Cessationism vs. continuationism...does it make any difference?

work it. work it.

you might create a hysterical historical document.









................................

Well, I can't rely be continuationism it would have to be restorationism.

Mark 16
KJV
15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
These are the ' signs ' to Israel. This clears up a whole load of issues .

Like my middle school gym coach would say:

"Either admit you are clueless on the subject or post dancing rodents to hide the fact."

His wisdom was beyond his time.

If one of these positions is false, how can it have 'Biblical strengths.' If a position is false, how can it be strong, Biblically? This sounds like a very post-modern proposition on your part.

I don't see any 'Biblical strengths' at all for the cessationist position.

I like the word continuationism. Even though most spell check dictionaries don't recognize it.

I like this word because I am fully persuaded that these gifts were given to the church until Jesus comes again.

4I always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. 5For in him you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge— 6God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you. 7Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 8He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

I am certain that they have continued in those churches which allowed the Holy Spirit to have control throughout all the dark ages even though they did not leave written records like those who were more intellectual and who occupied the seats of the pharisees.

There have been some good books written attempting to trace the charismatic gifts in churches in Church history but I don't really need them as I know by the witness of the Spirit that he has always had a remnant who have operated in the gifts of the Spirit.

I like the word continuationist for this reason and also because I do not beleve they have ever needed to be reformed. I like this word because pentecostal and charismatic has become a word associated with people who are doing things that are not the gifts of the Spirit and are an embarrassment to Christianity, such as playing with snakes, laughing like an insane asylum patient, or other non biblical extremism that people are always using as the reason why they don't agree with "pentecostals and charismatics" We need a new word that explains our doctrine.

Maybe something like "Bible Believers" would be too provoking.

Are not the signs connected with going into all the world and preaching the Gospel to every creature? All it needs is 5th Grade comprehension skills to work that out. Making the passage read that the signs are just for Israel is reading into the passage something that just isn't there. The passage doesn't say, "And these signs shall follow Israelite believers." It clearly indicates believers in all the world, not just Israel.

That just about sums it up for those who are clueless about preaching the Gospel, signs and wonders, spiritual gifts and about what exegesis and hermeneutics is all about.

Does it make any difference? No, not really. The Holy Spirit just keeps doing what He's been doing all along. Those who are open to receiving from Him do, and those who aren't, well... most don't.

That's because there are no Scriptures to support that position. Not one! It is a position dreamed up by a useless, incompetent, self-appointed theological pelican in the 19th Century.

What I find most interesting is that there are people who insist that the gospel of the kingdom is the same as the gospel of the grace of God, that there is always only ONE gospel.

Yet, they also believe that the signs and wonders of the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 10:7-8), are no longer for today.

If the gospel of the kingdom has never gone away, why are the signs gone?

There is only one Gospel - the Gospel of Christ that shows His finished work on the Cross and that He rose from the dead to give us eternal life. The Gospel of the Kingdom is the Gospel of Christ, because Christ is the King of the Kingdom. Also, the grace of God is inseparately linked to the Gospel of Christ because His finished work on the Cross enables sinners to be saved by the grace of God.

I accept cessationism

1 - the completed canon fits with the context of Gods revelation in 1 co 13. Also in Ephesians 4.

2 the death of the apostles also completed the work of the Holy Spirit through sign and ministry gifts

3 the objective experience of signs wonders and miracles now is that they are at least very very rare (since God can still work according to His will they are still possible)

If the gifts were for now we should have clear and obvious biblical signs and wonders etc

So are you a continualist then?

You will have to be because signs and wonders are a central feature of the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 10:7-8).

Well you must have flunked out in biology. Racoons are not rodents.

Your gym coach should have stuck to basketball or whatever

smh

I am a guy who reads and believes the Bible.

By the way, one thought I had about the passage in Mark 16 is that we don't have the original authored document. All we have are manuscripts that date back to the Fourth Century AD. Some have the passage included, and others don't. My view is that by the Fourth Century, there were those who believed that signs and wonders had ceased, and others who believed that they were still evident. So the cessationist ones edited the passage out, while the "continualists" left it in.

You don't like to answer a question with a yes or no?