why cessationism is wrong: good article
- Thread starter convallaria
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
Just one? Tough choice. Okay. I pick Francis Schaeffer.
You really don't read much, do you? I've read so many inspired books (knowledge
) written usually in the last 200 years, that I have no idea why you think they don't exist.
Not much for even reading anything on the thread you chose to respond to either, hunh? I already showed one event on this thread. You really don't read much, do you?
Yup, JYO indeed, not based on anything. No books, no reading anything anyone else said, straight up just your opinion. How are you going to change your mind when you haven't even figure out someone already showed a prophetic gift and even published volumes of his insight, when you refuse to read anything to gain knowledge?
I seriously doubt my proof will change your mind, because it's closed tighter than the International Space Station?
You really don't read much, do you? I've read so many inspired books (knowledge
) written usually in the last 200 years, that I have no idea why you think they don't exist.Not much for even reading anything on the thread you chose to respond to either, hunh? I already showed one event on this thread. You really don't read much, do you?
Yup, JYO indeed, not based on anything. No books, no reading anything anyone else said, straight up just your opinion. How are you going to change your mind when you haven't even figure out someone already showed a prophetic gift and even published volumes of his insight, when you refuse to read anything to gain knowledge?
I seriously doubt my proof will change your mind, because it's closed tighter than the International Space Station?
I haven't really seen anyone deal with the full context of 1 Cor. 13:8-12 specifically the phrase "face to face".
What does face to face have to do with completed canon?
If we look back in scripture regarding the phrase "face to face", it has been "face to face" with a person, with God or with an angelic being.
Gen. 32:30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.
Ex. 33:11 The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend . . . .
Num. 14:14 And they will tell the inhabitants of this land about it. They have already heard that you, LORD, are with these people and that you, LORD, have been seen face to face, that you cloud stays over them . . . . .
Deut. 5:4 The LORD spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain . . .
Deut. 34:10 Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face . . . .
etc., etc., etc.
Scripture is not to be "of any private interpretation" (there's that word idios again meaning one's own) so therefore scripture must interpret itself. Scripture with scripture . . . .
2 John 1:12 I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk to you face to face, so that our joy may be complete. (also 3 John 13)
Acts 25:16 as in . . . . faced their accusers
"face" means "face, countenance, presence, person - so until we see someone or something come that is "complete in perfection" and see "face to face"; we remain "knowing in part". Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known . . . . Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is. . . . .
What does face to face have to do with completed canon?
If we look back in scripture regarding the phrase "face to face", it has been "face to face" with a person, with God or with an angelic being.
Gen. 32:30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.
Ex. 33:11 The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend . . . .
Num. 14:14 And they will tell the inhabitants of this land about it. They have already heard that you, LORD, are with these people and that you, LORD, have been seen face to face, that you cloud stays over them . . . . .
Deut. 5:4 The LORD spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain . . .
Deut. 34:10 Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face . . . .
etc., etc., etc.
Scripture is not to be "of any private interpretation" (there's that word idios again meaning one's own) so therefore scripture must interpret itself. Scripture with scripture . . . .
2 John 1:12 I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk to you face to face, so that our joy may be complete. (also 3 John 13)
Acts 25:16 as in . . . . faced their accusers
"face" means "face, countenance, presence, person - so until we see someone or something come that is "complete in perfection" and see "face to face"; we remain "knowing in part". Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known . . . . Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is. . . . .
Sir, there are many examples of the spirituals gifts still in action throughout the writings of the early Church fathers of the 2nd & 3rd centuries a.d. Many during this time would not boast of the miraculous due to the intense persecution that they faced during this period. The last thing they wanted to do was to incite the wrath of a Roman Emperor who percieved himself to be a god.
For starters, after 70 A.D. both Jews and Christians faced intense persecution. The Church was an underground operation that did everything possible not to draw attention to itself.
Second, as persecution began to die down, the entity that calls itself the "Orthodox Church" of the era began to embrace Amillennialism which clearly taught against and supressed the use of the gifts of the Spirit.
If you would take time to study the writings of the early Church fathers, you will find many instances where the gifts of the Holy Spirit were still in operation.
I am rather taken back by the amount of people who are willing to embrace a doctrine that has been clearly built and thrives upon the people's unwillingness to educate themselves.
Second, as persecution began to die down, the entity that calls itself the "Orthodox Church" of the era began to embrace Amillennialism which clearly taught against and supressed the use of the gifts of the Spirit.
If you would take time to study the writings of the early Church fathers, you will find many instances where the gifts of the Holy Spirit were still in operation.
I am rather taken back by the amount of people who are willing to embrace a doctrine that has been clearly built and thrives upon the people's unwillingness to educate themselves.
E
ok this is not logical
why would someone assume that Christ is the perfect when He had ALREADY come?
if you state when He comes AGAIN? yeah, that starts to make sense and also lines up with the passage in that knowledge (forget tongues and prophecy for a minute) has not ceased!
tongues are associated with knowlege and prophecy, so we see them together here in a manner that suggests the ceasing will begin when the perfect...God's kingdom...comes
I have no understanding why cessationists insist that we think the perfect means Jesus
E
this also makes no sense whatsoever
his gift was fading? you mean like a pair of old jeans? come on!
what you are really saying, is that the Holy Spirit was fading and I guess to some He might be because y'all forget Him often enough
cessationists need to begin to understand that without the Spirit of God they have nothing, nada, zip, zero, rien, and a big balloon with the skin off.
all believers are sealed by the Holy Spirit at conversion
In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, Eph 1:13
Why are you saved? Is it YOUR doing? How is it recorded that you are saved? How does the devil know you no longer belong to him?
BECAUSE you are SEALED with...what now? ... your faith? NO!! THE HOLY SPIRIT and he is supposed to remain active in your life as a believer...not pushed to the side and sometimes outright denied
his gift was fading? you mean like a pair of old jeans? come on!
what you are really saying, is that the Holy Spirit was fading and I guess to some He might be because y'all forget Him often enough
cessationists need to begin to understand that without the Spirit of God they have nothing, nada, zip, zero, rien, and a big balloon with the skin off.
all believers are sealed by the Holy Spirit at conversion
In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, Eph 1:13
Why are you saved? Is it YOUR doing? How is it recorded that you are saved? How does the devil know you no longer belong to him?
BECAUSE you are SEALED with...what now? ... your faith? NO!! THE HOLY SPIRIT and he is supposed to remain active in your life as a believer...not pushed to the side and sometimes outright denied
Just one? Tough choice. Okay. I pick Francis Schaeffer.
You really don't read much, do you? I've read so many inspired books (knowledge) written usually in the last 200 years, that I have no idea why you think they don't exist.
Not much for even reading anything on the thread you chose to respond to either, hunh? I already showed one event on this thread. You really don't read much, do you?
Yup, JYO indeed, not based on anything. No books, no reading anything anyone else said, straight up just your opinion. How are you going to change your mind when you haven't even figure out someone already showed a prophetic gift and even published volumes of his insight, when you refuse to read anything to gain knowledge?
I seriously doubt my proof will change your mind, because it's closed tighter than the International Space Station?
You really don't read much, do you? I've read so many inspired books (knowledge
) written usually in the last 200 years, that I have no idea why you think they don't exist.Not much for even reading anything on the thread you chose to respond to either, hunh? I already showed one event on this thread. You really don't read much, do you?
Yup, JYO indeed, not based on anything. No books, no reading anything anyone else said, straight up just your opinion. How are you going to change your mind when you haven't even figure out someone already showed a prophetic gift and even published volumes of his insight, when you refuse to read anything to gain knowledge?
I seriously doubt my proof will change your mind, because it's closed tighter than the International Space Station?
H
Making general claims about church history can be difficult. So I probably shouldn't have categorically said that most of the sign gifts disappeared most of the last 1900 years of church history. The issue is complex enough that it deserves more than that.
You're completely right that there are many different periods in church history where people claim that these gifts were active. When I try to evaluate these claims (or evidence of activity), I fit them into one of three categories:
1) Third-person, friendly historical claims (for instance, someone today who has a vested interest in believing that the gifts were always active claims that they were active in the 2nd century, etc.);
2) Third-person, unfriendly claims (for instance, in the early church, pagans sometimes conceded to Christian apologists that, yes, Christians in fact were casting out demons);
3) First-person, friendly 'personal-experience' claims or straight-up observational evidence (an example of observational evidence: I have seen that John Knox prophesied in print that the queen would die suddenly before x months, and I have confirmed that it happened just as he said it would; an example of personal-experience claims: all the people who say that they personally have spoken in tongues, have been healed by such-and-such pastor, etc.).
In and of themselves, each of these types of evidence varies in strength. When pagans were conceding to apologists that Christians were casting out demons in the early church, for instance, that's a fairly compelling reason to believe that this was still happening at that time. That is much more compelling, for instance, than if someone tells me they know this still happens from personal experience. Unlike the pagan, they're much more likely to want to believe what they're saying and, so, wishful thinking, etc., may affect their judgement. (Of course, they may be spot on, too. So they aren't discounted out-of-hand. It is just that they get less of the benefit of the doubt than an enemy of Christ who has to concede something he'd refute in a heartbeat, supposing he could.)
In addition to this, there's another thing we have to keep in mind when evaluating miracle claims. (I'm including predictive prophesy and tongue-speaking as 'miracles'.) In particular, we know from Scripture that false and very deceptive miracles were prophesied -- so deceptive they would almost persuade the elect. This tells us that (a) it is possible that a compelling case could be made for false miracles and (b) that we ought to be on-guard against getting duped. As for being on-guard against being duped? Our only safety on this front is to put Biblical theology before miracles, and to put the theology of miracle-workers on trial as much as their miracles. If the miracles are used to support theological error, then I automatically discount them as coming from the Spirit of God (aka, the "Spirit of Truth").
With that background in mind, I tend to discount most miracle claims throughout church history -- though not all. I'm not quick to discount ones directly performed by God, for instance. If we pray for someone to be healed, and they're healed, give God the glory. I do, however, believe it is prudent for Christians to take a default skeptical stance -- initially, at least -- toward any claim that a person laid hands on people and healed them, cast out a demon, etc., while yet remaining open to the evidence. In a few cases at different times in church history, I think the evidence is actually sufficient to think the supposed miracle is probably genuine. They fit into those periods I mentioned above.
As for the specific events you mentioned: The Welsh Revival, Jonathan Edwards, Azusa Street, and the Jesus Movement. Jonathan Edwards is perhaps my favorite theologian, and I've read his works extensively. He dealt with ecstasies and elevated emotional states in the members of his church and community, but I don't know of any evidence that the miraculous gifts were in play at that time. As for the other revivals/movements: I only know a little about them by hearsay, and I don't know enough about the theology that went with them to really evaluate them carefully.
I don't believe that every instance of God revealing Himself to someone in ancient times was revealed to us. We know, for instance, that prior to any Scripture being written God communicated to some people in visions, in dreams, and in "sundry" other manners (Heb. 1:1).
"Now a thing was secretly brought to me, and mine ear received a little thereof. In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men, fear came upon me.... Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair on my flesh stood up: it stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: ... and I heard a voice, saying, Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?" (Job 4:12-17)
But we also know that Satan and his demons deceive people with communications, as well. And false religions have sprung up all around the globe, many of them sharing some features with the truth. (Satan is, after all, a great counterfeiter.) So, while I can't entirely discount the claim that very early in history God revealed Himself to some people in the far east, I think there are decent reasons to be skeptical that we can know that He revealed Himself to some people there simply because the name of one of their gods resembles the name of God and possibly even has an overlapping meaning. In fact, if their 'god' had a Satanic character, it would be just as possible that Satan wanted to receive the praise and glory of God and, as a result, "revealed" himself to pagans under similar names and attributes. This is especially the case because divine revelation has been progressive, and the earlier we go in history (after the fall), the less specific his revelation was. So it would be surprising if He was giving His exact name to people in the far east. Notice in the quotation from the book of Job above that Eliphaz (speaking) said "I could not discern the form [of the spirit]." I take this to be a confirmation that -- even in a clear case of a divine revelation at that point in history -- the revelation was murky, unclear, and deficient. Which is why revelation became more and more clear until we finally had the completed canon of Scripture -- everything we need, clearly laid out for us.
The miraculous gifts of the Spirit are gifts that come from God. As such, they are gifts that will only be given if they are, in God's judgement, going to give Him more glory than not giving them. God, after all, does all things for His own glory.
Now, if this is right and it is also true that the miraculous gifts were used to authenticate leaders at periods of radical change in the history of redemption, then here's the question we should be asking:
Q. Now that the canon is complete and we are in the final major period of the history of redemption (besides, possibly, the millennium), which of the following gives God more glory: (a) people converting because they have seen a sign and believe God is speaking in the Bible because His people are miracle workers, or (b) people converting because they hear God speaking in the Scripture and receive its teachings by faith?
I think option (b) harmonizes with Scripture better than option (a). God does not, in general, seek to satisfy a generation that seeks signs or requires signs and miracles to believe. Even when Christ was walking the earth and performing miracles around every corner, there were people who loved signs and miracles too much for His taste. And he called a generation that seeks signs "wicked". And so on. Meanwhile, the simplicity of faith that simply hears the voice of God in Scripture and humbly submits to it -- without all the fireworks -- is something where God is going to get all the glory. (Too often, when there are human miracle-workers involved, people give the individual too much credit and personality cults form, etc.)
Either way, if it is the case that God receives more glory when people believe without signs and wonders when we're in a stable period of the history of redemption, then that's why the current period would be without them.
Cases like this one in Africa are interesting - especially since they are consistent with the Biblical use of tongues as real languages and used for communication. If the miracles are legit and the theology taught is orthodox and Biblical, then I would probably lean towards this explanation: these miracles can accompany the expansion of Christianity to regions where it hasn't been before because, in a sense, Pentecost is only just happening in those regions now. But once the Gospel has made inroads and Scripture has been established as the word of God, we should expect these signs and wonders to become less and less common until people are completely satisfied by the Word of God alone. Something like that is how I would probably fit it into my systematic theology. But I would be open to hearing arguments for other options.
You're completely right that there are many different periods in church history where people claim that these gifts were active. When I try to evaluate these claims (or evidence of activity), I fit them into one of three categories:
1) Third-person, friendly historical claims (for instance, someone today who has a vested interest in believing that the gifts were always active claims that they were active in the 2nd century, etc.);
2) Third-person, unfriendly claims (for instance, in the early church, pagans sometimes conceded to Christian apologists that, yes, Christians in fact were casting out demons);
3) First-person, friendly 'personal-experience' claims or straight-up observational evidence (an example of observational evidence: I have seen that John Knox prophesied in print that the queen would die suddenly before x months, and I have confirmed that it happened just as he said it would; an example of personal-experience claims: all the people who say that they personally have spoken in tongues, have been healed by such-and-such pastor, etc.).
In and of themselves, each of these types of evidence varies in strength. When pagans were conceding to apologists that Christians were casting out demons in the early church, for instance, that's a fairly compelling reason to believe that this was still happening at that time. That is much more compelling, for instance, than if someone tells me they know this still happens from personal experience. Unlike the pagan, they're much more likely to want to believe what they're saying and, so, wishful thinking, etc., may affect their judgement. (Of course, they may be spot on, too. So they aren't discounted out-of-hand. It is just that they get less of the benefit of the doubt than an enemy of Christ who has to concede something he'd refute in a heartbeat, supposing he could.)
In addition to this, there's another thing we have to keep in mind when evaluating miracle claims. (I'm including predictive prophesy and tongue-speaking as 'miracles'.) In particular, we know from Scripture that false and very deceptive miracles were prophesied -- so deceptive they would almost persuade the elect. This tells us that (a) it is possible that a compelling case could be made for false miracles and (b) that we ought to be on-guard against getting duped. As for being on-guard against being duped? Our only safety on this front is to put Biblical theology before miracles, and to put the theology of miracle-workers on trial as much as their miracles. If the miracles are used to support theological error, then I automatically discount them as coming from the Spirit of God (aka, the "Spirit of Truth").
With that background in mind, I tend to discount most miracle claims throughout church history -- though not all. I'm not quick to discount ones directly performed by God, for instance. If we pray for someone to be healed, and they're healed, give God the glory. I do, however, believe it is prudent for Christians to take a default skeptical stance -- initially, at least -- toward any claim that a person laid hands on people and healed them, cast out a demon, etc., while yet remaining open to the evidence. In a few cases at different times in church history, I think the evidence is actually sufficient to think the supposed miracle is probably genuine. They fit into those periods I mentioned above.
As for the specific events you mentioned: The Welsh Revival, Jonathan Edwards, Azusa Street, and the Jesus Movement. Jonathan Edwards is perhaps my favorite theologian, and I've read his works extensively. He dealt with ecstasies and elevated emotional states in the members of his church and community, but I don't know of any evidence that the miraculous gifts were in play at that time. As for the other revivals/movements: I only know a little about them by hearsay, and I don't know enough about the theology that went with them to really evaluate them carefully.
I don't believe that every instance of God revealing Himself to someone in ancient times was revealed to us. We know, for instance, that prior to any Scripture being written God communicated to some people in visions, in dreams, and in "sundry" other manners (Heb. 1:1).
"Now a thing was secretly brought to me, and mine ear received a little thereof. In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men, fear came upon me.... Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair on my flesh stood up: it stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: ... and I heard a voice, saying, Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?" (Job 4:12-17)
But we also know that Satan and his demons deceive people with communications, as well. And false religions have sprung up all around the globe, many of them sharing some features with the truth. (Satan is, after all, a great counterfeiter.) So, while I can't entirely discount the claim that very early in history God revealed Himself to some people in the far east, I think there are decent reasons to be skeptical that we can know that He revealed Himself to some people there simply because the name of one of their gods resembles the name of God and possibly even has an overlapping meaning. In fact, if their 'god' had a Satanic character, it would be just as possible that Satan wanted to receive the praise and glory of God and, as a result, "revealed" himself to pagans under similar names and attributes. This is especially the case because divine revelation has been progressive, and the earlier we go in history (after the fall), the less specific his revelation was. So it would be surprising if He was giving His exact name to people in the far east. Notice in the quotation from the book of Job above that Eliphaz (speaking) said "I could not discern the form [of the spirit]." I take this to be a confirmation that -- even in a clear case of a divine revelation at that point in history -- the revelation was murky, unclear, and deficient. Which is why revelation became more and more clear until we finally had the completed canon of Scripture -- everything we need, clearly laid out for us.
The miraculous gifts of the Spirit are gifts that come from God. As such, they are gifts that will only be given if they are, in God's judgement, going to give Him more glory than not giving them. God, after all, does all things for His own glory.
Now, if this is right and it is also true that the miraculous gifts were used to authenticate leaders at periods of radical change in the history of redemption, then here's the question we should be asking:
Q. Now that the canon is complete and we are in the final major period of the history of redemption (besides, possibly, the millennium), which of the following gives God more glory: (a) people converting because they have seen a sign and believe God is speaking in the Bible because His people are miracle workers, or (b) people converting because they hear God speaking in the Scripture and receive its teachings by faith?
I think option (b) harmonizes with Scripture better than option (a). God does not, in general, seek to satisfy a generation that seeks signs or requires signs and miracles to believe. Even when Christ was walking the earth and performing miracles around every corner, there were people who loved signs and miracles too much for His taste. And he called a generation that seeks signs "wicked". And so on. Meanwhile, the simplicity of faith that simply hears the voice of God in Scripture and humbly submits to it -- without all the fireworks -- is something where God is going to get all the glory. (Too often, when there are human miracle-workers involved, people give the individual too much credit and personality cults form, etc.)
Either way, if it is the case that God receives more glory when people believe without signs and wonders when we're in a stable period of the history of redemption, then that's why the current period would be without them.
Cases like this one in Africa are interesting - especially since they are consistent with the Biblical use of tongues as real languages and used for communication. If the miracles are legit and the theology taught is orthodox and Biblical, then I would probably lean towards this explanation: these miracles can accompany the expansion of Christianity to regions where it hasn't been before because, in a sense, Pentecost is only just happening in those regions now. But once the Gospel has made inroads and Scripture has been established as the word of God, we should expect these signs and wonders to become less and less common until people are completely satisfied by the Word of God alone. Something like that is how I would probably fit it into my systematic theology. But I would be open to hearing arguments for other options.
A
Whoa, dude! You're missing some great reads. He was a Christian philosopher of the 20th century. He and Koop (former Surgeon General, but that's the least of who he was and this was before that) made a documentary refuting all of Carl Sagan's Cosmos. He told where we were heading before we got here. It was prophetic, but he knew because he knew the nature of Man apart from God. Really cool, yet disturbing, stuff. Try How Should We Then Live? to start to know who he is.
A
I'm not sure how much space we get to post something, but I suspect not enough to include your words plus my response. AND today is a day for being outside a lot, so I refuse to spend this beautiful afternoon responding point by point. (Not that I won't respond point-by-point. I will. I'm just saying this is going to take a lot of time. lol)
So, keep checking back to see my response. Don't, until tomorrow. (Tomorrow is our Sabbath this week -- we go by an odd schedule. Long story, but we do follow the Sabbath as best we can given our circumstances. lol) I suspect my first response to the first part has to wait until late tonight or tomorrow morning depending on when I can sleep and when I'm wide awake enough to respond. If you'd prefer, knowing you've got a hectic schedule, I can just PM you again when I finally done responding, so you know to come back. Which would you prefer?
So, keep checking back to see my response. Don't, until tomorrow. (Tomorrow is our Sabbath this week -- we go by an odd schedule. Long story, but we do follow the Sabbath as best we can given our circumstances. lol) I suspect my first response to the first part has to wait until late tonight or tomorrow morning depending on when I can sleep and when I'm wide awake enough to respond. If you'd prefer, knowing you've got a hectic schedule, I can just PM you again when I finally done responding, so you know to come back. Which would you prefer?
