Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

[JAL]

The fact is, though, that everybody who thinks he hears voices or says that God delivered a prophesy to him is not necessarily right about that.

Yet the minute anyone questions the accuracy of the claim, or how we would even know, the reply that comes back is "But God can do anything. Don't you believe that?" as though this proves that every claim is automatically valid.

The existence of people who are irresponsible in their handling of the Voice - people who do not establish reasonable criteria such as 100% certainty - hardly warrants throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That's like an atheist saying, 'I met a few evil Christians. Therefore God doesn't exist.'

What kind of an argument is THAT?

 

[NBB]

Please don't use that phrase (especially not as an apodictic). Aside from the metaphysical objections to any notion of non-physical speech (which deserves a whole thread in itself), it is a non-commital statement. It conveys nothing because it is too nebulous. Please see my various discussions of 'loudness' on this thread, where at least I DO manage to convey SOMETHING.

What i mean is not physical, like a voice sound or seeing it with our eyes, God communicates a lot in your interior spiritually. God is spirit we have an spirit and he can do things to us spiritually.

 

[NBB]

All thought is voice. All thought is loudness. To prove this to yourself, take any sentence you can think of, and sing the words to yourself in your mind, to your favorite tune.

I see no escaping this conclusion.

Whatever is not a voice like with sound, in any case is an spiritual voice.

 

[Saint Steven]

Scripture says the prophetic gifts and tongues ceased with the Apostles who distributed them. If you have scripture saying otherwise, post it.

Scripture says no such thing.
("... the prophetic gifts and tongues ceased with the Apostles who distributed them.")
If you have scripture that says such a thing, post it.

 

[Saint Steven]

If you hear voices in your head and think it is God, try to stay under the radar. They'll be watching you like a hawk, and for good reason.

That's what they said to Noah.

 

[Saint Steven]

Peter says, the prophetic message is something completely reliable.

2 Peter 1:19-21
We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

 

[JAL]

What i mean is not physical, like a voice sound or seeing it with our eyes, God communicates a lot in your interior spiritually. God is spirit we have an spirit and he can do things to us spiritually.

Consciousness is sensory experience (loudness).

There is no 'interior' experience that is non-sensory. I realize that the tunes sung in your mind might be less loud than a rock-concert-amplifier beating in your eardrum. These are not QUALITATIVE differences, but merely QUANTITATIVE.

Let's understand why all supposedly 'spiritual' experience is actually just loudness. An unconscious experience is a contradiction in terms, right? Certainly, because unconsciousness is the LACK of experience - specifically the subsiding of all loud and clear experience. When nothing is perceived, whether distinctly(loudly) or faintly, it is unconsciousness.

A spiritual experience, if it is to be of any value at all, must be a conscious experience, it must be experienced somewhat distinctly (loudly). As we mature, our experience of God will be increasingly distinct (loud).

You can't evade this concept. There is no 'interiority' of non-sensory experience. Such is a figment of the imagination of philosophers, that totally flies in the face of the empirical experience of actual every day consciousness.

 

[Albion]

The existence of people who are irresponsible in their handling of the Voice - people who do not establish reasonable criteria such as 100% certainty - hardly warrants throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That's like an atheist saying, 'I met a few evil Christians. Therefore God doesn't exist.'

What kind of an argument is THAT?

"The Voice?" If you were asking if tongues speaking were claimed by someone who relayed a questionable story, or the gift of healing...then maybe.

But hearing voices, the audible voice of God? That isn't even one of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit as indicated by Scripture.

And that's before we even start to assess whether it is real or just the claimant's imagination at work.

 

[JAL]

"The Voice?" If you were asking if tongues speaking were claimed by someone who relayed a questionable story, or the gift of healing...then maybe. But hearing voices, the audible voice of God? That isn't even one of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit as indicated by Scripture.

Again, all consciousness is loudness. You're insinuating distinctions between audible voices and 'spiritual' voices. Let's consider an example.

You're having a dream of a friend talking to you. Was that an audible voice? I mean it sounds EXACTLY like an audible voice. And yet it's in your mind alone! From the standpoint of EXPERIENCE, there is only voice. There is no PERCEIVABLE distinction between audible voice and inaudible voice. It's a false dichotomy. It's therefore invalid to say, 'God can put a voice in my mind, maybe, but not an audible voice'. Those distinctions are arbitrary and don't hold up, as any dream proves.

I'm at work, it's hard to spend time here right now...

 

[NBB]

Consciousness is sensory experience (loudness).

There is no 'interior' experience that is non-sensory. I realize that the tunes sung in your mind might be less loud than a rock-concert-amplifier beating in your eardrum. These are not QUALITATIVE differences, but merely QUANTITATIVE.

Let's understand why all supposedly 'spiritual' experience is actually just loudness. An unconscious experience is a contradiction in terms, right? Certainly, because unconsciousness is the LACK of experience - specifically the subsiding of all loud and clear experience. When nothing is perceived, whether distinctly(loudly) or faintly, it is unconsciousness.

A spiritual experience, if it is to be of any value at all, must be a conscious experience, it must be experienced somewhat distinctly (loudly). As we mature, our experience of God will be increasingly distinct (loud).

You can't evade this concept. There is no 'interiority' of non-sensory experience. Such is a figment of the imagination of philosophers, that totally flies in the face of the empirical experience of actual every day consciousness.

The term spiritual experience is ok, it just mean it is spiritual as: things experienced in our soul/spirit with God, that maybe can be felt in the body too, but the origin is spiritual.
But you must separate spiritual and physical, those are different things.

 

[NBB]

Again, all consciousness is loudness. You're insinuating distinctions between audible voices and 'spiritual' voices. Let's consider an example.

You're having a dream of a friend talking to you. Was that an audible voice? I mean it sounds EXACTLY like an audible voice. And yet it's in your mind alone! From the standpoint of EXPERIENCE, there is only voice. There is no PERCEIVABLE distinction between audible voice and inaudible voice. It's a false dichotomy. It's therefore invalid to say, 'God can put a voice in my mind, maybe, but not an audible voice'. Those distinctions are arbitrary and don't hold up, as any dream proves.

I'm at work, it's hard to spend time here right now...

There is a distinction, one is made of physical things, the other is spiritual different 'substances' our body is physical and our soul and spirit is spiritual, God too, at least thats the way i see it.

 

[JAL]

There is a distinction, one is made of physical things, the other is spiritual different 'substances' our body is physical and our soul and spirit is spiritual, God too, at least thats the way i see it.

You've bought into one of several myths perpetuated for 2,000 years.

Our soul is physical actually. All the evidence points that way, hence it's the reasonable conclusion. Those who suggest otherwise should at least be forthcoming enough to admit they are teaching what appears to be insanity.

Regardless, that's not the linchpin of the debate here. Regardless of whether the soul is physical, consciousness is a sensory experience. It's loudness. Another example. Consider a common question in physics:
(1) Is light a stream of particles?
(2) Or is it waves of energy?
You can't comprehend such theories without mental visions more or less distinct (loud). It's sensory experience, much like watching a movie. On such scientific theories, physicists who are especially brilliant will tend to have visions much more distinct(loud) than ordinary men such as I whose minds remain in relative darkness compared to such intellectuals.

When Paul refers to the Holy Spirit illuminating us - enlightening the eyes of our hearts (Eph 1:18) - it's a clear reference to visions, that is, to the visual aspect of comprehension. The best way for you to comprehend an angel is to see a vision of it. Spiritual maturity can be measured largely in terms of the vividness of our visions (Num 12:8), and thus, 'Now we see through a glass, darkly, but then [in maturity] face to face' (1Cor 13:12).

 

[JAL]

The term spiritual experience is ok, it just mean it is spiritual as: things experienced in our soul/spirit with God, that maybe can be felt in the body too, but the origin is spiritual.
But you must separate spiritual and physical, those are different things.

See last post.

 

[JAL]

The term spiritual experience is ok, it just mean it is spiritual as: things experienced in our soul/spirit with God, that maybe can be felt in the body too, but the origin is spiritual.
But you must separate spiritual and physical, those are different things.

A term is not okay if it tends to lead the sheep astray. Such language tends to foster a deemphasis of sensory experience and thus a complacency that settles for something far less than what Jesus intimated at John 5:37 as desirable and normative.

I myself was originally indoctrinated into a cessationist, largely anti-experiential congregation. At the outset I didn't SEEK experience loud and clear, as a result. Then I read some books by Andrew Murray, and quickly realized my mistake. I began to wrestle with God in prayer in hope of experiential encounters. Wasn't long before I finally got some inkling of what it really means to have a personal relationship with the Father.

So no, it's not okay to continue using nebulous language that has misled the sheep for 2,000 years. To the extent that, after all that time, the church still hasn't recognized that prayer 'in Christ's name' (john 16) is code language for face-to-face visions of the Father.

 

[NBB]

A term is not okay if it tends to lead the sheep astray. Such language tends to foster a deemphasis of sensory experience and thus a complacency that settles for something far less than what Jesus intimated at John 5:37 as desirable and normative.

I myself was originally indoctrinated into a cessationist, largely anti-experiential congregation. At the outset I didn't SEEK experience loud and clear, as a result. Then I read some books by Andrew Murray, and quickly realized my mistake. I began to wrestle with God in prayer in hope of experiential encounters. Wasn't long before I finally got some inkling of what it really means to have a personal relationship with the Father.

So no, it's not okay to continue using nebulous language that has misled the sheep for 2,000 years. To the extent that, after all that time, the church still hasn't recognized that prayer 'in Christ's name' (john 16) is code language for face-to-face visions of the Father.

Hey even Paul used the term 'spiritual', it just means from spirit, i agree that experiences with God are not 'mysthical' or just 'your feelings' it can be as real as anything, i have experienced some strong ones too, there is nothing nebulous about them, also the spirit is more 'real' and superior than the physical, God is spirit after all.

 

[JAL]

Hey even Paul used the term 'spiritual', it just means from spirit, i agree that experiences with God are not 'mysthical' or just 'your feelings' it can be as real as anything, i have experienced some strong ones too, there is nothing nebulous about them, also the spirit is more 'real' and superior than the physical, God is spirit after all.

No, actually Paul used the term pneumatic which does NOT mean 'spiritual' in the non-physical sense. Again, you've bought into the myth.

Ever heard of pneumatic tools? Are they physical-powered tools? Or are they spirit-powered tools?

 

[JAL]

No one has denied that God can do anything...and anything he wants to do. That has never been at issue.

What he actually does, however, is the question; and we cannot simply say that because it is possible he must therefore be doing it--and more than that, that he must be doing it all the time!

Actually we CAN say that such is His will, even if we don't experience it for lack of maturity. Andrew Murray noted, 'Obedience depends on hearing the voice; do not imagine you know the will of God' (Andrew Murray, The Believer's Secret of Holiness). After 2000 years, I can't believe I should still have to explain the rationale for this conclusion, and yet here we are...

Look at the world. What do you see? Conflict! Why? Because even the most well-intentioned leaders disagree on what decisions will best benefit the world. God's law DICTATES (it's not optional), 'Love does no harm to its neighbor' (Rom 13) but NONE of us know on our own - with 100% certainty - what decisions are best for our neighbors, ourselves, our families, and the world at large.

In a nutshell, God's law MAKES ZERO SENSE if He is unwilling to continually lead each and every individual by direct revelation. Consider a soldier. Should he ALWAYS obey his leaders? Even obey Hitler? What about the guy encharged with dropping a bomb on Hiroshima killing 200,000 people? Was that the right decision? I don't know. The point is, to say that God is unwilling to provide us with continual direct revelation is to suggest HE DOES NOT CARE about those 200,000 people. It's slander on His name and contradicts ANY notion of a God perfect in love.

Sola Scriptura (initiated in 1500 A.D.?) wouldn't stand a chance at solving the world's problems and conflicts even if every leader were a Christian, as there would always be a difference of opinion as to how to fairly manage and distribute the world's resources. To postulate Sola Scriptura as the ultimate will of God miscontrues Him as a stupid, incompetent, or uncompassionate leader.

 

[JAL]

Whatever is not a voice like with sound, in any case is an spiritual voice.

Ok let's be clear. I don't believe in the existence anything non-physical.

(Sigh). But again, that's not the point here. The more you keep pushing that nebulous term, the more you push the sheep away from sensory experience, and thus farther away from the Father. You really want that blood on your hands on judgment day?

 

[Dave L]

That's what they said to Noah.

It's more like King Saul seeking extra biblical revelation. And we know how that turned out.

 

[Dave L]

Scripture says no such thing.
("... the prophetic gifts and tongues ceased with the Apostles who distributed them.")
If you have scripture that says such a thing, post it.

Only because you cannot see it.