Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't prefer to think ... I know.In other words, you prefer to think that there was no cessation,
and you attribute that stance to the working of the Holy Spirit.
I know that cessationism is false from the experience of seeing the gifts in action!But here YOU admit that cessationism is inferred from the experience of seeing a disappearance of the gifts!
The "valid reason" is that they ceased.But that's not a valid reason for the doctrine of cessationism.
As I said, a cessationist is a cessationist for the most basic of reasons--they ceased. WHY they did is something to explain, and if you want to offer some explanation for why it was that cessation occurred, that would be great and would help the discussion.But here YOU admit that cessationism is inferred from the experience of seeing a disappearance of the gifts!
Unacceptable. Doctrine based on empirical experience contradicts sola scriptura, methodologically speaking. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.The "valid reason" is that they ceased.
No denlal of the facts of history is needed in addition.
And that in turn means that no speculation about almost two thousand years of history being a mirage or that everyone's minds were fooled in some way needs to be invented.
As I said, a cessationist is a cessationist for the most basic of reasons--they ceased.
Multiple factors distancing man from God.WHY they did is something to explain, and if you want to offer some explanation for why it was that cessation occurred, that would be great and would help the discussion.
No, it doesn't. There are plenty of people who have misinterpreted what they read in Scripture, but that doesn't make Scripture wrong.Unacceptable. Doctrine based on empirical experience contradicts sola scriptura, methodologically speaking.
Of course these words have nothing to do with anything I said.No, it doesn't. There are plenty of people who have misinterpreted what they read in Scripture, but that doesn't make Scripture wrong.
In fact this is the standard intellectual-dishonesty tactic that I recently called you out on in another thread. Whenever I question Sola Scriptura, you pretend as though I'm challenging the veracity of scripture. Your standard strawman with me.No, it doesn't. There are plenty of people who have misinterpreted what they read in Scripture, but that doesn't make Scripture wrong.
No, that's not what I've done. I can only conclude that you have misunderstood the explanations you were given (including my comment in post 605), but as we on CF have seen many times, there are A LOT of people who don't get what the very straightforward concept we call Sola Scriptura actually means. If you want to pose some questions, I will try again.In fact this is the standard intellectual-dishonesty tactic that I recently called you out on in another thread. Whenever I question Sola Scriptura, you pretend as though I'm challenging the veracity of scripture. Your standard strawman with me.
I don't have any questions. You obviously have no resolution for the methodological contradiction. Cessationists can't claim "the Bible only" and then look to their own experience to define normative experience. Imagine a Bible scholar visiting an ancient city and, having seen no display of miracles, intuits cessationism. Turns out it was the hometown of Jesus. And there was a circumstantial reason for the lack of miracles:No, that's not what I've done. I can only conclude that you have misunderstood the explanations you were given (including my comment in post 605), but as we on CF have seen many times, there are A LOT of people who don't get what the very straightforward concept we call Sola Scriptura actually means. If you want to pose some questions, I will try again.
Eschatological? No. You're right to hold to continuationism, but your defense of it is stronger if you realize 1Cor 13 is not eschatological. There is no ceasing of tongues mentioned in that chapter, neither in this life nor the next. Paul isn't addressing the issue of whether tongues will cease. Rather he is defining spiritual maturity as a maturation of three gifts (tongues, prophecy, and knowledge) - as even several noted cessationists scholars have admitted (believe it or not). See here for an explanation.Cessation, the word comes from 1 Corinthians 13, that, tongues will cease... but Paul most commonly wrote with his eschatological framework. About Christ second coming...
The plain meaning on that chapter is that tongues will cease when Christ returns. The word striving is around the word for, perfect, teleios. The plain meaning of the chapter gets yanked around to say it does not refer to Christ return, because Christ is not a thing, but what comes upon people when He returns is a thing, like lightning, a grand revelation. So ends the word striving of teleios and hopefully cessation.
That's too generalized and too vague. I demonstrated from the immediate context that Paul was talking about the maturing of the gifts. How can the maturation of a gift, in the present life, equate to an eschatological eradication of it? Doesn't make sense. The one excludes the other.Generally all of Paul the apostle's works come with an eschatological framework.
Um...that would spell the eradication/cessation of the telephone. Just like I said. Look, are you going to talk to your brothers in heaven? If so, will the Spirit ever help to guide what you say? That's prophecy.It is not eradication, it is that when Christ returns, prophecy will be put off like a
telephone, because the person on the other end has arrived.
You're not making any sense. The prophets already DID hear God's voice directly.Instead of the paper letter or message, like an sms, the voice will be heard directly.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If this passage is foretelling an eschatological cessation, then knowledge should cease.Knowledge will be more complete when Christ returns, than many gifts of knowledge can be.
Paul's analogy is a babe maturing into a man. The opposite of a babe (immaturity) is manhood (maturity). Thus until then we know "in part". This is quantitative. The babe doesn't CEASE from knowing, rather his manhood amounts to knowing (quantitatively) more than before. This is seamless.Knowledge will be more complete when Christ returns, than many gifts of knowledge can be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?