Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

[JAL]

An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy. You can ask those questions, but unless we find them in the Scriptures, they're just irrelevant questions.

I'm not aware of basing any of my arguments on appeals to emotion.

Yes, Prophecy did edify the church. Tongues did have a purpose. However, that has no bearing on the question of whether or not they have ceased. Jesus' presence would also be helpful and edifying to the Church. Is He here on earth?

Prophecy's ability to edify the church, as love does, HAS NO BEARING on the debate as to whether God terminated it?

Anyway you're missing the point here. YOU raised the question as to whether the gifts are still 'needed'. YOU seemed to regard that issue as central to the debate. And then when I respond accordingly, now suddenly it's an irrelevant question? I guess now it no longer fits the narrative?

 

[JAL]

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.

Here's what Jesus said, " “When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”1

Jesus Himself intimated here, and several other simiilar statements, that the church (including the OT church) had ALREADY fallen short in her mission, and was in grave danger of continuing to do so.

Seems you don't agree with the assessments of the church made by Christ - and all the OT prophets to boot.

 

[Butch5]

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.

They're not evasive. I'm just not going down rabbit holes. You could have asked the simple question are tongues in control of themselves or is God in control of them? That's a simple straight forward question. Instead this is what you posted.

"Furthermore, it's hard to debate unclear statements. You said,

Tongues ceased by their own accord? God's not in charge here? Likewise, maturity CAUSES prophecy and tongues to cease? God's not in charge here either? You seem to be rambling. The dots that are you at pains to connect seem far removed from reality."

Where did I ask these questions? When I said, tongues will cease of their own accord, it wasn't a question. Where did I mention anything about God not being in control? I'm not sure you're really paying attention. I've said several times that the maturity or completion is NOT what causes tongues to cease and yet in your statement above you said, "Likewise, maturity CAUSES prophecy and tongues to cease?" I don't think I am the one who is making the unclear statements.

The Greek middle voice indicated that the subject of the verb is both receiving and doing the action of the verb. That means that whatever tongues does, it does it to itself. Obviously tongues just means languages and languages can't do anything so it;s got to be a figure of speech. Since God is the one giving the gift of tongues and Paul said it would end of it's won accord then it seems obvious that at some point God would stop giving the gift and the gift would slowly fade away as those who had it died off. That's what we see when we look at the history of the early church.

 

[Albion]

Oh, that's right, you cessationists tend to base your position on your (facile) analysis of HISTORY, not on the ACTUAL TEACHINGS of Scripture.

And we now have the continuationists' view summarized--don't believe history. They say it cannot have happened the way it did. That's because continuationists interpret Scripture in a way that says it shouldn't have occurred as it did (the ceasing).

That approach is the companion to the cessationists' view. We say that there was a cessation because the gifts ceased. No convoluted theorizing or 'what ifs' or what we might have preferred to have happened changes anything; cessationists are cessationists simply because they recognize that there was a cessation.

 

[JAL]

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.

Regardless of this non-sequitur argument (an argument that I never actually made), you conveniently ignore a spot-on argument in defense of the need for direct revelation in evangelism.

Yes, they were given Spirit-inspired speech. As Luke put it, the Spirit gave them utterance. That was prophecy, and precisely what Peter dubbed it. That was the embodiment of Christ's promise to give them power to speak/witness/evangelism.

Let's not sidestep the cruciality of that paradigm.

 

[Butch5]

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.

Firstly I said no such thing

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.

There's no logical contradiction in anything I said. I study fallacies so I know what they are. However, I you're getting fluster. What I've said can verified in Scripture. I don't base doctrines on inferences. I base them on statements in Scripture. Paul spoke to Timothy of his receiving the his spiritual gift from Paul'a laying his hands on him. Luke also records that the Holy Spirit is given through the laying on of the hands of the apostles.

5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.
8 And there was great joy in that city.
9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:5-17 KJV)

Here we have baptized believers who haven't had the spirit fall on them. However, when the apostles lay hands on them they did receive the Holy Spirit.

 

[JAL]

And we now have the continuationists' view summarized--don't believe history. They say it cannot have happened the way it did. That's because continuationists interpret Scripture in a way that says it shouldn't have occurred as it did (the ceasing).


That approach is the companion to the cessationists' view. We say that there was a cessation because the gifts ceased. No convoluted theorizing or 'what ifs' or what we might have preferred to have happened changes anything; cessationists are cessationists simply because they recognize that there was a cessation.

These are patently false statements misrepresenting both our position and the nature of the debate as a whole. Certainly my position at least. I'm the first to admit that the gifts aren't currently fanned into flame, and that much, if not most, of history suffered the same calamity.

 

[JAL]

They're not evasive. I'm just not going down rabbit holes. You could have asked the simple question are tongues in control of themselves or is God in control of them? That's a simple straight forward question. Instead this is what you posted.

"Furthermore, it's hard to debate unclear statements. You said,

Tongues ceased by their own accord? God's not in charge here? Likewise, maturity CAUSES prophecy and tongues to cease? God's not in charge here either? You seem to be rambling. The dots that are you at pains to connect seem far removed from reality."

Where did I ask these questions? When I said, tongues will cease of their own accord, it wasn't a question. Where did I mention anything about God not being in control? I'm not sure you're really paying attention. I've said several times that the maturity or completion is NOT what causes tongues to cease and yet in your statement above you said, "Likewise, maturity CAUSES prophecy and tongues to cease?" I don't think I am the one who is making the unclear statements.

The Greek middle voice indicated that the subject of the verb is both receiving and doing the action of the verb. That means that whatever tongues does, it does it to itself. Obviously tongues just means languages and languages can't do anything so it;s got to be a figure of speech. Since God is the one giving the gift of tongues and Paul said it would end of it's won accord then it seems obvious that at some point God would stop giving the gift and the gift would slowly fade away as those who had it died off. That's what we see when we look at the history of the early church.

You keep touting this 'middle voice' as though it's some huge linchpin in the debate, but then when I press you on your notion of tongues ceasing of their own accord, you respond here:

"That means that whatever tongues does, it does it to itself. Obviously tongues just means languages and languages can't do anything so it;s got to be a figure of speech."

Ok so if the change in voice is JUST A FIGURE OF SPEECH (your words), why in heaven's name do you adduce it as though it's some major linchpin in the debate? Again, are you just rambling? Can anyone make sense of this?

 

[Albion]

These are patently false statements misrepresenting both our position and the nature of the debate as a whole. Certainly my position at least. I'm the first to admit that the gifts aren't currently fanned into flame, and that much, if not most, of history suffered the same calamity.

From what I can tell upon re-reading this comment--

Oh, that's right, you cessationists tend to base your position on your (facile) analysis of HISTORY, not on the ACTUAL TEACHINGS of Scripture.

there was no misrepresentation of the message. Other than for that, my comments were about continuationists and cessationists in general and as I have come to know the views of both from their own mouths.

 

[Dave L]

Here's what Jesus said, " “When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”1

Jesus Himself intimated here, and several other simiilar statements, that the church (including the OT church) had ALREADY fallen short in her mission, and was in grave danger of continuing to do so.

Seems you don't agree with the assessments of the church made by Christ - and all the OT prophets to boot.

No, the church is few in number. What makes you think the main line churches and not the Charismatics are among those whom Christ rejects on the last day?

 

[JAL]

Firstly I said no such thing

I'm not 100% sure my extrapolation of your view was correct, but I'm not sure it's incorrect.

So you didn't say that the gifts (and Paul includes apostle and prophet in his list of gifts) require the laying on of hands? Can anyone make sense of this? Here's what you wrote:

"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....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?"

So by YOUR words, seems there is no gifting without an apostle to give it to us. This leads to precisely the logical contradictoin that I alleged that, on this logic, there can be no first apostle, since an EARLIER apostle is needed to give the gift of apostleship to that first apostle. It's an infinite regress contrary to fact.

You'll at least have to admit that the gift of apostleship does NOT require conferral from an apostle. That being the case, why should we presume such of the other gifts? Here's what you need to understand. Apostleship typically INCLUDED the other gifts. That means, ultimately, that NONE of the gifts require apostleship.

Your logic is flawed. And to answer your questoin, "Again, how would one get the gifts when the apostles aren't here anymore?" The simple answser is - that's why we should pray for God to raise up apostles! The NORM is for the experts (the apostles) to lay down the foundation. Thus the NORM is for gifts to come through the hands of the apostles. I'm not disputing that.

 

[JAL]

No, the church is few in number. What makes you think the main line churches and not the Charismatics are among those whom Christ rejects on the last day?

Huh? Where did I say that God is going to reject main-line churches?

 

[JAL]

No, the church is few in number. What makes you think the main line churches and not the Charismatics are among those whom Christ rejects on the last day?

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say the 'churches' were filled with non-Christians. I was merely saying that they aren't bona-fide ecclessiastical governing institutions by Pauline definition (organizatoins properly run by authentic apostles and prophets).

 

[Dave L]

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say the 'churches' were filled with non-Christians. I was merely saying that they aren't bona-fide ecclessiastical governing institutions by Pauline definition (organizatoins properly run by authentic apostles and prophets).

There aren't any apostles or prophets since John wrote Revelation.

 

[Dave L]

Huh? Where did I say that God is going to reject main-line churches?

Who fits the profile of the rejected?

 

[Butch5]

This is speculation. Yes, Christ was given revelation. That doesn't mean we will be.



So, by spiritual maturity you mean giftedness. Is that correct?

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.

Ok, if I misread your post why didn't you correct me instead of acknowledging it and giving an example? Here's your reply form post 127.

Butch5: This is speculation. Yes, Christ was given revelation. That doesn't mean we will be.
JAL: It's hardly wild speculation.

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

If the shoe fits, wear it.

That's correct, Paul did tell his congregation to seek prophesy. However, I don't believe there were cessationists in Paul's day. He wrote that to the Church at Corinth, not modern day Christians. In Paul's day the gifts were active so of course he's going to instruct them on the gifts. That doesn't mean it pertains to people 2000 years later

 

[JAL]

There aren't any apostles or prophets since John wrote Revelation.

That's the problem. God isn't raising them up because the church isn't doing her part to incline Him in that direction. That needs to change. (Haven't I been clear on all this?).

Paul wrote to the Galatians in a manner suggesting that he was DISGUSTED with how far off-track they were. And as Andrew Murray noted, the church at large still doesn't understand the Galatian error, and doesn't realize they are still making the same mistake.

Even continuationists at large are still making that same mistake. But at least I do agree with them about the need for the gifts.

 

[JAL]

Who fits the profile of the rejected?

Why are we still talking about this? Non-Christians will be rejected.

I thought this was a debate about the gifts, not a debate about who will be saved. Am I perhaps misunderstanding your questions?

 

[JAL]

Ok, if I misread your post why didn't you correct me instead of acknowledging it and giving an example? Here's your reply form post 127.

Butch5: This is speculation. Yes, Christ was given revelation. That doesn't mean we will be.
JAL: It's hardly wild speculation.



That's correct, Paul did tell his congregation to seek prophesy. However, I don't believe there were cessationists in Paul's day. He wrote that to the Church at Corinth, not modern day Christians. In Paul's day the gifts were active so of course he's going to instruct them on the gifts. That doesn't mean it pertains to people 2000 years later

So instead of looking to what PAUL ACTUALLY SAID, I'm supposed to prefer your man-made theology? Because you think Paul's words are expired? Look, HUGE PORTIONS of 1Corinthians are about the gifts. So if the bulk of what Paul wrote CAN EXPIRE, how can we trust him on ANYTHING?

Your hermeneutic simply doesn't work.

 

[Dave L]

Why are we will talking about this? Non-Christians will be rejected.

I thought this was a debate about the gifts, not a debate about who will be saved. Am I perhaps misunderstanding your questions?

But these do wonderful works in Jesus' name. And cast out demons. Something unique to Charismania.