Number One Flaw in Cessationism

[NBB]

Rethink it - for God's sake, not for my sake. The traditional view is that God's perfections are innate instead of acquired over time by hard work. This implies that God merits no praise, it's like calling Him lazy and unaccomplished. It's like you saying to me, "The only thing you deserve credit for is being a human being."

That wasn't my choice - that means I don't deserve any credit at all! Don't you love God enough to rethink this kind of assessment of Him? I guess you're saying you already tried rethinking it and came up empty. In that case, I'm sorry to hear it.

Well, he is powerful, deserving praise for that, smart, good, loving, etc what is wrong with praising his attributes.
If the devil worked hard to become evil or not, i would not praise him because he is not good, etc..

 

[NBB]

Rethink it - for God's sake, not for my sake. The traditional view is that God's perfections are innate instead of acquired over time by hard work. This implies that God merits no praise, it's like calling Him lazy and unaccomplished. It's like you saying to me, "The only thing you deserve credit for is being a human being."

That wasn't my choice - that means I don't deserve any credit at all! Don't you love God enough to rethink this kind of assessment of Him? I guess you're saying you already tried rethinking it and came up empty. In that case, I'm sorry to hear it.

Also the bible states, that: His eternal power and divinity... ETERNAL, not that he evolved sometime.

 

[swordsman1]

What I meant is that you are reading that conclusion into ALL possible instances of tongues. That would be eisegesis.

That is not what I said in my response where you accused me.

And no even that is not eisegesis. I was right, you don't know the meaning of the word.

 

[JAL]

Well, he is powerful, deserving praise for that, smart, good, loving, etc what is wrong with praising his attributes.

"Honey, you look beautiful today". Praise is an act of kindness. Nothing wrong with that.

That doesn't answer the question as to whether the person DESERVES/MERITS praise.

Suppose God created me innately holy (irrevocably so). Would I deserve praise for being holy - having done nothing to earn it? Of course not.

If the devil worked hard to become evil or not, i would not praise him because he is not good, etc..

Agreed. Merit isn't about evil. Here's the core definition of merit that EVERYONE agrees on - almost every sermon is based on this definition for example.

Merit is a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause.

The cross is a perfect example. The cross has no merit without suffering.

Therefore if God did not labor/suffer to develop/acquire all His perfections, they merit/deserve no praise. We could still praise Him out of generosity, but not out of desert.

 

[JAL]

That is not what I said in my response where you accused me.

And no even that is not eisegesis. I was right, you don't know the meaning of the word.

This won't be the first time I beg to differ.

 

[JAL]

Also the bible states, that: His eternal power and divinity... ETERNAL, not that he evolved sometime.

Your language connotes biological evolution. Don't put words in my mouth. He developed Himself by free will. That's not 'evolution' in the Darwinian sense. Maybe we can call it self-evolution for clarity.

 

[NBB]

"Honey, you look beautiful today". Praise is an act of kindness. Nothing wrong with that.

That doesn't answer the question as to whether the person DESERVES/MERITS praise.

Suppose God created me innately holy (irrevocably so). Would I deserve praise for being holy - having done nothing to earn it? Of course not.
Agreed. Merit isn't about evil. Here's the core definition of merit that EVERYONE agrees on - almost every sermon is based on this definition for example.

Merit is a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause.

The cross is a perfect example. The cross has no merit without suffering.

Therefore if God did not labor/suffer to develop/acquire all His perfections, they merit/deserve no praise. We could still praise Him out of generosity, but not out of desert.

Well the bible says to praise him because of his actions too. which his actions are according with his nature and attributes.

 

[NBB]

Your language connotes biological evolution. Don't put words in my mouth. He developed Himself by free will. That's not 'evolution' in the Darwinian sense. Maybe we can call it self-evolution for clarity.

Eternal power, he always was powerful, and divinity, he always was God....

 

[JAL]

Well the bible says to praise him because of his actions too. which his actions are according with his nature and attributes.

Yes the Bible says to praise Him. And praise is an act of kindness - there's nothing wrong with that.

The question is whether He deserves/merits praise.

If God's holiness - His "nature and attributes" to use your term - is innate, if He had those qualities from the getgo without having done anything to earn/acquire/develop them, they merit no praise. Otherwise it would be like saying you deserve praise for merely being human.

 

[JAL]

Eternal power, he always was powerful, and divinity, he always was God....

If by eternal, you mean God is timeless:
(1) You've fallen into the realm of incoherence. Timeless existence is gibberish.
(2) You've contradicted the definition of merit. The cross has merit because it involved suffering. If God is timeless - if He hasn't suffered for at least one moment - He merits no praise.

 

[NBB]

If by eternal, you mean God is timeless:
(1) You've fallen into the realm of incoherence. Timeless existence is gibberish.
(2) You've contradicted the definition of merit. The cross has merit because it involved suffering. If God is timeless - if He hasn't suffered for at least one moment - He merits no praise.

WHy is gibberish, that is what the bible says, eternal, an infinite regress into forever.

 

[JAL]

WHy is gibberish, that is what the bible says, eternal, an infinite regress into forever.

Eternal need not mean timeless. My soul is eternal. That simply means it is everlasting.

If you insist that eternal means "timeless", you've contradicted the idea that God has merit. See previous post.

 

[NBB]

Eternal need not mean timeless. My soul is eternal. That simply means it is everlasting.

If you insist that eternal means "timeless", you've contradicted the idea that God has merit. See previous post.

What i mean is God was 'forever' like the bible says, it probably means he existed in the 'timeline' forever in the past i guess.

 

[CharismaticLady]

God can answers prayers without audibly speaking to you. (and not by feelings or thoughts popping into your head either).

That is true. He always answers my questions, because I expect an answer as in James 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

My concern is for those who never has an answer to prayer. There is something wrong with that person.

You seriously think that everytime we pray we have to pray for every single Christian in the world?

Anyway it is a moot point as "praying in the Spirit" does not occur in the 2nd sentence of that verse, it appears in the 1st, in context of making requests - which you cannot do if you don't know what you are saying. Hence "praying in the Spirit" cannot be exclusively tongues.

Praying in the Spirit is praying in tongues when you don't know what is God's will. Unless you receive a word of wisdom, word of knowledge, or a prophecy and pray those words of God, and you know what you are saying. If you pray your own will it will be a hit or miss at best, but more than likely you will not receive what you asked for.

 

[JAL]

What i mean is God was 'forever' like the bible says, it probably means he existed in the 'timeline' forever in the past i guess.

Ok fine but you still haven't resolved the charge of contradiction. HOW did God become holy? Options:
(1) Is His holiness innate?
(2) Or did he acquire it over time by "freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause"?

Because only option 2 defines merit.

Sadly enough, the church labors under the delusion that the cross (3 days of torment) was God's greatest sacrifice. They've basically cast spit upon His 13 billion years of labor (minimum) becoming holy. They don't give Him ANY credit for it. This is far worse than spitting on the cross.

And you know how the church came to their current understanding of God - an understanding that spits on His greatest sacrifice? Plato!

 

[NBB]

That is true. He always answers my questions, because I expect an answer as in James 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

My concern is for those who never has an answer to prayer. There is something wrong with that person.



Praying in the Spirit is praying in tongues when you don't know what is God's will. Unless you receive a word of wisdom, word of knowledge, or a prophecy and pray those words of God, and you know what you are saying. If you pray your own will it will be a hit or miss at best, but more than likely you will not receive what you asked for.

I know the holy spirit can direct you in what you should ask, because has happened to me, and contrary to what @swordsman1 says his impulses for you to do that can be felt, they are very soft and gentle, and you can tell right away that they are from the Holy spirit, because is very evident.

 

[CharismaticLady]

What you are now saying is the word "snakes" in Mark 16 are not real snakes, but a metaphor for something else - your enemies, right?

Yes, that is what the idiom means by snakes and serpents. They are demonic forces trying to attack you though people being influenced by them.

So the abilities listed in Mark 16:17-18 that don't fit into your theory, "picking up deadly snakes" and "drinking poison", you wriggle out of by declaring them to be metaphors. So what exactly does it mean to "pick up your enemies"? And how do you explain "drinking poison" - what is that a metaphor for?

Take it or leave it. I always wondered about that part of Mark 16 myself until I talked to someone familiar with Jewish idioms, and found out that it was an idiom regarding divine protection. But really, it does have to do with your faith. Idiom or not, I used it once when I was bit by a brown recluse spider and it didn't affect me. But I would stay away from those spiders if I had your faith. Just sayin'...

It is obvious you are grasping at straws to try and twist this passage to fit your idea- that we can all speak in tongues, and heal people. But it is clear the other abilities listed, such as being bitten by deadly snakes and coming to no harm as Paul did in Malta, only occurred during the apostolic age. Mark 16:17-18 is clearly a prophecy by Jesus that was fulfilled in the 1st century AD.

So you've never commanded anyone to be healed then I take it.

 

[NBB]

@swordsman1

"It is obvious you are grasping at straws to try and twist this passage to fit your idea- that we can all speak in tongues, and heal people. But it is clear the other abilities listed, such as being bitten by deadly snakes and coming to no harm as Paul did in Malta, only occurred during the apostolic age. Mark 16:17-18 is clearly a prophecy by Jesus that was fulfilled in the 1st century AD."

I don't know if people that got bitten by snakes or drank poison survived in this time, i guess there could be cases, but about casting out demons, this is so needed today, the devil oppreses and gets into people the same as it was in the time of Jesus, and people desperately needs when converting, to be free of them, and no all your spiritual problems don't just vanish when you believe.

 

[CharismaticLady]

No, there are not 2 types of tongues in 1 Cor 14. Paul makes no such distinctions. The distinctions are only in your mind. "The one who speaks in tongues" in v5 is the same "one who speaks in tongues" in v2.

Inventing multiple types of tongues is just a ruse to wriggle out of verses that do not fit Charismatic theory. "Hmm. The tongues in this verse doesn't fit in with our theory - I know, we'll change it to another type of tongues and the problem is solved!"

Yes, there are, but again, you don't have to believe me, study for yourself. Not even a lot of Pentecostals know there are two types of tongues - individual and corporate. TO God and FROM God. No one is immune to not studying for themselves and digging deeper than the lukewarm.

Would you understand it mean that the policemen were speaking gobbledegook ("his mocking, not mine, Lord.") but the tourists experienced a miracle of hearing and the words were automatically translated in their ears as their own native language?

Correct. I've talked to people with the gift of interpretation of tongues, and they hear the translation on top of the tongues, so they can give the interpretation. I do not have the corporate gifts of tongues and interpretation.

 

[NBB]

One of this 'false' pentecostal preachers, like cessationist would like to believe, told me i had a 'padlock' in my heart, i don't know how to translate that better, i did not understood this at the time, but later i recognized i had a spiritual problem since forever that would get me like enclosed in myself spiritually, i prayed with my mother about this, and this dissapeared, ok you can say all you want and have unbelief, but this changed my life, it was an horrible spiritual problem, and God brought it to the light. A gift? revelation? discernment? word of science? you can pick which one i don't care.