Is cessation an observation or theology?
- Thread starter Lamar
- 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.
Lamar:
I find it interesting when you talk about the Holy Spirit as being "in the Bible." In traditional Judaism, the Ruach HaKodesh is understood as an aspect of God's presence or inspiration, not a separate divine person. His breath, His will, His power etc. refers only to YHWH. The New English Translation - folks from Dallas Baptist Seminary - quote Isaiah 63 like this " But they rebelled and offended his holy Spirit. This designates one God's offended spirit. Psalms 51 : David equates a "right spirit" with God's holy Spirit (No capital for holy)
reate in me a clean heart, O God; And renew a right spirit within me.
So, finding the Holy Spirit of the New Testament in the Hebrew Bible rides on the theological orientation of the translation committee.
“The Spirit in the Hebrew Bible is God’s own presence.
The Spirit in the New Testament is interpreted through a Trinitarian lens.
The difference is not the Hebrew — it’s the theology brought to it.”
The Holy Spirit!
Do you interpret the N.T or do you follow the plain reading of the text?
So you would deny that a person can directly be told something important by the Holy Spirit?
This could be called "a word of knowledge or of wisdom".
Do you deny that people have been healed in Christian churches by the power of the Holy Spirit?
There is a phrase in the N.T, "With The Spirit".
1 Corinthians 14:15
What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit, but I
will sing with the mind also.
How do you interpret "I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the mind also"?
Do you deny that a Christian can be directly guided by the Holy Spirit?
I answered both your questions and responded with two of my own.
You are now asking 5 more questions but have ignored my questions.
Is this your MO?
Were these the two questions below?
1) Can? Of course, don't you? What a odd question.
2) What leads you other than the Bible?
If so, I answered the second question already; led by the Holy Spirit.
The first question you asked.
1) Can? Of course, don't you? What a odd question.
Pertains to miracles that the Holy Spirit performs within churches worldwide.
If we are led in our life and in our understanding of the N.T letters by the Holy Spirit.
If we also fully accept the full power of the Holy Spirit in our lives!
Then how could we not accept insights given by the Holy Spirit and not from our own intellectual prowess.
Insights, wisdom, knowledge, healing, miracles, etc.
Are gifts of the Holy Spirit.
So I would expect you to be in full obedience to the Lord's commandment in 1 Corinthians 14:37.
Yea or nay?
Inquisitor:
Pardon me for butting to this discussion. I am fully aware of the historic rise of the current Pentecostal"Spirit led Christianity" movement dating back to 1906. I am also aware there have been great "Spirit led reawakenings in the past as well. The great American revivals of the 19th century—collectively known as the Second and Third Great Awakenings—included what participants and observers widely recorded as miraculous works of the Holy Spirit. However, the nature of these "miraculous works" varied across different decades, changing from intense physical manifestations on the frontier to the foundational emergence of modern divine healing movements.
During the early part of the 19th century, the revival movement swept through the American frontier, most notably at the famous Cane Ridge Revival of 1801 in Kentucky. Tens of thousands of people gathered, and the meetings were characterized by overwhelming, uncontrollable physical phenomena that attendees attributed directly to the power of the Holy Spirit. This included speaking in tongues and being "Slain in the Spirit": Hundreds of people would suddenly faint, lose all muscular strength, and fall to the ground under intense conviction of sin.
Going back: In fourth-century Egyptian and Syrian monasticism, miraculous works—including profound healings, speaking in tongues, clairvoyance, and victory over demonic forces—were viewed as the direct fruit of a life surrendered to the Holy Spirit through solitude and prayer (documented in works like Athanasius's Life of Antony).
Going back farther: The Ante-Nicene Church: First- and second-century Christian communities widely expected and recorded supernatural manifestations—such as prophecy, exorcisms, healings, and visions—as part of normal Christian life and baptismal initiation. Prominent figures like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus explicitly wrote that the gifts of the Holy Spirit such as speaking in tongues remained active and operational in the wider church body.
While I myself feel strong emotional responses in Christian worship, it has not been my experience to see a Pentecostal expression. Having said that, my point is that there is a long Christian tradition of expecting and receiving a "Holy Spirit" experiences though the particulars of that expression are varied.
Interesting discussion.
Would you say only doctrine, theology, scripture are needed in a believer life?
Or no matter which denomination, we all need some degree of divine connection?
OMC:
There is curious history associated with the general idea of "Gifts of the Holy Spirit," "Spiritual Gifts" ect.
There is no doubt that the early church 70 AD - 380 AD experienced many and varied forms of these manifestations of the Holy Spirit. We have evidence from Gifts of the Holy Spirit even from far-flung Christian churches as far apart as Egypt to Central Europe. There were a much broader Holy Spirit experience than we think of today. Miraculous healing, miraculous casting out of demons, miraculous interpretations, and a panoply of other "signs."
Today, there has been a rebirth of experiences with the Holy Spirit dating from the early 1800's in Europe and America. The rise of the current Pentecostal movement began with the preaching of Pentecostalism by Charles Fox Parham who was an American evangelist who opened a Bible school in Topeka, Kansas, in 1901, where he first taught that speaking in tongues was the distinct physical proof of baptism in the Holy Spirit. William J. Seymour: A Black holiness preacher and student of Parham's who led the historic 1906–1909 Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, California, which served as the primary catalyst for the worldwide spread of Pentecostalism which is now the fastest spreading form of Christianity on earth.
So, to many average "traditional" Christians these Holy Spirit manifestations are held in deep suspicion or outright rejection in the belief that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit were "temporary" once the "Bible was established." They can find documents from those living during the rise of Catholicism to support the idea that those gifts were no longer necessary as the "official" canon of the New Testament was "confirmed" in 393 AD.
Now for my conjecture.
The initial experiences of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit were widespread and varied....until the individual power of the Holy Spirit came to represent a competitor to the Roman Church's authority for all things Christian. Worship was systemized, stylized and authenticated from the top down. The chief Bishop in Rome and the ecleastic infrastructure demanded total authority over theology and practice...there was no room for God to work through people via "gifts" as the eventual Pope was now God's ruler on earth and nobody needed to experience God outside the church or challenge "official" teachings. Not long after that, compliant Christian theologians started spreading the message that "Spiritual Gifts" were a thing of the past as everything "needed" was available from the church via the Bishop/Pope
After living under the Roman Church's teaching for 1,200 yrs the leaders of the Protestant revolt focused on the theological failures and corruption in Catholicism. However, they accepted the entire Roman Catholic perspective of the cessation of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit whole cloth and totally incorporated it into the evolving Protestant Reformation. It was the obvious choice of the Protestant reformers to deny the gifts of the Holy Spirit for the same reason the Roman Catholic and Orthodox church had rejected it....because it potentially confronted the authority of their theology. Protestants were told they could come to God only through reading or hearing the bible read. The idea that the Holy Spirit had any role was a potential hole in the salvation by reading bedrock of the Protestant revolt. Nobody was allowed to claim "insight" or "revelation" or "power" from the Holy Spirit as it would gum up the theological works because it was the bible and only the bible that did those things just like formerly it was the Pope who's authority that would have been challenged by "Spirit led" Christians.
Now, 500 yrs later, Protestants still maintain that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were timed out 1,800 yrs ago. Why? Because their Protestant churches have forbidden them as potentially "disruptive" to their dogmas, creeds, statement of faith..etc. And the beat goes on.
I have not experienced miraculous manifestations of the Holy Spirit. I find guidance in my bible studies and deep emotional experiences in weekly worship. However, neither do i reject the reality of Christians who have other experiences.
Brother, I am really enjoying this, I hope you are too. So, to the history you laid out about Rome suppressing spiritual gifts, Protestants inheriting that suppression, and modern Pentecostalism rediscovering what the early church lost is interesting, but it is not what Scripture teaches and not what actually happened in church history; the early church did indeed experience widespread manifestations of the Spirit, but the decline of gifts was not because Rome feared competition — it was because the church’s spiritual condition declined, not because bishops outlawed the Spirit.
The New Testament never says gifts would cease when the canon was completed, and the early fathers who wrote about diminishing gifts (like Chrysostom and Augustine) blamed spiritual coldness, not ecclesiastical control.
Likewise, the Protestant Reformers did not reject gifts because they feared challenges to their authority; they rejected the medieval abuses of “private revelations” that contradicted Scripture, and they insisted that the Word governs all claims of the Spirit, not that the Spirit no longer works.
Your framework assumes institutional suppression, but the real issue was doctrinal guardrails: Rome elevated tradition above Scripture, Protestants elevated Scripture above tradition, and both rejected anything that claimed authority outside the Word — not the Spirit Himself.
And yes, modern Pentecostalism revived experiential emphasis, but Scripture never ties the legitimacy of gifts to historical cycles; it ties them to God’s sovereign distribution (1 Cor 12:11), the edification of the body (1 Cor 14:12), and the maturity of the church (Eph 4:11–13).
So while your historical narrative has elements of truth, the biblical reality is simpler: gifts continue because God continues to give them, they diminish where the church grows cold, and they flourish where Christ is exalted — not because Rome suppressed them or Protestants inherited a ban.
Interesting: OMC
A few notes. The first Bishop of Rome (Excluding Peter) was Linus. Later medieval traditions and accounts, such as those found in the Liber Pontificalis, attribute numerous active miracles to Linus himself. These include performing exorcisms—specifically casting a demon out of the daughter of the Roman ex-consul Saturninus—and raising the dead. To this day, Catholic theology allows for "miracles" so long as the Church declares them "valid."
it is a timeline and cause and effect issue
Writers like Irenaeus and Tertullian stated that charismatic gifts—including prophecy, exorcisms, and healing—were active and operating daily in their time in the 2nd and 3rd century. New Testament books (scrolls) were in wide circulation that time and deep theological discussions between and among early church leaders indicate, while there were other books, the majority of what became the canon was in circulation as that circulation was later the basis for validating the authenticity of the bible canon. Logically, if they had essentially the canon but Works of the Holy Spirit were still being documented, then saying the end of the work of the Holy Spirit ended when the Roman Catholic Church finalized the canon in 383 AD. Thus for well over 200 years the Works of the Holy Spirit were know, revered and celebrated even when all the later canonized books were in circulation.
Obviously you are a fan of cessation. I know that perspective
Miraculous gifts served as sign gifts to authenticate the apostles and validate new divine revelation before the New Testament was written. With the biblical canon fully complete, normative supernatural signs are no longer needed because God now speaks entirely through His written Word. Paul states "But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away" and later ""But when completeness (or that which is perfect) comes, what is in part disappears"
Fans of continuation offer:
Irenaeus 151 AD - 191 AD: Argued in Against Heresies that true disciples still performed miraculous works and raised the dead. The New Testament never explicitly states that miraculous gifts will cease before the physical return of Jesus Christ.
Paul's statements probably are not referring to the completion of the New Testament 1. because he did not know he was writing a "New Testament." He was writing letters to encourage people to correct mistakes and errors knowing the Jesus was coming soon....no need to marry or have children ect as the Lord is coming back soon. etc. 2. Paul could not know that the writings he never read would be combined into a work called the New Testament. After all he viscerally disagreed with James and Peter and does not seem to know anything about the Gospel of John. In fact what he taught he knew was direct in contradiction of the Gospel he was instructed and agreed to write, but chose to abandon it. He agreed, to teach gentiles were not to eat meat offered to idols, things strangled, blood and maintain sexual morality. Paul directly contradicted what he agreed to do and allowed anything and everything except sexual immorality. So how could he be talking about "that which is perfect has come" knowing full well many Christians of his day believed he himself was teach doctrines contrary to both what he agreed to and then abandoned. 2. Paul was most probable talking about the imminent return of Jesus as the "perfect has come" time. His time of death is usually agreed between 64-67. The Gospels were most likely written between 67 and 95 so Paul would not even have known what the New Testament was as it did not exist before he died. No matter when you think the evidence is for the writing of Revelation, it is after Paul's death.
As you know, I am not an advocate of modern Pentecostalism thus I really only to present data that provides a reasonable probability that Paul could not have and most likely was not referring the New Testament as his meaning for "When that which is Perfect has come."
Honestly, you’re closer to the text and to history than most people who argue this topic. Brilliant work Brother. You’re right that later sources like the Liber Pontificalis attribute miracles to early bishops such as Linus, and that Rome eventually centralized control over what counted as a “valid” miracle. The correction is that these miracle stories are medieval retrojections, not reliable 1st‑century records, and they reflect Rome’s later habit of institutional gatekeeping, not a continuous charismatic stream from the apostles.
You’re right that Irenaeus and Tertullian testify to healings, exorcisms, and prophetic phenomena long after most New Testament writings were circulating. But it also shows gifts did not cease when the texts were widely used, but it does not prove that gifts were universal or normative; it proves only that charismatic activity persisted in pockets of the church. The idea that gifts ended when Rome finalized the canon in 383 AD is historically false — the canon was recognized because the books were already authoritative, not because gifts were fading. You’re right that Paul was not thinking about a future “New Testament canon” when he wrote “when the perfect comes.” The correction is that Paul’s contrast between “now we see dimly” and “then face to face” (1 Cor 13:12) points to Christ’s return, not the completion of Scripture. So continuationists are correct that the text does not teach “gifts end when the Bible is finished,” but cessationists are correct that Paul predicts gifts will end at the eschaton, not that they must continue unchanged until then. You’re right that Paul did not know he was writing part of a future canon and that he expected Christ’s return soon. The correction is that Paul did not contradict the Jerusalem decree; he applied it contextually (Acts 15 vs. 1 Cor 8–10), forbidding participation in idolatrous feasts while allowing market meat. He did not abandon the gospel he agreed to preach, nor did he knowingly teach against Peter, James, or John. So your argument that Paul could not have meant “the perfect = the canon” is correct, but the claim that Paul contradicted apostolic teaching is not.
Paul could not have meant the completed New Testament when he said “the perfect has come.” Scripture never ties the cessation of gifts to the closing of the canon, and history shows charismatic activity long after the apostolic writings circulated. But Scripture also never teaches that gifts must continue unchanged until Christ returns; it teaches only that they will end when He returns. So the biblical and historical record does not support the neat cessationist timeline, nor the claim that Paul was referring to the canon — it supports a more modest conclusion: gifts end at the eschaton, not at the canon, and their historical expression has risen and fallen across the centuries
Ok, perhaps an overstatement on my part. Paul did not "rescind" the instructions he was given on the issues under discussion. Let's agree that he "reframed" those prohibitions. Starting with "idols are nothing" Paul states that food itself is spiritually neutral. An idol is nothing but wood or stone, so the meat sold in the public marketplace isn't inherently contaminated. Christians have the freedom to eat it. You say reframed, I say rescinded the agreement that Christians are not to eat meat offered to idols. The idea seem to be a practical matter of incorporating gentiles with gentile ways and customs that are an "abomination" to Jewish Christians, so the new gentile converts should avoid inflaming and insulting the Jewish Christians. Paul later emphasizes that love limits liberty. If eating marketplace, formerly idol adjacent meat causes a "weaker brother" (someone who still associates that meat with pagan worship) to stumble or violate their conscience, a Christian should willingly abstain from eating it out of love. However, Paul does not seem to address directly the cultural conflict between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
Paul did not rescind the Jerusalem agreement Brother, he reframed it exactly the way Jesus framed the Law — by distinguishing the act from the meaning of the act.
In 1 Corinthians 8–10, Paul says two things at once: (1) idols are nothing, so meat itself is morally neutral; and (2) participation in idolatry is never neutral, so believers must avoid any act that communicates allegiance to pagan worship.
That is not rescission — it is covenant‑level clarification.
The Jerusalem decree forbade Gentiles from participating in idol‑ritual meals; Paul forbids the same thing, but he refuses to treat marketplace meat as inherently ritual‑contaminated.
Your point about “love limits liberty” is exactly Paul’s point: freedom is real, but conscience and edification govern how freedom is used. And Paul does address the cultural conflict between Jewish and Gentile believers — that is the entire logic of Romans 14–15, where he insists that neither group may impose its scruples on the other, and both must walk in mutual acceptance under Christ’s lordship.
So the issue is not abrogation of the decree; it is Paul applying the decree in context, distinguishing idolatry (always forbidden) from food (never inherently defiled), and insisting that love governs liberty in mixed communities.
Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch for joining sides with the Jewish legalists and compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews.
Galatians 2:14
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all,
“If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?