I know more about Pentecostal history than the average Pentecostal. Judging by the way you spelled Parham's name, I'd venture to guess I could possibly know more about it than you do.
If you are Reformed, you will probably consider Pentecostal theology not to be 'theologically sound' since it has not historically been Reformed.
Cessationism is not theologically sound. It contradicts scripture. That's the real issue, what scripture teaches. You are getting sidetracked by focusing on Pentecostal history, since that is not the real issue. I suspect you have read a selective presentation of Pentecostal history. If you read about slanders or accusations against ministers, conflicts between people, or individual's sins, you may come away with that perspective. But if you read about individuals who poured out their lives for the Gospel, miracles and healings, and large numbers of people won for Christ, you may have another perspective.
The Bible also teaches that God can communicate through dreams. It doesn't mention pizza, but it does warn that some prophesy from their own hearts. Do you accept what the scripture teaches on this issue?
Rejecting all dreams is not testing the spirits. That disbodience to the command, just as accepting all dreams as being from God would be.
The Bible doesn't mention the doctrine of sufficiency, not the type you mention. II Timothy says that all scripture is is given that the man of God may be fully equipped. It does NOT say that scripture is all that is given that the man of God may be fully equipped.
Maybe some cessationists suffer from a form of theological dylexia that causes them to mix up words when they read the passage.
Scripture enables the man of God to be fully equipped. But it is clearly not all a man needs to be fully equipped. one also needs the things the Bible teaches about-- like having the Holy Spirit for example. If one has scripture, but not faith, he is not fully equipped.
What if if Jesus wore a white tunic under his robe? Do you think that would mean he couldn't heal?
Jesus healed one person at the pool who was waiting for the water to stir, instead of healing all of them. Would you call Him a monster?
The issue is whether the Bible teaches that God gives gifts to the church, not Benny Hinn.
Reference to what? Spiritual gifts? What authors are you reading that assert this. I find it unfortunate, if not disigenuous that some of the authors who write on the subject write that there is no evidence of spiritual gifts after the first century. That is dishonest. If the person did not bother to dig into history before he wrote, it's dishonest to make a blanket statement and to act like an expert who knows what he is talking about. If he did read church history on the matter, and lied about saying there were no references to I Corinthians 12 gifts, then that's dishonest.
There is a lot of evidence for healing, miracles, prophecy, and other spiritual gifts after the first century. There is also a fair amount of evidence for speaking in tongues, not an overwhelming amount when compared to prophecy.
It's strange to me to read authors who condemn modern spiritual gifts as Montanism or who quote Benjamin Warfield, and yet claim there were no spiritual gifts after the first century. If you actually read historical criticisms of Montanism, for example in Eusebius' History of Church, the second-century opponents of Montanism clearly endorse the contemporary use of prophecy in the church, and argue that what Montanus had was not the real thing. Eusebius even refers to a debate between a member of the church and a Montanist after Montanus had died. The member of the church argued that Montanus prophecy had died out, while the apostle argued that prophecy would continue until the Lord returned. Cessationism is the new doctrine, not the historical doctrine of the church.
Ireneaus wrote of brethren prophesying, having foreknowledge, speaking in tongues, casting out demons and raising the dead in his own day. B.B. Warfield tried to argue that Ireneaus may have assumed these things were still continuing because when he was young, some of the folks whom the apostles had laid hands on may have still been doing these things, and he may have heard of it. Those who refer to Warfield to support cessationism should at least look up the histories he refers to. Warfield came up with a lame reason (that contradicts Acts) to support a theory that gifts died out after those the apostles laid their hands on died out.
This theory comes from cherry picking some scriptures and ignoring others. Not only did the apostles do miracles. Stephen and Philip weren't apostles. So miracles weren't solely to verify Christ and the apostles. Miracles affirmed the message. Non-apostles could work miracles, too, like Stephen and Philip, as they preached the same Gospel to unbelievers.
This theory also ignores I Corinthians 12, which shows the working of miracles among gifts given to individuals in the body as the Spirit wills in order to profit withal. Then Paul talks about members of the body ministering to one another. So spiritual gifts are also given to build up the body.
Some of the cessationists are dispensationalists and see the two witnesses, who prophesy and work miracles, as yet in the future. There is no justification for saying the gifts ceased but will be restarted again in the future.
Regarding healing Timothy's stomach, it's a weak argument. Belief in healing doesn't mean we don't take some practical precautions for our health. But if you study carefully, Paul likely had an eye illness that led him to the Galatians, probably before the Jerusalem council. Galatians is probably Paul's first epistle. If you go with a later date, he went to Galatia at least by Acts 16. His illness led him to first go to Galatia, so that's still early by comparison.
So Paul, already a miracle worker, had some kind of infirmity BEFORE all those great miracles in Ephesus and other cities. And late in Acts, Paul healed all the sick brought to him on Malta. There is no good reason to assume healing gradually faded away. Paul had an infirmity early on. Timothy had to be concerned with his health later in the century. If the prescense of illness proved cessationism, why would Paul have had an infirmity early on.
That contradicts Paul's instruction to Timothy to stir up the gift that was in him by the laying on of Paul's hands in II Timothy 1. Also, the gifts were necessary for John to receive the revelation written in the Book of Revelation. The spectacular nature of that book also argues against the idea that gifts gradually died out.
If you are Reformed, you will probably consider Pentecostal theology not to be 'theologically sound' since it has not historically been Reformed.
Cessationism is not theologically sound. It contradicts scripture. That's the real issue, what scripture teaches. You are getting sidetracked by focusing on Pentecostal history, since that is not the real issue. I suspect you have read a selective presentation of Pentecostal history. If you read about slanders or accusations against ministers, conflicts between people, or individual's sins, you may come away with that perspective. But if you read about individuals who poured out their lives for the Gospel, miracles and healings, and large numbers of people won for Christ, you may have another perspective.
The Bible also teaches that God can communicate through dreams. It doesn't mention pizza, but it does warn that some prophesy from their own hearts. Do you accept what the scripture teaches on this issue?
Rejecting all dreams is not testing the spirits. That disbodience to the command, just as accepting all dreams as being from God would be.
The Bible doesn't mention the doctrine of sufficiency, not the type you mention. II Timothy says that all scripture is is given that the man of God may be fully equipped. It does NOT say that scripture is all that is given that the man of God may be fully equipped.
Maybe some cessationists suffer from a form of theological dylexia that causes them to mix up words when they read the passage.
Scripture enables the man of God to be fully equipped. But it is clearly not all a man needs to be fully equipped. one also needs the things the Bible teaches about-- like having the Holy Spirit for example. If one has scripture, but not faith, he is not fully equipped.
What if if Jesus wore a white tunic under his robe? Do you think that would mean he couldn't heal?
Jesus healed one person at the pool who was waiting for the water to stir, instead of healing all of them. Would you call Him a monster?
The issue is whether the Bible teaches that God gives gifts to the church, not Benny Hinn.
Reference to what? Spiritual gifts? What authors are you reading that assert this. I find it unfortunate, if not disigenuous that some of the authors who write on the subject write that there is no evidence of spiritual gifts after the first century. That is dishonest. If the person did not bother to dig into history before he wrote, it's dishonest to make a blanket statement and to act like an expert who knows what he is talking about. If he did read church history on the matter, and lied about saying there were no references to I Corinthians 12 gifts, then that's dishonest.
There is a lot of evidence for healing, miracles, prophecy, and other spiritual gifts after the first century. There is also a fair amount of evidence for speaking in tongues, not an overwhelming amount when compared to prophecy.
It's strange to me to read authors who condemn modern spiritual gifts as Montanism or who quote Benjamin Warfield, and yet claim there were no spiritual gifts after the first century. If you actually read historical criticisms of Montanism, for example in Eusebius' History of Church, the second-century opponents of Montanism clearly endorse the contemporary use of prophecy in the church, and argue that what Montanus had was not the real thing. Eusebius even refers to a debate between a member of the church and a Montanist after Montanus had died. The member of the church argued that Montanus prophecy had died out, while the apostle argued that prophecy would continue until the Lord returned. Cessationism is the new doctrine, not the historical doctrine of the church.
Ireneaus wrote of brethren prophesying, having foreknowledge, speaking in tongues, casting out demons and raising the dead in his own day. B.B. Warfield tried to argue that Ireneaus may have assumed these things were still continuing because when he was young, some of the folks whom the apostles had laid hands on may have still been doing these things, and he may have heard of it. Those who refer to Warfield to support cessationism should at least look up the histories he refers to. Warfield came up with a lame reason (that contradicts Acts) to support a theory that gifts died out after those the apostles laid their hands on died out.
This theory comes from cherry picking some scriptures and ignoring others. Not only did the apostles do miracles. Stephen and Philip weren't apostles. So miracles weren't solely to verify Christ and the apostles. Miracles affirmed the message. Non-apostles could work miracles, too, like Stephen and Philip, as they preached the same Gospel to unbelievers.
This theory also ignores I Corinthians 12, which shows the working of miracles among gifts given to individuals in the body as the Spirit wills in order to profit withal. Then Paul talks about members of the body ministering to one another. So spiritual gifts are also given to build up the body.
Some of the cessationists are dispensationalists and see the two witnesses, who prophesy and work miracles, as yet in the future. There is no justification for saying the gifts ceased but will be restarted again in the future.
Regarding healing Timothy's stomach, it's a weak argument. Belief in healing doesn't mean we don't take some practical precautions for our health. But if you study carefully, Paul likely had an eye illness that led him to the Galatians, probably before the Jerusalem council. Galatians is probably Paul's first epistle. If you go with a later date, he went to Galatia at least by Acts 16. His illness led him to first go to Galatia, so that's still early by comparison.
So Paul, already a miracle worker, had some kind of infirmity BEFORE all those great miracles in Ephesus and other cities. And late in Acts, Paul healed all the sick brought to him on Malta. There is no good reason to assume healing gradually faded away. Paul had an infirmity early on. Timothy had to be concerned with his health later in the century. If the prescense of illness proved cessationism, why would Paul have had an infirmity early on.
That contradicts Paul's instruction to Timothy to stir up the gift that was in him by the laying on of Paul's hands in II Timothy 1. Also, the gifts were necessary for John to receive the revelation written in the Book of Revelation. The spectacular nature of that book also argues against the idea that gifts gradually died out.