Is cessation an observation or theology?

  • 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.
Greetings OMC.

I have read many of your posts and am quite impressed with your reasoning.

Can you address the following questions?

Are the claims of physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit made by modern churches of any value if unproven?

What should the response be toward those who make such claims but are never shown to have any validity?

Thank you in advance for your time.
 
Lamar said:
Greetings OMC.

I have read many of your posts and am quite impressed with your reasoning.

Can you address the following questions?

Are the claims of physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit made by modern churches of any value if unproven?

What should the response be toward those who make such claims but are never shown to have any validity?

Thank you in advance for your time.
Click to expand...
When someone claims physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit, the value of that claim depends entirely on whether it can be shown to have any grounding in Scripture’s pattern and any credibility in observable reality.
A claim by itself isn’t worthless, but it isn’t automatically meaningful either.
In Scripture, genuine manifestations were public, verifiable, and unmistakable—whether prophecy, tongues, healing, boldness, visions, or even Philip’s supernatural transport.
Nothing in the Bible encourages me to accept a claim simply because someone insists it happened; the biblical pattern is that the Spirit’s works are seen, heard, or discerned, not hidden behind unverifiable testimony.

So when modern churches make claims that are never demonstrated, never corroborated, and never shown to bear the marks of biblical authenticity, my response has to be cautious but not cynical.
I don’t dismiss the possibility of the Spirit acting—Scripture won’t let me do that—but I also don’t treat unproven claims as spiritually authoritative.
The right posture is the one Paul commands: “test all things; hold fast what is good.”
That means I evaluate the claim against the biblical norm of empowerment, the fruit it produces, and whether it aligns with the Spirit’s character revealed in Scripture.
If it fails those tests, I don’t attack the person, but I also don’t accept the claim. I simply hold fast to what is proven and let the rest fall away.
 
OMC said:
You’re absolutely right that Luke didn’t write in chapters and verses, and I agree that Acts 7–8 forms a single narrative unit. But that broader context only establishes that a visible work of the Spirit occurred — it does not identify which manifestation it was.
The continuity from Stephen’s martyrdom, to the scattering, to Philip’s ministry, to the apostolic visitation, to the Samaritans receiving the Spirit shows a unified movement of Spirit‑empowerment, and that fits perfectly with the Old and New Testament pattern.
But Luke’s intentional silence in Acts 8 is part of that pattern too: when he wants us to know the specific manifestation, he names it (Acts 2, 10, 19); when he doesn’t name it, he expects us to respect that silence rather than import a manifestation from another passage. The canon establishes the norm of empowerment, not the norm of one uniform sign, and Philip’s supernatural translation proves that the Spirit’s empowering work can be real, visible, and unique without becoming a universal pattern.
Acts 8 fits the biblical norm, but it does not define the manifestation.
Click to expand...
Only in that passage you again would make elite this text on the word of the Holy Spirit at the expense of all the others you were provided? Come Brother!

your change the rules of Hermeneutics when as an earlier example I provide about the Trinity which I hold to as a biblical concept that I do see in the word of God as a normative. Even without the word being said. I would argue there is much evidence to the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today and have not stopped which tongues is one of many listed.
 
OMC said:
You’re absolutely right that Luke didn’t write in chapters and verses, and I agree that Acts 7–8 forms a single narrative unit. But that broader context only establishes that a visible work of the Spirit occurred — it does not identify which manifestation it was.
The continuity from Stephen’s martyrdom, to the scattering, to Philip’s ministry, to the apostolic visitation, to the Samaritans receiving the Spirit shows a unified movement of Spirit‑empowerment, and that fits perfectly with the Old and New Testament pattern.
But Luke’s intentional silence in Acts 8 is part of that pattern too: when he wants us to know the specific manifestation, he names it (Acts 2, 10, 19); when he doesn’t name it, he expects us to respect that silence rather than import a manifestation from another passage. The canon establishes the norm of empowerment, not the norm of one uniform sign, and Philip’s supernatural translation proves that the Spirit’s empowering work can be real, visible, and unique without becoming a universal pattern.
Acts 8 fits the biblical norm, but it does not define the manifestation.
Click to expand...
Also if you respond to Lamar without answer him on what you have agreed on and my argument presented to you that has established biblical relevance's. Shown in both Old and New Testament the empowering of the Holy Spirit from the word of God. I will no longer have this discussion with you.
 
OMC said:
When someone claims physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit, the value of that claim depends entirely on whether it can be shown to have any grounding in Scripture’s pattern and any credibility in observable reality.
A claim by itself isn’t worthless, but it isn’t automatically meaningful either.
In Scripture, genuine manifestations were public, verifiable, and unmistakable—whether prophecy, tongues, healing, boldness, visions, or even Philip’s supernatural transport.
Nothing in the Bible encourages me to accept a claim simply because someone insists it happened; the biblical pattern is that the Spirit’s works are seen, heard, or discerned, not hidden behind unverifiable testimony.

So when modern churches make claims that are never demonstrated, never corroborated, and never shown to bear the marks of biblical authenticity, my response has to be cautious but not cynical.
I don’t dismiss the possibility of the Spirit acting—Scripture won’t let me do that—but I also don’t treat unproven claims as spiritually authoritative.
The right posture is the one Paul commands: “test all things; hold fast what is good.”
That means I evaluate the claim against the biblical norm of empowerment, the fruit it produces, and whether it aligns with the Spirit’s character revealed in Scripture.
If it fails those tests, I don’t attack the person, but I also don’t accept the claim. I simply hold fast to what is proven and let the rest fall away.
Click to expand...
Nothing you were presented was from my personal experiences of what you have listed. You were provided with biblical refutation and witness in the word of God from both Old and New Testament. I have answered every Biblical question you have presented.

I want asking you to acknowledge that. Don't speak to Lamar as if you and I did not have a long clear responses to each other questions. I can careless if he acknowledges my responses. You sir I do.
 
CS1 said:
Only in that passage you again would make elite this text on the word of the Holy Spirit at the expense of all the others you were provided? Come Brother!

your change the rules of Hermeneutics when as an earlier example I provide about the Trinity which I hold to as a biblical concept that I do see in the word of God as a normative. Even without the word being said. I would argue there is much evidence to the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today and have not stopped which tongues is one of many listed.
Click to expand...
I’m not “making Acts 8 elite” or isolating it at the expense of the rest of Scripture. I’m doing the opposite: I’m refusing to let one passage with authorial silence override dozens of passages where the Spirit’s manifestations are explicitly named. You keep saying the norm was already established — and I agree. The norm is Spirit‑empowerment, not one uniform sign. That’s the distinction you keep collapsing.

And your appeal to the Trinity actually proves my point, not yours. The doctrine of the Trinity is a canonical synthesis drawn from explicit statements across Scripture — Father is God, Son is God, Spirit is God, and yet God is one. We don’t build the Trinity from a passage that is silent; we build it from passages that speak. Silence never creates doctrine. Silence never defines manifestation. Silence never establishes norm. Silence only forces us to respect what the author chose not to specify.

That’s exactly what I’m saying about Acts 8.

Acts 8 shows empowerment — absolutely. Acts 8 shows something visible — absolutely. Acts 8 fits the OT and NT pattern — absolutely. Acts 8 does not name the manifestation — absolutely.

And because Luke names manifestations everywhere else (Acts 2, 10, 19), his silence here is intentional. You want to treat that silence as permission to import tongues into the text. I’m saying hermeneutics won’t let us do that. We don’t fill in authorial silence with our preferred manifestation; we let the silence stand and interpret the passage inside the broader pattern of empowerment.

Now, regarding your claim that the gifts continue today — I’m not arguing cessationism. I’m not denying tongues. I’m not denying prophecy. I’m not denying any gift the Spirit chooses to give. What I’m denying is the hermeneutical move of taking explicit manifestations from other passages and forcing them into a passage where Luke deliberately left the manifestation unnamed.

You’re trying to use Acts 8 as a proof‑text for a specific manifestation.
I’m using Acts 8 as a proof‑text for empowerment, not uniformity.

The canon gives us a norm of empowerment, not a norm of identical signs.
 
CS1 said:
Nothing you were presented was from my personal experiences of what you have listed. You were provided with biblical refutation and witness in the word of God from both Old and New Testament. I have answered every Biblical question you have presented.

I want asking you to acknowledge that. Don't speak to Lamar as if you and I did not have a long clear responses to each other questions. I can careless if he acknowledges my responses. You sir I do.
Click to expand...
I hear you, and I’m not going to dodge what you’re asking.
Yes — you have answered every biblical question I put before you, and you did it by appealing to Scripture, not personal experience. I’m acknowledging that plainly.
You didn’t build your case on feelings, anecdotes, or unverifiable manifestations; you built it on Old Testament patterns, New Testament continuity, Acts narrative flow, and the broader canonical witness.
I’m not ignoring that, and I’m not pretending you didn’t engage me point‑for‑point. You did.

But here’s where I still have to stand my ground hermeneutically.

Your biblical refutations demonstrate Spirit‑empowerment, not a single mandated manifestation. You’ve shown — correctly — that the Spirit’s work is visible, powerful, and supernatural across the canon.
You’ve shown — correctly — that empowerment didn’t stop.
You’ve shown — correctly — that tongues are one of many gifts listed.
I’m not disputing any of that.
What I’m disputing is the move from “empowerment is normative” to “this specific manifestation must be present in Acts 8.”

That’s the only point of tension between us.

You’re treating Acts 8 the way we treat the Trinity: a doctrine drawn from the whole canon even when the exact word isn’t present. But the Trinity is built from explicit statements across Scripture, not from a passage where the author is silent.
Acts 8 is a passage where Luke chooses not to name the manifestation.
That silence is part of the inspired text, and hermeneutics requires me to respect it.

So yes — I acknowledge your biblical work.
Yes — I acknowledge your engagement.
Yes — I acknowledge your consistency.
And yes — I acknowledge that you’ve answered everything I asked.

But I still have to hold the line that authorial silence cannot be filled with our preferred manifestation, even when the broader canon shows empowerment everywhere else.
 
OMC said:
I’m not “making Acts 8 elite” or isolating it at the expense of the rest of Scripture. I’m doing the opposite: I’m refusing to let one passage with authorial silence override dozens of passages where the Spirit’s manifestations are explicitly named. You keep saying the norm was already established — and I agree. The norm is Spirit‑empowerment, not one uniform sign. That’s the distinction you keep collapsing.

And your appeal to the Trinity actually proves my point, not yours. The doctrine of the Trinity is a canonical synthesis drawn from explicit statements across Scripture — Father is God, Son is God, Spirit is God, and yet God is one. We don’t build the Trinity from a passage that is silent; we build it from passages that speak. Silence never creates doctrine. Silence never defines manifestation. Silence never establishes norm. Silence only forces us to respect what the author chose not to specify.

That’s exactly what I’m saying about Acts 8.

Acts 8 shows empowerment — absolutely. Acts 8 shows something visible — absolutely. Acts 8 fits the OT and NT pattern — absolutely. Acts 8 does not name the manifestation — absolutely.

And because Luke names manifestations everywhere else (Acts 2, 10, 19), his silence here is intentional. You want to treat that silence as permission to import tongues into the text. I’m saying hermeneutics won’t let us do that. We don’t fill in authorial silence with our preferred manifestation; we let the silence stand and interpret the passage inside the broader pattern of empowerment.

Now, regarding your claim that the gifts continue today — I’m not arguing cessationism. I’m not denying tongues. I’m not denying prophecy. I’m not denying any gift the Spirit chooses to give. What I’m denying is the hermeneutical move of taking explicit manifestations from other passages and forcing them into a passage where Luke deliberately left the manifestation unnamed.

You’re trying to use Acts 8 as a proof‑text for a specific manifestation.
I’m using Acts 8 as a proof‑text for empowerment, not uniformity.

The canon gives us a norm of empowerment, not a norm of identical signs.
Click to expand...
There is no text that says the word Trinity. the idea of canonical synthesis is for the purpose of minimizes redundancy .
  • Purpose — It aims to generate a unified schema that can accommodate multiple user perspectives.
  • This applies to the The Gifts of the Holy Spirit also
NO I do not want to import tongues into the text in Acts 8 chapter but as you have already stated You can't dismiss the truth of the empowerment displayed in the Chapter which Simon saw and Philp was taken by. Yes Let silence stand of chapter 8 But if you use chapter 8 as to say the empowerment of the Holy Spirit is not said with evidence of Tongues, then I guess you do not see the providence of God in Esther as God is not even mentioned.

"You’re trying to use Acts 8 as a proof‑text for a specific manifestation.
I’m using Acts 8 as a proof‑text for empowerment, not uniformity."

The canon gives us a norm of empowerment, not a norm of identical signs.

No I am not. You are trying to use it to dismiss other scriptures that were presented to you.

I don't care how you're using it, the text speaks for it self. I am not speaking about uniformity. But the the truth of what we see when the Empowerment has happen in Scripture. as a normative. The Canon Give us the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer and the empowerment to be a witness of Christ. AS Jesus said. Jesus said "You shall receive power after the Holy Spirit come upon you to be my witnesses" Acts 1:8 is far more authoritative than your application of Acts chapter 8.

Jesu said YOU shall receive power Jesus said you shall speak in Tongues Mark 16 Paul taught on the gifts of the Holy Spirit and said in chapter 14 Do not forbid speaking in tongues. IF you think Luke in chapter 8 overrides Jesus in Acts 1:8 or mark 16 or Paul in 1cor chapter 12- 14 . Be my guess. Jesus is the final and supreme authority when ever he is speaking . Luke did not take away from that.
 
CS1 said:
There is no text that says the word Trinity. the idea of canonical synthesis is for the purpose of minimizes redundancy .
  • Purpose — It aims to generate a unified schema that can accommodate multiple user perspectives.
  • This applies to the The Gifts of the Holy Spirit also
NO I do not want to import tongues into the text in Acts 8 chapter but as you have already stated You can't dismiss the truth of the empowerment displayed in the Chapter which Simon saw and Philp was taken by. Yes Let silence stand of chapter 8 But if you use chapter 8 as to say the empowerment of the Holy Spirit is not said with evidence of Tongues, then I guess you do not see the providence of God in Esther as God is not even mentioned.

"You’re trying to use Acts 8 as a proof‑text for a specific manifestation.
I’m using Acts 8 as a proof‑text for empowerment, not uniformity."

The canon gives us a norm of empowerment, not a norm of identical signs.

No I am not. You are trying to use it to dismiss other scriptures that were presented to you.

I don't care how you're using it, the text speaks for it self. I am not speaking about uniformity. But the the truth of what we see when the Empowerment has happen in Scripture. as a normative. The Canon Give us the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer and the empowerment to be a witness of Christ. AS Jesus said. Jesus said "You shall receive power after the Holy Spirit come upon you to be my witnesses" Acts 1:8 is far more authoritative than your application of Acts chapter 8.

Jesu said YOU shall receive power Jesus said you shall speak in Tongues Mark 16 Paul taught on the gifts of the Holy Spirit and said in chapter 14 Do not forbid speaking in tongues. IF you think Luke in chapter 8 overrides Jesus in Acts 1:8 or mark 16 or Paul in 1cor chapter 12- 14 . Be my guess. Jesus is the final and supreme authority when ever he is speaking . Luke did not take away from that.
Click to expand...
Acts 8 itself doesn’t name the manifestation, and respecting that silence is not the same as dismissing the rest of Scripture.
I’m not overriding Jesus or Paul — I’m simply refusing to treat Luke’s intentional omission as if it were a specification. The canon gives us a norm of empowerment, and I affirm that; but it does not give us a norm of identical signs, and that’s why Acts 8 must be allowed to speak for itself without forcing other passages into its silence.
 
Lamar said:
Regardless, you still forgot the Mormons. On purpose?

Do you accept the validity of the "verified" claims of the Mormons?

This is not about you or I witnessing these events personally, it is about the use of the claims of supernatural abilities as evidence of the validity of a theology.
Click to expand...
I have, in my youth, 20-24, lived in a community of the Latter Day Saints. I became fully aware of their their theology and what I consider their unsupported history. I have deep admiration for their "community." I support their insistence of the sanctity of marriage. Their evangelistic - everyone starts as a missionary - perspective. Historically and scripturally (NT) they are nowhere to be found in the institutionalized Christian Church. Some of their scholars are pretty good, but must skirt the chasm that is central to their identity.

On the other hand, non-LDS Christians will have to compete with a massively wealthy institution. The The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) owns at least 2.4 million acres of land across the United States, placing it among the top private landowners in the country. Data assessments suggest the LDS Church's real estate and land portfolio exceeds $20 billion, making it one of the most financially valuable private land portfolios in the United States. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acquired its massive portfolio of over 2.4 million acres by investing surplus tithing funds and member donations into real estate through specialized corporate and nonprofit subsidiaries. The organization collects an estimated $7 billion annually in member contributions. There membership is about 7 million in the USA and 18 million worldwide.
 
OMC said:
Acts 8 itself doesn’t name the manifestation, and respecting that silence is not the same as dismissing the rest of Scripture.
I’m not overriding Jesus or Paul — I’m simply refusing to treat Luke’s intentional omission as if it were a specification. The canon gives us a norm of empowerment, and I affirm that; but it does not give us a norm of identical signs, and that’s why Acts 8 must be allowed to speak for itself without forcing other passages into its silence.
Click to expand...
ok were done. You keep using false narrative i neve said. Thank you.
 
OMC said:
The passage you quoted is based on a modern Charismatic/Pentecostal polemic system — a debate style that treats Acts 2, Joel 2, and 1 Corinthians 12–14 as universal, timeless guarantees of Spirit empowerment for every believer, and uses emotionally charged rhetoric (“you’re dishonest,” “dead fellowship,” “calling Jesus a liar”) to defend that position. It is not built on Hebrew, Greek, or historical exegesis, but on a contemporary experiential theology that assumes all Spirit manifestations described in Acts must continue identically today. This system interprets Scripture through the lens of modern spiritual experience rather than through the linguistic, historical, or canonical context of the biblical text.
  • Gordon Fee, Gospel and Spirit — explains how Pentecostalism universalizes Acts 2.
  • Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary — documents modern Pentecostal readings vs. historical readings.
  • William W. Menzies, Understanding the Spirit — outlines Pentecostal doctrine of “subsequence” and universal empowerment.
  • Amos Yong, Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh — explicitly argues Joel 2 applies universally today.
  • Stanley Horton, What the Bible Says About the Holy Spirit — classic Pentecostal view that Acts 2 is normative.
These authors openly state that their interpretation is modern, not ancient.
Click to expand...
OMC
Let's look at the credentials of those who validate your perspectives:
Gordon D. Fee (1934–2022) was a famous New Testament scholar, Pentecostal theologian, and professor who wrote widely read books on biblical interpretation from a Pentecostal perspective.

Craig Keener is widely recognized as a leading Pentecostal and charismatic biblical scholar, though his academic reach extends broadly across evangelical and mainstream New Testament scholarship. [1] (https://www.kesherjournal.com/artic...ripture-in-light-of-pentecost-by-craig-keener

William W. Menzies was an ordained minister of the Assemblies of God for 55 years

Amos Yong is widely recognized as one of the most prolific and influential Pentecostal theologians and writers on Pentecostalism in modern academia

anley Monroe Horton (May 6, 1916 – July 12, 2014), was an American Renewal theologian within the Pentecostal movement and the author of numerous books.

It would seem to my on first blush that your response to New Testament questions is to trot out the panoply of noted Pentecostals to add "credibility" to your argument. Perhaps we should solicit input from Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Orthodox and non-denominational input before prematurely putting this question "to rest."
 
biblestudent78 said:
OMC
Let's look at the credentials of those who validate your perspectives:
Gordon D. Fee (1934–2022) was a famous New Testament scholar, Pentecostal theologian, and professor who wrote widely read books on biblical interpretation from a Pentecostal perspective.

Craig Keener is widely recognized as a leading Pentecostal and charismatic biblical scholar, though his academic reach extends broadly across evangelical and mainstream New Testament scholarship. [1] (https://www.kesherjournal.com/artic...ripture-in-light-of-pentecost-by-craig-keener

William W. Menzies was an ordained minister of the Assemblies of God for 55 years

Amos Yong is widely recognized as one of the most prolific and influential Pentecostal theologians and writers on Pentecostalism in modern academia

anley Monroe Horton (May 6, 1916 – July 12, 2014), was an American Renewal theologian within the Pentecostal movement and the author of numerous books.

It would seem to my on first blush that your response to New Testament questions is to trot out the panoply of noted Pentecostals to add "credibility" to your argument. Perhaps we should solicit input from Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Orthodox and non-denominational input before prematurely putting this question "to rest."
Click to expand...
You’ve misunderstood my position entirely.
The scholars you listed are not the foundation of my argument, nor do they “validate my perspective.”
They are simply examples of how even highly trained Pentecostal scholars — who should be biased toward your view — still end up acknowledging the very textual realities most are trying to deny.
Their presence in my response was illustrative, not authoritative.
My argument does not depend on Fee, Keener, Menzies, Yong, or Horton.
It depends on:
Scripture’s own doctrine of preservation
the linguistic structure of Hebrew and Greek
the historical transmission of the biblical text
the NT’s use of the Septuagint
the multiplicity of manuscript witnesses
Those are the pillars — not denominational scholars.
 
OMC said:
You’ve misunderstood my position entirely.
The scholars you listed are not the foundation of my argument, nor do they “validate my perspective.”
They are simply examples of how even highly trained Pentecostal scholars — who should be biased toward your view — still end up acknowledging the very textual realities most are trying to deny.
Their presence in my response was illustrative, not authoritative.
My argument does not depend on Fee, Keener, Menzies, Yong, or Horton.
It depends on:
Scripture’s own doctrine of preservation
the linguistic structure of Hebrew and Greek
the historical transmission of the biblical text
the NT’s use of the Septuagint
the multiplicity of manuscript witnesses
Those are the pillars — not denominational scholars.
Click to expand...
My apologies. It had been my impression that we both aspire to a coherent perspective of hermeneutics. We seek insight into the scriptural narrative and external processes of evaluation, meaning, insight and history.
 
OMC said:
You’ve misunderstood my position entirely.
The scholars you listed are not the foundation of my argument, nor do they “validate my perspective.”
They are simply examples of how even highly trained Pentecostal scholars — who should be biased toward your view — still end up acknowledging the very textual realities most are trying to deny.
Their presence in my response was illustrative, not authoritative.
My argument does not depend on Fee, Keener, Menzies, Yong, or Horton.
It depends on:
Scripture’s own doctrine of preservation
the linguistic structure of Hebrew and Greek
the historical transmission of the biblical text
the NT’s use of the Septuagint
the multiplicity of manuscript witnesses
Those are the pillars — not denominational scholars.
Click to expand...
FYI you presented them. And the reason you did so was to say they following: "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.”

can't have it both ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: biblestudent78
CS1 said:
FYI you presented them. And the reason you did so was to say they following: "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.”

can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
You’re conflating using scholars as evidence with resting my argument on their authority. When I pointed out that Fee, Keener, Menzies, Yong, and Horton openly state their interpretation of the Spirit’s gifts is modern rather than ancient, I was showing that even within that Pentecostal stream, the claim of “original apostolic practice” is admitted to be a development. 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. I’m not trying to “have it both ways”; I’m doing two different things—building my case from Scripture and language, and then showing that your own preferred scholars inadvertently confirm the very point you’re contesting.
 
biblestudent78 said:
My apologies. It had been my impression that we both aspire to a coherent perspective of hermeneutics. We seek insight into the scriptural narrative and external processes of evaluation, meaning, insight and history.
Click to expand...
No worries at all — and yes, we both care about coherent hermeneutics. Where our approaches differ is simply in what we treat as the anchor point. I absolutely agree that we seek insight into the scriptural narrative and that historical, literary, and linguistic tools help us evaluate meaning. But for me, those tools operate under the authority of the text rather than over it. Hermeneutics is not merely the study of external processes; it is the disciplined effort to understand Scripture as it presents itself — a unified narrative with theological intent, preserved meaning, and internal coherence. So while I welcome historical context, textual comparison, and literary analysis, I treat them as servants of the text, not arbiters of it. If we keep revelation as the center and let external tools illuminate rather than govern, then we truly share the same hermeneutical goal: insight that is both coherent and faithful to the scriptural witness.
 
OMC said:
You’re conflating using scholars as evidence with resting my argument on their authority. When I pointed out that Fee, Keener, Menzies, Yong, and Horton openly state their interpretation of the Spirit’s gifts is modern rather than ancient, I was showing that even within that Pentecostal stream, the claim of “original apostolic practice” is admitted to be a development. 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. I’m not trying to “have it both ways”; I’m doing two different things—building my case from Scripture and language, and then showing that your own preferred scholars inadvertently confirm the very point you’re contesting.
Click to expand...
NO I'm not. Listen you can you AI to formulate your argument. But you used AI and post your postion earlier
biblestudent78 said:
OMC
Just on the basis of good communication, it is helpful if you state your objectives for introducing data.
Click to expand...
amen
 
OMC said:
You’re conflating using scholars as evidence with resting my argument on their authority. When I pointed out that Fee, Keener, Menzies, Yong, and Horton openly state their interpretation of the Spirit’s gifts is modern rather than ancient, I was showing that even within that Pentecostal stream, the claim of “original apostolic practice” is admitted to be a development. 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. I’m not trying to “have it both ways”; I’m doing two different things—building my case from Scripture and language, and then showing that your own preferred scholars inadvertently confirm the very point you’re contesting.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back