Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

[Butch5]

What do you make of this?

James 5:13-15
Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.

I don't know what you're trying to get at.

 

[Butch5]

Speculation? Right now I'll show that even the most ELEMENTARY analysis of Scripture easily demonstrates the primacy of the direct revelations known as prophecy. Specifically I'm referring to the Great Commission. Incidentally I prefer to call it the Great Omission since evangelism was encharged to apostolic/prophetic ministers, not to the whole church. AnyWho, Jesus enunciated it in these words: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8).

What does a witness do? In large part, he testifies. He SPEAKS. Simple question. Were the disciples mute up to this point? I mean, here He claims to give them power to speak!!!! Wow. Thanks God, but I thought they already had that capability?

In a nutshell, the text doesn't make sense unless what He had in mind was Spirit-inspired speech. In a word, Christ's DEFINITION OF EVANGELISM hinges on PROPHETIC UTTERANCE. You know what, I think Paul was a bit smarter than you and I. Here's what Paul did:
(1) He NEVER commands the congregations to go out and evangelize.
(2) He REPEATEDLY urges them to seek (ESPECIALLY) the gift of prophecy, that is, to seek it above all other gifts.
Why? For the obvious reason that, where prophecy abounds, evangelism will eventually be taken care of. Jesus put it like this, "It will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of my Father speaking through you."

That's a simple logical analysis of Acts 1:8. Let's now look at the EMPIRICAL support for this conclusion in chapter 2. When the Spirit falls, the 120 begin speaking Spirit-inspired utterances (just as I predicted). Peter calls it the fulfillment of Joel's promise, "I shall pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and they SHALL prophesy." Notice that Joel did NOT say, 'And they just MIGHT prophesy." No. Those who partake of this kind of outpouring SHALL prophesy.

And there is more. Let's bear in mind the historical significance of Pentecost. The book of Acts is encharged with LAYING DOWN A PARIDIGM OF EVANGELISM FOR ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS. The cruciality of Pentecost, then, is that God, if He is a wise teacher, must be at pains to highlight/emphasize of that date the very CORE DEFINITION of evangelism. Therefore if Pentecost was prophecy - and it was - the only REASONABLE conclusion is that such is God's definition of evangelism.

They were given power. Not power to speak. They could obviously speak. They were given the ability to speak in languages that they didn't know. I don't see where this has anything to do with what I said. Your statement that because Christ received revelation we will is a non sequitur, it doesn't follow.

 

[Saint Steven]

“Therefore, [says Peter] if God gave them the same gift that He also gave to us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, how could I possibly hinder God?”” (Acts 11:17) (HCSB)

The Apostles already had the Holy Spirit before Pentecost.

Agree somewhat. It's complicated. Add some context and a newer translation. (different story) Interesting to note what Peter refers to as "the beginning".

Acts 11:15-17
“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't know what you're trying to get at.

That seems to be a chronic problem. lol
Poor communication meets poor comprehension? No sure.
You claimed the sick are not healed by praying for them? (If I remember correctly)
What do you make of this?

James 5:13-15
Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.

 

[JAL]

When you want the truth more than anything else, you will initiate and objective study and find the truth.

All you do is attack my motives and character. I thought these discussions were supposed to be about evidence? You don't seem to have any.

 

[Butch5]

It seems that tongues is more a sign of all the nations coming in to the church under one head, Christ - a reversal of Babel under the proper King. The nations still need such a sign today. Racial tensions and prejudice is still alive and well, and reconciliation between people groups is still a pressing need. The world needs the sign of tongues and what it represents. The promise to Abraham from the beginning was God would bring all the nations into unity. That's a running theme throughout the Bible, and tongues are a sign that visibly proves it.

This is why I struggle with tongues being a "heavenly language" but as for tongues still being needed, I believe that it most certainly is.

As an interesting aside, I find it fascinating that tongues was such a strong thing at Azusa street - which was well-known for being a group where black people and white people could worship together. In fact, if you look at the history of tongues, it seems to always correlate with people groups coming together.

But, the question isn't, is it needed? The question is, what did God intend? As I pointed out in another post, Jesus is needed here on earth too, but He's not here. When this subject is studied in depth it becomes quite clear that they ended. For one thing, if you look through the Scriptures you'll find that no one in the NT received the gifts without the presence of an apostle. Luke tells us that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles hands. Paul calls this, the gift of an apostle. He also writes to Timothy reminding him of how he received his gift.

6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. (2 Tim. 1:6 KJV)

So according to Scripture the way people got the gifts was through the apostles. How would someone get those gifts after the apostles were gone?

Paul started the church at Corinth and he said this.

3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: (1 Cor. 1:3-7 KJV)

We see that the Corinthians were not lacking in the miraculous spiritual gifts. He said they were enriched in all utterance and knowledge. That's prophecy and knowledge. Now look at the Church at Rome that was not started by an apostle.

4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. (Rom. 12:4-8 KJV)

Notice here that apart from prophecy these gifts are not supernatural. They're natural gifts that most anyone can have. This church didn't have the miraculous gifts like the church at Corinth had. The gift of Prophecy was likely with the person who had founded the church. So why didn't this church have the miraculous gifts that the Corinthian Church had? Paul said this.

11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. (Rom. 1:11-12 KJV)

Notice that Paul wants to go there and impart spiritual gifts to them. Again this indicates that the gifts were given through the apostles. Again, how would one get the gifts when the apostles aren't here anymore?

 

[Butch5]

That seems to be a chronic problem. lol
Poor communication meets poor comprehension? No sure.
You claimed the sick are not healed by praying for them? (If I remember correctly)
What do you make of this?

James 5:13-15
Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.

No, I didn't claim that. What I said was that praying for some to be healed is not the first century gift of healing.

 

[JAL]

Well, Paul didn't write in Spanish so that'ts irrelevant. Can you give some references for your claim that the switch could be for any number of reasons?

It's seems you're getting emotional. I didn't say anything about God not being in charge. Paul is the one who wrote the letter. He is the one who chose the words. If we believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then Paul's words were given to him by God. He chose to use two different words and different verb tenses.

Lately your replies are mostly just evasive, issue-dodging attempts at saving face. YOU said that tongues cease of their own accord. YOUR WORDS. I was just trying to make sense of whether you mean that tongues are in charge of themselves, or God puts them to a stop. That was the obvious complaint, and you haven't clarified, because your statement evidently doesn't make sense, as I suspected.

 

[JAL]

But, the question isn't, is it needed? The question is, what did God intend? As I pointed out in another post, Jesus is needed here on earth too, but He's not here. When this subject is studied in depth it becomes quite clear that they ended. For one thing, if you look through the Scriptures you'll find that no one in the NT received the gifts without the presence of an apostle. Luke tells us that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles hands. Paul calls this, the gift of an apostle. He also writes to Timothy reminding him of how he received his gift.

6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. (2 Tim. 1:6 KJV)

So according to Scripture the way people got the gifts was through the apostles. How would someone get those gifts after the apostles were gone?

Paul started the church at Corinth and he said this.

3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: (1 Cor. 1:3-7 KJV)

We see that the Corinthians were not lacking in the miraculous spiritual gifts. He said they were enriched in all utterance and knowledge. That's prophecy and knowledge. Now look at the Church at Rome that was not started by an apostle.

4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. (Rom. 12:4-8 KJV)

Notice here that apart from prophecy these gifts are not supernatural. They're natural gifts that most anyone can have. This church didn't have the miraculous gifts like the church at Corinth had. The gift of Prophecy was likely with the person who had founded the church. So why didn't this church have the miraculous gifts that the Corinthian Church had? Paul said this.

11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. (Rom. 1:11-12 KJV)

Notice that Paul wants to go there and impart spiritual gifts to them. Again this indicates that the gifts were given through the apostles. Again, how would one get the gifts when the apostles aren't here anymore?

There's no didactic teaching in Scripture that an apostle or prophet must have hands laid to become official. Please don't impose man-made rules on God and Scripture.

In fact, on your logic, there's no such thing as a first apostle, since there must first be an EARLIER apostle to lay hands. That's a logical contradiction.

A word of advice. When you THINK you've drawn a valid conclusion from the text, first double-check whether it's internally self-contradictory. If so, go back and re-analyze the text.

 

[Dave L]

All you do is attack my motives and character. I thought these discussions were supposed to be about evidence? You don't seem to have any.

Today's "gifts" are nothing like the original. As I said, tongue speakers were edified because they understood what they were saying. And needed to interpret so others could be edified as well. Today's charismatics only mimic tongues after "learning" and being "coached" on how to speak. Tongues were always spontaneous with those who never heard mention of them.

 

[Dave L]

Agree somewhat. It's complicated. Add some context and a newer translation. (different story) Interesting to note what Peter refers to as "the beginning".

Acts 11:15-17
“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit all believers since Abel had.

 

[JAL]

Now you're creating straw man aguments. What I said was speculation, was your statement that since Christ received revelation we will. I didn't call it wild speculation, I simply called it speculation which it is. Now you've brought up some argument you're making from Paul's writing and claiming I'm encouraging people not to listen to Paul.

Do you have an argument? I'm not going to defend things I didn't say.

Some argument? I bring up pretty solid arguments. This I know because nobody's been able to refute them. This is another example of how your responses have degenerated into save-face shallow replies.

You keep accusing me of this (faulty) syllogism.
(1) Christ had revelation
(2) Therefore we will
I NEVER made that argument (and I think you know darn well that I didn't), but it's an easy strawman for you, isn't it? Meanwhile you ignore my ACTUAL arguments.

Here's my actual words:
"Correct. Christ Himself learned on earth by prophetic revelations from the Father. And so must we, and it might well continue in heaven, just as I stated."
In that statement, those two conclusions are merely JUXTAPOSED, not logically CORRELATED. My basis for thinking we all can receive revelation is MULTIPLE ARGUMENTS AND VERSES expressed on this thread (many I haven't even articulated as yet), not the faulty syllogism alleged by you.

and claiming I'm encouraging people not to listen to Paul

Paul commanded his congregation to seek the gift of prophecy. The cessationist says, 'Don't do that'.'

If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[JAL]

Today's "gifts" are nothing like the original. As I said, tongue speakers were edified because they understood what they were saying. And needed to interpret so others could be edified as well. Today's charismatics only mimic tongues after "learning" and being "coached" on how to speak. Tongues were always spontaneous with those who never heard mention of them.

Ok so you've witnessed some evidently inauthentic experiences with tongues. Fine. Haven't we all. But should we base our theology on that? Isn't that kind of a dangerous precedent?

Experience might be a start, but in of itself, it's not enough to go on.

 

[Dave L]

Ok so you've witnessed some evidently inauthentic experiences with tongues. Fine. Haven't we all. But should we base our theology on that? Isn't that kind of a dangerous precedent?

Experience might be a start, but in of itself, it's not enough to go on.

How can you base your understanding on ANY claim to the gifts today? When they are nothing like the originals?

 

[JAL]

Now you're creating straw man aguments.

How is it a strawman argument for me to cite Paul's MULTIPLE DIRECT EXPLICIT COMMANDS to seek the gift of prophecy? (And to point out that he NEVER commanded the congregations to go out and evangelize?) Does Scripture carry no weight with you? Is every Bible-based argument a strawman? Oh, that's right, you cessationists tend to base your position on your (facile) analysis of HISTORY, not on the ACTUAL TEACHINGS of Scripture.

 

[JAL]

How can you base your understanding on ANY claim to the gifts today? When they are nothing like the originals?

But I'm not claiming that the gifts ARE currently fanned into flame. I'm just arguing that, normatively speaking, they SHOULD be fanned into flame. I base this conclusion primarily on the didactic content of Scripture (in tandem with a lot of simple common-sense logic as well), not on experience.

Or to put it differently. Most of what people are calling gifts today are NOT real gifts, in my view. Having seen some counterfeit money, would you conclude that no real money currently exists?

Look, Paul was pretty clear on his definition of a church. If you prefer to go with a man-made definition, there's nothing I can do about it. Here's Paul's version:

"And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues" (1Cor 12:28).

What you're seeing today are not real churches. They are simply man-made institutions. And frankly I don't have a problem with that concept (we have to start somewhere, until the gifts are fanned into flame). What I DO have a problem with is the idea of men shoving THEIR man-made religion down God's throat, operating under false pretenses such as, 'We know [for sure] we are a real church, we know we are real pastors, we know what we're doing, we know the correct doctrines, we know how to run a church, we know how to evangelize' (etc, etc, etc).

If we continue to build, in part, on LIES, the gifts likely will NEVER be fanned into flame. Yet I feel like I'm the only one who sees the problem here.

 

[Dave L]

But I'm not claiming that the gifts ARE currently fanned into flame. I'm just arguing that, normatively speaking, they SHOULD be fanned into flame. I base this conclusion primarily on the didactic content of Scripture (in tandem with a lot of simple common-sense logic as well), not on experience.

Or to put it differently. Most of what people are calling gifts today are NOT real gifts, in my view. Having seen some counterfeit money, would you conclude that no real money currently exists?

Look, Paul was pretty clear on his definition of a church. If you prefer to go with a man-made definition, there's nothing I can do about it. Here's Paul's version:

"And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues" (1Cor 12:28).

What you're seeing today are not real churches. They are simply man-made institutions. And frankly I don't have a problem with that concept (we have to start somewhere, until the gifts are fanned into flame). What I DO have a problem with is the idea of men shoving THEIR man-made religion down God's throat, operating under false pretenses such as, 'We know [for sure] we are a real church, we know we are real pastors, we know what we're doing, we know the correct doctrines, we know how to run a church, we know how to evangelize' (etc, etc, etc).

If we continue to build, in part, on LIES, the gifts likely will NEVER be fanned into flame. Yet I feel like I'm the only one who sees the problem here.

How about Jesus saying the gates of hell will not prevail against the church? And you saying they have? Who are we to believe?

 

[JAL]

Well, Paul didn't write in Spanish so that'ts irrelevant.

Actually it's not irrelevant. Greek grammar is actually far more complicated than Spanish grammar, because the number of verb forms in Greek exceeds that of Spanish.

Given that complexity, your grammar-based argument carries a huge burden of proof. Please don't shift it on me.

He chose to use two different words and different verb tenses.

In meeting that burden of proof, you'll want to start with a considerable amount of scholarly citations backing up your specific verb-based conclusions at 1Cor 13.

 

[JAL]

How about Jesus saying the gates of hell will not prevail against the church? And you saying they have? Who are we to believe?

Hopefully you won't confuse 'the church' with 'the churches'. That leads to the fallacy of composition and/or the fallacy of division.

God has a church in the sense of having followers. But I don't think the total harvest has been anything near what it was supposed to be. I think the congregations have largely fallen short in their mission, for reasons stated on this thread.

Hell hasn't triumphed. Christ has a bride. But we could have done better - a LOT better.

Sadly, it's not for lack of effort, in my view. It's just misdirection. I think, with better direction, we could have been MORE productive with LESS work.

 

[Dave L]

Hopefully you won't confuse 'the church' with 'the churches'. That leads to the fallacy of composition and/or the fallacy of division.

God has a church in the sense of having followers. But I don't think the total harvest has been anything near what it was supposed to be. I think the congregations have largely fallen short in their mission, for reasons stated on this thread.

Hell hasn't triumphed. Christ has a bride. But we could have done better - a LOT better.

Sadly, it's not for lack of effort, in my view. It's just misdirection. I think, with better direction, we could have been MORE productive with LESS work.

We still have a problem with churches being ridiculed by you when Jesus says the gates of hell will not prevail against them, each a part of the Church.