What is the Scriptural Basis for Cessationism?

[swordsman1]

This has always seemed like semantics to me. Because both of those examples are really not at all that different, no?

Whether we pray for divine healing or are led by the Holy Spirit to lay hands on someone in faith that they be healed (as the apostles did), it is still God doing the healing.

Praying for healing is not the gift of healing. The gift of healing is the instantaneous and complete healing of a disability simply by the command or touch of a gifted individual, just as the disciples did in the New Testament. If you have to pray for healing it proves you do not have the gift of healing.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there are people who go to hospitals. We just don't hear about it because those people aren't interested in making a show of it, but interested in what God is doing.

As for the stadiums? Mammon.

Almost all hospitals have chaplains and permit patients to see their clergy. That said, the healing business is up to the good physicians of the hospital (at least on the human side of the equation) and not up to other folks.

 

[Major1]

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there are people who go to hospitals. We just don't hear about it because those people aren't interested in making a show of it, but interested in what God is doing.

As for the stadiums? Mammon.

Now again...COMMON SENSE! In this world of instant communications, IF there was an individual doing this, do you not think that it would be all over the news instantly????

Now I am in hospitals about 3 or 4 times a week visiting friends and associates.
I have of this day NEVER seen a faith healer heal anyone in a hospital.

I did however observe a Pentecostal family lay hands of a woman who was suffering from cancer as they prayed over her and rebuked Satan, claimed that she was healed, and then when they pulled her up from the hospital bed, her neck broke and she died right their.
That was in fact my wife's aunt in 1999.

I would say, and I have been involved in this in my past......it is ALL ABOT MONEY!

People are gullible! They want something for nothing and will believe anyone who can sell themselves.

 

[Major1]

Exactly my point. If someone is healed it is by the hand of the Lord, no one else. That is entirely different than what the apostles were doing. They were healing people by their own hands, through the power granted them by Jesus Christ.

Correct! The Apostles were given those "Sign Gifts" and were able to do miracles just as did Jesus.

 

[Jair Crawford]

Actually, no I do not think so. Because for one thing these things don't happen 100% of the time. Even Jesus entered areas where he could not heal people as documented in Mark.

And even when Jesus did miracles, and though people flocked to Him, people soon began to over rationalize again. Even the disciples feared of starving, right after witnessing Him feed the 4000 and the 5000.

We do the same today. The news media wouldn't come close to such a thing within a ten foot pole for fear of damaging their credibility no matter how real the circumstance, because it would be controversial simply to cover the subject.

All of this to show, even back in Jesus day, that faith really is the key.

 

[swordsman1]

Actually, no I do not think so. Because for one thing these things don't happen 100% of the time.

Where did Jesus or the apostles with the gift of healing (ie.post Pentecost) fail to heal anyone?

Even Jesus entered areas where he could not heal people as documented in Mark.

I presume you are referring to Mark 6:5. "And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them."
That verse is not saying Jesus was unable to heal people despite wanting to do so. How could the omnipotent Second Person of the Trinity be powerless to heal someone if He so wished? No, if I said "I could not forgive him" it doesn't mean I lack the ability to forgive but rather I chose not to forgive. Similarly Jesus chose not to perform miracles, as the parallel text in Matthew 13:58 indicates: "And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief." Jesus refused to perform miracles in his hometown because the people there rejected Him.

 

[Jair Crawford]

The idea stems from the belief that Jesus, though fully divine, relinquished Himself fully to the limitations of being fully human (with the exception of course being without sin). Thus His power to perform miracles are as a result of the indwelling Holy Spirit that came upon Him like a dove following His baptism.

The same thing happened with the apostles after Pentecost and the same thing can happen through the Holy Spirit living in us, performing miracles. The big difference between the disciples and us, and Jesus, is of course that He did not sin, and He had perfect faith as a result.

This is my interpretation. In my opinion it does not detract from Jesus' divinity at all. Though I understand people might disagree.

As for the Matthew passage, I am aware of it and it does have implications of spiritual meaning, but I believe the Mark verse is likely the more historical parallel as it was written first.

 

[swordsman1]

The idea stems from the belief that Jesus, though fully divine, relinquished Himself fully to the limitations of being fully human (with the exception of course being without sin). Thus His power to perform miracles are as a result of the indwelling Holy Spirit that came upon Him like a dove following His baptism.

In other words, Jesus chose not to heal in his hometown, rather than being unable to heal (like todays faith healers).

 

[Major1]

Actually, no I do not think so. Because for one thing these things don't happen 100% of the time. Even Jesus entered areas where he could not heal people as documented in Mark.

And even when Jesus did miracles, and though people flocked to Him, people soon began to over rationalize again. Even the disciples feared of starving, right after witnessing Him feed the 4000 and the 5000.

We do the same today. The news media wouldn't come close to such a thing within a ten foot pole for fear of damaging their credibility no matter how real the circumstance, because it would be controversial simply to cover the subject.

All of this to show, even back in Jesus day, that faith really is the key.

IMO you are "rationalizing" the fact that there simply is no such thing today as "men" who are able to heal.

YES, God heals through the prayers of believers just like James details in chapter 5 of his book.

 

[Albion]

Scripture also does not assert that they have ceased. It says that they will one day cease but any assertion that they have is speculation.

The reason that cessationists say that they have ceased is because they ceased. It is not more complicated than that.

 

[Knee V]

There is another view that is not the Pentecostal/Charismatic view, but is also not "Cessationism". Orthodoxy has never believed that the gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased, or that there is any reason that they should have. The past 2000 years are filled with stories of signs, wonders, miracles, and other various manifestations of the work of the Holy Spirit. However, the difference is that not all gifts are always necessary and useful at all times, and we don't have the specific expectation that any specific gift will be manifest at any specific time or under any specific set of circumstances. "The wind blows where it will."

 

[Albion]

I think that's close to what the average cessationist of whatever church background is likely to say.

That is, the gifts may not ever have ceased unless we mean by the word absolutely and everywhere all the time. There may have been rare instances of someone being so gifted, and there probably was. But that is also not to say there has been an unbroken continuity of any of the gifts through all history since the founding of the church.

The problem is that this is what the continuationist insists upon--that there never has been a gap or letup in the experiencing of the gifts, and he will insist upon it even while he admits that there is no known evidence that this actually was so.

 

[swordsman1]

There is another view that is not the Pentecostal/Charismatic view, but is also not "Cessationism". Orthodoxy has never believed that the gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased, or that there is any reason that they should have. The past 2000 years are filled with stories of signs, wonders, miracles, and other various manifestations of the work of the Holy Spirit. However, the difference is that not all gifts are always necessary and useful at all times, and we don't have the specific expectation that any specific gift will be manifest at any specific time or under any specific set of circumstances. "The wind blows where it will."

God performing miracles has not ceased. Men having the gift of miracles has.

 

[Major1]

The idea stems from the belief that Jesus, though fully divine, relinquished Himself fully to the limitations of being fully human (with the exception of course being without sin). Thus His power to perform miracles are as a result of the indwelling Holy Spirit that came upon Him like a dove following His baptism.

The same thing happened with the apostles after Pentecost and the same thing can happen through the Holy Spirit living in us, performing miracles. The big difference between the disciples and us, and Jesus, is of course that He did not sin, and He had perfect faith as a result.

This is my interpretation. In my opinion it does not detract from Jesus' divinity at all. Though I understand people might disagree.

As for the Matthew passage, I am aware of it and it does have implications of spiritual meaning, but I believe the Mark verse is likely the more historical parallel as it was written first.

Wonderful. Now you just said that...………
"I believe the Mark verse is likely the more historical parallel as it was written first".

That being said and since you have made that the line in the sand, may I then point out Mark 16:14-17...…………..
"Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues".

And before you post it....YES I am aware that verses 9-20 have been called into question. But the fact is ……..THEY ARE STLL IN THE BIBLE.

Eleven = THEM. Them = Apostles. The Apostles BELIEVED and they were given the SIGN Gifts right here and they could and did do what Jesus did.

Now then.....the truth is that no matter what is said or posted, there is not one single Scripture anywhere in the Bible that tells us that the office was the Apostle was to continue after the last one died.

If there was such a Scripture, it would already be posted on every Catholic, and Mormon and Pentecostal church door.

 

[Major1]

God performing miracles has not ceased. Men having the gift of miracles has.

Agreed!

Those gifts ended when the last Apostle died.

 

[Major1]

I think that's close to what the average cessationist of whatever church background is likely to say.

That is, the gifts may not ever have ceased unless we mean by the word absolutely and everywhere all the time. There may have been rare instances of someone being so gifted, and there probably was. But that is also not to say there has been an unbroken continuity of any of the gifts through all history since the founding of the church.

The problem is that this is what the continuationist insists upon--that there never has been a gap or letup in the experiencing of the gifts, and he will insist upon it even while he admits that there is no known evidence that this actually was so.

But to say the opposite would then open the flood gates of exaggeration and there is no way to know where it would end.

 

[Albion]

I don't get what you mean there. The gifts were important in establishing the church in a pagan world, and when that was accomplished, they gradually became less in evidence until they--and especially tongues--ceased to be part of the life of the church. That's all there is to it unless we want to talk about the artificial re-introduction of tongues and claims of the other gifts in some denominations less than 200 years ago. But for continuationists to argue that this means there never had been any ceasing is not credible.

 

[Jair Crawford]

Wonderful. Now you just said that...………
"I believe the Mark verse is likely the more historical parallel as it was written first".

That being said and since you have made that the line in the sand, may I then point out Mark 16:14-17...…………..
"Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues".

And before you post it....YES I am aware that verses 9-20 have been called into question. But the fact is ……..THEY ARE STLL IN THE BIBLE.

Eleven = THEM. Them = Apostles. The Apostles BELIEVED and they were given the SIGN Gifts right here and they could and did do what Jesus did.

Now then.....the truth is that no matter what is said or posted, there is not one single Scripture anywhere in the Bible that tells us that the office was the Apostle was to continue after the last one died.

If there was such a Scripture, it would already be posted on every Catholic, and Mormon and Pentecostal church door.

Must there be such a scripture? Does there absolutely have to be a verse spelling out that the positions of apostles and prophets have not ceased?

Because, come to think of it, there's not a verse that explicitly states that the positions of pastors, teachers, and evangelists have not ceased either, but nobody seems to have a problem with that.

Let me challenge your perspective a bit here. Consider Jesus. Whatever He did He did through the power of the Holy Spirit and what was ordained by the Father. His entire ministry, He led by example.

The only scriptures He had available to use was what is now known as the Old Testament; the Torah and the Prophets. There is not a single verse within the entirety of those texts that demonstrates that a man should spit on the ground, stir his saliva in the dirt to make clay out of it, and put it on a blind persons eyes to heal them of their blindness. Nor does it contain instructions to spit on people's eyeballs twice so that they can see. Jesus does precisely these things though.

Are we going to just say "well He can do weird stuff like that because He is God", or look at the bigger context? He was leading by example and the disciples followed that example.

No where does it say that this example would stop with the disciples either.

Are we really going to submit to a view that the Holy Spirit simply isn't going to demonstrate His power through those He indwells like that anymore simply because we have our leather bound Bibles and our big buildings with pews and 'greater intellectual understanding' now? And on top of that, claim that when He does demonstrate such power that it is illegitimate, or worse, the work of the Enemy? (Because somehow the enemy can somehow still demonstrate power but the Holy Spirit does not?)

Don't get me wrong, I believe the Bible is the Word of God. There is not a verse in scripture that emphatically states that 'something is not of God unless it is specifically described in detail in scripture'. Nor not any discourses on "that which is perfect" can prove that Paul is referring to the Bible. That is a result of confirmation bias of taking the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to the extreme.

 

[Jair Crawford]

I don't get what you mean there. The gifts were important in establishing the church in a pagan world, and when that was accomplished, they gradually became less in evidence until they--and especially tongues--ceased to be part of the life of the church. That's all there is to it unless we want to talk about the artificial re-introduction of tongues and claims of the other gifts in some denominations less than 200 years ago. But for continuationists to argue that this means there never had been any ceasing is not credible.

Actually, I believe I have read (though I could be misremembering so take with a grain of salt) that speaking in tongues as the modern Charismatics do was manifest as early as the Quakers.

 

[Jair Crawford]

I think that's close to what the average cessationist of whatever church background is likely to say.

That is, the gifts may not ever have ceased unless we mean by the word absolutely and everywhere all the time. There may have been rare instances of someone being so gifted, and there probably was. But that is also not to say there has been an unbroken continuity of any of the gifts through all history since the founding of the church.

The problem is that this is what the continuationist insists upon--that there never has been a gap or letup in the experiencing of the gifts, and he will insist upon it even while he admits that there is no known evidence that this actually was so.

I may not agree with this 100%, but I have to say that's the most reasonable response from the cessationist viewpoint I've read or heard so far. This, I can at least understand and resonate with to a degree. A lot of this can come down to semantics though, i.e. what exactly are the gifts? When we say they have ceased do we only mean partially or completely? If they are still in operation are they expected to have 100% effectiveness? Etc.

Good questions for sure, but I'm not sure we will ever be able to fully grasp such things in detail and intellectual understanding the way we long to. At least not on this earth.

God made His salvation relatively simple to understand, however, this by no means indicates that we worship a simple God whose ways and methods we can ever dream to fully comprehend.