Is cessation an observation or theology?

[biblestudent78]

No I'm not. If you use AI it only provides the response to your in put. Then you use it to correct what you input earlier to formulate the argument. You still said this:

"These authors openly state that their interpretation is modern, not ancient." in context to the gift of the Holy Spirit manifestation. Now you say :

"The scholars you listed are not the foundation of my argument, nor do they “validate my perspective.”

Also this is not your original idea or response :

"That’s illustrative: it exposes an internal inconsistency in the position you’re defending. But the foundation of my argument is not, “Fee says so, therefore it’s true”; it’s Scripture’s own doctrine of preservation, the Greek and Hebrew text, the NT’s use of the Septuagint, and the historical transmission of the canon."

WE are not fooled guy.

All these eternal arguments illustrate one deeply sad reality. We only want to relate to God in accordance with our theology. We are satisfied only when we can conceptualize a God who validates our personal preconceptions ancient theologies.

We define "truth" as a precast scripted collections of unique "insights" in the scriptures handed down to us by "smart men."

IMHO, that is not what truth is. Truth was never the path. Jesus is the only "truth" we need. What we should be arguing about is what life change is going on in our lives as a result of our continuous conversion. Endlessly arguing the jots and tiddles of the "law" that we now define as "the will of God" is a living denial of what Christianity is about. We are not saved by out panoply of competing theologies. We are not saved by our unique take on a religious system or our unique knowledge.

Truth is the creation of a new people, living, breathing, serving, loving, sacrificing people and people that reject partisanship, theological abstractions and all creeds, catechisms and statements of faith as they are all attempts to connect to the current theology of the day. We are not transformed by the power of our theology. We are either transformed by submitting to Jesus example of loving, sacrificial and committed service to God and our neighbors or we can sit at our computers and feel justified by our argumentations in defense of our theological heritages while the poor remain poor, the hungry remain hungry, the widows and orphans scratch out life as before. The sick go untouched and prayed over. We build airconditioned concrete cathedrals with our money to isolate us from God's call, to pretend true worship is only available in my denomination. But we live in terror of Matthew 25 so we pretend playing "religion" is a blood sport supported by God who will eventually pick a winner from a ocean of competitors while billions die unloved and unserved and unable to see God's real work in the world while we fight each other.

 

[pinebeach]

According to Scripture, the question “is cessation an observation or a theology?” is answered by the fact that doctrine is built on what the text says (2 Timothy 3:16), not on personal testimony or rhetorical pressure, and the attempt to claim that my refusal to abandon a textual argument for a biographical interview “discredits” me is exactly what James 4:11–12 forbids—placing yourself in the seat of the judge—while Proverbs warns that multiplying accusations instead of addressing the actual point is the behavior of one who “meddles with strife not belonging to him” (Proverbs 26:17), meaning the issue is Scripture’s teaching, not your assessment of my “credit.”

You have a problem with the truth. YOU said I was discrediting you. I never said anything in that direction.

Have you ever taught actual students? If so, did you answer all their questions with false accusations?

I don't know who you really are, but I am wondering if I will also be falsely accused of attacking you and discrediting you by asking if you ever taught actual students

Again, no way to prove a thing about you and for some reason you seem to believe that an unknown name, yours, is proof of your cred when really, almost everyone is fiine with whatever name they decide to use on a public forum where personal info is generally discouraged.

People have real and honest questions and you pull the 5th. In an actual court you would have to admit to who you are and in the case of someone saying Dr or Professor or similar, there would be proof. This is just the court of public opinion. I don't find you to
be a credible teacher of scripture and that is my perogative so constanly presenting me with your version of understanding means nothing.

 

[OMC]

You have a problem with the truth. YOU said I was discrediting you. I never said anything in that direction.

Have you ever taught actual students? If so, did you answer all their questions with false accusations?

I don't know who you really are, but I am wondering if I will also be falsely accused of attacking you and discrediting you by asking if you ever taught actual students

Again, no way to prove a thing about you and for some reason you seem to believe that an unknown name, yours, is proof of your cred when really, almost everyone is fiine with whatever name they decide to use on a public forum where personal info is generally discouraged.

People have real and honest questions and you pull the 5th. In an actual court you would have to admit to who you are and in the case of someone saying Dr or Professor or similar, there would be proof. This is just the court of public opinion. I don't find you to
be a credible teacher of scripture and that is my perogative so constanly presenting me with your version of understanding means nothing.

"ps: I cannot discredit you unless you are already discredited. I mean, if you know who you are, surely your 'credit' is secure? How have your arrived at the conclusion this forum offers you some kind of credit?"

If that was not intended as an accusation then yes, I was mistaken and I apologize.
But, According to Scripture, credibility in teaching is measured by faithfulness to the Word (2 Timothy 2:15), not by supplying personal résumés on demand, and Jesus Himself warned that shifting a spiritual discussion into accusations about identity or status is a distraction from truth (John 7:17), so your questions deserve answers—but not on the terms of suspicion, personal interrogation, or the “court of public opinion,” because Scripture makes the content the test, not the teacher’s biography.

 

[pinebeach]

Inquisator
never had his question answered either which he asked before I interrupted. Here is his post to you with the question


Post 1360

Oh yes they did OMC.

1 Corinthians 12:4:10
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are
varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation
of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word
of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the
one Spirit, and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits,
to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.

You have understood the N.T from a purely intellectual and reason based perspective.

Unfortunately, you have declared the letter to the Corinthians as obsolete in holding that perspective.

You cannot hold to the canon of scripture without accepting 1 Corinthians as the Lord's instruction for the church.

It's one or the other OMC.

You are forced to accept the fruit, gifts, and ministries of the Holy Spirit, if you regard the N.T letters as canon.

Do you accept 1 Corinthians or not?

 

[pinebeach]

"ps: I cannot discredit you unless you are already discredited. I mean, if you know who you are, surely your 'credit' is secure? How have your arrived at the conclusion this forum offers you some kind of credit?"

If that was not intended as an accusation then yes, I was mistaken and I apologize.
But, According to Scripture, credibility in teaching is measured by faithfulness to the Word (2 Timothy 2:15), not by supplying personal résumés on demand, and Jesus Himself warned that shifting a spiritual discussion into accusations about identity or status is a distraction from truth (John 7:17), so your questions deserve answers—but not on the terms of suspicion, personal interrogation, or the “court of public opinion,” because Scripture makes the content the test, not the teacher’s biography.

Take a go at the other person who asked you a direct question you have not answered...the post above this one

I think it's obvious you refuse to answer my simple question.

 

[OMC]

Take a go at the other person who asked you a direct question you have not answered...the post above this one

I think it's obvious you refuse to answer my simple question.

#1361 was my answer

 

[Inquisitor]

When I say that a claim of ongoing physical supernatural manifestations must be tested, I am not inventing criteria—I am submitting to the criteria the apostles themselves gave. And here is the truth you are missing: the apostles never taught that the presence of the Spirit is proven by ongoing physical supernatural manifestations. They taught that the Spirit is known by truth, holiness, sobriety, love, sound doctrine, and obedience. They taught that the Spirit produces fruit, not spectacle. They taught that the Spirit empowers boldness, not theatrics. They taught that the Spirit reveals Christ, not the gifted individual. So when you say, “If a church does not have manifestations, something is wrong,” I must answer: that is the polar opposite of what the apostles actually said. Paul rebuked the Corinthians precisely because they equated manifestations with spirituality. He told them that tongues without understanding were childish. He told them that prophecy without order was confusion. He told them that love—not signs—is the greatest evidence of the Spirit. And he told them that the Spirit’s true work is discerned by whether Christ is exalted and the church is edified. So I cannot accept your criterion, because it is not the apostles’ criterion. The apostles operated under the Spirit’s power, yes—but they never made ongoing physical manifestations the test of a church’s legitimacy. They made truth, holiness, and sound doctrine the test. And by that test, many modern claims collapse before they ever reach the threshold of biblical examination.

When I used the word "manifestation" I meant that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were active in a church.

I did not mean "manifestation" in the sense that you assumed it to be.

Here is what you said.

They taught that the Spirit produces fruit, not spectacle. They taught that the Spirit empowers boldness, not theatrics.
They taught that the Spirit reveals Christ, not the gifted individual. So when you say, “If a church does not have
manifestations, something is wrong,” I must answer: that is the polar opposite of what the apostles actually said.

The evidence (the manifestation) of the gifts of the Holy Spirit!

The fruit, gifts, and ministries, are all supernatural and delivered by the Holy Spirit.

Now i will ask you some simple questions.

Would you ban prophecy in a chrch?

Would you ban speaking in tongues in a church?

 

[OMC]

Would you ban prophecy in a chrch?

Would you ban speaking in tongues in a church?

I cannot ban what God has permitted. Yet I also cannot allow confusion, manipulation, or emotional theatrics to parade themselves as the voice of the Spirit. Every prophetic word must be judged, weighed, and tested by Scripture itself, because the Spirit never contradicts the Word He inspired. If tongues are spoken publicly, they must be interpreted; if no interpreter is present, the speaker must remain silent in the assembly and speak to himself and to God.

 

[CS1]

Did you miss the point on purpose? The history of Christianity is one of ever evolving interpretation fueled division and "my way or the highway" on virtually every issue which you claim to be self evident. History is history. It is accessible in vast libraries in text and in data. No A.I. needed. You want to relitigate issues that have never brought agreement across the Christian community. Everyone claiming exclusive arguments and innovative insights, personal interpretations ect has only led Christianity down a divisive and now rapidly declining road.

As I have expressed over and over, if you want to claim that you personally have the gift of healing, interpretation of tongues and other special gifts of the Holy Spirit, then rejoice. Be glad. Thank God and do His will with the gifts He has given you. As even you recognize not everyone has these or other unique Holy Spirit granted gifts and all New Testament writers who address this reality recognize that not everyone has these same gifts.

Do you believe that you can argue that the special gifts of the Holy Spirit God has given you can be argued into someone else's life? Is that quest from argumentation part of your Holy Spirit gift? I hope not, because we are told to test those making claims of Holy Spirit Gifts. In 1st Thessalonians. In 1st John we are told "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." In first Corinthians Paul says "Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said." in 1st Corinthians 12:109 Paul also said, "Among the list of spiritual gifts provided to the church, Paul actually identifies a specific gift intended to evaluate others: the "distinguishing between spirits" (or the discernment of spirits), which is given to protect the church from false or misguided messages. Those speaking in tongues have others with the gift of interpreting those who do. Today's speaking in tongues have nobody with the gift of interpreting them as we now believe just the gift itself is a "sign" of some kind. That is not how Paul saw that process. He says that spiritual gifts are for the benefit of all. We are told to valuate the lifestyle and outcomes of the person using the gift. Thus, anyone claiming a special gift of the Holy Spirit must be willing to have their life examined to see if one's life is worthy of belief.

FYI the gift of the Holy Spirit are in the word of God. The context of Church history and it's birth is Acts chapter 2.
The normative of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit are seen and taught in 1Coritnians chapter 12 through 14.
Before the RCC, before Modern church empire . The "Church ." was empowered by the Spirit of God .

"As I have expressed over and over, if you want to claim that you personally have the gift of healing, interpretation of tongues and other special gifts of the Holy Spirit, then rejoice. Be glad."

As I have said and many others we have not claimed anything but that what is in the word of God is for today.

"Do you believe that you can argue that the special gifts of the Holy Spirit God has given you can be argued into someone else's life? Is that quest from argumentation part of your Holy Spirit gift? I hope not, because we are told to test those making claims of Holy Spirit Gifts."

I have not tried to do that, are you really reading what many have said here?

The context of ALL Gifts of the Holy Spirit are special and should be desired as the word of God says. IF you want them no problem. BUT, if you tech they are not for today or they have gone away or You have not seen them therefore they are no more OR that when the Bible was canonized the gifts were done away with is unbiblical.
And as far as testing Duh!!! the book of 1cortians says to do just that. It not that you are saying to test them. ITS Gods word that says that. Don't try to be come self-righteous. Ok.

 

[Inquisitor]

I cannot ban what God has permitted. Yet I also cannot allow confusion, manipulation, or emotional theatrics to parade themselves as the voice of the Spirit. Every prophetic word must be judged, weighed, and tested by Scripture itself, because the Spirit never contradicts the Word He inspired. If tongues are spoken publicly, they must be interpreted; if no interpreter is present, the speaker must remain silent in the assembly and speak to himself and to God.

What you stated is correct as per the scripture.

Next question.

Will you seek the higher gifts?

1 Corinthians 12:31
But eagerly desire the greater gifts.

 

[CS1]

All these eternal arguments illustrate one deeply sad reality. We only want to relate to God in accordance with our theology. We are satisfied only when we can conceptualize a God who validates our personal preconceptions ancient theologies.

We define "truth" as a precast scripted collections of unique "insights" in the scriptures handed down to us by "smart men."

IMHO, that is not what truth is. Truth was never the path. Jesus is the only "truth" we need. What we should be arguing about is what life change is going on in our lives as a result of our continuous conversion. Endlessly arguing the jots and tiddles of the "law" that we now define as "the will of God" is a living denial of what Christianity is about. We are not saved by out panoply of competing theologies. We are not saved by our unique take on a religious system or our unique knowledge.

Truth is the creation of a new people, living, breathing, serving, loving, sacrificing people and people that reject partisanship, theological abstractions and all creeds, catechisms and statements of faith as they are all attempts to connect to the current theology of the day. We are not transformed by the power of our theology. We are either transformed by submitting to Jesus example of loving, sacrificial and committed service to God and our neighbors or we can sit at our computers and feel justified by our argumentations in defense of our theological heritages while the poor remain poor, the hungry remain hungry, the widows and orphans scratch out life as before. The sick go untouched and prayed over. We build airconditioned concrete cathedrals with our money to isolate us from God's call, to pretend true worship is only available in my denomination. But we live in terror of Matthew 25 so we pretend playing "religion" is a blood sport supported by God who will eventually pick a winner from a ocean of competitors while billions die unloved and unserved and unable to see God's real work in the world while we fight each other.

Please, the only sad reality is the lies said by you and other about the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. You only want to control what you do not see in your own life or in your theology that you agree with. FYI the Spirit of God free us from the law Galatian chapter 5 teaches that.
We stand firm in the liberty were Christ has made us free. And not to be tangled up with the yoke of bondage of the law.

Now Salvation is only is Christ no one here has said the contrary. Another strawman.

 

[OMC]

What you stated is correct as per the scripture.

proof?

 

[OMC]

Will you seek the higher gifts?

1 Corinthians 12:31
But eagerly desire the greater gifts.

yes, Paul commands the saints to seek the “greater gifts,” but never as a ladder of superiority. The “greater gifts” are the ones that most edify the body, not the ones that most exalt the individual.

 

[biblestudent78]

I cannot ban what God has permitted. Yet I also cannot allow confusion, manipulation, or emotional theatrics to parade themselves as the voice of the Spirit. Every prophetic word must be judged, weighed, and tested by Scripture itself, because the Spirit never contradicts the Word He inspired. If tongues are spoken publicly, they must be interpreted; if no interpreter is present, the speaker must remain silent in the assembly and speak to himself and to God.

OMC:
I have attended a "Holy Spirit" Church service. I have experienced "Speaking in Tongues" but I did not see any attempt to by anyone to "interpret" those tongues. They arose after extensive singing and preaching. Once the first person started then speaking in tongues spread through the assembly. As the preaching continued so did the tongues and it was difficult for me to hear the preacher in the assembly of perhaps 300 people. The preacher seemed to accept the speaking in tongues as a form of personal praise of God which he later joined. I am sure the people there were sincere and felt edified. As a visitor who had never experienced a church service like that one, i was not uncomfortable. It seem to me to be a harmless environment. In some ways it is a form of liturgy. One one hand it is a structured process of connection to the divine. On the other hand it is almost like a secret handshake demonstrating you are part of the club. In any event, it is obviously an attempt to experience God outside just the cold intellectual dogma's of the broader Christian community

As a lifelong student of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, I could not find a biblical framework or practical value in that experience. I think you have made that point very will in your last response. Questioning the purpose of speaking in tongues as the only manifestation of a unique experience with the divine. It is an avenue of access to the divine that validates what people feel but has little harmony with the the broader practical focus and purpose of God's Word of reaching a world in desperate need of the knowledge of Jesus and His commandments and promises.

I have no doubt that those in attendance felt the opposite. It seemed to me that they believed this manifestation was a form of confirmation and validation of their faith. I have also attended a Catholic Mass and an Orthodox service. They all find a form of confirmation their faith through the liturgy of their service. It too is structured. It too leaves the visitor unaware of the processes and often secret meaning of their unique liturgy.

Conservative scholars recognize 3 "Great Awakenings" of Christianity in America, so say four. All of these resulted in great increases in attendance at all kinds of Churches. None relied on a "Holy Spirit" experience to validate themselves even though many converts experienced intense emotional response to the preaching of the Gospel. It seems to me that God has achieved His purposes of conversion without reliance on what today is called The Holy Ghost Experience.

 

[OMC]

proof?

“Forbid not to speak with tongues.” — 1 Cor 14:39 “Forbid not to prophesy.” — 1 Cor 14:39
God is not the author of confusion…” — 1 Cor 14:33 “Let all things be done decently and in order.” — 1 Cor 14:40
“Let the prophets speak… and let the other judge.” — 1 Cor 14:29 “Prove all things.” — 1 Thess 5:21 “Try the spirits…” — 1 John 4:1
“Let one interpret.” — 1 Cor 14:27
“If there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” — 1 Cor 14:28
i forgot to add those sorry

 

[OMC]

OMC:
I have attended a "Holy Spirit" Church service. I have experienced "Speaking in Tongues" but I did not see any attempt to by anyone to "interpret" those tongues. They arose after extensive singing and preaching. Once the first person started then speaking in tongues spread through the assembly. As the preaching continued so did the tongues and it was difficult for me to hear the preacher in the assembly of perhaps 300 people. The preacher seemed to accept the speaking in tongues as a form of personal praise of God which he later joined. I am sure the people there were sincere and felt edified. As a visitor who had never experienced a church service like that one, i was not uncomfortable. It seem to me to be a harmless environment. In some ways it is a form of liturgy. One one hand it is a structured process of connection to the divine. On the other hand it is almost like a secret handshake demonstrating you are part of the club. In any event, it is obviously an attempt to experience God outside just the cold intellectual dogma's of the broader Christian community

As a lifelong student of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, I could not find a biblical framework or practical value in that experience. I think you have made that point very will in your last response. Questioning the purpose of speaking in tongues as the only manifestation of a unique experience with the divine. It is an avenue of access to the divine that validates what people feel but has little harmony with the the broader practical focus and purpose of God's Word of reaching a world in desperate need of the knowledge of Jesus and His commandments and promises.

I have no doubt that those in attendance felt the opposite. It seemed to me that they believed this manifestation was a form of confirmation and validation of their faith. I have also attended a Catholic Mass and an Orthodox service. They all find a form of confirmation their faith through the liturgy of their service. It too is structured. It too leaves the visitor unaware of the processes and often secret meaning of their unique liturgy.

Conservative scholars recognize 3 "Great Awakenings" of Christianity in America, so say four. All of these resulted in great increases in attendance at all kinds of Churches. None relied on a "Holy Spirit" experience to validate themselves even though many converts experienced intense emotional response to the preaching of the Gospel. It seems to me that God has achieved His purposes of conversion without reliance on what today is called The Holy Ghost Experience.

The service you attended was heartfelt and emotionally significant for those there, but it didn’t follow the New Testament pattern Paul describes, where speaking in tongues should be interpreted and silence is expected if no interpreter is present.
What you saw seemed more like a liturgical expression of group identity than a biblical spiritual gift.
Similar to Catholic and Orthodox traditions, it provided a structured ritual that reinforced belonging, but its focus was more on emotional affirmation than on the practical, edifying role Scripture gives to tongues.
History, like the Great Awakenings, shows that God advances the Gospel through preaching, repentance, and obedience—not through ecstatic displays. Your experience fits that pattern: sincere, harmless, and culturally meaningful, yet missing the interpretive, orderly, and evangelistic purpose Scripture assigns to spiritual gifts, underscoring that the Spirit’s real work is seen in the clear proclamation and obedience to Christ, not in emotional moments.

 

[biblestudent78]

The service you attended was heartfelt and emotionally significant for those there, but it didn’t follow the New Testament pattern Paul describes, where speaking in tongues should be interpreted and silence is expected if no interpreter is present.
What you saw seemed more like a liturgical expression of group identity than a biblical spiritual gift.
Similar to Catholic and Orthodox traditions, it provided a structured ritual that reinforced belonging, but its focus was more on emotional affirmation than on the practical, edifying role Scripture gives to tongues.
History, like the Great Awakenings, shows that God advances the Gospel through preaching, repentance, and obedience—not through ecstatic displays. Your experience fits that pattern: sincere, harmless, and culturally meaningful, yet missing the interpretive, orderly, and evangelistic purpose Scripture assigns to spiritual gifts, underscoring that the Spirit’s real work is seen in the clear proclamation and obedience to Christ, not in emotional moments.

OMC:
It would be incorrect to minimize the emotional component of both Catholic and Orthodox services and liturgies. For many these are very emotional experiences that often presents as "reverence" with the Catholics feeling they are connecting to the "original" Church and appreciating a long list of saints that have given their lives in an effort to enhance the mission of the Church. In the Orthodox Church in America the extensive use of iconography and very ancient chants and liturgy to support theosis and the grace of God. While what you refer to as "biblical standards" may be accurate, they may not be comprehensive.

 

[OMC]

It would be incorrect to minimize the emotional component of both Catholic and Orthodox services and liturgies. For many these are very emotional experiences that often presents as "reverence" with the Catholics feeling they are connecting to the "original" Church and appreciating a long list of saints that have given their lives in an effort to enhance the mission of the Church. In the Orthodox Church in America the extensive use of iconography and very ancient chants and liturgy to support theosis and the grace of God. While what you refer to as "biblical standards" may be accurate, they may not be comprehensive.

Make no mistake, I take the emotional component very seriously and have the utmost respect. All I’m saying is that, for me, the question is never, “Does this feel reverent?” but always, “Does this align with the Word?” That’s simply how the scripture reads, and I have to follow it.

 

[CS1]

yes, Paul commands the saints to seek the “greater gifts,” but never as a ladder of superiority. The “greater gifts” are the ones that most edify the body, not the ones that most exalt the individual.

Wrong! the context of greater is the best Gift to desire is the one that is needed at the time of ministry. If healing is needed prophesying and tongues will not help the person who is sick. If one is needing Godly counsel a word of wisdom is needed not tongues and interpretation. Desire the best gifts means use the ones that are most effective. Paul says that in chapter 12 and speak on it again in chapter 14 of 1cor.

 

[OMC]

Wrong! the context of greater is the best Gift to desire is the one that is needed at the time of ministry. If healing is needed prophesying and tongues will not help the person who is sick. If one is needing Godly counsel a word of wisdom is needed not tongues and interpretation. Desire the best gifts means use the ones that are most effective. Paul says that in chapter 12 and speak on it again in chapter 14 of 1cor.

The “greater gifts” in 1 Corinthians 12–14 are not the gifts that happen to be useful in a moment of ministry but the gifts that most edify the gathered church, because Paul’s word meizōn (“greater”) never means “situationally needed” but “more beneficial to the body,” which is why he explicitly says prophecy is greater than tongues—not because someone might need healing instead, but because prophecy builds up everyone, while uninterpreted tongues build up no one; your argument confuses gift function (healing helps the sick, wisdom helps the confused) with gift value, but Paul’s point is that the Spirit sovereignly distributes gifts, the church needs all of them, and believers should desire the gifts that most strengthen the whole congregation, especially prophecy, because love seeks what edifies others, not what feels effective in a moment, and Paul never tells Christians to chase whichever gift seems handy—he tells them to pursue what builds up the church.