Number One Flaw in Cessationism

CharismaticLady said:

Okay, you're right, I've dealt with prayer, but not with you.

These are prayer without the use of speaking in tongues. BUT they do require other gifts of the Spirit of 1 Corinthians 12. So none of the gifts of the Spirit have ceased, otherwise these scriptures would not be for us and we would be in a different covenant, and would have to find our NEWEST TESTAMENT, AND FIND ANOTHER SAVIOR.

Click to expand...

I really do not find any scripture, nor know of any scripture that states prayer as a spiritual gift on the same level as healing, prophecies, tongues, etc. They are just not there nor can I twist scripture enough to think such.

It is a spiritual blessing. All prayer is. For those in Christ. None of the verses you just quoted support otherwise.

I would say read this, though its really up to you to see what I mean. This article uses many verses and greek to support the claim.
A Study of Divine Providence

CharismaticLady said:

Praying in tongues is when you DON'T know what is the will of God, and pray His perfect will outside our comprehension. It doesn't require interpretation, because it is for private use.

Click to expand...

Why do you think you need to know Gods will? He states his will for us in the bible. Praying in tongues, a language not know by the crowd around, was not advised by Paul and said it should be done in secret. It is because no one else knows it. It doesnt benefit anyone.

CharismaticLady said:

So you are saying we should or shouldn't pray alone? If you pray in English, but pray amiss, what benefit is it to you or anyone else? From experience, I know that unanswered prayer caused me to even wonder if God existed? I never had one prayer answered in my first 30 years of being a Christian and going to church. What about you? How many prayers can you say were miraculously answered?

Click to expand...

Praying in your native language is not a spiritual gift.

CharismaticLady said:

Ephesians 6:
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints.

Jude 1:
20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

You may say that is not praying in tongues, even though it is described as such in 1 Corinthians 14:

13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

This can mean one of two things regarding the understanding. I will pray or sing in the Spirit alone, or I will pray or sing in the Spirit with the gift of interpretation of tongues following. Or the other, I will pray or sing in English. But that is not what this chapter is about. It is about when to speak in tongues alone, and when to speak in tongues followed by the gift interpretation of tongues.

Click to expand...

Neither of those verses are referring to tongues.

How can you pray in tongues in supplication for the saints (Eph 6) when you don't know what you are saying?

No, praying in the Spirit simply means praying according to the leading of the Spirit. It could be in tongues or in English.

CharismaticLady said:

As far as abuse, swordsman, praying in the Spirit by yourself is never an abuse. What was happening in Corinth that was an abuse was all of them using their private prayer or praise language that doesn't require interpretation with the congregation, and speaking it loudly for all to hear, AND all at the same time. Utter confusion. No, the congregation is not the place for speaking our prayer language out loud for all to hear WITHOUT the gift of interpretation present. It is the other gift of tongues that is receiving messages from the Spirit that you know is for the whole congregation and only 2-3 give those messages, and only one person give the interpretation. What those messages could be are found in verse 6.

Click to expand...

1 Cor 14 makes it quite clear that the problem in Corinth was uninterpreted tongues. Not speaking at the same time or speaking too loudly. It was wrong because the congregation should be edified when tongues are spoken. That is the purpose of spiritual gifts in the church - to edify others.

CharismaticLady said:

So, if I have been given the gift of tongues, shouldn't I already know what I'm saying in that other language?

Click to expand...

Granted by the Holy Spirit, yes. Peter knew it as he begins his preaching here....

14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words

The problem is people want to say these gifts still happen. They dont. If one is still around, the others are,

And I dont see people healing stage 4 cancers and such.

Also, the gifts were to confirm the word, and show that Jesus was the Christ. Mark 16:20 for example.

We do not need to confirm the word. We already have a complete bible. It was finished with the last apostle John. Bam. No more gifts needed.

CharismaticLady said:

Go back one verse to find out how many this applies to. I believe ALL.

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

1. How many of "he who believes and is baptized will be saved" does that apply to?
a. none b. some c. all

2. How many of those that do not believe will be condemned?
a. none b. some c. all

3. How many of those who believes and are baptized and saved will have those signs following them?
a. none b. some c. all

Click to expand...

It says signs would "follow" those who believe, not that they who believe would themselves exhibit the signs.

CharismaticLady said:

The part about not being harmed by deadly snakes or deadly poison is a Hebrew idiom. Like "letting the cat out of the bag." It is not a literal cat, nor literal bag. So what does the Hebrew idiom actually mean. It still applies today. And no, not literally as believed by some Eastern Tennessee mountain people, and others.

Click to expand...

Have you got some evidence for that assertion?

CharismaticLady said:

1 Corinthians 14:2 must be understood completely.

2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

Again you are contradicting the rule by believing the Jews heard them naturally speaking in their own language.

1. They were not speaking to the Jews present.
2. They were speaking to God.
3. NO ONE UNDERSTANDS TONGUES.

So with these factors of the RULE. How could they all separately hear them (all of them) speaking that many different languages all at once.

8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”

Don't you understand that the Parthians heard ALL OF THE DISCIPLES (THEM) speaking his language. But the Medes heard ALL OF THE DISCIPLES (THEM) speaking his language. And so on.

The only possible answer that doesn't blatantly contradict scripture is the devout Jews were given the supernatural gift of interpretation of tongues. Nothing else shows proper exegesis of the gifts of the Spirit.

Click to expand...

The supernatural gift happens because the person is a believer.. they weren't yet.
The supernatural gift happens because the person knows about the phenomena that accompanied Pentecost... they didn't know yet. They thought that all of the 120 that were in the upper room, filled with the Holy Spirit, were drunk.

With these in mind, those from areas round about couldn't have the supernatural gift of interpreting the speaking in tongues.

I present this as a possible exegetical explanation.. that the 120 were speaking in tongues that no one could understand when they were in the upper room because no one there wasn't speaking in tongues, while interpretation is needed when there are those that are ungifted or unbelievers..

but when they got outside, they were speaking in the languages of those from other areas. They said that the 120 were speaking in their learned dialect. They heard and understood the 120 magnify God. In this case the group from other areas translated rather than interpreted by the Holy Spirit.

CharismaticLady said:

Where does Paul say in 1 Corinthians 13 that his writings when published would be "the perfect."

Click to expand...

Well, he said "we know in part and prophecy in part"

He also is the one that stated that "when that which is perfect comes"

You can be silly enough to believe that God or Jesus is a "that".

CharismaticLady said:

That is erroneous in the light of the end of the chapter that he is referring to when we will know (God) as well as He knows us now. (He even knows how many strands of hair we have.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, we all will know in the end. Exactly... the end. Of course. But for now, there are no gifts. Gifts were to confirm the word of which no one is doing now days. I can wait here till I die waiting for you to prove this otherwise.

CharismaticLady said:

Don't you know that even with our Bibles and commentaries of what the Bible actually means, and you will get a hundred different interpretations, that we are STILL only seeing the glory of God as through a dark glass

Click to expand...

Yes, yes. Paul warned this 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

Of course people are going to twist things. Not the bibles fault. Miracles are ceased and you know it which is why you have no evidence in your post refuting it. Just deflections again.

CharismaticLady said:

I praise God that I do have the gifts of the Spirit,

Click to expand...

Really?! Which one?

CharismaticLady said:

#1 of the post of prayer, the gifts of the Spirit are the reason why 100% of my prayers are answered and I receive what I prayed for.

Click to expand...

You pass it off as if you can ask for $100k and he will just give it to you. I believe you twist the meaning of those verses.

Read the "providence" article. This is how God works now. scripture states such.

CharismaticLady said:

Because I wait, and do not ever pray my own will, unless it is just a question and I need wisdom that He will always answer - again through a gift of the Spirit - and those answered prayers are an assurance that I am abiding in Jesus and HIS WORDS THAT I CAN PLAINLY HEAR, abide in me

Click to expand...

Of course we never pray our will. Its Gods will yes. But you will not see any miracles. Just providence.

CharismaticLady said:

3. NO ONE UNDERSTANDS TONGUES.

Click to expand...

You are taking the verse out of context. When it says "no one understands" it doesn't mean nobody on the face of the earth could understood what was spoken in Corinth. The context of the whole of Chapter 14 is church meetings. Therefore it means no one in the congregation understands the unrecognized tongues spoken in Corinth.

CharismaticLady said:

How could they all separately hear them (all of them) speaking that many different languages all at once.

Click to expand...

Quite easily, if the 12 disciples were spread out in the vast temple courts.

CharismaticLady said:

8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”

Don't you understand that the Parthians heard ALL OF THE DISCIPLES (THEM) speaking his language. But the Medes heard ALL OF THE DISCIPLES (THEM) speaking his language. And so on.

The only possible answer that doesn't blatantly contradict scripture is the devout Jews were given the supernatural gift of interpretation of tongues. Nothing else shows proper exegesis of the gifts of the Spirit.

Click to expand...

Consider the following statement:


What would you naturally understand that to mean?

Would you understand it mean that the policemen were speaking gobbledegook but the tourists experienced a miracle of hearing and the words were automatically translated in their ears as their own native language?

Or would you understand it to mean the policemen separately spoke in the native languages of the tourists?

Now go and read Acts 2:4-6.

swordsman1 said:

The plural simply means there were many types of gift of healing.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think I have to take your word for it. Are you the pope?

Where in scripture does it say or even suggest that prayer is needed if you have the gift of healing?

Click to expand...

That's possibly a loaded question - indeed to some extent it IS a loaded question because, as stated above, it operates on unestablished assumption. If 3 sick people are facing me, and God supplied me with three balms of healing, there isn't likely any need for me to pray - for what I already have? The question is whether I, if not being a man of prayer, would have received those 3 balms (3 gifts of healing) in the first place. And there is plenty of biblical data to challenge that assumption.

Again, neither of us can prove anything apodictically. But the general sense of Scripture is that the gifts flow primarily to men of prayer (see James 5).

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. You are asserting that "fanning into flame" means praying for healing. The onus is therefore on you to prove it.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. We are both making assertions here.

Non sequitur. Just because prayer is an important aspect of Christian life doesn't mean that prayer is required to exercise the gift of healing. As the numerous examples in Acts demonstrates.

Click to expand...

By 'Non sequitir' you mean 'non-apodictic'. Irrelevant. Neither of us have apodictic arguments here, so that's not even a rebuttal.

That is exactly what you are implying. They are either all spiritual gifts, or none are. You can't just cherry pick one item from the list of gifts and arbitrarily declare that not to be a spiritual gift simply on the basis of 'gifts' being in the plural.

Click to expand...

Nope. Notice that healing was included in the list of (spontaneous) 'manifestations'. Not all the gifts were included there. For example I personally find a distinction between a prophetic manifestation (which can happen to anyone at any moment) versus the OFFICE of a prophet which both:
(1) had governmental authority in the early church
(2) AND was (presumably) marked by FREQUENT manifestations of prophcy.

Try looking up the word 'healing' in a dictionary. If you can show me a single definition that says it also includes raising someone from the dead, then we can begin to take your suggestion seriously.

Click to expand...

And so what you are saying is that when a man is raised from the dead, his malfunctioning organs are NOT healed? That healing is NOT applied to him? No of course you're not saying that. That would be utter nonsense, of course.

You used the example of Peter praying before raising Tabitha and argued that because the gift of miracles is listed along with healing (all apples you said) then healing too could require prayer. (Despite you saying that there is no such thing as the gift of healing). It therefore logically follows that your theory must also apply to all the other gifts listed. Or are you cherry picking again? But yet again your argument is a non-sequitur. Just because one gift required prayer on occasion doesn't mean all the other gifts must also do. And again it can be argued that if Peter had to pray for God's help to raise her from the dead then he wasn't using a gift of miracles. Any of us can pray for a miracle and not have the gift. In fact it could even be argued that Peter didn't even pray for Tabitha to be raised from the dead (it doesn't say he did). So I'm afraid your rebuttal fails on multiple levels. As I said, apples and oranges.

Click to expand...

Yes Non-sequitir. In other words, non-apodictic. Sorry that's not a rebuttal. Oddly, though, YOU seem to think that you've proved your conclusion apodictically. I find that strange. I'm less ambitious. I'm trying to get the general sense of Scripture and, in doing so, it doesn't SEEM to decisively align with your view. So Paul didn't have the gift of healing?

"His father was sick in bed, suffering from fever and dysentery. Paul went in to see him and, after prayer, placed his hands on him and healed him" (Acts 28).

In fact, let's forget about the 'general sense of Scripture'. Let's just talk about the 'general sense of Luke's writings'. Luke wrote 25% of the NT and he wrote more about prayer than anyone. He has been called "the thelogian of prayer." For every type of supernatural event that occurs, Luke makes an effort to persuade us that prayer was a prelude to that event. For example, Luke was the only one, among the gospel writers, to record that Jesus received the Spirit via prayer. Luke was the only one to record that the Transfiguration occurred via prayer. Luke emphasized empowerment via prayer. He was the only one to record that an angel strengthened Christ through prayer. He was the only one to record that the Spirit is received through prayer (Lk 11:13). He indicated that the outpouring on Penteost was in response to prayer. He indicated that the outpouring in Cornelius' household was in response to prayer. That is the GENERAL SENSE of Luke's writings - everything is hinged on prayer. It is in THAT CONTEXT that a passage like this one is to be understood:

"His father was sick in bed, suffering from fever and dysentery. Paul went in to see him and, after prayer, placed his hands on him and healed him" (Acts 28).

And likewise:

"Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up."

Sorry I'm not going to throw out 25% of the NT on behalf of some unwarranted assumptions postulated by YOU.

CharismaticLady said:

Again, you do not understand that there are two manifestations of the ability to speak in tongues.

Mark 16 - private use - prayer and praise - TO God. Doesn't require interpretation.

Click to expand...

Mark 16 tongues was not for private use. It was a sign to others.

CharismaticLady said:

1 Cor. 12 - corporate use - messages - FROM God. Requires interpretation.

Click to expand...

Where does it say tongues were messages from God?

JAL said:

You cited that article in response to a post of mine - but it doesn't address all of the objections in that post. And I don't yet see where it convincingly addresses any of them. How does the article positively rule out angelic tongues? Consider the following reading of 13:1 (paraphrase):

"If I, having the gift of tongues, speak in languages of angels and men..."

The writer clearly wants to rule out such readings but I'm not clear how he, other than personal bias, reaches that conclusion. (BTW, this isn't all-or-nothing, it is feasible that in some cases tongues are ancient human languages and sometimes angelic languages).

The article is full of moot points such as, "There are numerous Bible examples of angels speaking to men." Agreed, but how does that moot point resolve THIS debate?

Much of the article is spent (wasted) on this moot point, "If one employs his gift of tongues before an audience..." - moot because most Pentecostals already concur that when the tongue is proclaimed TO THE WHOLE AUDIENCE, it's supposed to have an interpreter. But not every word of prayer enunciated in a church setting is proclaimed to the entire audience - verse 14:28 suggests that, when there is no interpreter, he can pray the tongue quietly to God. Also, as I said, Paul's regulations do not necessarily apply today because, sadly enough, there isn't much abundance of gifts to regulate, due to failures on the part of the church (in my view).

Much of the article is an attempt to shift the burden of the proof, i.e., "Prove to us that men spoke in angelic tongues." But the Pentecostal position hardly stands or falls on that question. It need not meet that burden of proof. Certainly that article fails to prove that an angelic tongue is an impossible theory.

Click to expand...

Paul uses five conditional IF statements in 1 Cor 13:1-3 which were both hypothetical (they were imagined scenarios - not things he actually did) and hyperbole (the imagined scenarios were wildly exaggerated examples of each gift) - to make the point that even having spiritual gifts to the highest conceivable degree would be worthless without love:

- tongues, even to the degree of speaking the language of angels...
- the gift of prophecy even to the degree of knowing ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie becoming omniscient)...
- the gift of faith even to the degree of removing mountains...
- the gift of giving even to the degree of giving up ALL your possessions...
- and even giving up your own life...

....would all be to no avail without love.

None of those exaggerated hypothetical examples represent the normal operation of those gifts. Paul is saying that even if someone had the gift of tongues to such a superlative degree that they spoke in the language of angels, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them. There is no evidence of anyone actually speaking in the language of angels.

swordsman1 said:

Define what you mean by "unknown" bearing in mind that word doesn't appear in the Greek.

Click to expand...

In that particular quote I think I was just referring to the fact that no one in the congregation understands him. But MOST LIKELY this is because it's a language currently unknown to men (either an ancient human language or perhaps an angelic language - perhaps even a language known only to God Himself).

1 Cor 14:28 doesn't say "speak in tongues quietly to himself". If says "keep silent".

Click to expand...

But doesn't that have a context? I don't think he's saying COMPLETE silence. Isn't he saying, 'Silent to the church' (speaking quietly to himself would qualify). Because the verse continues "...and speak to himself and God".

Using a gift solely for personal edification would be an abuse of a spiritual gift which are only supposed to be used for the benefit of others.

Click to expand...

That sounds pretty sanctimonious. You honestly sound like a Pharisee. Self-edification isn't to the exclusion of ministering to God. When you pray or sing a tongue to God, you are fellowshipping with Him. That's an abuse? Let's get real. I'm beginning to suspect you have no idea how much God loves you and is dying to hear from you.

There is no evidence in scripture that anyone spoke in angelic or non-human tongues.

Click to expand...

Right. No apodictic evidence. Just like there is no apodictic evidence that they did NOT.

The only definition of the phenomenon is given in Acts 2 where it is clearly described as foreign languages. If they were ancient human languages they would have been spotted by the numerous linguists who have studied today's so called tongues.

Click to expand...

Nope, Acts is prophecy, not the gift of tongues, as I've already demonstrated.

swordsman1 said:

Paul uses five conditional IF statements in 1 Cor 13:1-3 which were both hypothetical (they were imagined scenarios - not things he actually did) and hyperbole (the imagined scenarios were wildly exaggerated examples of each gift) - to make the point that even having spiritual gifts to the highest conceivable degree would be worthless without love:

- tongues, even to the degree of speaking the language of angels...
- the gift of prophecy even to the degree of knowing ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie becoming omniscient)...
- the gift of faith even to the degree of removing mountains...
- the gift of giving even to the degree of giving up ALL your possessions...
- and even giving up your own life...

....would all be to no avail without love.

Click to expand...

I freely admit that the hyberbolic nature of some of those statements casts some doubt on whether angelic tongues occurred - but it doesn't rule them out decisively.

I personally believe in the possibility of:
- faith that removes mountains
- a man giving up all his possessions
- a man surrendering himself to the flames