believe this totality is eternal? why don't believe God is eternal instead.

 

[JAL]

No, it's not. If you don't understand the indivisibility of a soul, then you really haven't even begun to understand what a soul is. It's actually quite impossible to build any understanding on the subject without at least beginning there.

You're regurgitating dogma. Where in the Bible does it say that the soul is indivisible? That came from Plato, not from Scripture.

 

[JAL]

If God had a beginning, where he came from? don't say the totality because then you believe this totality is eternal? why don't believe God is eternal instead.

You and I both agree that the substance of God is eternal, e.g. it wasn't created out of nothing. And? So? Is there a point here?

I see you're not addressing my arguments - you're addressing my conclusions, which is precisely what I asked you not to do. ANYONE can dislike a conclusion - but can you refute the arguments leading up to that conclusion?

 

[JAL]

deleted...

 

[NBB]

You and I both agree that the substance of God is eternal, e.g. it wasn't created out of nothing. And? So? Is there a point here?

I see you're not addressing my arguments - you're addressing my conclusions, which is precisely what I asked you not to do. ANYONE can dislike a conclusion - but can you refute the arguments leading up to that conclusion?

Why is more easy to believe that matter is eternal, rather than God being eternal. I say God is not bound by the rules of the universe. if matter is eternal, why it has a peculiar way to work, who created the laws of physics? and the way things are made? i say all has an origin on God. Anyway neither the 2 of us have a clue how things really are. God is a lot bigger than us, so we try to 'shrink' him into our little box, our way of thinking, i don't know if we can without him revealing to us anything...

 

[Dave L]

There is a lot of good people in pentecostal churches, by good i mean true childs of God, that met God because a pentecostal preached to them. This is true.

They are saved in-spite of Pentecostal preaching.

 

[Dave L]

That's a very unfortunate stance.
What possible good can come from declaring all-out war against something that you say did no harm to you.

There is bondage connected to Pentecostalism that you don't know is there until you break free and embrace historic creedal Christianity.

 

[Saint Steven]

There is bondage connected to Pentecostalism that you don't know is there until you break free and embrace historic creedal Christianity.

There are a whole spectrum of expressions of "historic creedal Christianity."
Some of those are quite oppressive as well. IMHO
You will have to be more specific. Are you Catholic now?

I consider my evangelical upbringing to be creed-based. (within reason)
Some of this depends on which creeds and how a denomination interprets/applies them.
Some even claim the creeds but then follow popular liberal political and spiritual (new age/occult/pagan) models instead. Creedal claims with a Universalist (all paths) operating philosophy.

To claim that this is the road to freedom seems ridiculous to me.
More like falling down the rabbit hole with Alice.

 

[Dave L]

There are a whole spectrum of expressions of "historic creedal Christianity."
Some of those are quite oppressive as well. IMHO
You will have to be more specific. Are you Catholic now?

I consider my evangelical upbringing to be creed-based. (within reason)
Some of this depends on which creeds and how a denomination interprets/applies them.
Some even claim the creeds but then follow popular liberal political and spiritual (new age/occult) models instead.

To claim that this is the road to freedom seems ridiculous to me.

What I did after coming out of Pentecostalism was to look at situations in history were the truth had the most challenge, and then see what the outcome was. This put me in the Reformed camp where the entire weight of the Catholic Church was locked in battle with the reformers. But thinking the Reformation did not remove enough of the Catholicism in the church, I went further and began searching the 1600s Baptists who took the reformation as far as it has ever been. So in these creeds, though not scripture, nor perfect, I found some absolutes that withstood the best challenges ever launched against them.

 

[JAL]

Why is more easy to believe that matter is eternal, rather than God being eternal. I say God is not bound by the rules of the universe. if matter is eternal, why it has a peculiar way to work, who created the laws of physics? and the way things are made? i say all has an origin on God. Anyway neither the 2 of us have a clue how things really are. God is a lot bigger than us, so we try to 'shrink' him into our little box, our way of thinking, i don't know if we can without him revealing to us anything...

Yes we do have a clue. We have obligation to make an effort to avoid hollow and deceptive philosophy. We have an obligation to try and avoid insanity and infecting others with our insanity. This means we'll take steps like the following:
(1) We'll examine our assumptions for internal logical consistency.
(2) We'll be open and honest with others about apparent contradictions in our views.
(3) If we opt for a view that appears to be self-contradictory when in fact there is clearly a sane choice, we'll be open and honest with others about the apparent insanity of our choice.

The typical preacher stands up in the pulpit preaching like he has 100% confidence. When the FACT is, I could probably expose 10 (literally) contradictions in his thinking, if he holds to traditional thinking.

And it's mostly due to the influence of a philosopher named Plato.

 

[Saint Steven]

What I did after coming out of Pentecostalism was to look at situations in history were the truth had the most challenge, and then see what the outcome was. This put me in the Reformed camp where the entire weight of the Catholic Church was locked in battle with the reformers. But thinking the Reformation did not remove enough of the Catholicism in the church, I went further and began searching the 1600s Baptists who took the reformation as far as it has ever been. So in these creeds, though not scripture, nor perfect, I found some absolutes that withstood the best challenges ever launched against them.

Okay.
I'm somewhat relieved to hear you ended up toward that end of the spectrum. But you are in camp with those who despise Pentecostals and Charismatics, which is probably fine by you. But you and I will never see eye to eye, I suppose.

Here's a proposal given those facts. I accept you where you are at and understand the reason for it. I invite you to do likewise in my direction. I understand that the camp you are in probably won't allow that. Keep that in mind when you think that I am somehow the one in bondage here. Thanks.

 

[JAL]

I agree the soul gives orders to the body, but it has to be physical?, or can be that spiritual things can 'grab' flesh. Get mixed with flesh, but remains spiritual. 'the spirit gives life to the body'.

Tangible hands can grab flesh. To say that intangible hands can grab flesh is pure insanity, as it contradicts the terminology at hand.

If a so-called 'spirit' (I hate that word, as the biblical term for the inner man is to classify it as breath/wind, placing it in the genre of typically-unseen physical substances) is sufficiently tangible to grab flesh, then it should be classified as material. Otherwise theologians are misleading the people of God, with their hollow and deceptive philosophical terminology.

 

[NBB]

Tangible hands can grab flesh. To say that intangible hands can grab flesh is pure insanity, as it contradicts the terminology at hand.

If a so-called 'spirit' (I hate that word, as the biblical term for the inner man is to classify it as breath/wind, placing it in the genre of typically-unseen physical substances) is sufficiently tangible to grab flesh, then it should be classified as material. Otherwise theologians are misleading the people of God, with their hollow and deceptive philosophical terminology.

But if someone cuts your body, they are not cutting your soul, even when the soul and spirit gives life to your entire body. if a person gets parts of the brain cut off and then dies, the soul goes from that person intact. This is how is supposed to be anyway.

 

[NBB]

Tangible hands can grab flesh. To say that intangible hands can grab flesh is pure insanity, as it contradicts the terminology at hand.

If a so-called 'spirit' (I hate that word, as the biblical term for the inner man is to classify it as breath/wind, placing it in the genre of typically-unseen physical substances) is sufficiently tangible to grab flesh, then it should be classified as material. Otherwise theologians are misleading the people of God, with their hollow and deceptive philosophical terminology.

Why insanity?? if the spirit is of a nature you don't know about, maybe it can, because proabably all about it can only be revealed with the help of God. The same as spiritual truths revealed in the bible, you need to have the spirit of God in you to understand something about God.

 

[JAL]

But if someone cuts your body, they are not cutting your soul, even when the soul and spirit gives life to your entire body. if a person gets parts of the brain cut off and then dies, the soul goes from that person intact. This is how is supposed to be anyway.

Louis Berkhof pointed out that exegesis clearly and consistently points our eyes upwards (literally above us) to the heavenly city (e.g. viz. Jesus ascending into the clouds).

And yet a rocket has never crashed into heaven. Why? I already explained why. Because God has chosen to keep some things inaccessible/hidden from our tools.

Secondly what does it even mean to cut breath/wind? Are you expecting the soul to bleed red?

 

[JAL]

Why insanity?? if the spirit is of a nature you don't know about, maybe it can, because proabably all about it can only be revealed with the help of God. The same as spiritual truths revealed in the bible, you need to have the spirit of God in you to understand something about God.

Agreed - yes it can grab flesh, if it is tangible enough to grab the flesh. But in that case it should be classified as material, if we are to avoid misleading the people of God.