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

Brother, you need to read the Bible and church history. The Bible does not teach that healing or miracles will cease. There are some rather strained cessationist interpretations of other passages that are very late, certainly not the teaching of the early church.

I mentioned in a post directed toward someone else several pieces of evidence for the fact that prophecy, healing, miracles, etc. are witnessed to have occurred in the writings of those some call 'early church fathers.' Entire books have been written on this subject, going through various quotes. There are web pages that list a number of quotes you could look up.

What is your basis for thinking that these early Christians did not believe in spiritual gifts? A certain cessationist author in the 1800s asserted that there were no references to such things in these writings, without studying enough to know better. There is book that looks like it may have been a master's thesis entitled 'The Supressed Evidence' written in the 1800s that goes into detail on various documents that disprove these assertions. I could still find this for free on Google Books a few years ago. In the 1980's, I saw a copy of 'The Spirit and the Church' by Burgess. The first volume is about the Ante-Nicene period. You can find quotes and commentary on the issue there. Michael Green's book 'Evangelism in the Early Church'-- probably carved out of a thesis or dissertation-- paints a non-cessationist picture of the era with its quotes and treatment of the subject. When I was a teenager, I read the first volume of a two volume set of Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History", written in the 300's, but containing quotes from the centuries prior. There were a number of references and other spiritual gifts. There are plenty of primary sources online, including Eusebius' book.

As I mentioned in the previous post, Irenaeus wrote of brethren exercising gifts such as healing, tongues, prophecy, foreknowledge, speaking in tongues and interpretation of tongues. He believed that all churches should be able to raise the dead as his had. Irenaeus was a bishop in what is now France, a missionary, and the author of a book 'Against Heresies.' In another of his works he argued that rejecting prophecy and the edification that came thereby was a characteristic of the heresies. Ireneaus ministered around 200 AD.

In my early 20's, I read parts of Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho. Trypho was a Jew, and Justin told him he should look to the prophets for wisdom, as opposed to philosophers. Justin said that the prophets were now in the church. Justin also wrote of how Christians would cast demons, which the pagans considered to be gods out of people, and used that as a polemic against paganism in one of the apologies (defenses of the faith) he wrote.

A little later, around Irenaeus time, Tertullian echoed Justin's sentiment, pointing out that there were Christians who would cast out spirits pagans deemed to be gods, but which acted like demons when Christians cast them out. Of course, he believed in spiritual gifts, since he eventually supported Montanism. The controversy around Montanism had to do with whether Montanus' prophecies were legitimately from the Spirit of God and also his possibly appointing rival bishops. The issue was not cessationism. Eusebius' collection of quotes shows that opponents of Montanism affirmed the gift of prophecy was a legitimate gift for the church, but that they opposed Montanus' version of it. Similarly, earlier, Irenaeus affirmed the genuine gift of prophecy, but rejected Marcus' version of it. Some commentators also interpret Ireneaus comments about some people committing the unpardonable sin by calling a man the paraklete to be about Montanus.

Later, Montanists may have developed a form of I Corinthians 13 cessationism while orthodox Christians believed in and affirmed prophecy as a gift for the church.

There are a relatively small number of references to speaking in tongues or similar incidents throughout church history, but many, many references to prophecies, visions, healing, and miracles. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and the various other groups with 'Orthodox' in their name affirm miracles, etc. This was an issue with the Reformed wing of the Protestant Reformation since Roman Catholics wanted to know where the Reformed movement's miracles were. Even so, Calvin was not a hard core cessationist and even wrote at least one bit of commentary that was contrary to cessationism on the issues of prophets and apostles. And for a while there, testimonies of prophecies and miracles among Protestants would have been associated with certain Reformed groups. There are accounts of such things from the Scottish Reformation and a bit later in Scotland and also from France. Wesley took a non-cessationist stance when it came to the issue of the French prophets, for example.

You seem to have 1) an extreme stance on the issue of emotions and 2) the wrong focus on this topic. First of all, not all gifts that exercise spiritual gifts are particularly emotional. Some Pentecostal groups are into shouting and things like that, based on the Psalms. There are 'subcultures' within Pentecostal and Charismatic movements that are kind of emotional. Tongues, interpretations, and prophecies are not always delivered in an extreme emotional state. The Bible does not forbid emotion. Joy has an emotional aspect to it, and so does peace. Peter wrote of joy unspeakable and full of glory. Paul said to rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say rejoice. The Psalms command the audience to rejoice. Paul wrote that the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. The Bible does not teach that emotions or bad, nor does it contain any warnings against emotionalism that I am aware of. I prefer a calmer atmosphere for a lot of activities, and I do not want to see emotion substitute for a genuine work of God, of course. Nor would I want to see drab ritual as a substitute.

The actual commands of scripture for what to do in church meetings are 'charismatic'--many of them are. There aren't that many passages that tell us what to do in church. There are a couple of references to singing that we assume refer to church meetings, since that is when we meet one another. Timothy is told to read scripture, which could refer to an activity in church meetings in that context. There are instructions on the Lord's Supper, in a passage mainly about what not to do. Hebrews 10:24-25 tells believers not to forsake assembling, but to exhort one another, in the context of instructions to provoke one another to love and to good works.

Then the most lengthy passage on the topic is I Corinthians 14, which indicates that speakers are multiple people from the congregation... see 'every one of you' in verse 26. The content that can be shared are psalms, teaching, tongues, interpretations, and revelations. There are specific commands to the church that allow for speaking in tongues if it is interpreted. The church is commanded to let prophets speak and 'ye all' may prophesy. Verse 26 says to let all things be done unto edifying. Toward the end of the passage, Paul writes 'Let all things be done decently and in order.' This would be the order described in the passage which allows for saints to use their gifts to edify the assembly, not a later liturgy of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Reformed Churches, Baptists, or Charismatics.

The commandments in the passage are a lot more 'charismatic' than a lot of Charismatic churches' practices.

There are issues with disorder and emotionalism when it comes to spiritual gifts and church practice in some churches. But that is no excuse for your rejecting Biblical doctrine on the subject.

Why don't you show from the Bible your idea about miracles being a sign 'for the Jew.' Jesus had a ministry that focused on the lost sheep of the house of Israel. All authority was given to Him in heaven and in earth, and He delegated the task of preaching the gospel to the nations (also His inheritance) to His disciples. But if we read Acts, signs have a role to play in evangelizing Samaritans and Gentile groups, and I Corinthians 12 indicates that spiritual gifts are given to former pagans also who are members of the body of Christ for mutual edification.

You seem to have a lot of religious ideas in your head. You have probably heard or read a lot of religious rhetoric. Your ideas do not seem to be solidly grounded in what the Bible actually teaches.
Your approach to this topic is not rationale. The only way you could know those were my motives-- out of a million other motives-- is if you had some supernatural insight into my thoughts and motives. But your having such supernatural knowledge is contrary to the position you are taking on this issue.

If someone is too quick to attribute ill motives the someone they have just met and make accusations, that speaks more to the character of the accuser than the accused. A person living a holy life before God is careful not to accuse others wildly lest he sin by slandering others.

The 'accuser of the brethren' role is taken. My guess is he probably uses actual evidence, so you seem ill qualified for the role.

Do not add to the word of God or take away from it. I Corinthians 13 teaches that when that which is perfect is come that which is in part will be done away.

In the passage we can see that Paul's state before the perfect comes is like that of a child in speech, thought, and understanding. After the perfect comes, his state will be like that of an adult.

Those who think that because they have the Bible, they are perfected, while Paul's understanding was like that of a child in comparison, or self-deceived.

An evil and adulterous generation drinks water, too. Do not make the logical error of affirming the consquent. Jesus did not say all who sought signs were evil or adulterous. The apostles asked Jesus for the signs of His coming and of the end of the age and He answered them. That does not make them evil or adulterous. Jesus' response to their question was different toward them than it was to toward that other group. He told them an evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign shall be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonah.

The type of sign they wanted was probably a bit different from certain other signs. They probably wanted a prediction against which to test Jesus as a prophet in accordance with their understanding of Deuteronomy 18. Jesus fulfilled the one sign He gave by rising from the dead. He gave the same sign to those who demanded a sign when he cleansed the temple. This is different from wanting Jesus to heal or cast out a demon. Jesus responded to numerous requests for these things for people who came to Him with faith.

The apostles also prayed for God to stretch out His hand to do signs and wonders for the sake of Jesus in Acts 4. God granted their request.

You may say this "Pentecostals" twist the gift of the Holy Spirit but that is not the context of the doctrinal position which is from the word of God which you have placed your experience of that error that many of us have told you were in error, I see you failed to acknowledge my response to your questions in post 254.

People have different experiences. Some Pentecostal churches have a pastor who does deep exposition of scripture. There are a few prophecies here and there in services. One of the problems in some of the Pentecostal denominations in the US is the lack of these spiritual gifts being present.

There are also preachers who talk a lot about their feelings. The church meeting is all about 'feeling God's presence.' I am not against such experience, but an overemphasis on that and equating the feeling in the environment from the music, etc. is counter productive.

I also knew some young people who had repented right out of the drug culture, but seemed to want to experience some kind of emotional-spiritual high. That was in a kind of third wave Charismatic movement decades ago, not a Pentecostal church.

I also notice that some of the people who give tongues and interpretations or prophecies in Pentecostal churches yell and seem really excited. Some of that may be volume needed to address the crowd. There are others who give prophecies who are kind of 'chill' and conversational in the way they talk. I

I don't consider more or less emotional personality types or more or less emotional church subcultures to be evil necessarily. We are commanded to rejoice, for example, but the volume level and style can vary.

'Edification' does not mean an 'emotional high.' It can have an emotional aspect to it. If you are facing a tough time at work because of your faith, and you hear a teaching on enduring persecution, that could strengthen you, both your resolve and your emotions. This is a good thing, and it is an example of how edification and exhortation can impact the emotions. But being 'edified' by speaking in tongues in prayer is not the same thing as an emotional high. Many people who speak in tongues do not generally speak in tongues in a heightened emotional state. 'Ecstatic utterances' is therefore a terrible description of it. Prophecies and teachings do not edify just by virtue of making someone else excited. You can probably find some Charismatics who do not get this, but there are also plenty who do not emphasize emotions the way some of the posters in this thread imply.

Ok, then if they are for today which ones are you used in by God, and if not why not? IF they are for today should it not be evident in your own life? What makes you different from those who have the gifts working in their life? Or, are you really saying I believe God can but I have not seen it yet? Or are you the guy who says when GOd makes me do it I will?

I am not American nor do I attend mainline pentecostal denominations so could you tell me since you seem knowledgeable on the subject: Do they agree with the holy laughter / rolling on the floor movement or not?

I personally am against it, but I do believe in continuation of the gifts.

I am in agreement with @Truth7t7

Yes they have.

Your video does not address the points I made in my post.

John MacAthur's history is also a bit fuzzy, too. I was raised in the Pentecostal movement, which does not go back to the 1960's. The Pentecostal movement, or at least the label, grew out of a revival in the early 1900's. But theologically, there was a lot of influence from the Wesleys, also to some extent Whitfield, and plenty in between. There were also CMA and Baptists in the early Pentecostal movement.
I am not 'classical Pentecostal' in all my beliefs, but that was my church's heritage. Some of the Pentecostals were a bit wary of the Charismatic movement, also. And the Charismatics do not all go back to Calvary Chapel. Maybe he has a point that 'Seeker Sensitive' does. Getting rid of suits in church should be a non-issue, though. Some Protestants in his own stream were against 'vestments' back when a lot of poor church attendees probably were not affluent enough to afford 'Sunday best' clothes.

But that is irrelevant if the topic is faithfulness to the scripture.

John MacArthur has taught some very strange doctrine on tongues. For example, there is an old sermon of his from the early 1990s in which he asserts that 'tongues' in I Corinthians 14 refers to the real manifestation and 'tongue' in the singular refers to a fake pagan tongue. But it makes no sense in light of the wording of the passage. Such an interpretation would lead to the conclusion that in verses 27-28, that Paul instructed the church to allow for interpretation of a pagan 'tongue' to edify the body. It is also semantically foolish to assert the singular 'glossa' means something completely different from the plural with no evidence to back it up. I think MacArthur got this nonsense from Zodhiates. Unfortunately, Justin Peters in recent years has repeated this nonsense, probably because MacArthur taught it. My guess is it goes back to certain liberal commentaries in the early 1900s. It has no place among those who believe in the innerrancy of scripture because it does not fit the context.

Clearly, John MacArthur has a blind spot on this issue since he has called speaking in tongues in the very pages of scripture 'pagan' in that sermon of his. He may not have promoted this teaching in recent decades, but I have not heard of his recanting and the junk was still on his ministry's website when I checked a few years ago.

My post was about the incredible claim made by Paul Christiansen of working with Charismatics for 50 years and never seeing a case of "emotional high" among them. He seems to have his head in the sand.

I say they are for today, and the Lord has worked in me for others and for myself different gifts at different times.

There is not calculated response a person will do when the Holy Spirit comes upon them. I have seen crying which is very typical and common, crying out in loud voice, I have seen laughing, jumping but nothing that was disrespectful and much more controlled and reserved than a Football game where I have seen many Christians act a fool. Or rugby, and other sporting events.

I can tell you that I do not know of any church even non-Pentecostals where it is a controlled environment where it is known out anyone off the streets will react when they come into a church setting

In my town and city in Oakland CA, it is not uncommon to see those under the influence come into a service and run, jump, shout, cause commotion and disruption. YET, we the pastor and ushers settle them down and remove them if need be as the word of God says to have all done in order and discipline.

as a Pentecostal minister, I can tell you that it is my doctrinal training that teaches and has done so for the past 30 plus years, I have been a member which I might add did not save me, I was saved at Billy Graham crusade in 1981 when I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and savior.

The Holy Spirit is not a part of foolishness. Nor is HE the spirit of out of control. He is the Spirit of Self-control and meekness.

That being said God allows us to make mistakes in our zeal but expects what is known in the Greek as the didōmi and katartismos
" The Gifts of Christ to the Church" are to correct this error as Paul Did and addressed in chapters 11 - 14 in 1 Corthinains. Also the elder of the church to correct it as Eph chapter 6:1 says.

"Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual (Mature) restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.

it is the church setting where we are to teach, instruct, and disciple those new in the faith. In the Church in America, anyone can start a "church" and be a leader without any accountability or oversite. That issue is not only in the pentecostal denominations.

what is funny you have video's from years ago from places that are not the norm yet you are trying to address those in the pentecostal church as that is all places? You are ignorant. 2013, 2018, 2019 wow.

then what is your issue? Why do you suggest and attack those here who are not as you?

Well said, this hits the nail on the head.

The argument seems to go: There is some ridicilousness, emotionalism and downright weird things going on in some charismatic churches and therefore we conclude that the gifts have ceased.

Just because there are misuses does not mean the gifts have ceased. Even if 99% of all charismatic churches were in error, it does not mean the gifts have ceased.

Remember that teaching is one of the gifts as well, so by that logic I could point to any reformed congregation and say yeah, they teach wrong on this issue. Therefore no teachers for the church anymore, the gift of teaching is gone. It's all false. It's all wrong.

Thank you for the response.

On the last thing you said: "n the Church in America, anyone can start a "church" and be a leader without any accountability or oversite. That issue is not only in the pentecostal denominations."

I wonder if that is a good thing or a bad thing, it is great to have that freedom, but it also opens up the doors for a lot of cults and weirdos like the westboro baptist church, KKK, christian identity, all these non-christian groups to pop up in the name of Christianity.

Sorry, that was the charismatic lunacies most recent run at screwing with reality....but here is something for you to feed on related to the word

Ah you are one of the MacArthurites? How you like that labeling?

He teaches some odd things as well, did you know he teaches you can take the mark of the beast and still be saved?

I would disagree that 99% are in error lol, but there is error the level of wrongness must be seen Bibiicaly many toe tag error as more than human ignorance which can be corrected then if not accepting correction then that is different.

example :

the error can be done by those who are saved out of unlearned, ignorance, or no discipleship. Teaching error can be in the same way

Willfully teaching error after being addressed and corrected is heretical they must stop if not addressed by two or more then removed.

many that this has happened to just go what is called "independent " or non-denominational but are really fractions from a denomination and will keep most doctrine but that were they are to be removed. they become rebels.

Also, many churches let them go and make know another statement about them because they can be sued. On Social media, it is easy to attack there is no accountability, but put your name out there and say those things and you will find yourself in court.

The more appropriate is to address and turn over and enforce the word of God and teach the error to the church AS this is not what to do according to the Word of God.

Well, when freedom is perverted it becomes enslavement.