Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

[W2L]

Chapter and verse please. Thanks.

1 Corinthians 12:7-9
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit,

Answer my last question please, dont ignore it, you have said many words, dont be silent now

 

[W2L]

Chapter and verse please. Thanks.

1 Corinthians 12:7-9
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit,

James said God gives wisdom to all who asks.

 

[W2L]

This is silly. Have a nice day, im done, its futility.

 

[Saint Steven]

The Spirit gives me life, why would i toss Him out? The truth is simple, His sheep know His voice and follow it. What have modern day apostles and prophets taught that i should follow them? Give me examples please. Thank you.

Dave L (the Cessationist) already told us that if you hear anything in your head that isn't you, that you should seek professional (psychiatric) help. And that today's prophets are psychotic, or at a minimum have uncontrolled imaginations.

I say, if you have a pastor and missionaries connected with your church, those are your apostles and prophets. Do you follow them?

You need to choose a side. The letter, or the Spirit. Which do you choose?

 

[JAL]

Scripture is God's word. Anything else is not and possibly the word of the Devil.

Pursing direct revelation (1Cor 14:1) means to wait in prayer to reach conclusions authenticated by feelings of certainty.

Cessationists PURPORT to repudiate such practice in favor of 'pure' exegesis. But in terms of what they ACTUALLY practice, is there really a clear distinction? I'm not so sure. Let's probe the similarities.

What's the goal of exegesis, after all? Feelings of certainty! There is no 'absolute standard' of exegetical proof - errors are always possible. The exegete desists his effort when his feelings of certainty are enough to allow him to draw a conclusion in good conscience. On grave issues, of course, his conscience will demand more certainty than on trivial issues. For example the prophet Abraham needed absolute 100% certainty to slaughter his son, presumably. Unfortunately 'pure' exegesis can't achieve such certainty.

Ok so one thing we have in common with cessationists is, in some sense, the authority of conscience (feelings of certainty). What else? We also intersect in our views on the MEANS to arriving at this certainty. Meaning that, typically, both the cessationist and the continuationist PRAY for God to illuminate their analysis of the Scriptures. To what end? Again, the effort to obtain clarity on an issue ends when we feel sufficient certainty to as to consider ourselves resolute in good conscience.

So what's the difference,Dave? How can you supposedly want illumination but repudiate revelation?

Seems to me, that in order to be at least a somewhat logically consistent cessationist, you'll need to utterly repudiate ANY notion of illumination, confining yourself strictly to 'pure' exegesis.

And that's a weird position to be in. For example, how can I understand the 'joy of the Lord' exegetically? (That attempt sounds rather dull and boring). God is capable of imparting joy at levels beyond our wildest dreams, and such an experience would have to be classified as a DIRECT REVELATION of His joy.

And I've already discussed the fact that 'pure' exegesis is antithetical to the notion of a personal relationship with the Father.

Moreover I already talked about the visual nature of comprehending concepts. For example I cannot comprehend an angel, or heaven, without a mental picture of such Therefore, Dave, if you admit that God wants to give you understanding, how can you repudiate God-given visions? It seems to me you cessationists are trying to draw random, arbitrary, bogus lines in the sand. Capricious distinctions.

 

[W2L]

Dave L (the Cessationist) already told us that if you hear anything in your head that isn't you, that you should seek professional (psychiatric) help. And that today's prophets are psychotic, or at a minimum have uncontrolled imaginations.

I say, if you have a pastor and missionaries connected with your church, those are your apostles and prophets. Do you follow them?

You need to choose a side. The letter, or the Spirit. Which do you choose?

Sure they are, any missionary is an apostle, not in reality but in your head friend.

 

[Saint Steven]

What have modern day apostles and prophets taught that i should follow them?

Who told you to follow "modern day apostles and prophets"?

 

[Saint Steven]

Sure they are, any missionary is an apostle, not in reality but in your head friend.

What is the definition of the word apostle?
This is from the dictionary definition:
- the first successful Christian missionary in a country or to a people.

 

[W2L]

What is the definition of the word apostle?
This is from the dictionary definition:
- the first successful Christian missionary in a country or to a people.

Actually thats one of two definitions. Are you seriously going to use a dictionary? Whats the bible say? Remember those signs of an apostle? They cant be harmed by what?

 

[W2L]

Who told you to follow "modern day apostles and prophets"?

You are promoting such men.

 

[Saint Steven]

It seems to me you cessationists are trying to draw random, arbitrary, bogus lines in the sand.

Exactly!

Like claiming that the gifts have ceased because we aren't using them anymore.
Who's fault is that? Don't blame the Pentecostals and Charismatics.

They say the "miracle" gifts have ceased since we don't see results like the Apostles saw.
But they still believe in the gift of evangelism even though we typically don't see results like the Apostles saw. Or if we do, they claim they are charlatans.

 

[Saint Steven]

Actually thats one of two definitions. Are you seriously going to use a dictionary? Whats the bible say? Remember those signs of an apostle? They cant be harmed by what?

In post #723 you said you were done for the day.

 

[Saint Steven]

You are promoting such men.

Just to clear, some of them are women.
Does that mean you are promoting Cessationist leaders?
The Bible Cemetery graduates. Are you promoting such men?

 

[W2L]

In post #723 you said you were done for the day.

And i am.

 

[Dave L]

Pursing direct revelation (1Cor 14:1) means to wait in prayer to reach conclusions authenticated by feelings of certainty.

Cessationists PURPORT to repudiate such practice in favor of 'pure' exegesis. But in terms of what they ACTUALLY practice, is there really a clear distinction? I'm not so sure. Let's probe the similarities.

What's the goal of exegesis, after all? Feelings of certainty! There is no 'absolute standard' of exegetical proof - errors are always possible. The exegete desists his effort when his feelings of certainty are enough to allow him to draw a conclusion in good conscience. On grave issues, of course, his conscience will demand more certainty than on trivial issues. For example the prophet Abraham needed absolute 100% certainty to slaughter his son, presumably. Unfortunately 'pure' exegesis can't achieve such certainty.

Ok so one thing we have in common with cessationists is, in some sense, the authority of conscience (feelings of certainty). What else? We also intersect in our views on the MEANS to arriving at this certainty. Meaning that, typically, both the cessationist and the continuationist PRAY for God to illuminate their analysis of the Scriptures. To what end? Again, the effort to obtain clarity on an issue ends when we feel sufficient certainty to as to consider ourselves resolute in good conscience.

So what's the difference,Dave? How can you supposedly want illumination but repudiate revelation?

Seems to me, that in order to be at least a somewhat logically consistent cessationist, you'll need to utterly repudiate ANY notion of illumination, confining yourself strictly to 'pure' exegesis.

And that's a weird position to be in. For example, how can I understand the 'joy of the Lord' exegetically? (That attempt sounds rather dull and boring). God is capable of imparting joy at levels beyond our wildest dreams, and such an experience would have to be classified as a DIRECT REVELATION of His joy.

And I've already discussed the fact that 'pure' exegesis is antithetical to the notion of a personal relationship with the Father.

Moreover I already talked about the visual nature of comprehending concepts. For example I cannot comprehend an angel, or heaven, without a mental picture of such Therefore, Dave, if you admit that God wants to give you understanding, how can you repudiate God-given visions? It seems to me you cessationists are trying to draw random, arbitrary, bogus lines in the sand. Capricious distinctions.

The main problem with your position is that the gifts came only through an apostle's hands after the two outpourings. Scripture does not support any other means of distribution. This means all claims to having the gifts today are false. And all claims for external revelation are false. Based on this, how can any of it not be of human origin or worse?

 

[Dave L]

You keep forgetting that the NT is a canonized collection, not a completed work.
But I guess that is an important aspect of the house of cards Cessationist framework.

Besides, weren't there still living Apostles at what you call "the completion of the NT Scriptures"? (yes there were) Better make an adjustment there. -- And how did they know it was a "completed work" since that was not their intention?

So you think adding to God's word is a good thing?

 

[Saint Steven]

So you think adding to God's word is a good thing?

Your question is based on false assumptions, therefore a loaded question.
1) You are limiting God's word to the canonized collection we call the Bible.
2) You are claiming that the NT was a "completed work". (see point #1)
3) You are claiming that Rev.22:18-19 refers to the whole Bible when it says "this scroll" four times!

Revelation 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

 

[Saint Steven]

So you think adding to God's word is a good thing?

Do you think putting a doctrinal "gag order" on God is a good thing?

 

[Dave L]

Do you think putting a doctrinal "gag order" on God is a good thing?

Scripture sets its own limits.

 

[Dave L]

Your question is based on false assumptions, therefore a loaded question.
1) You are limiting God's word to the canonized collection we call the Bible.
2) You are claiming that the NT was a "completed work". (see point #1)
3) You are claiming that Rev.22:18-19 refers to the whole Bible when it says "this scroll" four times!

Revelation 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

The word of God is complete not to be added to especially by those who hear imaginary voices.