Why I Have a Problem with Cessationism

This is my third post in the debate on the cessation of spiritual gifts.

So far, I have merely responded to posts made by Coramdeo.  But now I want to explain my true position on cessationism, why I have a problem with it, and why I think the spiritual gifts of tongues, prophecy and healing may still happen today.

Here is my Main Problem with Cessationism

It’s an absolute negative statement.  What I mean is this:  even if cessationists are claiming that only certain gifts don’t happen anymore, and the others do, they are saying that the gifts that have ceased never happen under any circumstances

I got in a discussion with my father over this issue and he asked me a very telling question.  He asked me, “What purpose does tongues have today?”  This was meant has a rhetorical question, of course.  In fact, it is not the question that matters at all, it is the assumption behind the question, the reason the question was rhetorical, that means something.  My father, in his Christian life and theological education, which has been long and extensive, has decided that there is no purpose for the gift of tongues.  Unfortunately, “decided” is not the most accurate word.  “Assumed” is the most accurate because no one can know an absolute negative.  No one can know that there is no use for tongues ever under any circumstances.

And yet, that it what cessasionism claims.

Are we really ready to believe that the Holy Spirit would never, ever use tongues, healing or prophecy under any circumstances?  Even if I travel to a 3rd world country where I don’t know the language, the Spirit couldn’t use tongues to speak a language I don’t know to bring people to a knowledge of Christ?  How more useful can you get?

In order for me to subscribe to cessationism I would have to know for sure that the Spirit would never use tongues, healing or prophecy (that doesn’t attempt to add to Scripture) under any circumstances or any time, ever.  I’m just not ready to do that.

A Caveat

The reason I’m not ready to that is because there is no clear cut Scriptural reason for cessationism.  I have no problem with absolute negatives in themselves, but only with clear Scriptural backing.  For instance, Scripture is clear that there is no other way to God besides Jesus Christ.  It’s an absolute negative, and I can know it because God tells me so.  I would have to be equally Scripturally convinced of cessationism.

Caveat #2

If the term “cessationism” is being used to describe a position where the gifts are different or used much more sparingly in modern times, then I don’t have a problem with that stance.  I completely agree that the historical context matters and being two thousand years post-Cornelius Gentiles is not the same as being a Jew two years removed from Pentecost.

It makes sense that the Holy Spirit would bestow the gifts upon those building the church differently than those who are born two thousand years after the church has been built.  However, I draw the line on making absolute statements about what the Holy Spirit will and won’t do unless Scripture is clear on that absolute statement. 

Three Elephants

The reason I’m not Scripturally convinced of the absolute negative, is that there are a few problems with cessionism, or “elephants in the room” if you will.

One of these elephants is 1 Cor 13 as explained in my previous post.  This passage is often used in support of cessationism however their are many problems in interpreting “the perfect” to mean the canon of Scripture.  Again, this was explained previously.

Eph 4:11-13 is also used as a proof text for cessationism.  This passage says that certain offices have been appointed by God, “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers.”  So Paul mentions them all in the same breath.  Then he tells us what purpose those offices were appointed for, “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ“.  Then he gives us under what circumstances those offices will cease, “until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.”

What the cessationists do is say that this means the offices of apostles and prophets have ceased.  I have no problem with believing this is true.  However, the office of apostle hasn’t ceased because the Church is established, it has ceased because the definition of Apostle is someone who has seen the Risen Jesus face to face.  And since He’s ascended . . .

It’s also bad hermenuetics to pick out two of the offices mentioned all in the same breath and say “only these two have ceased because the church and canon are established” when Paul makes no distinction between the offices and when they will cease.  Paul is exactly saying that all these offices will cease at a certain time and he doesn’t say that some will cease first and others second, or third etc.  To insert an order here is just bad Biblical interpretation. 

Also, Paul never says that these gifts will cease when the Church is established.  The cessationist crowd must interpret “until we all attain the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ” to mean the church.  The parsing out of what exactly this is referring to would take a long time.  It will suffice to say here that, looking at myself and the rest of the church, I’m not comfortable saying that since we have the canon we are “mature” to the degree “of the fullness of Christ“.  If Paul is describing the church here, his description doesn’t accurately reflect any church I’ve ever heard of, in modern times or in the early church.

The third elephant in the room of cessationism ties in closely with this passage in Ephesians.  In Coramdeo’s original post on this subject he says:

I think the N.T is quite evident that Pastors and Teacher are to continue on, but we do not have much evidence that Apostles or Prophets should continue on, and in light of other passages I think it is best to conclude that Apostles and Prophet offices have ceased.

I completely agree with Coramdeo here.  There is no need to add to Scripture and so the office of Prophet (in the Old Testament sense) has ceased and Christ ascended two thousand years ago so the office of apostle died with the twelve.  However, what Coramdeo is concluding here is that since those offices have ceased, so too have certain gifts.

The elephant in the room is two men by the name of Stephen and Philip.  Both of these men were not Apostles, they were deacons.  And yet, Luke tells us that Stephen performed “great signs and wonders” (Acts 6) while the people of Samaria “heard and saw that signs which he [Philip] was performing” (Acts 8).  So deacons, and not just Apostles, were capable of performing “great signs and wonders” of the Holy Spirit.  Even since the office of Apostle has ceased, apparently that doesn’t mean that gifts must cease. 

Jesus Himself seems to support this definition of those who can perform works of the Spirit. 

Mark 16:17-18, “These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

So the qualification of those who can do such things are “those who have believed”.  That’s it. 

Let Us Pursue Love

Let us also be skeptical.  Just because believers can do such things, it doesn’t mean that this does, or should, go on all around us.  It also doesn’t mean that the gifts of prophecy, tongues or healing should be a primary pursuit of ours.  1 Cor 13:

1If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

 2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

 3And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

In fact, in 1 Cor 14 Paul explains in strict detail how gifts should be handled and that the goal should be for the edification of the church.  These guidelines should absolutely be followed or the gifts are not being used correctly.  And if they’re not being used correctly, then it’s not of the Spirit.  Paul concludes the chapter with, “Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.  But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.”

Since we do not have solid Scriptural backing for doing so, let us not subscribe to an absolute negative regarding certain gifts.  But let us pursue the greatest gift of the Spirit, love, and let us do everything for the edification of the Church and be bold enough to follow the guidelines laid down by Paul, squashing any “manifestation of the Spirit” that does not follow them.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Discussion, Theology

Tags: , , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

95 Comments on “Why I Have a Problem with Cessationism”


  1. Hi Eric,,, you said ,,,,” But let us pursue the greatest gift of the Spirit, love, and let us do everything for the edification of the Church and be bold enough to follow the guidelines laid down by Paul, squashing any “manifestation of the Spirit” that does not follow them.”

    I have never seen any “manifestation of the Spirit” to be squashed that does not follow Pauls guidelines.

    Name me one.

    But yet I have seen charismatics swallow anything that is put in their mouth.

    Emotional Deception in Charismatic Revivals
    http://thewordonthewordoffaithinfoblog.com/2009/03/16/emotional-deception/
    ============================================

    Hugh Marjoe Ross Gortner, generally known as Marjoe Gortner (born January 14, 1944 in Long Beach, California), is a former evangelical minister who first gained a certain fame in the late 1940s and early to mid 1950s when he became the youngest ordained preacher at the age of four, and then outright notoriety in the 1970s when he starred in an Oscar-winning, behind-the-scenes documentary about the lucrative business of Pentecostal preaching. The name “Marjoe” is a combination of the names “Mary” and “Joseph”.

    When Marjoe was three, his father, a second generation evangelical minister, noticed his son’s talent for mimicry and overall fearlessness of strangers and public settings. His parents claimed Marjoe had received a vision from God during a bath and began training him to deliver sermons, complete with dramatic gestures and emphatic lunges. By the time Marjoe was four, his parents arranged for him to perform a marriage ceremony for a film crew from Paramount studios, referring to him as “the youngest ordained minister in history.” Like much in Marjoe’s early life it is hard to say for sure who exactly ordained him, if his father ordained him, or if he was even ordained at all.

    Until the time he was a teenager, Marjoe and his parents traveled the rural United States, holding revival meetings. As well as teaching him scriptural passages, Marjoe’s parents also taught him several money-making tactics, involving the sale of supposedly “holy” articles at revivals which promised to heal the sick and dying. By the time Marjoe was sixteen, he later estimated, his family had amassed maybe three million dollars; shortly after his sixteenth birthday, Marjoe’s father absconded with the money, and a disillusioned Marjoe left his mother for San Francisco, where he was taken in by and became the lover of an older woman. Marjoe spent the remainder of his teenage years as an itinerant hippie until his early twenties, when, hard pressed for money, he decided to put his old skills to work and re-emerged on the evangelical circuit with a charismatic stage-show modeled after those of contemporary rockers, most notably Mick Jagger. Marjoe made enough to take six months off every year, during which he returned to California, surviving on the previous six months’ earnings.

    In the late 1960s, Marjoe suffered a crisis of conscience — in particular about the threats of damnation he felt compelled to weave into his sermons — and resolved to make one final tour, this time on film. Under the pretense of making a documentary on the evangelical and non-denominational faiths, Marjoe assembled a documentary film crew to follow him around the Southern United States during 1971; unbeknownst to everyone else involved — including, at one point, his father — Marjoe gave “backstage” interviews to the filmmakers in between sermons and revivals, explaining intimate details of how he and other ministers operated. After sermons, the filmmakers were invited back to Marjoe’s hotel room to tape him counting the money he collected during the day. The resulting film, Marjoe, won the 1972 Academy Award for best documentary.


  2. And what is sad is,, Marjoe never even believed in God. Yet charismatics ate it up. Because they have no discernment.

    It is disappointing (sad) to see you resort to such illogic and mental gymnastics as you have in your response here. Your absolute negative argument is very flawed. Cease is an absolute negative term.

    Do you expect cease to not mean cease? Does cease mean NOT ABSOLUTELY cease?

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cease
    1 a: to come to an end b: to bring an activity or action to an end : discontinue 2obsolete : to become extinct : die out

    Cease G3973 pauō pow’-o
    A primn. verb (“pause”); to stop (transitive or intransitive), that is, restrain, quit, desist, come to an end: – cease, leave, refrain.

    The question IS NOT can God use these gifts anytime he wants to. He is sovereign and can do as he wishes. The question is,,, does he? I often hear charismatics say that non-charismatics PUT GOD IN A BOX by saying he cannot do things the way he did then. But we never claim that he cannot,,, but that He has chosen not too. It is the charismatics that put God in a Box by saying he must do all things, in all ages, in the same fashion.

    Turning your logic on it’s ear,,, lets say the continuationist position is an absolute positive.

    Which it really is. The continuationist position maintains that the gifts happen in the very same way and volume as they did in the NT. Although I can see you working your way into a position that says,,, “yeh the gifts still happen,, but not in the same exact way as they did then.” In that case you would be a ceasationist at heart,,, no matter what your lips may say.

    Show me one person or group that has went to other countries and evangelized in “other tounges” (ie,, languages they have not learned) After the Pentecostal restoration movement started,, all those groups sent people to do just this,,, and they all either had to bring them back to the states,,,, or send them someone,,,, to teach them the languages.

    You used this verse,,, Mark 16:17-18, “These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

    How many time have you picked up a deadly serpent or drank something poisonous? There is an account where Paul got bit by a snake,,, and he lived. Are you willing to test to see if this is still in effect?


  3. Sorry Eric,,, I should have taken the time to put all my responses into one response. I have been feeling like I am gonna puke any moment now for two days and am probably very dehydrated from diarrhea.
    =============================================

    I won’t try to sell you on watching this video. The title is pretty self explanatory. I get a feeling you won’t watch it. But at least it will be here for all to see.

    What we see in the charismatic church today,, is merely Christians APING pagan practices. So much for squashing any “manifestation of the Spirit” that does not follow the guidelines laid down by Paul.

    Signs And Wonders Movement Exposed: THE VIDEO SERIES THAT EVERY CHRISTIAN MUST SEE!!!!!!!

    http://thewordonthewordoffaithinfoblog.com/2009/04/14/signs-and-wonders-movment-exposed/


  4. I would also like to point this out to you Eric, The charismatic movement has a strong streak of anti-intellectualism. When you said,,,,,

    “My father, in his Christian life and theological education, which has been long and extensive, has decided that there is no purpose for the gift of tongues. Unfortunately, “decided” is not the most accurate word. “Assumed” is the most accurate because no one can know an absolute negative. No one can know that there is no use for tongues ever under any circumstances.”

    Why mention your dads “long and extensive theological education”? And then turn around and say your dad has “assumed” over “decided“. Sounds like to me your doing the assuming,,,,,,,,, and your Dad has done the studying.


  5. Hi Eric,, I also want to apologize if I seemed irritated or unloving here. I am still very
    nauseous. Sorry if I come off wrong.


  6. Hi Eric, here is another point I would like to bring up for your consideration. You said,,

    “What the cessationists do is say that this means the offices of apostles and prophets have ceased. I have no problem with believing this is true. However, the office of apostle hasn’t ceased because the Church is established, it has ceased because the definition of Apostle is someone who has seen the Risen Jesus face to face.”

    This is actually one of the main arguments for cessationism. The office of the apostles has ceased because you have to be a witness to the risen Christ. Also a good thing to remember is that any time you see anyone in the NT working signs and wonders. It is always Jesus, the apostles or someone they laid hands on and imparted the gifts too. I think it is safe to say that by the time the apostles died out, and all those whom they imparted the gifts too died out, the confirmatory gifts died out also. The perfect does not have to be translated the complete cannon, or the second coming. It could mean when the church is established. I know the church is far from perfect. But the church has the perfect law of liberty.

    Look at these two verses. How are they not a contradition?

    Eph 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the ***PERFECTING*** of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

    2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be ***PERFECT***, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

    Are offices for the perfecting of the saints? OR is the scripture for the perfecting of the
    saints?


  7. Have you ever seen the atheist list of bible contradictions? This is one of many they deem
    as a contradiction in scripture. The law of non contradiction dictates that nothing can be
    both A and Non-A at the same time and same sense. I think the simple answer to avoid
    the contradiction is to say the offices perfected the saints until that function transitioned
    into the scripture being the perfecting instrument.

  8. lorisev Says:

    Rather than asking “What purpose does tongues have today?” we should ask, “What were the purpose of tongues in the NT?”

    Tongues were not given simply to share the gospel with a person whose language you did not know, it was a sign to unbelieving Jews confirming the message was from God as we are told in 1 Corinthians 14:22 and see played out in Acts chapter 10 and 11.

    This confirmation was needed because they lacked something we do not lack today, the Bible.

    The NT church was introducing some very “new” teachings to the church (Acts 17:19). There was a NEED for them to speak in tongues and preform miracles. It was not do some work in the mission field but to prove the message was from God. The Bible tells us this is how this new message was confirmed.

    Heb 2:3-4 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was CONFIRMED to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, AND GIFTS of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will? NKJV

    Acts 14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who CONFIRMED the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous SIGNS and wonders. NIV

    The message that was confirmed with gifts then was written down for us and we no longer need the gifts to confirm it. We have the complete revelation of God from those who once had the gifts. There will be no one else given revelation that is not already within it so there will be no need to confirm their message with some outside source.

    It is not the canon or some particular version that is perfect, is the original words in the original language that is indeed perfect. To state that the Word of God MUST be our final authority on this and all issues but also suggest that what we have is not a perfect and that we need some outside source to confirm it is a blatant contradiction. How can the Word be our final authority if we can’t trust it alone?

    The Word of God IS perfect just like it tells us in James 1:22-25.

    If the gifts are still needed then we can’t rely on the Word of God because it is not perfect and complete. “Do we need further revelation and confirmation or is the Word of God sufficient and complete?” That is the true question here. Either the Word of God is sufficient or it is not. I believe that the Word of God is complete, sufficient and perfect. I believe it when it says it is enough to thoroughly equip the man of God.

    2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
    NIV


  9. Lorisev said: “Tongues were not given simply to share the gospel with a person whose language you did not know, it was a sign to unbelieving Jews confirming the message was from God as we are told in 1 Corinthians 14:22 and see played out in Acts chapter 10 and 11.”

    I would like to add to this.

    1Co 14:21-22 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

    The term law is used to denote the whole OT. Examples of this are in Joh_10:34, and Joh_15:25.

    The OT has several instances of,,,,,,, 1. God has a message for the people. 2. The people refuse to listen to God. 3. God causes tongues to be heard as a sign of judgment. 4. Dispersion follows.

    This sequence of prophetic events has played out many times before.

    http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:BFkB7XxMiQ0J:www.demonictimes.com/pdf/tonguesasasign.pdf+the+purpose+of+tongues+was+a+sign+of+judgement&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    This presents a consistent and demonstrable pattern in which God deals with his people using “other tongues/languages ” which results in judgment through
    dispersion. It would follow logically that God would continue in the same pattern and Matt. 23:38, 24:2 would be fullfiled in 70 and Nero’s destruction of the temple and the dispersion of the Jewish people from their land. Hence there is no need for tounges today or anytime after 70ad.

    ==========================================

    Now there are a couple of myths about tongues that need to be settled before we can consider totally excluding the possibility of God using the gift of tongues today.

    Some Objections Considered: http://www.pfrs.org/gifts/gifts04.html

    1. Two kinds of “tongues” Myth

    1 Cor 14:2-4 2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. (KJV)

    The first question concerns the possibility of another kind of “tongues” besides what occurred at Pentecost. This other alleged kind of “tongues” is said to be a “prayer language,” and is commonly taught among Charismatic and Pentecostal groups. They think verse 2 above indicates that “tongues” should be used in prayer. However, Paul’s point was not that this was the purpose of tongues. Rather, because of the massive confusion in the Corinthian church, with many people speaking in tongues at the same time, and there being no interpretations given for the hearers, no one understood the tongues. The effect of the wrong use of tongues by the Corinthian church was that no one besides God knew what was being spoken. Rather than the whole church being edified, only the speaker was edified.

    In this chapter, Paul was restricting the use of tongues in the Church because its improper use by them did not edify the whole congregation. His comment, that those who speak in tongues in the church are edifying themselves, is not a positive statement, but a negative one. The same is true of his statement that only God knew what they were saying. This was a sharp rebuke. Speaking in tongues in the congregation, with many people speaking simultainously and with no interpretations being offered, was mass confusion because no one was edified except the speaker!

    And no one knew what was being said but God alone! Paul wanted all things to be done unto edification of the entire church. That was not happening at Corinth, because of all the confusion. Granted, one with the gift of tongues could pray or even sing using this gift. But, that is not the sole purpose of the gift. The purpose was a sign to the unbelieving of Israel. Here is my paraphrase of what Paul was actually saying in the above verses:

    —The person speaking in a foreign tongue in your services is not speaking for the benefit of the whole church. He is really speaking only to God, because nobody can understand what he is saying! (even though he is speaking mysteries of the spirit)—

    ***But the person prophesying in your services is speaking edification, exhortation, and comfort to the whole congregation.***

    —Those speaking in tongues are only edifying themselves!—

    ***But those who prophesy edify the whole congregation.”***

    Paul was drawing a contrast between their exercise of “tongues” and “prophesy,” between what was actually prevailing in their services (—between dashes above—), and the ideal situation which Paul was encouraging (***between asteriks above***).

    Prophecy was much to be preferred, because it was done in the common tongue, and all could understand and be edified, exhorted, and comforted. Tongues, on the other hand, benefitted no one except the speaker unless there was an interpretation given for every utterance. God alone knew what was being said. The speaker was indeed exercising his gift, but to no profit for anyone else. Paul did not forbid the use of tongues in the gatherings. But he did restrict its use to only two or three, in turn, and only with an interpretation being given in the common tongue (Greek). In this way, tongues could also edify the whole congregation.

    The purpose of tongues was a sign to the lost, not to believers. Its role was primarily outside the assembled congregation of believers. But, it could be used within the meetings, provided an interpreter was present, in case unbelievers did come into their services (vs. 23-24). And with the use of the interpreter, this gift as well could still edify the whole congregation, not just unbelievers.

    Paul also mentioned briefly that tongues might be used in both prayer and singing. 1 Cor 14:15-17 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? 17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified. (NKJ)

    While Paul did permit both praying and singing in tongues in the church meetings, he still kept the focus on interpretation so that the whole congregation could understand the prayer (or song). Verse 16 indicates that even prayer and singing in foreign tongues must be interpreted into the common tongue. Otherwise, how could those who are unlearned in that particular language say “amen” to the giving of thanks in prayer or song?

    It is apparent then, that there is but one kind of “tongues” in Scripture, the same “tongues” witnessed by the crowd of Jews at Pentecost. There is only one kind of “tongues” mentioned in Acts, and in 1 Corinthians. It is not a “prayer language,” that can be spoken by anyone in private prayer — a kind of babbling of unintelligible sounds. The kind of “tongues” that require an interpreter in the church services is the same kind of “tongues” used in public prayer. And even then (in prayer and singing) tongues still requires an interpreter for the benefit of the whole congregation. In verse 15 above, Paul told them that if they exercise “tongues” they must also add to it interpretation. That is what “pray in the spirit” AND “pray with the understanding” means. If you have tongues you must also have interpretation so that the whole congregation can say “amen” to your giving thanks.

    2. Heavenly Language Myth

    Some claim that chapter 13 indicates tongues is a “heavenly language.” But, a closer look indicates otherwise.

    1 Cor 13:1-3 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (KJV)

    Paul was using hyperbole here, not speaking literally, just as Jesus did when He spoke of plucking out the eye, or cutting off the hand. Paul did not expect anyone to speak with the language of angels any more than he expected any of them to do the other things in this passage. Did anyone speak in ALL known languages? No. Did anyone possess ALL knowledge and wisdom, and could remove mountains at will? No. Did anyone give away all that they had to feed the poor, and then offer their body to be burned? No, of course not. Paul was using the most extreme things imaginable in order to show that even if someone could do all these things, it means absolutely nothing without love. That he included speaking in angelic languages in his list of hypothetical hyperbole is an indication that they did NOT speak with angelic tongues, just as they did not actually do the other things listed. Otherwise Paul’s hypothetical hyperbolic list loses its intended shock value.

  10. DB Says:

    If the gifts are still needed then we can’t rely on the Word of God because it is not perfect and complete. “Do we need further revelation and confirmation or is the Word of God sufficient and complete?” That is the true question here. Either the Word of God is sufficient or it is not. I believe that the Word of God is complete, sufficient and perfect. I believe it when it says it is enough to thoroughly equip the man of God.

    2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
    NIV

    These are very valid points, and ones I struggle with! However, the word of God is complete if, and only if, one is being led by the spirit of God, since it is the spirit of God that will lead us into all truth.

    So, my question is, if we believe that we must be led by the spirit of God to discern the word, then how do we know, according to the cessation argument, that the teaching by Paul about the spirit hasn’t also been done away with? When Paul wrote, “As many as are led by the spirit, these are the sons of God” Romans 8: 14, was he just writing for those believers at that time. If so, we’re in trouble, because the word of God, as the bible, has been distorted over and over since the first printing. If we don’t have the spirit anymore to lead us through the maze of man’s confused interpretations, then how do we know what to believe?

    Paul didn’t have the bible, nor did anyone else. Paul said that believers would become “living epistles!” In other words, The Lord would write on the hearts and minds of living flesh, as opposed to tablets of stone or parchment (Jeremiah 31: 31).

    I’m more concerned with issues like this and the administrative etc gifts than tongues, since I tend to agree with Lorisev on the tongues issue!

  11. Tim Nichols Says:

    Lorisev,

    One point about your argument bothers me. As you noted, James says that the Word is perfect. Based on that, and other passages like it, you said

    If the gifts are still needed then we can’t rely on the Word of God because it is not perfect and complete. “Do we need further revelation and confirmation or is the Word of God sufficient and complete?”

    This is a false dilemma. It doesn’t seem like one only because we are at a considerable historical distance from the writing of James.

    But imagine sitting with James and the original recipients of the letter and making this argument to them. In that time, the sign gifts were undeniably in operation, and yet James said quite plainly that the Word is perfect. If he meant it was perfect right then — and he clearly did — then, on your dilemma, the gifts should have instantly passed out of use. Of course, they didn’t; he rather obviously did not mean to say that the prophetic writing of the epistle of James permanently shuts the door to all other exercises of prophecy. (Otherwise the NT canon would be a lot shorter; James was an early book.)

    In other words, what the Bible teaches about its own sufficiency, authority and reliability cannot be incompatible with prophecy, healings, tongues and so on, as they were then practiced — because they were still being practiced by the men who wrote Scripture and the communities to whom it was written.

    Either James says that there’s no more prophetic revelation, or he doesn’t. If it does, then why was more revelation given after James? If it doesn’t, then why is it being used as evidence to support cessationism?

    His forever,
    Tim

  12. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    “I have never seen any “manifestation of the Spirit” to be squashed that does not follow Pauls guidelines.”

    You misunderstand me. I am exactly meaning to call out the pentecostals, revivalists, tel-evangelists and the like. They lack the courage to stand up to what people call “of the Spirit” even though it violates the guidelines laid down by Paul. I’m saying let us have such courage to stand up for the Word even if it hurts the feelings of fellow church-goers, or upsets the cart of the doctrine of your particular church. My point is that we need to be moderate about this issue, not subscribing to the absolute negative of “The Spirit never acts in this way ever” and not accepting everything that everyone claims is “of the Spirit”.

    That’s a sad story about Marjoe. Unfortunately, how wrong people have used these gifts of tongues, healings and prophecy doesn’t mean those gifts never happen. I can see how cessationists are turned off by those gifts, because of how they are exploited by greedy and evil men. But by turning the wheel to avoid the ditch on one side of the road they have run right into the ditch on the other side.

    “It is disappointing (sad) to see you resort to such illogic and mental gymnastics as you have in your response here. Your absolute negative argument is very flawed. Cease is an absolute negative term.”

    Again, you’ve misunderstood me. Let me rephrase my point in a question: Do you see a problem with subscribing to absolute statements regarding what the Spirit does and doesn’t do without clear Scriptural backing? Case in point…

    “The question IS NOT can God use these gifts anytime he wants to. He is sovereign and can do as he wishes. The question is,,, does he?”

    Exactly. And in order to logically say that the Spirit absolutely does not manifest Himself in this way ever, you would have to observe every single instance of the Spirit acting that has ever happened since the Early Church. Since this is impossible, the absolute negative statement is irrational.

    You’d have to observe every instance of the Spirit acting because the Bible never uses the word “cease” nor does it clearly articulate when the gifts and offices will cease.

    “The continuationist position maintains that the gifts happen in the very same way and volume as they did in the NT.”

    Nope, that’s not at all what I believe. If the term “continuationist” is absolute in the definition you’ve described, then I’m not a continuationist. Notice that I have not forced “cessationist” in the absolute negative statement because people could be using the term differently, so it’s unfair for you to do the same towards “continuationist”. I’m using the term “continuationist” to mean that I believe those gifts CAN still happen, merely because the Bible never says they don’t. But it’s obviously different because I’m not blind to the world around me.

    “Although I can see you working your way into a position that says,,, “yeh the gifts still happen,, but not in the same exact way as they did then.” In that case you would be a ceasationist at heart,,, no matter what your lips may say.”

    Yes, you’re right, my intention is be as dishonest as possible. Actually, truth is that I don’t mind being called a cessationist. I don’t mind being called a nincompoop as long as the term accurately describes me. So, if “cessationist” means that the Holy Spirit interacts with the Church mostly differently than He did then, partly because of the canon, then, yea, I’m a cessationist. Remember, it’s the absolute negative “never happens ever ever for any reason at any time at any place” that I have a problem with.

    “Show me one person or group that has went to other countries and evangelized in “other tounges” (ie,, languages they have not learned) After the Pentecostal restoration movement started,, all those groups sent people to do just this,,, and they all either had to bring them back to the states,,,, or send them someone,,,, to teach them the languages.”

    Seriously? So you’re claiming that every single missionary that has ever gone to another country where they didn’t know the language never ever, not once, used tongues? No one said that tongues wouldn’t require you to learn the language, or that you can count on tongues taking place (like the Pentecostals might have). Are you really comfortable making that claim of omniscience?

    “How many time have you picked up a deadly serpent or drank something poisonous? There is an account where Paul got bit by a snake,,, and he lived. Are you willing to test to see if this is still in effect?”

    You are again claiming absolute, universal knowledge of healing never taking place. That there has been no one since the time of Paul, in the history of the world, that went around claiming that he had gotten bitten by a poisenous snake and lived. Or going around claiming that he spoke a language he never knew.

    As for the video, I have no doubt that the “signs and wonders” movement is fake as all get-out. You are unfairly lumping me in with someone who takes anything that is claimed to be “of the Spirit” as such without question. If you knew me, you’d know that I’m a serious skeptic. My wife calls me a pessimist, but I prefer “realist”. My point, my ONLY point, is that we should not make absolute statements on what the Spirit does or doesn’t do without clear Scriptural backing. I just don’t think that Scripture is clear on this one.

    “Why mention your dads “long and extensive theological education”? And then turn around and say your dad has “assumed” over “decided“. Sounds like to me your doing the assuming,,,,,,,,, and your Dad has done the studying.”

    Again, you’re making personal judgements on me. If my argument shows a lack of study, please show it, don’t just claim it. Because my father agrees with you and I don’t, then my father is the one who is educated? Don’t you see how biased that is? You have no idea how much I’ve studied, and are continuing to study, the Word and feel no need to justify myself in the realm of Biblical study to you. I’m working on it and my conscience is clear.

    “Hi Eric,, I also want to apologize if I seemed irritated or unloving here. I am still very nauseous. Sorry if I come off wrong.”

    I don’t know what to say to this Damon, you have spent the last few pages accusatory and sarcastic. This last quote was posted several hours after the others, and so maybe you had some time to reflect. Unfortunately, the previous comments are out in the world and it’s too late to take them back.

    “Also a good thing to remember is that any time you see anyone in the NT working signs and wonders. It is always Jesus, the apostles or someone they laid hands on and imparted the gifts too.”

    Here is the problem with that. The Bible never, not once, explains a scenario in which the “laying on of hands” imparted spiritual gifts upon believers. No really, don’t take my word for it, look it up. In Acts 6, the seven deacons that are chosen have hands laid on them, but that’s all the Bible says, that hands were laid on them, and nothing more. You can infer an imparting of gifts all you want, but that’s just eisegesis. Secondly, Jesus seems to support this position in Mark 16 where the only qualifications of those than can do signs and wonders, are those that “believe”. We see this in Stephen and Phillip.

    Don’t you see how your position of absolute cessationism is forcing you to interpret the “laying on of hands” of Stephen and Phillip as imparting gifts upon him when the Scripture says no such thing? Honestly brother, why not just read the Bible for what it says and leave it at that?

    “I think it is safe to say that by the time the apostles died out, and all those whom they imparted the gifts too died out, the confirmatory gifts died out also.”

    I agree with you, that’s a logically valid, and maybe even sound, position. Unfortunately, “safe”, “valid” or “sound” is not my prerequisite for truth. “Scriptural” is.

    “The perfect does not have to be translated the complete cannon, or the second coming. It could mean when the church is established. I know the church is far from perfect. But the church has the perfect law of liberty.”

    When did the church as a whole have the “Law of Liberty” as a whole? Only when the canon was completed. So then, was the church not firmly established until 325 CE? You can’t have it both ways, either the church is perfect so Paul would call it perfect, or it’s not.

    You’ve created a false dilemma with the Eph 4 and 2 Tim 3 passages. The passages say that offices are for perfecting the faith and that Scripture is for perfecting the faith…why can’t it be both?

    But you’re false dilemma has a much bigger problem. You said:

    ” I think the simple answer to avoid the contradiction is to say the offices perfected the saints until that function transitioned
    into the scripture being the perfecting instrument.”

    Firstly, Scripture never explains any kind of “transition” so this is pure eisegesis on your part. Secondly, Paul mentions the offices of pastor, evangelist and teacher in the same breath as “prophet” and “apostle”. By making the claim you just did, you are saying that the offices of pastor, evangelist and teacher ceased right along with apostle and prophet. There is no way around it.

  13. Eric Kemp Says:

    And, it seems on a whole that we are creating this debate to be between “cessationists” and “Charismatics” where people must be either one or the other. Is there no middle ground?


  14. Thanks for the great responce Eric!!!!!!!

    I have read it through but will wait to comment. I am feeling better now,, so I won’t string my responce out to 3 or 4 like last time 🙂

    I’ll will probably do a responce to this tonight before I get back to my series of blogpost on the subject.

    I got one finished called “Why I am not a Charismatic: What is Cessationism and Continuationism?” But it is being a real booger trying to post it. I tried for 45 minutes to post it last night. My ISP is running faster tonight,, maybe that will help.

    Be blessed brother
    IJN, IHS,
    Damon


  15. PART 1

    Hi Eric,,, thanks for the great response. I am glad your honest about your feelings. I did not mean to ruffle your feathers and yes I was very sick (very diarrheic and nauseous) for 50-60 hrs. But I feel much better now. Sorry if I offended you,, I did not mean too. But at one point I did try to get your attention,,, heres why. Following your pattern, my first comments will be in “ ”, yours plain text and my counter response in **asterics** followed by a
    ===========================================

    “Why mention your dads “long and extensive theological education”? And then turn around and say your dad has “assumed” over “decided“. Sounds like to me your doing the assuming,,,,,,,,, and your Dad has done the studying.”

    Again, you’re making personal judgements on me. If my argument shows a lack of study, please show it, don’t just claim it. Because my father agrees with you and I don’t, then my father is the one who is educated? Don’t you see how biased that is? You have no idea how much I’ve studied, and are continuing to study, the Word and feel no need to justify myself in the realm of Biblical study to you. I’m working on it and my conscience is clear.

    **Now you say you are not a committed continuist and Coramdeo has affirmed this in our emails,, But,,, I don’t think a non committed person would imply such things as you have here “My father, in his Christian life and theological education, which has been long and extensive, has decided that there is no purpose for the gift of tongues. Unfortunately, “decided” is not the most accurate word. “Assumed” is the most accurate because no one can know an absolute negative.”,, on such shaky grounds as your false negative fallacy. CEASE is an absolute term. Weather if you are a cessationist or a continuationist. Both positions say that,,,,”1Co 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.”,,,,,,,,, at some point or another,,,,, prophecies shall fail, tounges shall cease and knowledge shall vanish away. When is not the issue here. The issue is the definition of the term cease, it is an absolute term?. I have stated that it is. I have given you a secular dictionary and Strong’s definition to prove it. The Complete Word Study Dictionary says,, “used in an absolute sense, to cease, come to an end (Luk_8:24; Act_20:1; 1Co_13:8; Sept.: Exo_9:33-34)

    Now are you gonna infer that your dad “assumes” because an absolute negative cannot be proven? You have to be omnipresent and be all places at all times or be omniscient to KNOW and prove an absolute negative. I wonder if you are bringing this non biblical term and fallacious concept from your specific field of scientific employment,,, or from philosophy? Absolute Negative is not a biblical term but CEASE (an absolute negative) is. At first I thought you was showing a charismatic predisposition towards anti-intellectualism (SORRY) and would possibly end up saying things like Seminary= Cemetery and P.H.D stand for post hole digger,,, about your own dad. But I think you are just stipulating a non biblical term. I would not really know why?**
    ====================================

    YOU SAID in your second response: “And, it seems on a whole that we are creating this debate to be between “cessationists” and “Charismatics” where people must be either one or the other. Is there no middle ground?”

    ***That is my point. There is no theological middle group. There is within the realm of philosophy and opinion but not biblically, cease is a biblical term and is an absolute negative. When I was a continuationist, I had doubts, so in a way I was in the middle of the road. But I seen that the bible allows no leeway on the subject. Now I am a classical cessationist.

    It would help you to know the four different types is cessationism. Cessationists are divided into four main groups:
    1.Concentric Cessationists believe that the miraculous gifts have indeed ceased in the mainstream church and evangelized areas, but appear in unreached areas as an aid to spreading the Gospel (Luther and Calvin, though they were somewhat inconsistent in this position
    2.Classical cessationists assert that the “sign gifts” such as prophecy, healing and speaking in tongues ceased with the apostles and the finishing of the canon of Scripture. They only served as launching pads for the spreading of the Gospel; as affirmations of God’s revelation. However, these cessationists do believe that God still occasionally does miracles today, such as healings or divine guidance, so long as these “miracles” do not accredit new doctrine or add to the New Testament canon. Richard Gaffin, John F. MacArthur and Daniel B. Wallace are perhaps the best-known classical cessationists. 3.Full Cessationists argue that along with no miraculous gifts, there are also no miracles performed by God today. This argument, of course, turns on one’s understanding of the term, “miracle.” B. B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen
    4.Consistent Cessationists believe that not only were the miraculous gifts only for the establishment of the first-century church, but the so-called five-fold ministry found in Eph. 4 was also a transitional institution (i.e., There are no more apostles or prophets, but also no more pastors, teachers, or evangelists). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism

    AND THE DEFINITION OF CONTINUATIONISM:

    Continuationism is the belief that the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit taught in the bible — such as prophecy, tongues, interpretation of tongues, healings, miracles, etc. — have not ceased and are available for the believer today (1 Cor. 1:7). Continuationism is the opposite of Cessationism which teaches that supernatural gifts have ceased either when the canon of Scripture was completed or at the death of the last apostle. Those who hold to continuationism are called continuationists or non-cessationists.(3)
    These definitions are more definitive and actually name the gifts in question. Since the majority of the Gifts of the Spirit are not in question for most cessationist, it will be important to note that the gifts in dispute are generally categorized as revelatory or confirmatory. And would include prophecy (including word of knowledge), tongues, interpretation of tongues (also a form of prophecy), healings, miracles,,, etc.

    I think this definition is correct but when it says…”are available for the believer today”,, I think it should be understood that with exception of tongues and the interpretation thereof, gifts of HEALING and MIRACLES never was a part of the normative experience for most apostolic era Christians. The overall gist of Paul’s 1 Corinthians tongues dialogue was to point out that how they was NOT even using tongues in accordance with Gods will, instead of the gift of languages they had merely been aping their surrounding pagan practices of ecstatic utterances. There is no “tounges of angels” Paul was using hyperbole to mockingly ridicule them! In the bible, Angels always talked in human languages.

    We know that Jesus and the apostles where confirmed by miracles Jn. 20:30-31, Heb. 2:1-4. I think it is fallacious to say that Mark 16: says that believers will have miraculous signs following them for a few reasons. 1. Because baptismal regenerationist like to use the passage, I have long been aware that verse 9-20 is not in many of the oldest MSS. Did you? 2. The antecedent of “they” and “them” in verse 20 is obviously “the eleven” (vs.14). 3. I know of no person to perform the miraculous gifts except Jesus, the apostles, and those that they laid hands on. I will show you some of those occurrences***
    =====================================================

    “Also a good thing to remember is that any time you see anyone in the NT working signs and wonders. It is always Jesus, the apostles or someone they laid hands on and imparted the gifts too.”

    Here is the problem with that. The Bible never, not once, explains a scenario in which the “laying on of hands” imparted spiritual gifts upon believers. No really, don’t take my word for it, look it up. In Acts 6, the seven deacons that are chosen have hands laid on them, but that’s all the Bible says, that hands were laid on them, and nothing more. You can infer an imparting of gifts all you want, but that’s just eisegesis. Secondly, Jesus seems to support this position in Mark 16 where the only qualifications of those than can do signs and wonders, are those that “believe”. We see this in Stephen and Phillip.

    Don’t you see how your position of absolute cessationism is forcing you to interpret the “laying on of hands” of Stephen and Phillip as imparting gifts upon him when the Scripture says no such thing? Honestly brother, why not just read the Bible for what it says and leave it at that?

    Firstly, Scripture never explains any kind of “transition” so this is pure eisegesis on your part. Secondly, Paul mentions the offices of pastor, evangelist and teacher in the same breath as “prophet” and “apostle”. By making the claim you just did, you are saying that the offices of pastor, evangelist and teacher ceased right along with apostle and prophet. There is no way around it.

    ***Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom
    of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then
    Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and
    wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the apostles
    which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent
    unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they
    might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they
    were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and
    they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the
    apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also
    this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

    Act 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed
    through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto
    them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We
    have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them,
    Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul,
    John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they
    should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they
    heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his
    hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and
    prophesied.

    The book of Acts is clearly a transitional historical account of the establishing of the
    church and a transition from one testament to the other. In acts there is no church, in acts
    two the church is Born, in later chapters we see the church in it’s infancy and in Acts 28
    we see it almost mature. It is all transitional. AND the book of Acts belongs to the non
    didactic history genre, as opposed to the didactic epistles and gospels. I BELIEVE IN the
    offices of pastor, evangelist and teacher because there is no need for miraculous
    confirmations of these offices and they are mentioned in other list of church offices,, even
    stating the requirements to be such. The requirement to be an apostle is to see Christ
    risen and to be taught directly by Him. You have already acknowledged such.***
    ==========================================

    “I have never seen any “manifestation of the Spirit” to be squashed that does not follow Pauls guidelines.”

    You misunderstand me. I am exactly meaning to call out the pentecostals, revivalists, tel-evangelists and the like. They lack the courage to stand up to what people call “of the Spirit” even though it violates the guidelines laid down by Paul. I’m saying let us have such courage to stand up for the Word even if it hurts the feelings of fellow church-goers, or upsets the cart of the doctrine of your particular church. My point is that we need to be moderate about this issue, not subscribing to the absolute negative of “The Spirit never acts in this way ever” and not accepting everything that everyone claims is “of the Spirit”.

    That’s a sad story about Marjoe. Unfortunately, how wrong people have used these gifts of tongues, healings and prophecy doesn’t mean those gifts never happen. I can see how cessationists are turned off by those gifts, because of how they are exploited by greedy and evil men. But by turning the wheel to avoid the ditch on one side of the road they have run right into the ditch on the other side.

    ***I think you are getting me wrong. I said “I have never seen any “manifestation of the Spirit” to be squashed that does not follow Pauls guidelines.”

    Which means I have never seen a false movement that NO ONE ATTENDED. Every new wind of doctrine has charismatics clamoring after the next new experience and outpouring which is based on a misunderstanding of the ministry of the filling of the Spirit. Awe, the relative of the old “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water analogy“. I would say the baby is dirty and the continuationist road is the wrong road to be on. A U turn is required. AND PLEASE GET THIS. I believe in miracles and that God still does miracles today. And I believe in healing through James 5:15 and the prayer of faith, not the gifts of healings. However, He no longer does the miraculous through the offices of apostle and prophet. Biblical Revelation and confirmatory signs have ceased. There are only 12 apostles. Rev 21:14***
    ================================================


  16. PART 2

    “It is disappointing (sad) to see you resort to such illogic and mental gymnastics as you have in your response here. Your absolute negative argument is very flawed. Cease is an absolute negative term.”

    Again, you’ve misunderstood me. Let me rephrase my point in a question: Do you see a problem with subscribing to absolute statements regarding what the Spirit does and doesn’t do without clear Scriptural backing? Case in point…

    ***I think I understood you perfectly. No I see a problem with your analogy. It is like saying that gravity is not in effect on the other side of the earth because after all,, I am only this side and could not test it over there. Again,,, Cease is an absolute biblical term regardless of our uni-present perceptive and non ability to test it.

    And I don’t ascribe to any absolute statement but this. God does not use the gifts in the same way as he did in the NT,,, in both a qualitative and quantitative sense.***

    ===============================================
    “The question IS NOT can God use these gifts anytime he wants to. He is sovereign and can do as he wishes. The question is,,, does he?”

    Exactly. And in order to logically say that the Spirit absolutely does not manifest Himself in this way ever, you would have to observe every single instance of the Spirit acting that has ever happened since the Early Church. Since this is impossible, the absolute negative statement is irrational.

    You’d have to observe every instance of the Spirit acting because the Bible never uses the word “cease” nor does it clearly articulate when the gifts and offices will cease.

    *** You said,, “the Bible never uses the word “cease”“,,, COME ON MAN. The bible uses the word cease over 50 times. Almost a hundred. YOU SAID ,, “nor does it clearly articulate when the gifts and offices will cease.” SURE IT DOES. It used to not to me when I was in the movement, but now it is clear as a bell to me. Not from prooftexting,,, but seeking the whole council of God with the whole rightly divided word of truth.***
    ==================================================
    “The continuationist position maintains that the gifts happen in the very same way and volume as they did in the NT.”

    Nope, that’s not at all what I believe. If the term “continuationist” is absolute in the definition you’ve described, then I’m not a continuationist. Notice that I have not forced “cessationist” in the absolute negative statement because people could be using the term differently, so it’s unfair for you to do the same towards “continuationist”. I’m using the term “continuationist” to mean that I believe those gifts CAN still happen, merely because the Bible never says they don’t. But it’s obviously different because I’m not blind to the world around me.

    ***It is clear that God has ceased to interact with us humans in the exact same way as he did in Acts. There really is no such thing as a true Continuitionist. http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2006/01/youre-probably-cessationist-too.html ***
    =============================================

    “Although I can see you working your way into a position that says,,, “yeh the gifts still happen,, but not in the same exact way as they did then.” In that case you would be a ceasationist at heart,,, no matter what your lips may say.”

    Yes, you’re right, my intention is be as dishonest as possible. Actually, truth is that I don’t mind being called a cessationist. I don’t mind being called a nincompoop as long as the term accurately describes me. So, if “cessationist” means that the Holy Spirit interacts with the Church mostly differently than He did then, partly because of the canon, then, yea, I’m a cessationist. Remember, it’s the absolute negative “never happens ever ever for any reason at any time at any place” that I have a problem with.

    ***Yeh you’re a cessationist. And an absolute negative is only non-demonstrable because of your inability to be in all places at all times. (ie your perspective). And the bible uses the absolute term cease, many many times***
    =============================================

    “Show me one person or group that has went to other countries and evangelized in “other tounges” (ie,, languages they have not learned) After the Pentecostal restoration movement started,, all those groups sent people to do just this,,, and they all either had to bring them back to the states,,,, or send them someone,,,, to teach them the languages.”

    Seriously? So you’re claiming that every single missionary that has ever gone to another country where they didn’t know the language never ever, not once, used tongues? No one said that tongues wouldn’t require you to learn the language, or that you can count on tongues taking place (like the Pentecostals might have). Are you really comfortable making that claim of omniscience?

    ***I made no claims,,, I ask you to name me one person or group that has went to other countries and evangelized in “other tounges”.

    I believe God uses tounges in this fashion still. But I know many groups like the Irvingites sent missionaries,, that they finally had to train in the languages. Charles Parham and most of the original Pentecostal denominations, such as the assemblies of god,, has sent missionaries counting on the gift of glossilalia, yet they had to be trained. Word of Faith’ers claim to be able to evangelize in tounges,,, yet they train their missionaries. Linguistics have studied the tongues phenomena and concluded that it was all gibberish. Not languages at all. I DID NOT SAY IT HAS NOT HAPPENED OR THAT I DON’T BELIVE IN IT. I said,, show me? I would like to see a good case of it happening. I have heard,,, but never seen any confirmation that it indeed has happened in remote regions of the world.***
    =========================================

    “How many time have you picked up a deadly serpent or drank something poisonous? There is an account where Paul got bit by a snake,,, and he lived. Are you willing to test to see if this is still in effect?”

    You are again claiming absolute, universal knowledge of healing never taking place. That there has been no one since the time of Paul, in the history of the world, that went around claiming that he had gotten bitten by a poisenous snake and lived. Or going around claiming that he spoke a language he never knew.

    ***AGAIN,, I made no claims, I ask two questions. Neither was answered and a straw man was interjected*****
    =============================================

    As for the video, I have no doubt that the “signs and wonders” movement is fake as all get-out. You are unfairly lumping me in with someone who takes anything that is claimed to be “of the Spirit” as such without question. If you knew me, you’d know that I’m a serious skeptic. My wife calls me a pessimist, but I prefer “realist”. My point, my ONLY point, is that we should not make absolute statements on what the Spirit does or doesn’t do without clear Scriptural backing. I just don’t think that Scripture is clear on this one.

    ****I did not mean to lump ya brother. I was trying to show you that what is passed of as gifts of the spirit today is not of God,,, but rather an illusion of man***
    ===================================================
    “I think it is safe to say that by the time the apostles died out, and all those whom they imparted the gifts too died out, the confirmatory gifts died out also.”

    I agree with you, that’s a logically valid, and maybe even sound, position. Unfortunately, “safe”, “valid” or “sound” is not my prerequisite for truth. “Scriptural” is.

    ***funny you used logic earlier and even interject the philosophical concept of absolute negative. Checked it out. The bible used the term confirmed,, which is in the past tense. Heb 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

    WAS CONFIRMED,,,,, not,,, still being confirmed***
    ===============================================

    “The perfect does not have to be translated the complete cannon, or the second coming. It could mean when the church is established. I know the church is far from perfect. But the church has the perfect law of liberty.”

    When did the church as a whole have the “Law of Liberty” as a whole? Only when the canon was completed. So then, was the church not firmly established until 325 CE? You can’t have it both ways, either the church is perfect so Paul would call it perfect, or it’s not.

    You’ve created a false dilemma with the Eph 4 and 2 Tim 3 passages. The passages say that offices are for perfecting the faith and that Scripture is for perfecting the faith…why can’t it be both?

    *** I think you are creating the false dilemma on the a false conclusion that we have to have the whole bible finished for it to have a perfecting effect. Lets not forget that the perfection of the saints is not in the bible or the apostles, it is in Jesus shed blood. Once there is enough revelation of the believers perfection/justification in Jesus Christ is written and received,, your perfected.****
    ===================================

    But you’re false dilemma has a much bigger problem. You said:

    ” I think the simple answer to avoid the contradiction is to say the offices perfected the saints until that function transitioned into the scripture being the perfecting instrument.”

    Firstly, Scripture never explains any kind of “transition” so this is pure eisegesis on your part. Secondly, Paul mentions the offices of pastor, evangelist and teacher in the same breath as “prophet” and “apostle”. By making the claim you just did, you are saying that the offices of pastor, evangelist and teacher ceased right along with apostle and prophet. There is no way around it.

    ***the bible shows transition from cover to cover. Again I believe in pastors, teachers and evangelist. You assumed again,,, or was that your dad assuming? Saying there is no way around it is like saying,,,, “IF You chose to do something one way once,, your always bound to do it that way forever.” God has dealt with man in many different ways. And ONLY uses miracles when he is dispensing new revelation and confirming it.****
    =============================================

    ***WEW BOY,,,, THAT TOOK ALONG TIME. Thanks for sharing such a good response Eric. I really enjoy having to study and become more solidified in my firm belief in Cessationism. It took me three hours to respond,, BUT,,, I DO NOT expect you to do the same. Take your time brother. It is just a debate of a non essential matter. We could both be wrong and still be one in Him. Thanks for the interaction so far. Damon***

  17. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    Well, I think we could go back and forth forever like this, and boy do I want to reply to everything that you said, returning sarcasm for sarcasm. However, I think it would behoof us to actually get to the heart of this issue. I don’t mean to disrespect the time and effort you spent on such a long reply, to my long reply, but I want to try something different so that we may actually get something out of this discussion.

    We agree that Scripture is our ultimate authority, yes? So everything we believe should come from it’s pages, right? OK, so, I’ll allow you to have the first word so that I can correctly understand your Biblical basis for being a cessationist. Could you please explain, exegetically, exactly when Scripture says the gifts will cease, and if that time is now, exactly how Scripture explains that criteria for the ceasing of the gifts has come to pass. Please be specific, I want to understand your Scriptural basis for cessationism so that we can start on the same page.

    Thanks.

    I also want to say that when I said that the Bible never uses the word “cease”, I mispoke. What I mean to say is that the Bible never says the gifts “have ceased”, or given us a date as to when they have ceased. My apologies for the confusion.


  18. Hi Eric, I have considered your proposition. But I have more than a few problems with it.

    Please do not try to dismiss the things I have pointed out to you, under the guise of my “sarcasm”. Because I only intentionally employed sarcasm (A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound) once when I said,, “your assuming, or was that your dad assuming?”. It was my attempt to draw your attention to your hypocrisy of stating and inferring that your dad has come to his “rhetorical question of what purpose does tongues have” through his theological education and “assumption“. When it is you assuming and imposing such a ridiculous and non biblical arguments as your absolute negative defense.

    On this one occasion I was intending to be sarcastic and intended to get your attention via a wound (harsh words). BUT the rest of the wounding that is happening here is the rest of us lovers of God’s Word that have to sit here and watch you do the things you are doing to justify your position. Your essentially taking two passages and saying that they,, along with the certain reality of the gifts in the past,,, teach that the gifts have continued and still do. The issue is not even do they happen. The issue is should the gifts be standard practice and equipment for the believer (definitive plural) as the continuationist position posits.

    WHY DID YOU NOT JUST TELL US OR YOUR FATHER WHAT PURPOSE TOUNGES HAS TODAY?

    I assure you that the power to evangelize is NOT in the gifts but is in the cross and the gospel message. The church did just great before the Pentecostal “Restoration” Movement’s genesis. And the fact that people have generally always come to Christ because of the message and not the gifts crushes the Pentecostal/Charsimatic power evangelism myth. The gospel not only saves us from the penalty of our sin, but the power of sin over us. The message of the justification, sanctification and glorification of the believer is more than enough for the Father to draw whom ever he wishes to the Son.

    As far as I can tell, your only other stated major “problem with cessationism” is your “Paul is using all the offices in the same breath” defense. Which is not as ridiculous and haphazard as your “Absolute Negative” fallacy. But it is still not following good hermeneutic principles by not considering, the next verse, the rest of the scripture, the absence of the gifts in question in the later list of the offices, the absence of tongues in the majority of the NT books and history,, etc etc. I cannot believe you have no idea how big the subject is from a biblical and extra-biblical standpoint.

    Your post is titled “why I have a problem with cessationism”,, and then you inject the non biblical term, and requirement of proving an “absolute negative” as your MAIN criteria for rejecting cessationism and decisiveness. While accusing me of eisegesis, lying and pretending to be sick. And accusing your dad of the very thing you are guilty of (assumption and eisegesis). I assure you I was already very diarrheic and nauseous,, BUT the more I read (past tense) your response,,, the more nauseous I became but only profusely vomited out the wrong end.

    And I believe the reason you inject this non biblical “proof” for continuationism is simple willful ignorance. I know, I have been there. When I was a tongue talker and believer of the miraculous gifts, I too was simply living in a world of denial of reality and biblical truth,,, brought about by my own desires. I simply wanted the things to be true. I had to realize that my root problem was my desire to be special,, and to be a part of the special “spirit filled” portion of Christianity. I wanted to be special but I also wanted everything God had to offer,,, not knowing that I was getting was not from God at all.

    I SAID,,, “Although I can see you working your way into a position that says,,, “yeh the gifts still happen,, but not in the same exact way as they did then.” In that case you would be a ceasationist at heart,,, no matter what your lips may say.”

    YOU RESPONDED: “Yes, you’re right, my intention is be as dishonest as possible.”

    MY RESPONSE NOW: My suspicion that you would redefine the gifts or the term miraculous was confirmed by your subsequent statement and reasoning “Is there no middle ground?” You are trying to find an excuse to be indifferent and indecisive about the subject.

    BUT that specific comment was not meant to be sarcasm at all!!! You can call yourself a vegetarian but if your eating baby back ribs,,, well??? That is why I gave you definitions for cessationism and continuationism. They are important and defining terms should be the starting point for any debate or discussion. If your argument is,,, “Tounges must be still in use,, at least to some extent,, because you cannot prove they have ceased,,,, because that would require proving an Absolute Negative,,, which is impossible,,,, therefore I cannot accept that they have not occurred at some point in post apostolic history”,,, THEN YOUR NOT a continuationist by definition.

    Barring consideration of the other gifts and the offices in question,,, and only considering tounges,,, that would make you a Concentric Cessationist. I mention this because you mentioned evangelizing in “other tounges”. BUT if you also believe that the offices in question have ceased, that would make you a classical cessationist,, such as myself. I have never personally met a Full Cessationist (saying there is no miracles performed by God today). This identifying term hinges on the definition of “miracle”.

    I was by no means saying or implying that you was trying to lie or being dishonest to me. I am saying outright,, your not being honest with yourself,,, and you must be willfully ignorant, self abnegating, and in essence,,, brainwashing yourself,,,, to accept your use of such non biblical proofs. And then turn around and act like you’re the only one being biblical and not using assumption and eisegesis.

    You have proven to me that you do not hold [even if not solidly] to the continuationist position because of good biblical understanding, sound logic or objectivity,,, but rather your desires, subjectivity and assumption.


  19. YOU SAID: “Could you please explain, exegetically, exactly when Scripture says the gifts will cease, and if that time is now, exactly how Scripture explains that criteria for the ceasing of the gifts has come to pass. Please be specific, I want to understand your Scriptural basis for cessationism so that we can start on the same page.”

    MY RESPONSE NOW: Your asking me to do something in one post what will take at least a half a book and possibly many books to do justly. There are at least 15 good biblical reasons/proofs that the gifts in question have ceased. Here is a 17 page bibliography of books that have been written on both sides of the subject. http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj14l.pdf And your also asking me to do something that is totally irrelevant. When YOU SAID “explain, exegetically, exactly when Scripture says the gifts will cease”,,,, There are only three possible positions,,, and none of them would meet your criteria of “exactly” for many varied reasons.

    ————I tell ya what I think we should do.————–

    1. You write a post and tell us,,, “what purpose does tongues have today?” We can kick that one around a bit in the comments section of your blogpost.

    2. I will do my best to exegete 1Cor.13:8-13 And Eph 4:12. And we can kick that round in the comment section of my blogpost on my blog. I will include why “exactly” is unattainable information because it was not like the gifts where in full force one day,, and they where gone the next. They ceased. They died out.

    OR

    3. I can do some thinking about it and maybe try to summarize all of the 15-20 reasons I think the bible affirms cessationism. But I have been thinking I might have to write 2 books worth of material to do them any justice. So this is not a likely option for me at this time. Although I do need a summary for the Introduction Section anyway. So I will think about it and see what I can do. If I can do a good summary, we can kick it around a bit or at least you will know where I am coming from. It is so much bigger than a few verses.

    NOW,,, at the risk of sounding “sarcastic” again, I have to say this. AND this is NOT sarcasm (A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound),,,, I think “ridiculing” (To expose to ridicule; make fun of) is a more accurate term.

    YOU SAID: “I also want to say that when I said that the Bible never uses the word “cease”, I mispoke. What I mean to say is that the Bible never says the gifts “have ceased”, or given us a date as to when they have ceased. My apologies for the confusion.”

    I SAY: COME ON MAN!!! HOW CAN YOU SAY SUCH RIDICULOUS (Deserving or inspiring ridicule; absurd, preposterous, or silly) THINGS?

    You actually chose indifference and indecisiveness or won’t believe in cessationism because the exact phrase “Have ceased” is not used in the bible??????? The exact term “will continue” is ALSO not used. The bible says WILL CEASE (absolute term). ARE YOU ACTUALLY going to try to use the fact that the bible has NOT “given us a date as to when they have ceased” or “nor does it clearly articulate when the gifts and offices will cease”,,, as a legitimate argument????????? Hypothetically granting you the interpretation of “the perfect” is when Christ returns,,,, it still does not give a date for his return, hence a date for the cessation!!!! Are you prooftexting and looking real hard for a silver bullet verse or two so you can be comfortable?

    It looks like to me that you’re the one doing the assumption,,, to validate your pre-conceived notions,,, with extra biblical things (eisegesis),, to accommodate your desires. You should respect your Father’s theological education and not accuse him of assuming when it is you doing all the assuming and eisegesis. Sorry if the truth hurts.

    If your still willing to post on “what purpose does tongues have today?”,, let me know and I will get started on the other that I proposed. Or I can just observe if that is what you wish!!!

    Sincere but not sorry I had to tell ya.
    Damon

  20. DB Says:

    “Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.” (Ephesians 4: 1-7)

    And…

    “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions…” (Galatians 5: 16-20)


  21. Hi DB, Thanks for your concern about our (or my) interactions, disposition and intentions. But the inferences are unfounded. For my responses are motivated by love not divisiveness or anger.

    Eph 4:8-15 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: ******That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive*******; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

    Unity in the faith has to be centered around christian maturity and doctrinal stability NOT
    ever wind of doctrine by the ***slight, cunning and craftiness of man***. When Paul was a child,, he spoke as a child,, and instructed us several times to GROW UP in the faith and be sound in doctrine. Indifference, apathy or agreeing to disagree does not equal unity of faith. So far we have only touched on non essential matters. So why the inference of disunity and unlove?

  22. DB Says:

    I’m not surprised by your response, Damon. I’m taking my leave now.


  23. Hi DB, When I wrote my response to Eric, I anticipated that you would make the kind of comment you did based on your comment to Lorisev. Please don’t run off. I planned on on commenting about your comment to her. I am curious as to how you define debate.

  24. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    Looking over the entirety of your comments on this blog, I have realized that, at this point in our discussion, responding to the content of your responses is pointless. Instead, I will respond to the structure of your arguments and the type of responses that you have given. Hopefully in doing so, you will see why I claim that responding to the content is pointless.

    Through out this entire discussion, you have misunderstood me or put words in my mouth or just plain ol’ not addressed the issue.

    First, I would like to point out that you have decided what “continuationist” and “cessationist” means, and you have also decided that there is no middle ground. Like you said . . .

    “There is no theological middle group. There is within the realm of philosophy and opinion but not biblically, cease is a biblical term and is an absolute negative.”

    You have also decided that there is one, and only one, definition of the words “cessationist” and “continuationist”. Not only that, you’ve also decided that a person “must be” one or the other. And if they claim to be in the middle, then they are just lying to themselves. Indeed, you said:

    “My suspicion that you would redefine the gifts or the term miraculous was confirmed by your subsequent statement and reasoning “Is there no middle ground?” You are trying to find an excuse to be indifferent and indecisive about the subject.”

    Don’t you see how derisive that is? It’s another personal judgment upon me, that I am so anti-intellectual, that I would actually desire to be indifferent and ignorant on a Biblical subject. In fact, to put it how it really is, you would prefer to assume that I’m an idiot, rather than assume that I’m trying to be moderate about the issue, instead of subscribing to absolutely one position or another. How then, can you be surprised when DB (and myself btw) find you to be causing strife?

    I point out that it is you who have decided there is no middle ground, because 1: it is not something I agreed to and 2: it’s not something the Bible gives definitions and qualifiers for, so this conclusion of yours has come from your own mind (or perhaps that minds of other men that you subscribe to). In fact, when I attempted to ask if there was any middle ground, or attempted to assert that I don’t fit the hard definition of either, you told me that I was lying to myself or trying to employ trickery. I’m curious, what extra-biblical source told you that there is no middle ground on this issue and why are you so confident this is the truth?

    This leads us to…

    The Cease Issue

    I claimed that the Bible has never once said that the gifts “have ceased”. My point is that, if we believe that the gifts have ceased, that God just doesn’t give the gifts of tongues, prophecy and healing anymore, then this is a non-Biblical proposition because the Bible says the gifts will cease but never says that they have ceased right now, nor that they will cease when the Canon comes, nor that they will cease when the Church is established. My point is that I’m unconvinced by the cessationist proof texts of a definite “when” the gifts will cease (1 Cor 14, Eph 4, James). I think there are too many problems with attempting to force that conclusion upon those texts.

    Now, instead of attempting to understand my position, you responded thus:

    “COME ON MAN!!! HOW CAN YOU SAY SUCH RIDICULOUS (Deserving or inspiring ridicule; absurd, preposterous, or silly) THINGS? ARE YOU ACTUALLY going to try to use the fact that the bible has NOT “given us a date as to when they have ceased” or “nor does it clearly articulate when the gifts and offices will cease”,,, as a legitimate argument?????????”

    Now, please don’t misunderstand me, the point I’m trying to make is not that since you called my argument “ridiculous” then I have a problem with that. That’s not it at all. My point is that you used incredulous sarcasm and insult to dodge answering the argument. What I mean is, instead of responding to the argument, you said, “You can’t seriously be using that argument! Ha! How ridiculous!” all the time ignoring that this doesn’t actually respond to the argument. Honestly, brother, the last time I had this argument tactic used on me was by an atheist. In fact, this is the atheistic MO, ridicule the argument away without actually responding to it. My question to you is, do you really want to behave like they do? Especially towards a fellow brother?

    To answer your question: Yes, I’m using this as a legitimate argument. You can ridicule it away all you like, but it’s legit. And here’s why:

    You are exactly claiming that, right now, and since many centuries ago, the gifts have ceased. The Bible only says that the gifts will cease. In order to exegetically believe that the gifts have absolutely ended now, you’d have to have a Scriptural reason for why the gifts are gone right now, and when exactly they left. The Bible never articulates this. It never says when, it only says they will.

    When considering the question of whether or not the gifts have ceased, we must ask ourselves a very important question. Have I decided that the gifts have ceased, or has God told me that the gifts have ceased? We obviously want to do the latter and, I’m sorry, it’s just not there.

    Absolute Negative

    You can take this point as far as you want to, but past what I have said, you are just putting words in my mouth. An “absolute negative” is an extra-Biblical term, but so is the word “Bible” and “Trinity” so that argument doesn’t work. I’m only using the term “absolute negative” to describe the absolute cessationist position and why I have a problem with it. I’m just not comfortable saying, “The Holy Spirit never ever works in this way in any place and time or for any reason”. Sorry, I’m just not going to say that without clear Scriptural reasons, and those reasons just aren’t there.

    A Case of Not Addressing the Issue

    One of your main positions that the only time gifts are used is when either Jesus, an Apostle, or someone an Apostle laid hands on to receive the gifts, uses them. This is strong evidence that the gifts would die out with the office of Apostle since only Jesus or an Apostle used them or could bestow them. Unfortunately, at I pointed out to you, the Bible never describes “laying on of hands” as imparting spiritual gifts.

    In response to this claim, you posted two passages, Acts 8:12 and Acts 19:1. The ironic thing is that you just helped prove my point. In neither passage, does the laying on of hands bestow a spiritual gift. Even in Acts 19 when the converts in Ephesus receive the Spirit by the laying on of hands and starting prophesying and speaking in tongues, the Bible does not say the laying on of hands gave them those gifts!

    Not only did those passages not support your position, but Acts 6, which describes the setting apart of Phillip and Stephen, certainly doesn’t say that the laying on hands provided Phillip and Stephen with the power we see them later possessing. So what’s interesting is where you got the idea that the laying on of hands bestowed gifts upon them. And how, since you got this idea, you were able read these passages as supporting your position when in fact they did not.

    But Here is the Sad Part

    We mostly agree with each other. It’s both ironic and sad that you felt like you had to berate truth in to me, about positions and beliefs I never held, when we are essentially in agreement. You said:

    “I believe in miracles and that God still does miracles today. And I believe in healing through James 5:15 and the prayer of faith, not the gifts of healings. However, He no longer does the miraculous through the offices of apostle and prophet. Biblical Revelation and confirmatory signs have ceased. There are only 12 apostles.”

    I agree with most of this. Although we’d have to hash out the differences between someone healing someone else and someone having the gift of healing, I agree that the “offices” of prophet and healer have died, merely because we don’t see any of those guys around after the 1st century. I won’t go so far as you do to say that the gifts have died, because Scripture just doesn’t say that, but I have no problem concluding that those offices, so far, just seem to have vanished after the 1st century.

    Hopefully you see that although we agree on basically the historical scene we find ourselves living in, I disagree with your Scriptural basis and absolute confidence upon Scripture that is nothing but inconclusive on the issue of when the gifts will cease and if that time is now.

    Hopefully you also see how derisive and divisive some of your tactics have been, and that you can get your point across without having to employ them. I’m not sure how well this comment will be received from you for indeed you seem confident enough to dismiss an objective third party when they show concern for your tactics. If someone who has no stake in the conversation is attempting to tell you that they find your tone and manner to be un-Scriptural, it might be time to take a step back.

  25. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    The disturbing part about your answer to DB is how confident you are that through out this discussion you have been nothing but humble, gentle, patient, tolerant, loving, peaceful, and preserving unity while not having any part of enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissentions or factions. I’m not sure anyone should be this confident. I know that I am not.

  26. DB Says:

    Eric,

    Check the email!

  27. S.lim Says:

    Dear everyone, I do not know where to start.

    The main issue is “what did we receive from the Apostles that is so different from the lst Generation of Christians?”

    I believe the plain reading of Scripture supports Continuationism. It is implicit in the idea of ‘covenant’. The Apostles did not receive one, the 1st Century Church another, and yet the present Church another. There was only one Covenant unchangeable. Indeed it is our wandering from it that is the reason for the various sects of Christianity.

    Contained in the Covenant is the clear will of the Lord, vital theology and doctrines, and importantly ‘commandments’. We may indeed hold the Word of the NT and the Covenant to be synonymous. Implicit in the idea of covenant is that the covenant must be transmitted without loss of any part, including the category of ‘Commandments’.

    It was particularly that part – ‘commandments’ that Jesus Christ ordered his apostles to be careful in transmitting in the Great Commission directive.

    Before Jesus left, he charged his apostles, “Go and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to obey EVERYTHING I have COMMANDED you.” Jesus’ will was that his commandments be transmitted without loss. This means we should not be receiving commandments in any way different from the first Christians.

    Three ‘scopes’ may be discerned in the Great Commission, um, Transmission:
    1: Universal, ‘all the nations’
    2: Comprehensive, ‘everything I have commanded you.’
    3: Duration: ‘Till the End of the Age’.
    It seems logical from this that the commandments to be transmitted cannot become obsolete after the apostles’ deaths but must be valid in their entirety throughout the Church age.

    1Cor was clearly written for all of us following the U-scope: “To ALL in EVERY place who call on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours” (1:2). So its application was not just for the Corinthians but universal to believers from all nations.

    Now in his letter, Paul made distinction of his own instructions and the Lord’s. (1Cor 7:6,10,12,25). When it came to the ‘charismatic’ instructions he ‘numbered’ them amongst the animals of the C-scope (14:37). This is surely plain. So if they belong to the ‘everything I have commanded you’, then surely it cannot be proper to interpret them as ceased. Indeed Paul solemnly warned against the rejection of the charismatic instructions in 14:38.

    The point of the D-scope is superfluous, but Paul (1:7) did hint on the duration of the gifts. Likewise Peter, (1Pet 4:7-10). The apostles had no other view but that the Church Universal “come behind in no gifts as we wait for the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ.” This mindset excluded the possibility that Paul was writing something according to classic cessationism in chpt 13 and the rest of his epistles.

    But why did Paul say the gifts would be ceased? How does this gel with the idea of an unchanging Covenant? The answer is Rom 11:29. Even-though this verse was spoke in relation to Israel, I do not think anyone can object if I apply to the charismata of the Church. I won’t want to treat it in depth here. I am not a theologian. The point is that God cannot revoke and never revoked the spiritual gifts; that would contradict his word.

    How then are they ceased? I believe they are ceased for practical reasons. At death, we would see God face to face and hear from him directly. Why would there be a need for prophecy? We would no longer fall sick, why would we need healing? Likewise at the 2nd Advent. We may be able to understand all languages making speaking in an unknown tongue impossible. The gifts or enabling would still exist in an intrinsic sense, but impractical. This is just like the situation of a highly trained pilot with no plane to fly. So in the Continuationist’s view, there is no cessation in the sense of ‘revoked’ but rather an overtaking by better practicalities. This more congruent than the cessationist’s view.

    I hope that was helpful.


  28. Hi Eric, Thanks for the great response. You really do make my job easy!!!

    I have about three hours of yard work to do. I will decide how to proceed during that time. Fortunately for you and the readers, I have been blessed to be in full time ministry for 9 years,,, and as soon as I finish my yard work I will have plenty of time.

    I am extremely confident for many many reasons. I will list those for ya in a bit

    TO THE READERS: Please look at this video on one of my sites.

    The Parlor Magic/Gimmickry of Kenneth Hagin: AND the gullibility of Word of Faith/Charismatic believers
    http://thewordonthewordoffaithinfoblog.com/2009/05/04/kenneth-hagin-and-trickery-healing/

    Emotional Deception in Charismatic Revivals
    http://thewordonthewordoffaithinfoblog.com/2009/03/16/emotional-deception/

    Signs And Wonders Movement Exposed: THE VIDEO SERIES THAT EVERY CHRISTIAN MUST SEE!!!!!!!
    http://thewordonthewordoffaithinfoblog.com/2009/04/14/signs-and-wonders-movment-exposed/

  29. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    You keep linking videos about how horrible the Word of Faith movement is, and how corrupt and unBiblical the Charismatics are. Yet, I haven’t heard one person on this discussion argue with that fact, or defend either of those movements. Indeed, I explicitly told you that I agreed with you. It seems that you are equating a belief that the gifts still “can happen” (since the Bible doesn’t say they don’t) with how the Word of Faith movement / Charismatics think about and use the gifts. Is that really fair?

  30. B Says:

    I have been reading this blog for a bit now….waiting, watching, thinking, and studying. With a clear mind I can say that it appears that Damon has an agenda, shows that he has one, and will not break from his view. I commend him for it in some ways. BUT! His negativity, sarcasm, and plain rudeness makes his argument appear weak. Additionally, Damon appears to be question dodging and partially answering questions when he does answer (albeit in an snarky way).

    Damon, please do not place people in a clear defined box of “continuation = charismatic.” These words may seem similar, but they are both very different and to lump one with the other is wrong.

    Lastly, Damon states “I can do some thinking about it and maybe try to summarize all of the 15-20 reasons I think the bible affirms cessationism. But I have been thinking I might have to write 2 books worth of material to do them any justice.”
    Then this begs 2 questions, can Damon show me 15-20 verses that give clear understandings of cessation occurring or predicting the DATE or TIME of cessation occurring, and why would it take 2 books to describe a topic that is not talked about that much in the Bible……probably because it would lack eisegesis support?

    Just 2 cents!

    Keep up with the good work, God Bless…and remember, let us keep studying, praying, and doing these discussions towards glorying God and not our self-esteem or agendas.


  31. Hi B, Thanks for reading this debate and contributing.

    Because I am in ministry full time, my every waking moment is used to do ministry, except when I say I am off the clock from this point to this point. I usually take Mondays off but that did not work out this week. I took yesterday off and will be taking today off too.
    =========================================
    Continuationists are considered either Pentecostal or Charismatic, although these terms sometimes are used in a general sense to include the other.
    Pentecostals believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is generally always accompanied with speaking in tongues.
    Charismatics believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not necessarily accompanied with speaking in tongues.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuationism
    ===============================================

    You cannot be a continuationist and NOT be either a charismatic or Pentecostal.
    ========================================

    The term Charismatic Movement describes the adoption (circa 1960 onwards for Protestants, 1967 onwards for Roman Catholics) of certain beliefs typical of those held by Pentecostal Christians by those within the historic denominations.[1] The term “charismatic” was first coined by Harald Bredesen, a Lutheran minister, in 1962, to describe what was happening at that time in the older churches. Confronted with the term “neo-Pentecostal,” he said “We prefer the title ‘the charismatic renewal in the historic churches.'”[2] The genesis of the Charismatic Movement however is variously attributed to Father Dennis Bennett, an Episcopal priest, in 1960. His book Nine O’Clock in the Morning gives a personal account of this period.[3]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_movement

    The biggest difference between the PM and the CM is that the PM said “come out of her” and CM said “stay within her”. I know a Baptist preacher that became a charismatic. Although he remained in the Baptist church,,, he is now a part of the CM because he now exercises “the gifts” in question, he is a Charismatic
    ==========================================

    MY agenda is to defend the cessationist position. SO DON’T COME OFF like you, Eric and DB don’t have an agenda and I am the only one that does!!!
    ==========================================
    YOU SAID: “Damon states “I can do some thinking about it and maybe try to summarize all of the 15-20 reasons I think the bible affirms cessationism. But I have been thinking I might have to write 2 books worth of material to do them any justice.”
    Then this begs 2 questions, can Damon show me 15-20 verses that give clear understandings of cessation occurring or predicting the DATE or TIME of cessation occurring, and why would it take 2 books to describe a topic that is not talked about that much in the Bible……probably because it would lack eisegesis support?

    I SAY: There is not one verse that is universally agree to support either position. The one verse that is most highly connected is claimed by both sides to support their claim. BUT I have an advantage because the whole the bible clearly shows the gifts in question where not for every Christian. You fall into the same trap that Eric does. Your just assuming because the gifts are in a few places that they are universal and have continued. YOU HAVE NO EXEGESIS SUPPORT
    ==========================================
    B,,, YOU SAID: “Keep up with the good work, God Bless…and remember, let us keep studying, praying, and doing these discussions towards glorying God and not our self-esteem or agendas.”

    Just what are you inferring? That I am tainted by a personal agenda and you, DB and Eric are not??? LOL

    I’ll have you know that my agenda is always to glorify God and I resent your inferences to the contrary. And since you want to appear to have no agenda. It is obvious to me that your trying to detour from the issue at hand and dismiss anything I say under your pretence that I am “doing these discussions for my self esteem and agenda.”

    Your agenda is clearly to paint me as motivated by agenda.
    ============================================
    You think my attitude is bad??? Check this out.

    “Already it is considered blasphemy to speak against the supernatural workings within the charismatic movement. A spirit of boastful certainty and arrogant intolerance has often been manifested by those who “have the spirit.” The preoccupation with inward experience is leading multitudes back to the religious philosophy of the Dark Ages and the medieval church. The Vatican knows the score. It reads what is to be. Many Protestants seem to be as paralyzed as Melanchthon was when he did not know whether or not to speak out against the spiritualistic fanatics who came to Wittenberg while Luther was hidden in the Wartburg Castle. It was this issue that led the great Reformer to come out of hiding and to risk his life. Cried the “spirit-filled” leaders on being granted an interview with Luther, “The Spirit! The Spirit!” The Reformer was decidedly unimpressed. “I SLAP YOUR SPITIT ON THE SNOUT” he thundered. He saw that the great truth of justification by faith alone was diametrically opposed to these “German prophets,” as he styled them. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=30

    I AM WITH LUTHER!!! I TOO SLAP YOUR “FAMILIAR” SPIRIT ON THE SNOUT!!! Damon
    ===================================================
    Eric, I have asked you to tell us “what purpose does tongues have today”! ARE YOU EVER GOING TO GET AROUND TO THAT???
    =====================================================
    I’ll be back at work tomorrow.

  32. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    “You cannot be a continuationist and NOT be either a charismatic or Pentecostal.”

    This is exactly my point, and B’s point too. You are just restating your position without considering that B and I have objected to this position. Why must it be one extreme or the other? Can you give me a single reason why (make sure you don’t just restate your position now) someone who believes the gifts CAN still happen MUST be a charismatic or Pentecostal?

    “MY agenda is to defend the cessationist position. SO DON’T COME OFF like you, Eric and DB don’t have an agenda and I am the only one that does!!!”

    This exactly right. Please read your own words again. Your goal is not to discover and defend what the Bible says about the gifts, but to defend the cessationist position. That is why this conversation has taken the direction it has. You are not willing to see another valid Biblical interpretation or any Biblical evidence contrary to your position (or even calmly show how the other interpretation is incorrect) and arrogantly assert yours as the only one. Your agenda is to defend your position, not the Biblical one. This goal is obvious, for you state . . .

    “There is not one verse that is universally agree to support either position.”

    Exactly. So the Bible is unclear and undogmatic on the issue. Why are you?

    “BUT I have an advantage because the whole the bible clearly shows the gifts in question where not for every Christian.”

    This is not what you claimed. You claimed that ONLY Jesus, the Apostles and those the Apostles bestowed the gifts upon by the laying on of hands, did the gifts. I showed that this position is false because the act of “laying on of hands” never once is explained to bestow the gifts. And Stephen and Phillip are your elephants in the room. You have not responded to this.

    “You fall into the same trap that Eric does. Your just assuming because the gifts are in a few places that they are universal and have continued. YOU HAVE NO EXEGESIS SUPPORT”

    Claiming that your opponent has no exegetical support while at the same time pretty much admitting that you don’t have any either, and at the very least never giving any for your own position, is not good form. Indeed, I have spent a good amount of asserting that every single text used to support cessationism in fact does no such thing. If this is true, and there isn’t a single verse that clearly explains cesssationism, then I’m the only one with exegetical support.

    However, the true issue here, is that you have not once tried to understand what my position is. I have never once said that the gifts have continued as they were done in the New Testament. Indeed, I agreed with you that they have not. My only position, my only point, is that we cannot be absolute and dogmatic about the gifts “never” happening again because the Bible is not clear that they have ceased completely (this is my second time saying this). The Bible says they WILL cease, but never says that this time is now, in fact, it is obvious to me that we are not living in the time parameters given in which the gifts will end. You have not once argued my true position. Content instead to call me a Pentecostal, or a charismatic or an ignoramous.

    “Just what are you inferring? That I am tainted by a personal agenda and you, DB and Eric are not??? LOL”

    Are you inferring that you have absolutely no personal stake in this discussion? That your flesh is not involved in any way? Should any of us be that confident?

    “I’ll have you know that my agenda is always to glorify God and I resent your inferences to the contrary.”

    But you just said your agenda is to defend the cessationist position.

    Remember that B was including HIMSELF when he said, “Let us keep studying, praying, and doing these discussions towards glorying God and not our self-esteem or agendas.” So please read what he said instead of jumping to conclusions on him as well.

    Your quote from the Trinity Foundation again lumps us in with people who we have no association with, either in company or beliefs. The argument is irrelevant. Please, if you want to argue with me, argue with my position, not with the position you’ve given me.

    “Eric, I have asked you to tell us “what purpose does tongues have today”! ARE YOU EVER GOING TO GET AROUND TO THAT???”

    This assertion that I’m dodging an issue seems humorous to me coming from the fellow that just ignored every single point I made in my last post. But I’ll humor you. I’m going to Zimbabwe on a missions trip this weekend and I don’t know the language yet. Gee, I could sure USE the providence of God in the form of tongues once I get there. Is that a good enough use for you?

    Damon, to be honest with you, I’m not sure that I’m going to respond to your next post. Maybe I will. That your stated agenda is to defend the cessationist position, I see now almost no point in continuing a conversation with you. I’m only interested in discussion with those interested in discovering and discussing what the Bible says, not arrogantly (confidence with an attitude) attempting to slap down those who disagree with their doctrine, creating strife all in the name of “church unity”, disregarding any call by objective third parties to change their tone.

  33. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    I actually have another question.

    I realize that your point of telling us that you are in full time ministry was to show your superiority over us in spiritual matters. I will not address that point only to say that I understand what your point was.

    However, as I’m sure you know, full-time ministers hold a special place of responsibility before God regarding the edification and maturity of those you are ministering to. With this is mind, how do you feel those who you minister to would see how you’ve argued on this site? Not what you have said, but HOW you have said it. Do you think that they would be edified through your correspondence here?


  34. Eric, I happened to read this message first (your last one) through my email reader and I am not even going to take the time to read the other one, or the remainder of this last one tonight,,,,, because as I said,,, I am off of God’s clock.

    I read this message until I got to this point. Then I quit and I will read no more of it tonight.
    ================================
    YOU SAID “I actually have another question.

    I realize that your point of telling us that your in full time ministry was to show your superiority over us in spiritual matters. I will not address that point only to say that I understand what your point was.’
    =======================================

    Now before you go to assuming once again, let me point out to you two things that where clearly or implicitly stated.

    1. The first time I made reference to my fulltime ministry was because I got your one comment in the middle of doing my yard work and was trying to tell you that as soon as I got through with it. I would have plenty of time to put into this debate.

    2. The second time I mentioned my full time ministry was to tell you I have not had a day off in over two weeks and I work 14-16 hour days at ministry. I was telling you exactly what I said. I took yesterday off and today to.

    IT WAS HARDLY A SPIRITUAL TRUMP CARD!!!!!!!
    ========================================

    I know man that thinks he should always be considered right because he says he has read the bible from cover to cover for 53 years. Well unfortunately for him, the bible says study to show thyself approved,,, not read to show thyself approved. Also unfortunate for him he sometimes says he has read the bible from cover to cover 1 time a year for 53 years. But he sometimes he says he reads it two times a year. He is full of bull.
    =========================================
    Now for you to say anything about my motives other than what I have stated about my motives,, is pure assumption on your part!!!!!!! YOUR NEW NICK NAME IS MR. ASSUPMTION!!!
    =========================================

    And lets get this straight.

    We would not be in this debate if you had just answered you dads question of “what purpose does tounges have?”,,, instead of assuming he is ignorant “of the meaning of tounges today”,, because of his education and denominational background.

    If you had have just told your dad, or us by the way, what you think the “reason for tounges today” is,,, we could look at your answer and speedily dismissed it.

    WHY????,,,, because the bible clearly states what the purpose of tongues where. They where a sign of judgment to the Jewish nation and people. Once a sign gets you to where you are going,,, the sign is no longer required.

    If I leave Houston and go to Austin,, all along the way I will see signs to direct me and tell me “you have this many more mile to go” But after I get to Austin,,, guess what is missing??? Signs!!!!!!! There are no more signs saying this way and this far to Austin. Cause I am there. If you had been paying attention and reading and watching my links,,, you would have seen that one of my links clearly states the purpose and cessation of tongues. Tongues where for a sign. And once a sign gets you to where your going,,,, or otherwise does it’s job,,,, They are no longer required. Wicked is the generation that seeks after signs. That is why charismatics have to say,,, “I don’t follow signs,,, they follow me”. They have no idea what a sing is for. A sign point something out. In the case of toune signs,, judgment on Israel. In the case sign and wonders,,, they point out and confirm the works of Jesus and the apostles as being from God. Once that work is confirmed. Signs are not nedded

    I know four or five reasons charismatic say tongues are for today. We will examine those along the way.

    Now you need to keep your assumptions out of the realm of motives. I have good reason to know your motives,,, I have walked in your charismatic shoes. But you need to quit accusing me of lying and assuming you know my motives better than myself.

    As I said. I will have plenty of time for this debate starting tomorrow. I hope you got time!!!

  35. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    I have a confession. I wasn’t entirely honest with you. I didn’t think really think that your mentioning of full time ministry was a “trump card”. I do think it can be taken that way. But I really didn’t think that was what you were doing.

    I made that comment to see how you would react to being assumed about and labeled as doing something that you’re not. This is what you’ve been doing to every single person who’s participated in this discussion with you. Me, B and DB. Someone disagrees with you, they’re immediately a Charistmatic or a Pentecostal and you’ve jumped to conclusions on several other points with myself and B (reading my 1st recent comment will explain this better). Calling me “Mr. Assumption” because of my admitted, and fake, assumption is a bit like the pot calling the kettle “black”. Perhaps, since you dislike things being assumed of you, you should re-evaluate whether or not you’re doing this to other people.

    My question regarding those who you are ministering to was a legit question however.


  36. Eric, I will respond to your comments tommorow after I wake up. Which will be late.

    I HOPE YOU HAVE SOME TIME!!!!!!!

  37. DB Says:

    MINISTRY = 1a “The act of serving; ministration.”

    This is the first definition of ministry. For those of us in Christ, we are all full-time ministers (serving others personally, not wearing robes or thumping on the pulpit), according to the Lord.

    So I guess I really don’t understand the overemphasis on this word? Furthermore, this word used improperly, for some of us, only tends to make the point (of the person using it) moot! In other words, some of us are no longer fond of this (contrary to God) professional career. Perhaps something like this would SERVE better, “As with you fellow ministers (servers) of Christ…” Jesus, after all, did tell his disciples not to think of themselves as higher than each other, right?


  38. LOLOLOL You guys really crack me up and your presumptuous spirits make my job so easy. Did I say I minister to people? What did I say? I said I am in full time ministry. Nothing more nothing less. But Mr. Assumption and the peanut gallery goes off in wild a hysteria of speculation.

    I do cult apologetics. The only ministering I do is counseling people who’s life’s have been shattered by the Charismatic, Pentecostal or WoF movements. And then the regular ministry of helps that we all have, meaning that I minister to my friends and they minister to me when I need it.

    Why did I mention the full time ministry? It should be obvious to ya’ll. You guys can go punch your clock and go home and leave your jobs at work and not take them home. But I don’t have that option. I listed how much time I spend doing ministry, it should have been clear to ya’ll that I was saying,,, hey guys I do this all the time and now I am on my day off. I planned on only taking one day off. Until I read B’s response and I thought hey this is great, I bet the others will bite too if I take another day off.

    I’ll have much more to say, in a bit, about ya’ll searching so hard to find a way to discredit me instead of my arguments. It really testifies loudly to the invalidity and indefensibility of the P/C movements and their offspring. At least it points out plainly ya’lls inability to do so.

    Why do I do cult apologetics? I have a uncle who is a Mormon bishop (all his immediate family are or was Mormon), all my Dads cousins are United (oneness) Pentecostals, my dads sisters belong to a little cult called bible missionary (P/C also) and I have a retired Word of faith evangelist in my family. And besides my Mormon uncle, my Moms side are all hardcore secular/atheist or involved in occultism. Because of the way my dads cousins and relatives treated him, my dad always (for as long as I can remember) made fun of myself, my Mom and my brother for believing in God. And some of my UPC relatives have left that church and became a part of the “apostolic church” and now calls the UPC a cult.

    Why am I not doing C/P apologetics? I have the experience with these groups. And simply because it is the biggest cult in the world. I love to call it the full gospel cult. Not only have I been in the movement but the movement has also shaped my whole life. And it is not of God. I have intensly studied the movement off and on for 24 years. So therefore since God has run me through the training field and has me thoroughly equipped,, This is my calling. I will be spending the biggest part of the remainder of my life fighting the cult of the full gospel.

    I have so much more to say about ya’lls wild eyed assumptions. If you guys had any decent arguments,,, you would be attacking my arguments or advancing your own instead of trying to paint me in any certain way. Now I will be fair and tell ya that since I have been an avid debater for the last 11 years it is just fixin to get good. Because now I have you guys right where I want you. Especially you Eric. I knew you guys would not be able to resist.

    Herding Charismatic/WoF Cats in my younger days
    http://thewordonthewordoffaithinfoblog.com/2009/05/04/herding-charismatic-cats/

    I’ll be back at work as soon as I take my trash out, get a shower and a sandwich.

  39. DB Says:

    Alright! Finally! Damon exposes who he really is! Thanks, Damon, for finally being honest with us!

    You make presumptions about us, and then project your own sin on us.

    Damon, you, and others like you, are the reason I am considering turning off comments on my site. This kind of interaction with others, that you carry out so sanctimoniously, is no different than the atheistic worldly way of communicating.

    I feel bad for you, Damon. You need to take your unresolved anger to the Lord! In other words, Physician (minister), heal thy self!

  40. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    You realize that I explained to you that my assumptions was a fake one? Meant to charicature your every interaction thus far on this thread. I’m beginning to wonder if you actually read what I write…I look forward to you showing me the assumptions I’ve made.


  41. Kool DB,,,, Thanks again. Now for your INFO. This is a debate. We are supposed to be debating. And Eric wants to come off like I am divisive and he has no agenda. WELL HE SUPPOSED TO.

    Corammdeo said “First I want to thank Eric for taking the Continuationist position even if it doesn’t describe him completely, his playing of devil’s advocate is helpful for both us and everyone else to get a better view on this important subject. I appreciate any challenge to my beliefs, and writings because the end result can only be a better position, and a more precise argument.” Eric said “Coramdeo is taking the Cessationist position while I’m taking the Continuationist position.”

    Did Eric think he was going to be able to get in the public domain, advance a few pathetic augments and then say “since there is no solid biblical proof for either position,, we should all just take the middle of the road approach and just love each other? He is supposed to be defending and advocating the continuation position. I don’t really think Coramdeo was correct when he said,, ”the Continuationist position even if it doesn’t describe him completely”. I base this judgment on the fact that people who are just playing devils advocate are not emotionally invested.

    ATTENTION: When people cannot defend their positions they often revert to attacking the people who postulate the idea’s,,, instead of attacking the ideas themselves:,,, this is called an Ad Hominem
    against or at the man) argument. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).


  42. Eric,, Oh yeh I read that part. I will address it first after I get my shower. But NO, I did not read all that you wrote yesterday yet. I told you it was my day off.


  43. TO THE READERS: If you will take notice,,, you will see that the only continuationist that has offered anything near a sophisticated argument is S.lim. I will address his or her post after I get through with Eric, DB and B’s comments. All the rest have just tried to discredit me instead of my arguments. And then they only hoisted very few arguments, none being of any substance.

    TO THE READERS, ERIC AND THE PEAUNUT GALLARY: I’ll will have several comment post to make. It will take me 3-4 hours. At that time I will start my first BLOGPOST for this debate.

    TO ERIC AND THE PEANUT GALLARY: The more ya’ll want to carry on about how bad, unloving unchristian and divisive I am,,,,,,, the better for me and this debate. At least my side anyway. Cause I can prove that until John Wesley first utter the words,, ”second work of grace” the Christian church only had three major divisions and the idea of a second blessing or doctrine of subsequence, has caused the biggest riff there ever has been.

    And also the scripture clearly says,,, 1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and I partly believe it. 1Co 11:19 ***For there must be also factions among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you.*** AND Jesus said,,, Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on
    earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Mat 10:36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own
    household. Mat 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

    Would you guys go so far to try to paint me as divisive as to say that Jesus must not be very Christian like,,,,,, because he came to wield a sword and cause division???

    TO THE READERS: I am sure many charismatics will wonder,,,, could I defend the movement I am in better than these guys? Is my position really defensible? To that I would like to say that of all the continuationist I have debated. Eric has offered the weakest set of arguments. He really has only made two main ones. AND THE STINK OF PRESSUMTION!!! Most charismatics offer a litany of text taken out of context that they say teaches things like the doctrine of subsequence, the baptism of the Spirit, the need for a full gospel not half a gospel,, etc etc.,,,, that has to be unraveled. So before any of you make any decisions,,, check out some of the better arguments that are fostered by Charismatics.

    TO ERIC: Your list of assumptions will be first. But first let me deal here in this comment post with your so called “faked assumption”.

    B Said,,, “With a clear mind I can say that it appears that Damon has an agenda, shows that he has one, and will not break from his view. I commend him for it in some ways. BUT! His negativity, sarcasm, and plain rudeness makes his argument appear weak. Additionally, Damon appears to be question dodging and partially answering questions when he does answer (albeit in an snarky way).” AND THEN B SAID,,, “let us keep studying, praying, and doing these discussions towards glorying God and not our self-esteem or agendas”

    I SAY: HOW LONG IS ERIC GONNA DODGE HIS ASSERTION THAT TOUNGES HAS A PURPOSE TODAY?

    Then you (ERIC) came along and said,,, ”I realize that your point of telling us that you are in full time ministry was to show your superiority over us in spiritual matters. I will not address that point only to say that I understand what your point was.

    However, as I’m sure you know, full-time ministers hold a special place of responsibility before God regarding the edification and maturity of those you are ministering to. With this is mind, how do you feel those who you minister to would see how you’ve argued on this site? Not what you have said, but HOW you have said it. Do you think that they would be edified through your correspondence here?”
    ===============================
    Now does the evidence show that you was Faking an assumption? I think not. Here’s why. If that where true you probably would have just stated your first paragraph instead of adding the second one also. It appears that your first paragraph was to set up your second one. WAS YOU JUST FAKING ASSUMPTION THERE TOO?

    YOU SAID: “You realize that I explained to you that my assumptions was a fake one?”

    I SAY: Now was that a typo? Or was you using both the plural and singular of assumption to cover your bases? Or was you admitting to more than one assumption? Either way your trying to claim that you faked one assumption when it is right next to another assumption that you made trying to make your and DB’s point of “Damon can’t you see your not being a good example to those you minister too, and thus are a hypocrite?” All that on the presumption that my ministry is to minister.

    So NO I think your full of bull and are actually guilty of exactly what DB accuses me of when he or she said,,, ”You make presumptions about us, and then project your own sin on us.”
    ============================================
    And now to list your assumptions along the way. Which you was obviously practicing before I stepped into this debate. It will take a few hours.

    Along the way I have given you many outs. I have repeatedly requested that you tell us “what purpose the gift of tounges has today“,,, but you pussyfoot around. Evasiveness is common to Mormons, CoC, UPC and all other cults. And they employ many tactics to try to steer the debate away from the issue at hand. It is better to be cocksure than to be pussyfootin.

    Along the way I have I have said,,, “I will just observe if you wish”. BUT THAT OFFER IS GONE and is no longer available to you.

    You will not weasel your way out of this debate until one of us concedes the others position!!!!!!!


  44. Addendum to my last comment: WHEN I SAID:

    “TO ERIC: Your list of assumptions will be first. But first let me deal here in this comment post with your so called “faked assumption”.

    B Said,,, “With a clear mind I can say that it appears that Damon has an agenda, shows that he has one, and will not break from his view. I commend him for it in some ways. BUT! His negativity, sarcasm, and plain rudeness makes his argument appear weak. Additionally, Damon appears to be question dodging and partially answering questions when he does answer (albeit in an snarky way).” AND THEN B SAID,,, “let us keep studying, praying, and doing these discussions towards glorying God and not our self-esteem or agendas”

    I SAY: HOW LONG IS ERIC GONNA DODGE HIS ASSERTION THAT TOUNGES HAS A PURPOSE TODAY?

    Then you (ERIC) came along and said,,, ”I realize that your point of telling us that you are in full time ministry was to show your superiority over us in spiritual matters. I will not address that point only to say that I understand what your point was.

    However, as I’m sure you know, full-time ministers hold a special place of responsibility before God regarding the edification and maturity of those you are ministering to. With this is mind, how do you feel those who you minister to would see how you’ve argued on this site? Not what you have said, but HOW you have said it. Do you think that they would be edified through your correspondence here?”
    ===============================

    Now does the evidence show that you was Faking an assumption? I think not. Here’s why. If that where true you probably would have just stated your first paragraph instead of adding the second one also. It appears that your first paragraph was to set up your second one. WAS YOU JUST FAKING ASSUMPTION THERE TOO?

    YOU SAID: “You realize that I explained to you that my assumptions was a fake one?”

    I SAY: Now was that a typo? Or was you using both the plural and singular of assumption to cover your bases? Or was you admitting to more than one assumption? Either way your trying to claim that you faked one assumption when it is right next to another assumption that you made trying to make your and DB’s point of “Damon can’t you see your not being a good example to those you minister too, and thus are a hypocrite?” All that on the presumption that my ministry is to minister.

    So NO I think your full of bull and are actually guilty of exactly what DB accuses me of when he or she said,,, ”You make presumptions about us, and then project your own sin on us.””
    ===============================================

    I SHOULD HAVE POINTED A FEW MORE THINGS OUT, Firstly that DB said, beforehand, essentially the same thing Eric did (was Eric just jumping on the bandwagon?) when DB said ,,,,,,,,
    ====================================

    “This is the first definition of ministry. For those of us in Christ, we are all full-time ministers (serving others personally, not wearing robes or thumping on the pulpit), according to the Lord.

    So I guess I really don’t understand the overemphasis on this word? Furthermore, this word used improperly, for some of us, only tends to make the point (of the person using it) moot! In other words, some of us are no longer fond of this (contrary to God) professional career. Perhaps something like this would SERVE better, “As with you fellow ministers (servers) of Christ…” Jesus, after all, did tell his disciples not to think of themselves as higher than each other, right?”
    ====================================

    He was obviously laying down a block, trying to open a running lane, for Eric and they are strategizing and conspiring together in private emails. This is proven when,,,,

    ====================================
    DB SAID: “Eric, Check the email!”
    ====================================

    Now to be fair I have talked to Coramdeo twice in email at the verys start of my entering this debate. He said he really liked my arguments and then asked my opinion about his “tactics”. And then I told him my opinion about his “tactics“. I also told him what my tactics would be and that is all. I never asked CD for his opinion about how I should proceed.

  45. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    But there is the problem. When someone says the term “continuationist”, instead of attempting to define what they mean by this (the gifts still CAN happen or the gifts happen the exact same way they did in the New Testament both can fit that term) you immediately deem them a Charismatic or Pentecostal or ignoramous. Now, this would be bad enough. However, you have also taken the next step of ignoring every statement of your opponent to clarify what they mean by “continuationist”. Indeed instead of discussing my definition of the word, and discussing my position, you have said that I’m lying to myself and then continued right along calling me a Charismatic and Pentecostal, ignoring every objection along the way.

    “I don’t really think Coramdeo was correct when he said,, ”the Continuationist position even if it doesn’t describe him completely”. I base this judgment on the fact that people who are just playing devils advocate are not emotionally invested.”

    Right, you have admitted that this is a judgement and an assumption that you deem acceptable because you came up with it. However, when someone comes up with a judgement and assumptions upon your position and behavior, you express great outrage. You would definetly benefit from some self-reflectiveness in your apologetic Damon.


  46. ERIC, because I was awoken by a telemarketer, I only got four hours sleep. Therefore I am taking a nap before I get to work on your list of assumptions and the rest. When I wake up I will probably work 8-10 hours on this debate. So hang on tight brother!!! I’LL BE BACK (that was my best Schwarzenegger impersonation)


  47. LOL

    I been LMAO the whole way throught this debate. I so much appreciate your last comment as it allows me to LOL at you. I will take it up today.

  48. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    Now I know you don’t read what I wrote. Scroll down a bit and you’ll see that I answered your “What purpose does tongues have today?”

    You can doubt the fakeness of the assumption all you want (and yes the (s) was a typo). It doesn’t matter. The point is that you reacted with such outrage and incredulity at the same tactics that you’re employing. Everyone can see it and it doesn’t matter what you say anymore.


  49. OH BTW,, we are still waiting on that “purpose for the gift of tongues today”!!!!!!!

    If you put something out there that is actually reproveable by biblical examination,,, instead of trying to disprove my good character (instead of my arguments) ,,,,, It will be much better for you.


  50. I told you I have not read but a few things you said yesterday!!!!!!! I still have not. LOL

    IT WAS MY OFF DAY. Why did you continue to post when I told you I was off the clock and did not want to work yesterday???

  51. Eric Kemp Says:

    Why would you continue to claim I haven’t answered the question when you hadn’t read everything that I wrote?


  52. It should be readily appearant to you. You had not answered the question up to the point I read.

  53. B Says:

    Damon,

    Eric has answered your question: DW “we are still waiting on that “purpose for the gift of tongues today”
    E:”But I’ll humor you. I’m going to Zimbabwe on a missions trip this weekend and I don’t know the language yet. Gee, I could sure USE the providence of God in the form of tongues once I get there. Is that a good enough use for you?”

    Eric’s answer came a day before your previous statement. You can continue to come on here and say I didn’t read what you wrote and then berate people but that is pointless. Additionally, I found something that you should truly consider: DW states: “because as I said,,, I am off of God’s clock.” God’s clock stops for people? This statement is truly a reflection of your actions towards us. If you are not on God’s clock do you feel you can berate others, call people names, and continue with your actions and then say that you are doing things for God and not for yourself?

    Truly, I can see who you are when you write your thoughts….they are not on God’s clock so you can do what you want in a way that you please. We are always on God’s clock and we all should remember that.

    DW states “You will not weasel your way out of this debate until one of us concedes the others position!!!!!!!”

    I believe that no one will concede and that we are at a stand still because you choose not to read other people’s positions, answer questions, and come with your own agenda and videos about positions that are NOT OURS. The conversation and debate is truly about you feeling that continuatinists = charismatic or penticostal. I do not believe that that continuationists = charismatic/penticostal, and I believe that Eric and DB feel the same way (my thoughts, they can say that if they want). Since we do not agree on the definition of a continuationist then the debate is practically nullified.

    DW states “ATTENTION: When people cannot defend their positions they often revert to attacking the people who postulate the idea’s,,, instead of attacking the ideas themselves:,,, this is called an Ad Hominem
    against or at the man) argument.”
    This is why you are a hypocrite because these next statements are by you and do not deal with what is being said for the debate but about others: “He was obviously laying down a block, trying to open a running lane, for Eric and they are strategizing and conspiring together in private emails.” and “I was intending to be sarcastic and intended to get your attention via a wound (harsh words).” and because you refer to Eric as a charismatic and an nonintellectual “I would also like to point this out to you Eric, The charismatic movement has a strong streak of anti-intellectualism.” and your smugness “If you guys had any decent arguments” and the summation of your tone towards others “NOW,,, at the risk of sounding “sarcastic” again, I have to say this. AND this is NOT sarcasm (A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound),,,, I think “ridiculing” (To expose to ridicule; make fun of) is a more accurate term. ”

    So with your own words you have proven that you have your own agenda, choose to make fun of others in the mean time, defined what Ad Hominem means and act as a hypocrite that makes fun of others.

    As a friend, I am realizing this debate is becoming more of a debacle and is not edifying, at least not anymore. It reminds me of the debates with Atheists. I will take my leave now.

    May we all continue to work for God; studying and knowing His word, and working on His time continuously. I say this for ALL of us not just ONE of us.


  54. Hey Eric,, when I made this last post I had just gotten an email from my pastor. I requested for a couple of hours of his time almost two weeks ago. He was available when I was not,, and said he would contact me next time he was available to give me a big amount of his time. So I spent that time with him talking about a problem I am having with someone on the staff at our church. And we talked about deep things as a result. So My brain is gone capote,,, for now. I never did get my nap. So I will be taking the rest of the day off and will be back at this tomorrow. I would appreciate any refrain from continuing to add to things I must respond to. Ie, please do not post to me anymore today. If you cut me this slack, maybe I will cut you some. Thanks Damon


  55. B,,, I’ll read your comment tommorrow.

  56. B Says:

    Addendum to my last post: DW had around 12 posts after the post that Eric answered DW question to the purpose of tongues. Truly a person with 11 years experience of debating would read, answer questions back and forth, and would stay on the same topic with the person(s) you are debating with. It seems that your agenda shown more with your continuous verbage without reading another person’s thoughts…which proves that this is not a debate anymore but has turned to your own blog!


  57. TO THE READERS: I had planned to respond to all of Eric’s, B’s, Db’s and others comments. I spent an hour on a partial response but when I got down to the part where Eric claims that the peanut gallery are “objective third parties”,,, I decided it was time to change this debate and take the peanut gallery out of the debate.

    IT WILL BE JUST ME, ERIC, THE CONTINUATIONIST POSITION AND THE CESSATIONIST POSITION.

    I will not respond to any other comments from this blogpost from Eric’s blog. Instead I will take Eric’s blogpost and submit a blogpost examining it.

    Then me and Eric can have at it by ourselves. The whole debate has gotten out of control because Eric has been a little “chicken shit”,, as we say here in Texas,,,, and had to call in the peanut gallery for support. We’ll see how he and the continuationist position fairs without the “objective third parties”.

    LOOK FOR MY CRITIQUE Later today or tomorrow of Eric’s blogpost here
    ( http://intelligentscience.org/2009/04/28/why-i-have-a-problem-with-cessationism/ )

    It will contain links to all the blogpost by Eric and Coramdeo in the debate thus far.

    I will submit a link to my response (here) to Erics blogpost on this post comment section when I get it finished.

    Damon Whitsell


  58. HERE IS THE COMMENT RESPONCE THAT I SPENT AN HOUR ON. THIS IS MY LAST COMMENT SUBMISSION HERE UNTIL I SUBMIT A LINK TO MY CRITIQUE OF ERICS POST HERE.
    ==============================================
    TO THE READERS: In light of the tag team obfuscations by Eric and the peanut gallery, I have decided to continue reading from where I left off instead of jumping around.. I will comment as I go. I will change my exchange format. To make it easier ( since Eric and the peanut gallery has tried to make the whole thing difficult by flooding me) I will just list the part of Eric’s comments that I want to comment on. I will use CAPS (IN SOME PLACES) to distinguish my text from his. Now it should be obvious that they have the agenda to flood me and keep me from submitting my first BLOGPOST. WE will see if they let me get caught up before they start to try and overwhelm me again today. But this is typical behavior when someone wants to protect their view and act like they have no agenda.
    ===========================================

    I READ THIS PART ALREADY BUT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT

    ERIC SAID: Damon, You keep linking videos about how horrible the Word of Faith movement is, and how corrupt and unBiblical the Charismatics are. Yet, I haven’t heard one person on this discussion argue with that fact, or defend either of those movements. Indeed, I explicitly told you that I agreed with you. It seems that you are equating a belief that the gifts still “can happen” (since the Bible doesn’t say they don’t) with how the Word of Faith movement / Charismatics think about and use the gifts. Is that really fair?

    I ALREADY GAVE YOU DEFINITIONS,, and untrue to your accusations. I have not given you mine.

    Continuationists are considered either Pentecostal or Charismatic, although these terms sometimes are used in a general sense to include the other.

    Pentecostals believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is generally always accompanied with speaking in tongues.

    Charismatics believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not necessarily accompanied with speaking in tongues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuationism

    If you do not know that the difference between a continuationist and a cessationist is the same difference between a charismatic/Pentecostal and the mainline churches,,, then you just really do not know a single thing about the issue. If there are two non denominational churches in one town, and one is full of continuationist and the other full of cessationist. Then you have one church that is just non denominational and the other is not only non denominational but it is also charismatic.
    =======================================

    ON THIS ONE I WILL POST ERICS WHOLE COMMENT AND USE CAPS TO COMMENT.

    Damon,
    “You cannot be a continuationist and NOT be either a charismatic or Pentecostal.”

    This is exactly my point, and B’s point too. You are just restating your position without considering that B and I have objected to this position. Why must it be one extreme or the other? Can you give me a single reason why (make sure you don’t just restate your position now) someone who believes the gifts CAN still happen MUST be a charismatic or Pentecostal?

    BECAUSE BY DEFINTION YOU CANNOT EXCERSICE THE GIFTS IN QUESTION AND NOT BE CONSIDERED EITHER OR, IT IS NOT MY POSITION, IT IS THE DEFINTION

    “MY agenda is to defend the cessationist position. SO DON’T COME OFF like you, Eric and DB don’t have an agenda and I am the only one that does!!!”

    This exactly right. Please read your own words again. Your goal is not to discover and defend what the Bible says about the gifts, but to defend the cessationist position. That is why this conversation has taken the direction it has. You are not willing to see another valid Biblical interpretation or any Biblical evidence contrary to your position (or even calmly show how the other interpretation is incorrect) and arrogantly assert yours as the only one. Your agenda is to defend your position, not the Biblical one. This goal is obvious, for you state . . .

    NOW THIS IS PRETTY RIDICULOUS. ERIC IS SUPPOSED TO BE DEFENDING THE CONTINUATIONIST POSITION,,,, NOT THE “WELL WE HAVE NO GOOD EVIDENCE ANY WAY SO LETS JUST NOT ARGUE AND JUST LOVE EACH OTHER‘,, POSITION.

    “There is not one verse that is universally agree to support either position.”

    Exactly. So the Bible is unclear and undogmatic on the issue. Why are you?

    NO THE BIBLE IS NOT UNCLEAR ABOUT THE ISSUE. AND OBVIOUSLY YOU DON’T WANT ME TO EVER GET INTO A POSITION WHERE I AM NOT FLOODED AND CAN SHOW YOU.
    =========================================
    “BUT I have an advantage because the whole the bible clearly shows the gifts in question where not for every Christian.”

    This is not what you claimed. You claimed that ONLY Jesus, the Apostles and those the Apostles bestowed the gifts upon by the laying on of hands, did the gifts. I showed that this position is false because the act of “laying on of hands” never once is explained to bestow the gifts. And Stephen and Phillip are your elephants in the room. You have not responded to this.

    YES I RESPONDED TO THIS AND SHOWED YOU WRONG, YOU NEED TO READ THESE VERSES AGAIN. ONE SHOWS THE GIFTS WHERE IMPARTED BY LAYING ON HANDS (BY THE APOSTLES). ONE SHOW EXPLICITLY AND THE OTHER IMPLICITLY

    ***Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and
    wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and
    they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

    NOW WHAT DID SIMON SEE THAT MADE HIM OFFER TO PAY TO BE ABLE TO LAY HANDS ON THE PEOPLE AND DO WHAT ? THE PREVIOUS VERSES TELL US THE ANSWER “Then simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.”

    Act 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and
    prophesied.

    THE CERTAIN DISCIPLES ARE THE THEM. “And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” SO OBVIOUSLY YOU WHERE WRONG HERE EVEN THOUGH I SHOWED YOU ONCE BEFORE.
    ===========================================
    “You fall into the same trap that Eric does. Your just assuming because the gifts are in a few places that they are universal and have continued. YOU HAVE NO EXEGESIS SUPPORT”

    Claiming that your opponent has no exegetical support while at the same time pretty much admitting that you don’t have any either, and at the very least never giving any for your own position, is not good form. Indeed, I have spent a good amount of asserting that every single text used to support cessationism in fact does no such thing. If this is true, and there isn’t a single verse that clearly explains cesssationism, then I’m the only one with exegetical support.

    YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT THE SIGNS AND WONDER WHERE TO CONFIRM JESUS AND THE APOSTLES. NOW HERE IS A QUESTION FOR YOU. IF THE JESUS AND THE APOSTLES WHERE AFFIRMED BY SIGNS AND WONDERS,,, HOW COULD THAT BE SO IF THE SIGNS AND WONDERS ARE NOT EXCLUSIVRE TO THEM?

    However, the true issue here, is that you have not once tried to understand what my position is. I have never once said that the gifts have continued as they were done in the New Testament.

    THEN YOU’RE A CESSATIONIST, IF GOD HAS CEASED FROM USING THE GIFTS IN THE SAME WAY HE DID ON THE OT, THEN HE HAS CEASED. JUST BECAUSE HE CAN MAKE YOU AND ME SPEAK FRENCH OR RUSSIOAN ANYTIME HE WANTS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE GIFTS HAVE CONTINUED

    Indeed, I agreed with you that they have not. My only position, my only point, is that we cannot be absolute and dogmatic about the gifts “never” happening again because the Bible is not clear that they have ceased completely (this is my second time saying this).

    THE GIFST HAVE CEASED IN HISTORY, IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO PROVE THEY HAVE CEASED, IT IS YOUR PLACE TO PROVE THAT THEY CONTINUED IN THE SAME WAY IN AN INBROKEN CHAIN.

    The Bible says they WILL cease, but never says that this time is now, in fact, it is obvious to me that we are not living in the time parameters given in which the gifts will end. You have not once argued my true position. Content instead to call me a Pentecostal, or a charismatic or an ignoramous.

    AS SHOWN BY DEFINTION, IF YOU BELIEVE THE GIFST HAVE CONTINUED, YOU’RE A CONTINUATIONIST,,THUS PENTECOSTAL OR CHARISMATIC. BOTH TERMS ARE USED AS CATCH ALL TERMS. ACCORDING TO THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE TERMS ARE USED, THE TERM CHARISMATIC AND PENTECOSTAL DENOTES ANYONE BELIEVEING IN OR PRACTICING THE GIFTS TODAY. NOW ABOUT THE IGNORAMOUS (an ignorant and stupid person) COMMENT. YES YOU FIT ONE PART OF THAT DEFINTION WHICH SIMPLY MEANS YOUR IGNORANT AND HAVE NOT STUDIED THE ISSUE. I DON’T THINK YOUR STUPID. I THINK THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM. YOU’RE A SCIENTIST,,, NOT A THEOLOGIAN. YOUR OBVIOUSLY THEOLOGICALLY IGNORANT
    ================================
    “Just what are you inferring? That I am tainted by a personal agenda and you, DB and Eric are not??? LOL”

    Are you inferring that you have absolutely no personal stake in this discussion? That your flesh is not involved in any way? Should any of us be that confident?

    THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING! I HAVE BEEN ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE. BUT THAT IS REALLY IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS NOT DO I HAVE AN AGENDA. I AM DEFENDING THE CESSATIONIST POSITION, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DEFENDING THE CONTINUATIONIST POSITION. INSTEAD OF ACTING LIKE I AM OPERATING FROM THE FLESH AND YOUR NOT
    ======================================
    “I’ll have you know that my agenda is always to glorify God and I resent your inferences to the contrary.”

    But you just said your agenda is to defend the cessationist position. MY AGENDA IS TO GLORIFY GOD BY DEFENDING HIS WORK. AFTER STRUGGLING WITH THE ISSUE FOR 24 YEARS. I AM CONFIDENT THAT HE NO LONGER NEEDS SIGNS AND MIRACLES BECAUSE THE CHURCH IS CONFIRMED AND IS THE DOMINANT RELIGION IN THE WORLD
    ======================================
    Remember that B was including HIMSELF (HOW DO YOU KNOW B IS A HIM? YOU BEEN STRATIGIZING IN EMAIL WITH HIM TOO? I WILL ONLY ALLOW YA’LL TO DO THIS FOR SO LONG AND THEN I WILL CHANGE FORMATS AND SUBMIT MY OWN POST INSTEAD OF TRYING TO ANSWER YA’LLS TAG TEAM OBFUSCATIONS when he said, “Let us keep studying, praying, and doing these discussions towards glorying God and not our self-esteem or agendas.” So please read what he said instead of jumping to conclusions on him as well.

    I READ WHAT HE SAID, AND IN THE CONTEXT OF YA’LL TRYING TO SAY I HAVE AN AGENDA AND YA’LL DON’T, OBVIOUSLY HE WAS ADMITTING TO HAVING AN AGENDA. ARE YOU SAYING HE, DB AND YOURSELF HAVE AN AGENDA?

    Your quote from the Trinity Foundation again lumps us in with people who we have no association with, either in company or beliefs. The argument is irrelevant. Please, if you want to argue with me, argue with my position, not with the position you’ve given me.

    THE QUOTE FROM THE TRINITY FOUNDATION WAS USED TO SHOW THAT IT IS NOT WRONG TO ENGAGE IN POLEMICS AND WE ARE NOT JUST CONFINED TO IRENICS TO DEFEND THE GOSPEL. CONTINUATIONIST LIKE TO TAKE LUTHER OUT OF CONTEXT TO SAY HE BELIEVED IN THE GIFTS, BUT HE WAS VERY OPPOSED TO THE SO CALLED ‘SPIRIT FILLED’ CHRISTIANS OF HIS DAY,, BECAUSE THEY WHERE TOTTALY HERITICAL IN ALL THEIR OTHER BELIEFS.
    ===============================
    “Eric, I have asked you to tell us “what purpose does tongues have today”! ARE YOU EVER GOING TO GET AROUND TO THAT???”

    This assertion that I’m dodging an issue seems humorous to me coming from the fellow that just ignored every single point I made in my last post. But I’ll humor you. I’m going to Zimbabwe on a missions trip this weekend and I don’t know the language yet. Gee, I could sure USE the providence of God in the form of tongues once I get there. Is that a good enough use for you?

    NO IT IS NOT,, THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD IS NOT THE SAME AS A MIRACLE FROM GOD. AND THE ISSUE IS HAS GOD USED THE GIFT OF TOUNGES IN AN UNBROKEN CHAIN IN THE SAME WAY HE DID ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST. AND YOU HAVE ALREADY ADVANCED YOUR SILLY NOTION THAT ‘GEE THE GIFT OF TOUNGES MUST BE IN EFFECT BECAUSE WOULD’NT IT BE NICE TO EVANGELIZE IN A LAUGNUAGE YOU NEVER LEARNED” I CAN SHOW YOU LINGUISTIC STUDIES THAT HAVE STUDIED MODERN DAY TOUNGES AND NO REAL LAUNGUAGES ARE USED. PENTECOSTAL/CHARISMATICS HAVE TRIED TO EVENGELIZE IN TOUNGES. IT JUST DOES NOT HAPPEN. IF YOU GO TO ZIMMBABWEE AND DO NOT LEARN THE LAUGUAGE,,,, YOU WILL BE SPEAKING TO THE AIR.
    Damon, to be honest with you, I’m not sure that I’m going to respond to your next post.
    THAT IS ALRIGHT I WILL RESPOND TO YOURS

    Maybe I will. That your stated agenda is to defend the cessationist position, I see now almost no point in continuing a conversation with you. I’m only interested in discussion with those interested in discovering and discussing what the Bible says, not arrogantly (confidence with an attitude) attempting to slap down those who disagree with their doctrine, creating strife all in the name of “church unity”, disregarding any call by objective third parties to change their tone.

    OBJECTIVE THIRD PARTIES LOLOLOLOLOLOL

    LOOK IF YOUR NOT GOING TO DO WHAT YOU STATED YOU WHERE GOING TO DO WHEN YOU STARTED THIS DEBATE WITH CORAMDEO,, THEN WHAT ARE YOU DOING? YOU AGREED TO “Coramdeo is taking the Cessationist position while I’m taking the Continuationist position.”

    NOW TAKE YOUR POSITION AND QUITE TRYING TO APPEAR AS IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN AGENDA. YOU HAVE AN AGENDA,,,, AND IT IS NOT TO DEFEND THE CONTINUATIONIST POSITION.

    IT IS TO ADVANCE YOUR,,’WELL THINGS ARE JUST NOT CLEAR IN THE BIBLE SO LETS ALL JUST NOT BE DIVIDED AND LOVE EACH OTHER OR YOUR BEING DIVISCIVE”,,,,, AGENDA


  59. OK I LIED,,, one more I felt I had to address

    B SAID: Addendum to my last post: DW had around 12 posts after the post that Eric answered DW question to the purpose of tongues. Truly a person with 11 years experience of debating would read, answer questions back and forth, and would stay on the same topic with the person(s) you are debating with. It seems that your agenda shown more with your continuous verbage without reading another person’s thoughts…which proves that this is not a debate anymore but has turned to your own blog!

    I SAY: It should be obvious,,, to anyone who either has a brain or no agenda,,, that the post containing Eric’s “response to his question” was clearly stated by myself to be only partially read by myself. There is 12 subsequent responses by myself because ya’ll kept submitting comments when I had already told ya’ll that I had not read the whole post and was taking time off. So quit with the sinister plotting to paint me as incredible,, instead of the cessationist position as false. You can prove me to be an ASS or whatever.

    That does nothing to prove the cessationist position is not biblical!!!

    If I had read it all of Eric’s response,,, I assure you in my 12 subsequent responses,, I would have been LMAO in my response to Eric’s so called “answer to his question”.

    In which BTW he inadvertently claims by default that if he does not speak Zimbabwean this weekend,,, then there is not modern use of tounges.

    And why do we need tongues? Why not just get a translator and go preach the gospel?

    Why go to Zimbabwe is the first place? Go somewhere that they do not have a bible in their language.. And if your really motivated by love,,, learn their language and translate Gods word into that language for them. Or better yet just sit there and talk in tongues to them for however long is needed.

    BTW Eric,,, I am not a professional apologist in the sense that I get paid to do what I do. I HAVE NEVER received one penny for the work I do. I spend all of my expendable income to do my apologetic ministry for the Lord. And I have no boss but Jesus.

    So again, quit trying to paint me as motivated by things I am not motivated by.

  60. DB Says:

    An angry person stirs up a fight, and a hothead does much wrong. (Proverbs 29: 22)

    Do not associate with a man given to anger; Or go with a hot-tempered man, (Proverbs 22:24)

    A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, But the slow to anger calms a dispute. (Proverbs 15:18)

    When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest. (Proverbs 29:9)

    My last statement to Damon: Paranoia is a destructive thing! I emailed Eric to say that I couldn’t continue this conversation because of your anger, which was, in turn, churning up my own. Maybe others were plotting against you, Damon, but Eric and I were not!

    Have a nice life!

    Good Bye!


  61. Have a nice life!

    Good Bye!

  62. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    Well, you can say whatever you like and make as many blogposts as you like, but I’m done discussing with you. There are many reasons for my departure and I’ll give you a few so that you understand why I’m done.

    I’m not saying that you’ve never attempted to discuss the issue at hand, however the vast majority of your text on this topic has been concerned with blind assertion, assumption, ridicule and basically unself-reflective banter.

    For instance, you assume that I’m conspiring with my commenters in some way that excuses you from anything they have said about you. In doing so, you have called me a “chicken-shit” and a liar. DB and I have emailed back and forth for the past few months as encouraging Christian brothers, but in no way do I care if he enters a conversation or not and nor do I have any say in what he says on my blog. His observation of your behavior is his own. You can assume otherwise in order to disregard his observations of your behavior, but that’s all it is, an assumption.

    The point that you have never addressed, and continue to miss, is that I don’t adhere to your definition of “continuationist”. I don’t agree with it, nor does everyone in the world agree with it. When I have challenged you on this definition asking, “Why must I be either Charismatic or Pentecostal or cessationist? Why no middle ground?” you have ignored this question and have restated your definition of the words as if that was an answer to my question. You have done this three times now.

    Definitions of words don’t stand on their own, undisputed. Your logical fallacy is that because you hold to a definition, therefore that’s the definition of the word. And it isn’t so much that you’re doing this that’s the problem, you’re doing it with an arrogance and belligerence that says that those who don’t agree with those definitions that you do, are nincompoops. I’m specifically talking about the word “continuationalist”.

    When I pointed out that your admitted agenda is to defend the cessationist position, not the Word of God, you ignored it by telling me what my agenda is supposed to be. True, in the debate between Coramdeo and I, I was defending a position that stated that the gifts still CAN happen. We called this position the “continuationist” position. You then jumped on this word “continuationist” and labeled me as a Charismatic or Pentecostal without any regard for what my true position was, or how I was using the word “continuationist”. Again you assume that everyone must adhere the definitions you have for words. I’m beginning to think that you must run into this difficulty alot in your debates.

    You did this to ignore that you are not defending the Biblical position, but the cessationist one.

    “NO THE BIBLE IS NOT UNCLEAR ABOUT THE ISSUE. AND OBVIOUSLY YOU DON’T WANT ME TO EVER GET INTO A POSITION WHERE I AM NOT FLOODED AND CAN SHOW YOU.”

    You are contradicting yourself now. You just said that the Bible doesn’t contain a single verse that makes the case for either position, but now you’re saying the Bible is clear? The only reason you’re saying that I don’t want you to get into it, is because you don’t have it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure you have a great argument for cessationism. And as I’ve stated, I’ll probably agree with most of it. However, the argument won’t be from Scripture and Scripture won’t back your dogmatic position on the issue, cause it’s just not there.

    “YES I RESPONDED TO THIS AND SHOWED YOU WRONG, YOU NEED TO READ THESE VERSES AGAIN. ONE SHOWS THE GIFTS WHERE IMPARTED BY LAYING ON HANDS (BY THE APOSTLES). ONE SHOW EXPLICITLY AND THE OTHER IMPLICITLY”

    Neither case is explicit. You can read into each verse all you want, and you are doing so extensively. All those verses show is people doing tongues, signs and wonders AFTER they have recieved the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands. The Bible never says that the laying on of hands gave them those gifts. You are inferring and inserting meaning into the text that isn’t there. Did they do signs, wonders and tongues after recieving the Holy Spirit? Yes. Did the laying on of hands give them those gifts? I doesn’t say! I already pointed out this to you, yet you merely repeat your position. This is another reason it is pointless to continue this discussion.

    But you have a bigger problem in your Biblical translation. Not only do you read into verses what you want them to say, as you’ve just done and any astute Bible student will see you doing….you also ignore verses that contradict this position. In Acts 10, Cornelius and his Gentile friends started speaking in tongues after recieving the Holy Spirit when Peter hadn’t even touched them!! Basically what you’ve done here is find a few verses that can plausibly support your position and have used them as such. I’m not saying you’ve done so on purpose, and I’m sure that I have many verses like that as well, we all have our pet doctrines and things that the Bible actually doesn’t say. This just happens to be yours. I pray that one day the Holy Spirit will correct you.

    “THEN YOU’RE A CESSATIONIST, IF GOD HAS CEASED FROM USING THE GIFTS IN THE SAME WAY HE DID ON THE OT, THEN HE HAS CEASED. JUST BECAUSE HE CAN MAKE YOU AND ME SPEAK FRENCH OR RUSSIOAN ANYTIME HE WANTS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE GIFTS HAVE CONTINUED”

    This is indicative of all the problems you’ve had in this conversation getting your point across, you don’t listen when people say things. For instance, I have already said that I have NO PROBLEM BEING CALLED A CESSATIONIST. In fact, I consider myself mostly one. If you are trying to say that God no longer gives people the gifts of healing, prophecy and tongues, as in they can DO IT ALL THE TIME, and that is their office, then yea, I agree with that. However, if I speak the Word into someone’s life and God gives me knowledge that I wouldn’t normally have with out Him, is that not the gift of Prophecy that God has given me for that instance? How many times do I have to do this to be considered having “the gift”? If I can’t have the gift, then how did God give me that ability?

    That is a good and interesting conversation it itself, but, unfortunately our discussion never got that far because of the way you have presented almost everyone one of your points.

    “THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING!”

    Your supreme cofidence that you have never once acted in your flesh during this conversation is one main reason why I have no desire to continue it. I know that I have let me anger get the best of my probably more that I’d like to know during this discussion, and I’m sure that the majority of what I’ve said isn’t edifying to the body of Christ. Hopefully, as I mature, that will become less and less, but only those prideful enough to not look inward, or ask God to show him what is inward, would claim zero influence from the flesh in a lengthy discussion. Especially someone who has spoken as you have.

    “MY AGENDA IS TO GLORIFY GOD BY DEFENDING HIS WORK. AFTER STRUGGLING WITH THE ISSUE FOR 24 YEARS. I AM CONFIDENT THAT HE NO LONGER NEEDS SIGNS AND MIRACLES BECAUSE THE CHURCH IS CONFIRMED AND IS THE DOMINANT RELIGION IN THE WORLD.”

    Exactly. You are supremely confident about an issue that the Bible, admittedly, doesn’t have a clear verse that supports it. This is another reason why it’s pointless to continue this conversation.

    B is a close, personal, real life friend of mine who was a best man at my wedding. Have we talked about you on the phone outside of the blogosphere? Of course. Have we “conspired” about what we’re going to say to you? Please. Read into it however you like, but B is his own person.

    “NO IT IS NOT,, THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD IS NOT THE SAME AS A MIRACLE FROM GOD.”

    Really? It would’t be a miracle for me to speak a language I don’t know? Look, you don’t have to like my use for tongues today. The bottom line is that you asked for one, and I gave you one and you can’t argue how useful that would be. Bringing in how wrongly used tongues is by other people doesn’t change the fact that my use for it is still useful.

    “OBJECTIVE THIRD PARTIES LOLOLOLOLOLOL”

    B and DB read and respond to my blog when and if they want to. And they say what they want, we don’t talk about what we’re going to say and I certainly don’t tell them how to think about a certain issue, and vice versa. So when B and DB read your words and both tell you that your tone and your words are creating strife, they are objectively coming to that opinion.

    The fact that you have arrogantly and quickly disregarded there words and unselfreflectively claimed to be doing this solely out of love with no thought to how you’ve acted is the main reason why I’m done with this conversation.

    Let me ask you, how do you call someone a “chicken-shit” out of love?

    How are those who you minister to edified by you calling someone a “chicken-shit” on the blogosphere?

    Anyway, this conversation was extremely enlightening for me, though probably not in the way you intended. It was the first time I was spoken to by a fellow Christian the way I got used to hearing from atheists. So the next time it happens, I will not be surprised by it. I will not delete or censor anything you write on here (that isn’t profane of course) but I will also no longer respond to you about this issue.


  63. LOLOLOL I only read about three sentences from your comment,,, and I have this to say

    Your just chicken shit(figure of speech, not profane)and you know in your heart that your continuationist position cannot stand up to scrutiny.!!!

    WHAT PATHETIC ARGUMENTS YOU HAVE OFFERED!!!! The worst I ever seen.

    I’ll examine your post anyway,,,, for the people.

    You have been trying to paint me this way or that way (incredulous),,, all along,,, so you could bail out.

    As proven when you said before your quitting,,,, “Damon, Now I know you don’t read what I wrote. Scroll down a bit and you’ll see that I answered your “What purpose does tongues have today?” You can doubt the fakeness of the assumption all you want (and yes the (s) was a typo). It doesn’t matter. The point is that you reacted with such outrage and incredulity at the same tactics that you’re employing. Everyone can see it and *******it doesn’t matter what you say anymore*******”

    You go ahead and concede,,, you surely are not the first to get into one of these debates and then try to weasel out of it.

    This debate does not prove either position right or wrong.

    BUT IT DOES PROVE ERIC BELIVES IN SOMETHING HE CANNOT DEFEND.And he is an “intelligent scientific” coward. And a “theological absurdity”.


  64. TO THE READERS: I have my first blogpost entry ready but cannot get it to format correctly despite trying for an hour. It has a lot of links and my WP editor messes it up because of that.

    I have a dinner date with freinds and will be back to trying to get that post posted in the morning.

    Thanks for your time and patience. Damon


  65. TO THE READERS: I apologize for the poor readability of this post. I finally got all the paragraphs in order and fixed most of the problems with the post. I write my post in Word and copy and paste to WP. I sometimes have a hard time posting that way but this one was the hardest. So I learned my lesson and will be writing in the WP editor instead of Word. HERE IS MY FIRST BLOGPOST IN THE DEBATE.

    MY FIRST BLOGPOST ENTRY INTO ERIC’S AND CORAMDEO’S DEBATE (a preface)

    http://damonwhitsell.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/debate-preface/

  66. Eric Kemp Says:

    Why have you disallowed comments on your blogpost, Damon?


  67. I set the whole blog to disallow comments when I set it up a few weeks ago. Because the primary purpose of the blog is for my attempt to write a cessation verses continuation book. I thought I had checked the allow comment box for that post. But I guess I did not the last time I re-did the post. It probably took me 2 hours in total to get the thing posted.

    I’LL SET IT UP FOR YOU RIGHT NOW.

    BUT me and you are the only ones that are going to comment on it.

    If I am not getting flooded. I promise to be much nicer.

    You asked something like “how can you calling someone chicken shit and be edifying or love like.”

    Well,,, in a similar sense as that Jesus was motivated by Love when he said,,, “Get behind me Satan”.

    And we are brothers in Christ and I am motivated by Love. By the time the charismatic church I went to got through with me, I would have nothing to do with God,,, or anyone that talked or even looked religious,,, for about 5 years. I know literally dozens and dozens of people that are ex-charismatics. My pastor is ex-charismatic,,, and so is his dad. We have about 20 ex-charismatics at our church.

    I JUST DON’T WANT WHAT HAPPENED TO US TO HAPPEN TO YOU!!!!!!!

  68. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    Thanks for allowing me to comment.

    “By the time the charismatic church I went to got through with me, I would have nothing to do with God,,, or anyone that talked or even looked religious,,, for about 5 years.”

    I can’t imagine what that would have been like. When I returned to the Lord my senior year of high school, I was going to a “seeker friendly” church and once I got some Biblical education, I became frustrated with it. How much more a Word of Faith church would have turned me off I’m sure I can’t fathom.

    “I JUST DON’T WANT WHAT HAPPENED TO US TO HAPPEN TO YOU!!!!!!!”

    I don’t want it to either. But honestly, I’m not in danger of it happening. I believe you that this is your main concern in your ministry and on the blogosphere. However, I must tell you that you don’t communicate this very well. Indeed what comes across is a jumping to conclusions regarding anything that isn’t absolutely cessationist. I promise you that if you had just taken the time to calmly ask clarification questions about my position, and how I’m using the word “continuationist”, we would have agreed on most things.

    Instead, your background has caused you to lump people into two categories, cessationist and Charismatic. To you, there is no middle ground. This is not good scholarship, nor is it logical. To you, either someone is cessationist or they have zero discernment. And when you enter into a discussion with someone like me, who doesn’t fit those categories, you don’t consider such a development possible and you immediately stop listening to what that person has to say and begin to call names (liar, ignoramous, “chicken shit”). At this point, the conversation is over, because you are unable to consider the position of the person in any rational way because that position is “impossible”.

    That is why I keep going back to the Bible not being absolute on the issue. I’m not saying that since the Bible isn’t clear, we should all get along honky dorry and sing Cumbayah together. You assume I’m saying this because you first assume that since I’m not an absolute cessationist that I have no discernment. We definetly need discernment regarding the gifts, following the guidelines set down by Scripture and 1 Cor 14 in particular. All I’m saying is that it’s bad theology to be absolute about an issue that the Bible is not. That’s all I’m saying.

    I apologize if you felt flooded by comments on my blog. That wasn’t my intention nor was it the intention of the commentors. You can assume this if you wish, we can’t stop you, but I’m telling you that no one conspired against you, I have never done this, nor do I need or want to do that. You must be willing to be self-reflective and take responsibility for your words that caused B and DB to not only comment upon your behavior and tone, but discontinue conversation with you, as I have done, because of the frustration and anger you evoke. Sure, you could assert that the anger is due to the fact that we don’t like “the truth” that you’re speaking. However, those are blind judgements because you don’t know either B or DB. It could just as easily be that what they are saying is true; your tone, verbage and argumenet style has caused the call for better behavior on your part and the departure on their part when your tone has not changed.

    Anyway, those are the barriers to this conversation going anywhere and have sapped me of any desire to continue it.


  69. Thanks for allowing me to comment. YW,,,, I WILL RESPOND IN CAPS (SORRY FOR THE BAD SPELLING, SPELL CHECK DOES NOT WORK IN CAPS.)

    “By the time the charismatic church I went to got through with me, I would have nothing to do with God,,, or anyone that talked or even looked religious,,, for about 5 years.”

    I can’t imagine what that would have been like. When I returned to the Lord my senior year of high school, I was going to a “seeker friendly” church and once I got some Biblical education, I became frustrated with it. How much more a Word of Faith church would have turned me off I’m sure I can’t fathom.

    I HAVE NEVER BEEN A WORD OF FAITH’ER!!!!!!! BECAUSE MY UNCLE IS A MORMON BISHOP AND A FREEMASON I HAVE STUDIED THE OCCULT EXTENSIVELY AND ALWAYS KNEW WOF IS JUST WITCHCRAFT VEILED IN CHRISTIAN TERMS! I DO WOF MINISTRY BECAUSE BY FRIEND IS NOW PARALYZED FROM SHOULDERS DOWN,,,,,“BY FAITH”. AND HE BLAMES ANYONE BUT HIMSELF. BUT WHEN YOU DO DRUGS AND STEAL FROM DRUG DEALERS. BULLETS IN THE BACK SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE.
    =======================================

    “I JUST DON’T WANT WHAT HAPPENED TO US TO HAPPEN TO YOU!!!!!!!”

    I don’t want it to either. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO ME, I HAVE NOT TOLD YOU. THERE IS YOUR PROPENSITY TO ASSUME AGAIN. But honestly, I’m not in danger of it happening. I believe you that this is your main concern in your ministry and on the blogosphere. However, I must tell you that you don’t communicate this very well. Indeed what comes across is a jumping to conclusions regarding anything that isn’t absolutely cessationist. I promise you that if you had just taken the time to calmly ask clarification questions about my position, and how I’m using the word “continuationist”, we would have agreed on most things.

    ERIC, I WAS NOT JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS. CHARISMATIC AND NON CHARISMATIC IS THE SAME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CESSATIONISM AND CONTUATIONISM. IT IS NOT ME!!! BY DEFINTION YOUR EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER. THERE IS ONLY ONE OTHER GROUP. THE UNDECIDED. CAHRISMATICS CALL IT OPEN BUT CAUTIOUS. THERE IS NO PART CHARISMATIC OR PART CEASSTIONIST. EITHER THE GIFST IN QUESTION CEASED OT THEY HAVE CONTINUED

    Instead, your background has caused you to lump people into two categories, cessationist and Charismatic. To you, there is no middle ground. This is not good scholarship, nor is it logical. I DON’T CLAIM TO BE A SHCOLAR, YOU’RE THE ONE NOT BEING LOGICAL BY NOT FOLLOWING THE DEFINATIVE DEFINITIONS THAT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THERE. To you, either someone is cessationist or they have zero discernment. And when you enter into a discussion with someone like me, who doesn’t fit those categories, you don’t consider such a development possible and you immediately stop listening to what that person has to say and begin to call names (liar, ignoramous, “chicken shit”). I NEVER CALLED YOU A LIAR OR AN IGNORAMOUS. I SAID YOU WAS LYING TO YOURSELF AND THAT YOUR THEOLOGICALLY IGNORANT,, AND THAT ONLY AFTER YOU SUGGESTED I WAS CALLING YOU AN IGNORAMOUS At this point, the conversation is over, because you are unable to consider the position of the person in any rational way because that position is “impossible”. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS YOU WANT TO SAY OK I AM GONNA PRACTICE THE GIFTS ON WEDS FRIDAYS AND SUNDAYS,, AND THE REST NOT. NOW THAT DOES NOT JIVE WITH THE BIBLE. IN THE BIBLE WHEN THE GIFTS ARE HAPPENING,,, THEY ARE COMING FROM GOD,,, NOT MEN.

    That is why I keep going back to the Bible not being absolute on the issue. THE BIBLE IS ABSOLUTE ON THE ISSUE I’m not saying that since the Bible isn’t clear, we should all get along honky dorry and sing Cumbayah together. NO YOU WHERE SAYING THAT IF ANYONE IS DOGMATTIC,, THEY ARE UNLOVING, UNCHRISTIAN AND JUST DOWN RIGHT DEVISCIVE You assume I’m saying this because you first assume that since I’m not an absolute cessationist that I have no discernment. I DO NOT KNOW ANY ABSOLUTE CESSATIONIST, IN THE SENCE OF THE TERM (Full Cessationists argue that along with no miraculous gifts, there are also no miracles performed by God today) I HAVE NOT MET VERY MANY CHARISMATICS THAT DO HAVE DISCERNMENT, AND THE ONES THAT DO, LIKE THOSE IN THE REFORMED FAITH, I HAVE TO WONDER IF THEY REALLY DO HAVE DISCERNMANT, THEY ARE JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, WANTING EVERYTHING GOD HAS TO OFFER. IT IS EASY TO BE UNDISCERNING WHEN YA WANT SOMETHING. We definitely need discernment regarding the gifts, following the guidelines set down by Scripture and 1 Cor 14 in particular. IF WE FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES IN 1 COR. WE WOULD HAVE TO CLOSE ALMOST ALL CHARISMATIC/ PENTECOSTAL CHURHES DOWN. ESPECIALLY SINCE ALMOST ALL OF THEM PRACTICE OTHER THINGS AND TEACH OTHER DOCTRINES THAT ARE UNBIBLICAL All I’m saying is that it’s bad theology to be absolute about an issue that the Bible is not. That’s all I’m saying. THE BIBLE IS CLEAR THAT THE GIFTS NOT ONLY CEASED BUT WHERE NEVER NORMATIVE FOR CHRISTIANS.

    I apologize if you felt flooded by comments on my blog. That wasn’t my intention nor was it the intention of the commentors. NOW AFTER ALL THAT TALK ABOUT YOUR READERS ARE SO INDEPENDENT AND THIRD PARTY, HOW DO KNOW THEIR MOTIVES? IF THEY ARE CHRISTIANS,,, THEY ARE NOT NON VESTED THIRD PARTIES, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE CHARISMATIC/CONTINUATIONIST. You can assume this if you wish, we can’t stop you, but I’m telling you that no one conspired against you, I have never done this, nor do I need or want to do that. You must be willing to be self-reflective and take responsibility for your words that caused B and DB to not only comment upon your behavior and tone, but discontinue conversation with you, as I have done, because of the frustration and anger you evoke. AS YOU HAVE DONE?,, IS THIS YOUR GHOST WRITER? I TAKE FULL RESPONCIBILITY FOR MY WORDS. IF B AND DB WHERE TRULY THIRD PARTIES,, MY WORDS WOULD NOT HAVE EFFECTED THEM AND THEY WOULD HAVE DISMISSED ME AS AN ASS,, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO SAY IF I AM A CHRISTIAN AT ALL, I AM A SORRY EXAMPLE OF ONE AND VERY DEVISCIVE. EVOKING ANGER HUH? YOU KNOW YOU CALLED ME A LIAR FROM THE GET GO AND HAVE USED CULT LIKE TACTICS SINCE ABOUT HALF WAY THROUGH THIS THING. REMEMBER I FAKED BEING SICK FOR THREE DAYS JUST SO I COULD BE AN ASS TO YOU AND GET AWAY WITH IT,,, BECAUSE I AM A LIAR. DON’T YOU REMEMBER SAYING ABOUT AS MUCH? I’LL TELL YOU,,, I GOT PISSED WHEN I FIRST READ YOUR ANTI-INTELECTUALL ASSUMTIONS ABOUT YOUR DAD. IF I COULD HAVE JUMPED THROUGH YOUR MONITOR AND HAD A FACE TO FACE CONVERSTAION WITH YOU,,, I WOULD HAVE DONE SO RIGHT THEN AND THERE. Sure, you could assert that the anger is due to the fact that we don’t like “the truth” that you’re speaking. However, those are blind judgements because you don’t know either B or DB. It could just as easily be that what they are saying is true; your tone, verbage and argumenet style has caused the call for better behavior on your part and the departure on their part when your tone has not changed. I DON’T THINK SO, I OFTEN EMPLOY THE TACTIC OF AD REDUCTIO AD ADSURDEM AURGUMENTATION, AND WHEN PEOPLE START TO PLAY GAMES,,, I HAVE NO PROBLEM RESORTING TO POINTING OUT THAT NOT ONLY ARE THEIR AURGUMENTS ABSURD,, BUT SO ARE THEY. REDUCED TO ABSURDITY IS A FORM OF ARUGUMENTAION THAT MOST ALL BIBLE WRITERS USED. IT IS BASIC LOGIC. TAKE AN ASSUMPTION AND FOLLOW IT TO IT’S CONLCUSION AND IF IT LEADS TO AN ABSURDITY, THEN IT IS FALSE. EVEN GOD USED IT VERY OFTEN. Anyway, those are the barriers to this conversation going anywhere and have sapped me of any desire to continue it.
    ============================================

    Well Eric, I am not guilty of anything that you have assumed and accused me of here. I think you just want to think you have every right to be complacent, apathetic and indecisive. There are two ways to do apologetics. Polemics and irenics. You got Polemics because that is what you, your arguments and tactics required and deserved. BTW,,, Jesus used irenics and polemics. If you will look he used polemics about as much as he did irenics. I THINK YOU HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR AN OUT EVER SINCE YOUR INDIFFERENCE WAS CONFRONTED.

  70. S.Lim Says:

    But, Eric, the debate can move on.

    Cessationism as a doctrine was unknown before Augustine. I will leave this well used track (both sides have this tedious tendency to go all over again the same boring arguments that cement their own stance) and introduce this related observation:

    Cessationism was developed against a ‘Christianized’ cultural background. The people who formulated this position were and are from a culture exposed to Christianity as the preeminent or sole religious culture. They therefore has a high regard for the Bible. Particularly amongst the reformers, the primacy of the Bible became unchallengeable in their own psyche. [It is also in mine, don’t shoot!)

    This entrenched cultural view led them to presuppose that the Scriptures NEED NO EXTERNAL VALIDATION to its authority. Again, don’t shoot. We all (Cessationist and Continuationist Biblicists alike) experienced in varying degrees how true the Bible is and need no, um, gun at our heads. Cessationism’s basic “The Canon now completed and accepted, signs were no longer needed and so ceased” is based on this religious world-view.

    (Two other presuppositions, the charismata were ONLY for the purpose of signs to attest the Gospel; and the charismata were ceased (revoked) by God, also contributed to the Cessationist’s conclusion. In other words, the NATURE of the charismata, and the NATURE of the cessation. But this is not where I am going.)

    But this world view does not exist in the unchristianized parts of the world. The Canon, even if it is known, is still unattested, unproven, foreign literature. Some even consider it inimical to their cultures and politics. And you know, this is a true observation. Even God would agree with it. Cessationism’s basic tenet is not founded upon this ‘truth’ or reality.

    Obviously also, the first Gentile recipients of Paul’s evangelism were more or less living in the pagan cultures similar to the ‘unchristianized’ world of today. As far as these two- the past and the present pagan worlds are concerned, nothing has changed. The Message needed and needs attestation. Cessationism’s basic tenet is not founded upon the real contexts of actual Evangelism’s confrontations with other religions at all points of history.


  71. The Testimony of History: The greatest persons in church history after the early overwhelming agree on cessationism. In fact, all the greatest events in church history happened without spiritual gifts and miracles ie the Reformation, the Great Awakening, etc. From SF Pulpit

    John Chrysostom (c. 344–407):
    This whole place [speaking about 1 Corinthians 12] is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. [1]

    *****
    Augustine (354–430):
    In the earliest times, “the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues,” which they had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance.” These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away. [2]

    *****
    Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–c. 466):
    In former times those who accepted the divine preaching and who were baptized for their salvation were given visible signs of the grace of the Holy Spirit at work in them. Some spoke in tongues which they did not know and which nobody had taught them, while others performed miracles or prophesied. The Corinthians also did these things, but they did not use the gifts as they should have done. They were more interested in showing off than in using them for the edification of the church. . . . Even in our time grace is given to those who are deemed worthy of holy baptism, but it may not take the same form as it did in those days. [3]

    *****
    Martin Luther (1483–1546):
    [Rather than acknowledging the availability of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, as the spiritual enthusiasts of his time did, Luther (in his Large Catechism) defined the Holy Spirit’s gifts as:]
    · the holy Christian Church,· the communion of saints,· the forgiveness of sins,· the resurrection of the body, and· the life everlasting[Thus in the Large Catechism, he writes:]

    Learn this article, then, as clearly as possible. If you are asked, What do you mean by the words, “I believe in the Holy Spirit”? you can answer, “I believe that the Holy Spirit makes me holy, as his name implies.” How does he do this? By what means? Answer: “Through the Christian church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.” In the first place, he has a unique community in the world. It is the mother that begets and bears every Christian through the Word of God. The Holy Spirit reveals and preaches that Word, and by it he illumines and kindles hearts so that they grasp and accept it, cling to it, and persevere in it” [4]

    [As The Encyclopedia of Religion concludes: “Both Luther and Calvin wrote that the age of miracles was over and that their occurrence should not be expected.”]

    *****
    John Calvin (1509–1564):
    Though Christ does not expressly state whether he intends this gift [of miracles] to be temporary, or to remain perpetually in the Church, yet it is more probable that miracles were promised only for a time, in order to give lustre to the gospel while it was new or in a state of obscurity. [5]

    “…the gift of healing, like the rest of the miracles, which the Lord willed to be brought forth for a time, has vanished away in order to make the preaching of the Gospel marvellous for ever.” [6]

    *****
    John Owen (1616–1683):
    “Gifts which in their own nature exceed the whole power of all our faculties, that dispensation of the Spirit is long since ceased and where it is now pretended unto by any, it may justly be suspected as an enthusiastic delusion.” [7]

    *****
    Thomas Watson (c 1620–1686):
    “Sure, there is as much need of ordination now as in Christ’s time and in the time of the apostles, there being then extraordinary gifts in the church which are now ceased.” [8]

    *****
    Matthew Henry (1662–1714):
    What these gifts were is at large told us in the body of the chapter [1 Corinthians 12]; namely, extraordinary offices and powers, bestowed on ministers and Christians in the first ages, for conviction of unbelievers, and propagation of the gospel. [9]

    The gift of tongues was one new product of the spirit of prophecy and given for a particular reason, that, the Jewish pale being taken down, all nations might be brought into the church. These and other gifts of prophecy, being a sign, have long since ceased and been laid aside, and we have no encouragement to expect the revival of them; but, on the contrary, are directed to call the scriptures the more sure word of prophecy, more sure than voices from heaven; and to them we are directed to take heed, to search them, and to hold them fast, 2 Peter 1:29. [10]

    *****
    Conyers Middleton (1683–1750):
    We have no sufficient reason to believe, upon the authority of the primitive fathers, that any such powers were continued to the church, after the days of the Apostles.[11]

    *****
    John Gill (1697–1771):
    [Commenting on 1 Corinthians 12:9 and 30:]
    Now these gifts were bestowed in common, by the Spirit, on apostles, prophets, and pastors, or elders of the church, in those early times: the Alexandrian copy, and the Vulgate Latin version, read, “by one Spirit”. [12]

    No; when these gifts were in being, all had them not. When anointing with oil, in order to heal the sick, was in use, it was only performed by the elders of the church, not by the common members of it, who were to be sent for by the sick on this occasion. [13]

    *****
    Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758):
    In the days of his [Jesus’] flesh, his disciples had a measure of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, being enabled thus to teach and to work miracles. But after the resurrection and ascension, was the most full and remarkable effusion of the Spirit in his miraculous gifts that ever took place, beginning with the day of Pentecost, after Christ had risen and ascended to heaven. And in consequence of this, not only here and there an extraordinary person was endowed with these extraordinary gifts, but they were common in the church, and so continued during the lifetime of the apostles, or till the death of the last of them, even the apostle John, which took place about a hundred years from the birth of Christ; so that the first hundred years of the Christian era, or the first century, was the era of miracles. But soon after that, the canon of Scripture being completed when the apostle John had written the book of Revelation, which he wrote not long before his death, these miraculous gifts were no longer continued in the church. For there was now completed an established written revelation of the mind and will of God, wherein God had fully recorded a standing and all-sufficient rule for his church in all ages. And the Jewish church and nation being overthrown, and the Christian church and the last dispensation of the church of God being established, the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were no longer needed, and therefore they ceased; for though they had been continued in the church for so many ages, yet then they failed, and God caused them to fail because there was no further occasion for them. And so was fulfilled the saying of the text, “Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.” And now there seems to be an end to all such fruits of the Spirit as these, and we have no reason to expect them any more. [14]

    Of the extraordinary gifts, they were given in order to the founding and establishing of the church in the world. But since the canon of Scriptures has been completed, and the Christian church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased. [15]

    *****
    George Whitefield (1714-1770):
    [After being accused of practicing the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, said:]
    I never did pretend to these extraordinary operations of working miracles, or speaking with tongues [since] the karismata, the miraculous gifts conferred on the primitive church . . . have long since ceased. [16]

    *****
    James Buchanan (1804-1870):
    The miraculous gifts of the Spirit have long since been withdrawn. They were used for a temporary purpose. They were the scaffolding with God employed for the erection of a spiritual temple. When it was no longer needed the scaffolding was taken down, but the temple still stands, and is occupied by his indwelling Spirit; for, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you” (I Cor. 3:16). [17]

    *****
    Robert L. Dabney (1820–1898):
    After the early church had been established, the same necessity for supernatural signs now no longer existed, and God, Who is never wasteful in His expedients, withdrew them. . . . Miracles, if they became ordinary, would cease to be miracles, and would be referred by men to customary law. [18]

    *****
    Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892):
    [The believers mentioned in the book of Hebrews] had attained the summit of piety. They had received “the powers of the world to come.” Not miraculous gifts, which are denied us in these days, but all those powers with which the Holy Ghost endows a Christian. And what are they? Why, there is the power of faith, which commands even the heavens themselves to rain, and they rain, or stops the bottles of heaven, that they rain not. There is the power of prayer, which puts a ladder between earth and heaven, and bids angels walk up and down, to convey our wants to God, and bring down blessings from above. There is the power with which God girds his servant when he speaks by inspiration, which enables him to instruct others, and lead them to Jesus; and whatever other power there may be—the power of holding communion with God, or the power of patient waiting for the Son of Man—they were possessed by these individuals. [19]
    The works of the Holy Spirit which are at this time vouchsafed to the Church of God are every way as valuable as those earlier miraculous gifts which have departed from us. The work of the Holy Spirit, by which men are quickened from their death in sin, is not inferior to the power which made men speak with tongues. [20]

    [Speaking of the office of the apostles,] an office which necessarily dies out, and properly so, because the miraculous power also is withdrawn. [21]

    *****
    George Smeaton (1814–1889):
    The supernatural or extraordinary gifts were temporary, and intended to disappear when the Church should be founded and the inspired canon of Scripture closed; for they were an external proof of an internal inspiration. [22]

    *****
    Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920):
    Many of the charismata, given to the apostolic church, are not of service to the church of the present day. [23]

    *****
    William G. T. Shedd (1820–1894):
    The supernatural gifts of inspiration and miracles which the apostles possessed were not continued to their ministerial successors, because they were no longer necessary. All the doctrines of Christianity had been revealed to the apostles, and had been delivered to the church in a written form. There was no further need of an infallible inspiration. And the credentials and authority give to the first preachers of Christianity in miraculous acts, did not need continual repetition from age to age. One age of miracles well authenticated is sufficient to establish the divine origin of the gospel. In a human court, an indefinite series of witnesses is not required. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses,” the facts are established. The case once decided is not reopened. [24]

    *****
    Benjamin B. Warfield (1887–1921):
    These gifts were not the possession of the primitive Christian as such; nor for that matter of the Apostolic Church or the Apostolic age for themselves; they were distinctively the authentication of the Apostles. They were part of the credentials of the Apostles as the authoritative agents of God in founding the church. Their function thus confined them to distinctively the Apostolic Church and they necessarily passed away with it. [25]

    *****
    Arthur W. Pink (1886–1952):
    As there were offices extraordinary (apostles and prophets) at the beginning of our dispensation, so there were gifts extraordinary; and as successors were not appointed for the former, so a continuance was never intended for the latter. The gifts were dependent upon the officers. We no longer have the apostles with us and therefore the supernatural gifts (the communication of which was an essential part of “the signs of an apostle,” II Cor. 12:12) are absent. [26

    http://thepredestinedblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/i-think-that-this-issue-will-become.html
    ==========================

    ***Here is my shot with my gun!!!***

    You got it all wrong bro.!!! The gifts continued in some circles that where unbilical and motivated by their pagan world view and DESIRE to have possession of what was what was only given by God and was never a possession to have and exercise at will.

    History shows this struggle through the Montanians, after they where run out of the church,, the gifts in question are non existent for about 900 years. Since then other fringe groups have practiced them off and on. There has even been some reformers to claim the gifts existed in their days. But history proves that most prominent Christian scholars and apologist have had in history agree,,, the gifts ceased at the completion of the bible, the death of the last apostle, or the maturity of the church.

    I’ll get to work examining a few of the charismatics so called “list of historical proofs” . I show just how unorthodox and unbiblical some of the alleged “gifted people” or those who have “attested to their existence” where.

    Charismatics are like Mormons. They will take anyone,,,,no matter the other theology they have,,,and OUT OF CONTEXT,,, to support their claims and position.

  72. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    “Well Eric, I am not guilty of anything that you have assumed and accused me of here.”

    And there we go. I take my leave.

    May God bless you and your ministry brother.

    Eric


  73. S.lim, you should know that only one of the four kinds of cessationist would say that God cannot (rather will not) and does not use tongues as a sign gift in the jungles of the Amazon or something like that. The cessationist position is that the gifts have ceased. Both qualitatively and quantitatively. The continuation position posits,,,, that the gifts have continued unabated, unaltered, and unchanged. If you believe in the gifts but not just like in acts2. Then you a cessationist of some sorts.

    If your belief is that tongues are used under the criteria you espoused,, then your a cessationist of some sorts by definition. And if you are practicing Glossolalia as opposed to Xenoglossy,,,, then your just being tricked by your flesh and a familiar Spirit. And practicing pagan ecstatic utterances (mumbo jumbo, babbling).

    And the issue is not do tongues happen in the Amazon.

    The issue is does a big part of the church have only have HALF a gospel? Or does a big part of the church have the gospel (in some cases) plus something else not from God!!!

    The issue is,,, are charismatics “Spirit filled”??? Or are non charismatic NOT “Spirit filled” ???

    Is the a second bless or a real biblical doctrine of subsequence???

    DOES THE BELIEVER GET EVERYTHING HE NEEDS AT SALVATION???? http://how2becomeachristianinfoblog.com/2009/01/29/forty-things-god-provides-every-believer-at-salvation-compiled-by-lewis-sperry-chafer-revised-by-r-b-thieme-jr/

    IS THERE POWER IN THE GOSPEL (1Cor;15: 1-4) to evangelize THE ANSWER IS YES. That is why the gospel was always proclaimed by the apostles instead of the gifts always used.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyzczH9Lcbk ******please at least watch this one****

    The whole issue I that the charismatic have been divisive since DAY ONE. And when John Wesley first said he had experienced a “second work of grace“. The church has been filled with a two tier system EVER SINCE. The FULL SPIRIT FILLED and the NOT FULL SPIRIT FILLED. The haves and the have nots.

    Which just isn’t true. You charismatics are just deluded trying to teach people tongues and all,, how to be anointed,,, how to impart the anointing and such. Everywhere the charismatic movement goes, it leads to chaos, and is leading folks speedily into the open arms of the Anti-Christian and his god of forces. (Daniel 11:37-39


  74. WOW one video worked right and the other not.

    THE LINKED IS THE IMPORTANT ONE TO WATCH.

    ======================================

    Yeh Eric, you say I am guilty and I say I am not. And since we are mostly dealing with my motives. You are in no position to judge.

    SO ARE YOU CONCEDING??? ARE you becoming a Cessationist???? You should at least get your terms straight and quit thinking you’re a legitimate continuationist.

    AND DECIDE WHAT GOD WANTS FOR YOU. Not what ERIC wants for ERIC.

    Or are you just gonna say,,, what the heck. I follow after something I know in heart is NOT biblical and from God but MY PRIDE.


  75. THE POWER EVANGELISM MYTH SHATTERED. THE POWER IS THE GOSPEL

    Continuationists and Charismatic philosophers often posit that sign gifts are the “power of God”. They assert that the regenerate Christian must exhibit sign gifts to experience the power of God. This video is a reply to Loepower’s youtube video (THE ONE ABOVE) that asks cessationists to respond to 1 Corinthians 2:1-5.

    By ex-charismatic Bibletouchstone


  76. THE FALSE REVIVAL (COMPARISON)

    THE STRIKING SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE “TORONTO BLESSING” AND THE SERPENT POWER OF KUNDALINI
    http://www.discernment.org/revival/comparis.htm

    Comparison Between Kundalini and the so-called Toronto Blessing
    http://www.inplainsite.org/html/kundalini.html (has several charts)

    Florida Revival – is there a Kundalini connection?
    http://livingjourney.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/florida-revival-is-there-a-the-kundalini-connection/ (has Todd Bentley awakened to kundalini serpent power?)

  77. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    Why do you keep posting stuff about the signs and wonders movement, Word of Faith movement, and Charismatics when no one here supports them and in fact agrees with you?


  78. Because they are all continuationist.

    AND PEOPLE NEED TO BEWARE.

    The False Revival (comparison)

    Comparison Between Kundalini and the so-called Toronto Blessing
    http://www.inplainsite.org/html/kundalini.html
    (has several charts)

    Florida Revival – is there a Kundalini connection?
    http://livingjourney.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/florida-revival-is-there-a-the-kundalini-connection/
    (has Todd Bentley awakened to kundalini serpent power?)


  79. WHY ARE YOU NOT APPROVING ALL MY MESSAGES?

  80. Eric Kemp Says:

    Calm down Damon, WordPress causes me to approve the ones with videos or links in them. Yours had both and I don’t have a job where I’m at a comp all the time.

    And we’re not continuationists actually. We’re continuationists by the definition YOU’VE forced on us by ignoring every objection to how you define things.


  81. Hi Eric, NP. I have not defined cessationism!!!

    Cessationism was defined before you and I where born.

    Once again
    ============================
    Continuationism is a Christian theological belief that the gifts of the Holy Spirit have continued to this present age, specifically the sign gifts such as tongues and prophecy. Those who support this view are called Continuationists or Noncessationists.

    Those who do not support the Continuationist view are known as Cessationists. While the conflict between Continuationism and Cessationism is not an issue that affects salvation, it has drawn a dividing line between Christian denominations across the United States.

    Continuationists are considered either Pentecostal or Charismatic, although these terms sometimes are used in a general sense to include the other.

    Pentecostals believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is generally always accompanied with speaking in tongues.

    Charismatics believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not necessarily accompanied with speaking in tongues.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuationism
    ========================================

    Continuationism is the belief that the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit taught in the bible — such as prophecy, tongues, interpretation of tongues, healings, miracles, etc. — have not ceased and are available for the believer today (1 Cor. 1:7). Continuationism is the opposite of Cessationism which teaches that supernatural gifts have ceased either when the canon of Scripture was completed or at the death of the last apostle. Those who hold to continuationism are called continuationists or non-cessationists.

    http://www.theopedia.com/Continuationism

  82. DB Says:

    Eric,

    The odd thing, for me, is that i have written many posts, on my sites, on the apostate church, which these sites above discuss: the new age or conformed to the world church that has fallen away from the Lord and His truth, as prophesied.

    As I said at the beginning of this posting, I was reading to be informed on this issue and that is all. It shouldn’t be this way.


  83. Hi Eric,, What do you mean it should not be this way? That you have called me a liar, questioned and unjustly named my motives, called me decisive and un-Christ like , and tried to say I am imposing my definitions,,,, from the get go.

    Eric. I have not problem at all with your beliefs. It’s your strategy in defending them. Take this from an ex -Church of Christ member about how Church of Christ members defend their position.

    The Church of Christ denomination uses four main tactics in debating their pet doctrines. These tactics are generally used by all cultic groups. They are:

    1. Change the subject 2. Take scripture out of context 3. Straw man arguments 4. Ad hominem attacks (attacking you instead of the issue)

    The way to counter these tactics is very simple: Stay on the subject until you are allowed to make your point! http://www.chocd.org/conclusions.html

    THIS IS THE SAME WAY YOU AND SOME VISITORS TO YOUR SITE HAVE BEEN FROM THE GET GO!!!

    Is it,,, or is it not?


  84. Sorry Eric,

    that one should have been adressed to DB

  85. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    I like how you ignore the part where you overreacted and did the equivelent of yelling (ALL CAPS WITH!!!!) at me when I wasn’t able to check my blog in an amount of time that suited you. I had never deleted a comment of yours before, but because it took a few hours for it to show up, you yelled. Instead of apologizing for this misunderstanding and the yelling at a fellow Christian, you ignore it. This is exactly what you’ve done through out this dialogue and it is why the conversation never got anywhere of substance. I just wanted to point out to you another instance of why I’m not debating you anymore on the issue.

    I don’t know why I keep doing this, but I keep getting sucked into explaining things to you. This is my last ditch effort to get you to see another point of view besides your own . . . so here we go.

    Just because you get your definitions from somewhere besides your own mind, doesn’t mean it’s any less “how you define them”. That is, you read that definition of “cessationism” and “continuationism” and decided it was the right one. Key phrase being “you decided“. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying that this is your point of view.

    What have yet to grasp, is that there are other, equally valid, points of view. For instance, in the early church, the Western Church (who’s most prominent theologian is Tertullian) defined theology in legal terminology. Our phrase “justification by faith” comes from this legal line of thinking. Now, went up to a Eastern Church theologian and said, “We are justified by faith, right?”, he would look at you with a blank stare because there is no word for “justification” in Greek! He wouldn’t know what you are talking about! The closest you could get in the Greek to “justification” is the word “righteousness”. So when you say, “justification by faith” the Greek speaker would hear “righteousness by faith” and wouldn’t understand what the fuss is about. You wouldn’t be able to debate with this person because you are not even close to being on the same page with him. Is the Latin speaker wrong with the word “justification”? No. Is the Greek speaker wrong with the word “righteousness”? No. Do they mean the same thing? No. Do you see how important defining terms gets?

    Indeed, this is where most of the disagreements in Church history has come about. I can say that “God is God in three persons” to describe the Trinity and someone else, who has a different definition of the world “person” will object and say “No, God is God in three beings” and even though you are both saying the same thing, using different words to describe the same thing, you end up calling each other heretics!

    This is what is happening here. We are not talking the same language even though we are using the same words of “gifts”, “cessationism” and “continuationism”. Repeating what YOUR definition of the words are (gleaned from another source or not) does nothing to help the conversation. Asking me what I mean by the words would have done the conversation wonders.

    I am writing a post to describe what I mean by these words so you can read it when I’m done.


  86. Hi Eric, Yes there is one of my comments that have not “showed up”. It was a fuller version of the one you did approve. Maybe you did not get it. It’s OK, I made my pint anyway. Did you Know there is about 10-15 names that describe what happens in Pentecostal/Charismatic churches,,, when it happens in Pagan Religions? All of them. The Pagans in Corinth and all the way back to Babylon, Egypt and Samaria. They practice things like “unknown tounges” or ecstatic utterances, being slain in the Spirit, revelation knowledge, words of wisdom, and reverse anthromorphemic practices like barking like a dog and mooing like a cow.

    No you are “not going to debate with me” because I would not sat here and let you go,,, “hey the bible is unclear and un-dogmatic,, and if you don’t agree with me your divisive,,, and I will just go over here and practice my childish Spiritual gifts without you “divisive un-Spirit filled people”. The bible is clear there is one baptism, one Sprit and that the Christian gets the “full gospel” when he believes on Christ as Risen Savior and Lord. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.

    Now I am sorry you cannot take a raising of the voice to accentuate my points.

    YES it is important to gets terms right. That is why I resent you trying to define the terms for yourself when I have continually provided third party, unbiased definitions… that have historically been defined to describe differing belief systems and paradigms derived from Gods Word. You have tried to redefine “cease” for yourself when I have given you three objective definitions. Yet you still persist to say cease does not mean cease unless you can prove that absolute cessation has occurred.

    **BTW, δικαίωσις dikaíōsis IS ONE OF THE GREEK WORDS FOR JUSTIFICATION. There are at least six synonyms for justification in the Greek.**

    No,,,, most disagreements in church history has come from a battle between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. In both essential and non essential matters. And No,, when people talk about the trinity as being three or one,,, to the exclusion of the other, there is a battle over essential doctrine of God character and nature. And someone who does not say God is both Three and One,,, is plainly a heretic. Both of these heresies where dealt with in the early history of the church.

    Let me be honest. I don’t think your a heretic and I would not call you one unless I seen you teaching someone the wrong things about the essentials of the faith. I have never thought we are not one in the same Savior and Lord. I think you and some commenters have more than strongly suggested that I am divisive (and a host of other things) and cause a division when the division is just the fact that we think differently about very important things. BUT THEY ARE NOT ESSENTIAL. So please,,,, don’t like assume a persecution complex before anyone calls anyone a heretic.

    No,,, what is happening here is that you are trying to define everything the way you want too. And your being intentionally obfuscate; trying to obscure and blur the definitions which are inherently the dividing lines in the issue. The last thing anyone should do in a debate is to redefine the terms. Words, ideas, and principles have inherent meanings and implications. I never let anyone, nor do I try to define terms, that is eisegesis. If you let people define their own terms,,, you can have The president of Iran saying,, ”Isreal should be wiped off the face of the map”,, while he has fire of hate in his eyes,,, yet later redefines his words to mean that,,, “Palestinians should VOTE Israel off the face of the map.” LOL

    I really don’t care what you mean by the words. I can see what you mean by the words. AND That Eric redefines them how he wants. I wonder how a scientist can be so illogical and blind to himself and act like a theologian.

    I TELL YA WHAT I WILL DO ERIC!!!

    I WILL BOW OUT FOR THE SAKE OF THE DEBATE AND LEARNING.

    ***It is obvious you will never take break from trying to disprove me as a person, to confront any of my rebuttals or arguments.***

    So I will let you pick up from here with CoramDeo or anyone else who might want to comment.

    BUT YOU MAKE THE PERFECT OBJECT LESSON.

    So I will evaluate and provide a critique from the sidelines of my blog for your post. If you had read and studied all of CD’s references in his first post. You never would have had to write your first response the way you did. Or resorted to the things you did here in this one.

    I wonder if any other cessationist would have let you get away with the bogus arguments that you have in this post???? ,,, nope,,, I don’t think so.

    See the thing is I remember debating a Mormon (did you know they are charismatic, before the Pentecostals where born?) on the issue of cessationism. AND EVEN HE DID NOT REORT TO THE THINGS YOU HAVE. But if all I had to offer was your arguments. I would have to bolster them some way too.

    I just hope that in the end you will not view yourself and your dad as divided between those that “have the Sprit” and those that don’t. I could care less what you think about me. Whether it is true or not.

    PEACE BROTHER ;0) Damon

  87. DB Says:

    Damon,

    I wasn’t talking to you! I addressed that comment to Eric. Please, be careful before responding!

  88. DB Says:

    Damon ranted,

    The bible is clear there is one baptism, one Sprit and that the Christian gets the “full gospel” when he believes on Christ as Risen Savior and Lord. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.

    Yes! Yes! Yes! A thousand times YES! This is the truth and WE AGREE WITH YOU! WE AGREE WITH YOU! WE AGREE WITH YOU! Why are you tearing us down for agreeing with you?

    We reject the same things that you do! We, in the beginning, were trying to discern, through our ONE SPIRIT, if we were missing out or incorrect on these issues, Ya know, like we’re supposed to do, according to the Word, “TEST THE SPIRITS!!!”

    You won’t listen. You have pegged us and condemned us as heretics or worse, and yet, when you’re not neurotic and angry, we (I) agree with most of what you say and am concerned about the same issues as you!

    But you will not put aside your anger and bitterness long enough to receive us! I’m amazed that I’m going against my own spiritual sense and still trying to communicate with you.

    We have probably all had bad experiences with organized Christianity, at some point, but that’s not an excuse for unwarranted anger and bitterness. Where is “the unity of Spirit, in the bond of peace” in your way of communicating, Damon?

    One last shot for me, if you want to be rational and communicate, then I am still willing. If I check back and hear nothing or another rant, then I’m going to obey my spirit!

  89. Eric Kemp Says:

    Damon

    **BTW, δικαίωσις dikaíōsis IS ONE OF THE GREEK WORDS FOR JUSTIFICATION. There are at least six synonyms for justification in the Greek.**

    When you go to kypros.org to translate “justification” into Greek, try pressing the “Ancient Greek” check box and type in “justification” then. What you’ll find is that in the early church, since that’s what we’re talking about, and in Ancient Greek, cause that’s what we were talking about, they didn’t have a word for justification.

    “Now I am sorry you cannot take a raising of the voice to accentuate my points.”

    I would have no problem with any of your argument techniques if you were an atheist or someone else. However, we’re supposed to be “Christ-like” and usually when someone points out that you’re not being like Christ, and quotes you and Scripture to prove it, the correct response would be to back down, get a hold of yourself, apologize for violating the Scriptures you are defending, and move on with the conversation. You haven’t done this once, accusing us of everything that you’ve done.

    What you have literally said through out this conversation is that you’ve never done anything wrong and that we’re the ones ganging up on you and lying about your behavior in order to change the subject. I wish that I had your confidence Damon.

    “Words, ideas, and principles have inherent meanings and implications.”

    This is exactly what I’ve been trying to point out to you, no they do not. I can’t explain this to you anymore than to say that this is false. Words, ideas and principles mean different things to different people based upon their point of view, or way of thinking. I gave you two examples of this, you understood neither of them. Could it be that I’m trying to redefine words because it suits me and I’m being dishonest? Of course. However, you have not once attempted to discuss our differing definitions and how we can reconcile them. You have merely constantly repeated your definition, attempting to literally berate others into subscribing to them. You don’t even know how different our defintions of the words are because you never asked! Like I said, if you had taken the time to ask some clarification questions, as DB has said, you would find that we have alot in common.

    I have to be honest with you, the main reason that I believe you have a penchant for division is that every single time I’ve thrown the “if we discuss this, we’ll have alot in common” or “I mostly agree with you” bone out there. You’ve ignored it, and instead focused on the most argumentative issue in front of you. As Christian brothers, we should latch onto what we agree on, and go from there.

    Let me ask you, is there anything inherently wrong with getting along?

    There has been no debate, you have not answered a single question I asked you. You ignored my Acts rebuttal and went right around my “chicken-shit” question, still considering yourself division and strife free! I have also ignored many questions that you asked me, but that is because every single one of them came with sarcasm or an accusation. Yet, when I give you an honest rebuttal to your exegesis, it goes ignored. But that is what you must do to consider your cessationism Biblical, ignore the opposite opinion.

  90. B Says:

    Because I will not box myself into the DW cessationalist or continuationist definitions, I would like to say that there is one gift that appears to be lacking from him, the gift of Love.

    I do believe that with the use of history, the Bible, and my knowledge that certain gifts have ceased. I will not be dogmatic in the belief as the Bible does not give that knowledge. The difference here is that I use the word “believe” rather than “know as a fact”. This is where I feel the difference is between the definition of cessationist and continuationist that DW gives. I say this because if a person were to speak another language that is of this world to interpret the Word of God and has never spoken that language before than I would truly say that it was the gift of tongues that was given to them (I have heard of stories of this happening). This is the true gift of tongues that the chrismatic movement and the penecostal movement does not do (which DW consistently likes to tie the beliefs together).

    With these statements and my beliefs, how can I say if I am one definition or the other using DW’s definitions? My beliefs do not fit in either category, yet I feel that my beliefs are more Biblically founded than to state when the gifts have specifically ended in sections of the Bible that do not show clear understanding.

  91. DB Says:

    B,

    Thanks for this! You said, in a precise and peaceful way, what is on my heart about this issue.

    As with you, and Eric also, I am trusting my spirit, from the Lord, to keep me from falling into falsehood, which is exactly what I don’t want to do!

  92. Eric Kemp Says:

    B

    Yea, I think this is well put. Since our ultimate source of knowledge is the Word of God, we should believe only what it says. No more, and no less. I also don’t fit the definitions Damon has given for the issue, I guess I don’t actually exist.

  93. S.Lim Says:

    I had to refrain from answering DW since it simply would result in a multiplication of unconstructive arguments.

    Unlike Bro Eric here, I would represent a more concretized Continuationist view; from a position that has already decided the gifts are valid based on Scriptural grounds. It is a position that has moved on from the ‘traditional’ Continuationist’s arguments in the Debate. It sees these, together with the more or less set arguments of Cessationism, as only of secondary importance. It sees rather how one would approach the Scriptures and the Lordship of Jesus Christ as the more important issues in the Debate.

    Take for example the following assertions in the context of the Debate:
    1. The Bible is without error or contradiction.
    2. Where an explicit commandment to the Church exists in the Scripture, it is of greater weight than an implicit directive derived from a purely interpretational angle. If the implicit directive is contrary to the explicit, then the implicit must be invalid.
    3. In the Scriptures, are there directives to the Church to desire and operate spiritual gifts? Indisputably yes.
    4. In the Scriptures, is there a single directive to the Church to cease the spiritual gifts? Indisputably no.

    It cannot be simpler than that! Any objective study will show that the Cessationist stance is based on ‘a purely interpretational angle.’ Its implicit abrogation (such as it is, in fact) is contrary to the explicit directives to operate the spiritual gifts. This is where the danger lies. It unintentionally usurps the Lordship of Christ as the sole source of directives to the Church through his apostles. This then is my personal problem with Cessationism.

    For a long while I really was puzzled how it was, that such great men as Calvin, Edwards, missed this fundamental issue. I suppose again, it is culture. They were, in a sense, rebels and freedom fighters against the tyranny of Rome. Coupled with the western world move into democracy, this produce a form of ‘freedom loving’ Christians divorced from any love of authoritarian systems today. These have a ‘soft-lordship’ view of Christ and His teachings.

    By contrast, an oriental like me still have that respect of authority that pre-disposed me to a ‘strong-lordship’ view of Christ. I would tend to see Christ as absolute Lord and myself as ‘vassal’ with little power to say no. His words carry great force. This is why His apostles’ commandments mean just that to us. That is why we able to see the commandments to operate the spiritual gifts as part of the Great Commission.

    Interesting, eh? Sorry for slightly off topic.

  94. Eric Kemp Says:

    S.Lim

    That’s very simply and powerfully put. I can’t get any more simple or more clear than that.

    I would, however, add several caveats to your “operate the spiritual gifts” position. I would add historical context to it in the form of “Look around us, obviously the gifts aren’t even similar to how they were then”. I would also point out the historical fact, as I see it, that certain offices of the church have ceased (Prophet in the Old Testament sense, healer, apostle) and also that the greatest spiritual gift that Paul would have us “operate” is love. I would also point out the massive misuse of the gifts and straight up dismissil of 1 Cor 14 from much of the Christian church.

    Other than that, I’m with you!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: