Re: continuationist or cessationist?

by zone Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:03 am

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:

Anyway... As I look at the Greek text, I don't see ANY indication that the gifts have ceased. It's all predicated upon scripture being interjected as "that which is perfect", and that doesn't work.
....

hi pps.i hadn't seen this post before today.
i'm happy to go over it.
....

let's start with you doing a thorough greek study on "that which is perfect", if you have the time.

.....

i don't know why you got banned from CC, but there's a good thread underway there right now.

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/67006-cessationism-continuationism-what-does-scripture-say.html

Sarah posted some excellent work on the datings of scripture etc.

then there's this thread i started requesting pentecostals explain to us which of the examples were valid, which were fake

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/66213-examples-speaking-tongues-need-verification-explanations-please.html

for me, cessationism is proven by proving that tongues were known human gentile nation languages....once that is understood; and we know the mirculous ability to suddenly proclaim the Good News in a known language you didn't learn CEASED, the rest is obvious.

.....

but first things first:

show why "that which is perfect" "doesn't work" as you put it.

we don't need to use or find the word canon as that which is perfect - simply the last word God intended to be recorded or delivered (by Him) which was later complied into canon.

ttyl
if you can't see those threads, i can copy/paste relevant portion here.

zone

by zone Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:22 am

here's a pretty good examination of the whole matter.
look it over, see if you find any error.
let me know.

http://www.bible.ca/tongues-ceased-perfect-come-1Cor13-8-13.htm

as for not wanting to be a Pentecostal, just don't be one.
personally i think you'll be far better off.

former pentecostals all testify that their growth was stunted as they were distracted by that other stuff.

as for the godly men you know - they didn't all have to be manifesting demonic stuff.

people do what they are taught to do.
raised pentecostal or taught the practices sooner or later you'll mimick them.

its pretty straight forward.

for me anyways

Glossolalia is the death knell for continuationism.

k...ttyl.

by zone Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:25 am

btw - i REALLY admire the honesty in your OP.
kudos. it's pretty rare to find pentecostals open to examining their beliefs and practices.

just look at the flame wars in those 2 threads by pentecostals who refuse to consider.

that humility and willingness to see if it's error is what the bible says is pleasing to God.
i know you pray much.

pray about this....i know He'll show you it's error.

God wants FAITH....He never did like people continually needing signs of any kind.

the house of cards comes down when we tackle it from TONGUES, and when we admit tongues was gentile languages - a SIGN for unbelieving jews.

they're not mentioned outside jews being present, and the Bible is in large measure an Historical record. it's what THEY did. we read it.

we have that which is perfect (complete) the final words from God, now canonized.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Sat Jun 29, 2013 5:14 pm

I've been quite busy offline, as I've resumed Prison Ministry after a long break. I'm gonna be brief here, and then get to zone's posts; and then I'll begin addressing the text itself. I'm limited on time, so I'll just see how much I get through today and I'll resume maybe Monday with whatever remains.

Strangelove wrote:PPS, why don't you give us some textual evidence for continuationism?

I can and will do that, and from a few other related passages besides just the singular passage in all of scripture that even mentions anything referencing cessation.

But the core initial issue is that Cessation has by far the greater burden of "proof" than does Continuation. We have valid and operational gifts, scripturally and historically. We have one passage of scripture that has been utilized to inist the gifts are abrogated. The majority view of Cessation is that the compiled Canon of scripture is the central focus of that one passage on cessation.

So... The burden of both apologetics and hermeneutics is predominantly upon the cessation position. This is usually the first jumpin-off point that cessationists refuse to embrace or even address. I know, because I was a cessationist for the same period of time I was a Dyohypostatic Trinitarian and a Dispensationalist. (And though I was unsaved, I don't include cessation as being relative to that whatsoever. I was unsaved because my heart hadn't heard the Rhema for true faith.)

That doesn't mean Continuation doesn't have to have a response to Cessation claims, or that there isn't any overall initiative for the Continuation view. It's just that the Cessation position has to abate the scriptural precedent and momentum of gifts being present and functional.

It's not just an either/or like many other opposed doctrinal positions. There is precedent for gifts. There is extremely limited scriptural reference to any potential ceasing. So that disparity certainly has to be considered. Most on any side of any debated position aren't very divested of bias. I've spent a great part of my Christian walk divesting myself of bias because that's where my journey had to begin after overwhelming indoctrination.

So a sense of functional neutrality is necessary to examine these things, and I'm generally the only one operating from that perspective in most conversations I have.

My position is that the Apostles had some miraculous gifts.

Those gifts never ceased. The Apostles just.....died.

The Apostles' deaths were not "that which is perfect". He gave SOME Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers. He didn't give just Apostles, and I'll get into how much Ephesians affects gifts when we look at the text beyond general conversation counterpoint such as this.

Everything in Corinthians 14 is pointing the Church AWAY from any thoughts of performing miraculous actions

There is no dichotomy. It's not an either/or. The emphasis is upon love and its absence, which makes anything else of none effect.

It's often cited that "knowledge puffs up" (and usually by those without much, justifying such). But Philippians 1 records one of Paul's prayers indicating love abounds in knowledge. The problem is that the Greek has three terms for knowledge and these aren't the same one. It does provide the contrast to understand what each actually means in every usage in scripture; and also relative to the third type of knowledge.

There isn't a dichotomy demanding "no knowledge" or the cessation of knowledge. The emphasis is that love must underly and underscore everything. Without that, ANYTHING is of none effect; and it's referring to the gifts. Without the very essential character of nature of the Giver (God IS love), the gifts are ridiculous.

The only dichotomy is gifts without love versus Giver who IS love. It's about "how", not "what". Everything is predicated upon love, including the gifts. That's why the gifts are referenced. Even they don't matter relative to the Giver.

Seek His face, not His hand. And face in Greek is prosopon (person, personal presence/appearance). Jesus Christ is the prosopon of God's hypostasis (of God's ousia). It's all pointing to Christ. God's Logos made flesh.

and TOWARDS simple faith, the Gospel truth and charity etc.

There is no either/or as a dichotomy.

To put away the "childish things". The Good news is what matters.

We don't disagree; but that's not the emphasis of the passage in question.

The issue of Cessionation versus Continuation always seems to be conceptual rather than scriptural, which is the case here as well. And that's my primary focus when dealing with doctrine. Most have a conceptualization as Ideology rather than Theology. That's why I want to ultimately focus on the textual exegesis. Concepts are all too often eisegestic.

The core focus (beyond the grace-foundation of the gifts) is "that which is perfect", what it is/was, and whether we are awaiting it or it has already come relative to that passage.

Nothing else really matters. And I still see a body of Christ looking through a glass darkly. I don't see any of the scripturally-required conditions for Cessation. I don't care about the practice and experience of mankind. The gifts may have been "shelved" in unuse for periods of history. They are obviously being counterfeited and abused with Kundalini now.

I just want to pursue the truth of the Word, as I always have. I don't care what beliefs have to be changed or tossed, whether by me or anyone else. All I care about is the truth of the Word.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:02 pm

PPS
Anyway... As I look at the Greek text, I don't see ANY indication that the gifts have ceased. It's all predicated upon scripture being interjected as "that which is perfect", and that doesn't work.

zone
hi pps.i hadn't seen this post before today.
i'm happy to go over it.

let's start with you doing a thorough greek study on "that which is perfect", if you have the time.

PPS
Yesterday was wifey's birthday and I was with the Prison Ministry Team, so I do have family priority; but I'll try to get it done today. I just wanted to get back to this thread and respond. The text is what matters, though; so that needs to be the focus.

zone
i don't know why you got banned from CC,

PPS
Rachel started blasting me about Trinity as reason to dismiss anti-Dispy views, etc.. I responsively cornered her with simple scriptural facts. She reported me. Still immedeiately banned me for life. Not a whole lot to tell. It ain't the first time, and it won't be the last. Que sera sera, CC.

zone
but there's a good thread underway there right now.

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/67006-cessationism-continuationism-what-does-scripture-say.html

Sarah posted some excellent work on the datings of scripture etc.

then there's this thread i started requesting pentecostals explain to us which of the examples were valid, which were fake

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/66213-examples-speaking-tongues-need-verification-explanations-please.html

PPS
I can still access the forum to read, so I will. I doubt there will be anything new from either "side", but I'll have a look.

zone
for me, cessationism is proven by proving that tongues were known human gentile nation languages....

PPS
In the plural, that is correct. In the case of certain syntax of the singular, it is the unknown tongue rather than tongues as languages. That's my central gripe with the majority of other Continuationists.

zone
once that is understood; and we know the mirculous ability to suddenly proclaim the Good News in a known language you didn't learn CEASED, the rest is obvious.

PPS
This is quite a non-sequitur, even if it were true. It's not a "package deal". But it does help me understand your position.

zone
but first things first:

show why "that which is perfect" "doesn't work" as you put it.

PPS
I'll follow up with all the textual. I'm getting the conversational out of the way by responding to frame up the opposing views. For instance, I didn't know Doc's position was that cessation was because the Apostles all died.

And, as I said, at least the initial burden of proof is upon the Cessationist opinion for that. Compiled scripture is gonna have to trump the fact that it was gifts that were given for the perfecting of the saints, among other candidates.

zone
we don't need to use or find the word canon as that which is perfect

PPS
Of course not. Just as the absence of many descriptors of other doctrines isn't relevant. I don't employ that kind of reason at all, as I'd think you're aware.

For instance, the absence of the term Trinity isn't relevant; nor are other specific terms like omnipresence. I don't play stupid semantics games, so no need for concern over such things.

zone
- simply the last word God intended to be recorded or delivered (by Him) which was later complied into canon.

PPS

Yes, that's the general majority Cessation view. I've always thought you repesented it accurately.

zone
ttyl
if you can't see those threads, i can copy/paste relevant portion here.

zone

PPS
If I can't access them for reading, I'll holler for a copy/paste. I suppose piggy-backing that content could save some time for discussion, so I'll start there.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:30 pm

zone wrote:here's a pretty good examination of the whole matter.
look it over, see if you find any error.
let me know.

http://www.bible.ca/tongues-ceased-perfect-come-1Cor13-8-13.htm

I'll read it.

as for not wanting to be a Pentecostal, just don't be one.

Well... Nothing doctrinal is gonna be that simple for me. I don't take a position apart from an exegesis of the text. Concepts aren't doctrine. That's why I'm not a Dispensationalist (or Dyohypostatic Trinitarian), so I won't be just taking a course of action either way.

personally i think you'll be far better off.

I know you do, but I'm hardly the typcial "Pentecostal". I eschew tongues altogether, just because it's so centralized and casualized. But Jannes and Jambres shouldn't have the run of the place. Moses forshadowed Jesus, and even he overwhelmed the counterfeit authority of majick with vaild power and demonstration of God's power.

former pentecostals all testify that their growth was stunted as they were distracted by that other stuff.

I'm not. I focus on the Word. I'm not captived by emotion and sensation. Your practical assessment is valid, and I've always indicated that. Experience doesn't matter. You should agree rather than utilizing it to emphasize your view.

I'm setting aside MY experience of observing notable miracles, including any personal participation on any level. Experience is irrelevant in comparison to the Word. I'd think that would garner some sense of credibility for "process", regardless of "content".

as for the godly men you know - they didn't all have to be manifesting demonic stuff.

This would seem to be a technicality in regards to the gifts of healing, etc. If legs are grown out and it's not gifts, then it's either demonic or "just the power of God". The latter wouldn't be much different than gifts if it's a consistent occurance. I'm not sure how you would draw the distinction.

As I've said before, it was the observation of godly men and these events that sent me back to the text.

people do what they are taught to do.

Including cessationists. I was never a cessationist for ANY other reaosn than it was what I was taught. This is true across the board for virtually any/every view, yes?

People are taught to passively or actively ignore/resist/disparage the gifts. I despise the whole process of indoctrination, really. It's why I was lost, and it's why I was exegetically inept and clueless. This is really the epidemic problem in the body, rather than individual doctrines.

raised pentecostal or taught the practices sooner or later you'll mimick them.

its pretty straight forward.

Of course. And the same is true of those raised non-pentecostal.

for me anyways

I just wonder how much of that is negative reaction predicated upon your very real and horrific encounters with Kundalini coupled with the marginal and laughable rampant practices of wannabe pentecostals like the AG drivel.

Glossolalia is the death knell for continuationism.

Do you mean exegetically? If so, no. Tongues can have totally ceased and it not be inclusive of any other gifts.

k...ttyl.

K. I'm gonna finish responding here and reading the CC threads. Then I'll get to the text to respond to all of that. Smile

by PneumaPsucheSoma Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:43 pm

zone wrote:btw - i REALLY admire the honesty in your OP.
kudos. it's pretty rare to find pentecostals open to examining their beliefs and practices.

I maintain this approach to ALL doctrine, and I constantly reexamine by the Spirit. The reason I know and understand every last cobweb of the Dyohypostatic Trinity doctrine is because I've revisitied it constantly for truth. And even with it's margin of error, I still use it as the overall template for the sub-tenets rather than embracing another historical formulated view.

I'm a Reconciliationist. I'm always looking for the central truth of the Word. Period. I don't care what beliefs I would have to change or give up or embrace.

I really thought you knew that already. Maybe you're unconvinced of that.

just look at the flame wars in those 2 threads by pentecostals who refuse to consider.

I shall. Nothing new. I truly share netiher perspective. Both extremes are largely predicated upon concept and preference rather than exegesis. I have as much issue with either side as I do the other relative to the "how".

that humility and willingness to see if it's error is what the bible says is pleasing to God.

Agreed. I spend a bunch of time doing that across the board about every belief I profess. Good grief, I have to teach and/or correct the minutiae of Trinity doctrine to professing Trinitarians before/during discussing the topic.

I don't know anyone who does that. I sure don't know any Dyhypostatic Trinitarian who has done that. The same is true with most in regards to major doctrines. I constantly examine, and by degree rather than either/or. Dichotomies are usually fallacious.

i know you pray much.

pray about this....i know He'll show you it's error.

I have and will. Currently, it seems to be more of a Moses versus Jannes and Jambres thing. Having one's senses exercised to discern good and evil by reason of use.

God wants FAITH....He never did like people continually needing signs of any kind.

The whole Dominionist Latter Rain signs and wonders things is Kundalini. Gifts are about the Giver, not signs. Nobody is gonna have faith unto salvation because of the gifts. That comes by hearing the Rhema. I was a cessationist when I hadn't heard. They're not synonymous.

I operate in the knowledge gifts, and seldom does anything come out of my mouth except the Word or a suitable paraphrase OF the Word. God prompts whatever Word is hidden in my heart to minister to others as the Spirit leads. The Word has never failed to meet that need. I don't have to resort to my own Logos. His is always sufficient.

I preach and teach Jesus. The gifts aren't even a priority. I don't focus on them at all. "He sent His Word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions." I don't need to utter anything but the Logos. Why would I give them anything but scripture?

I don't need to channel a spirit or force. I don't need some coiled-serpent electricity at the base of my spine unleashed by incantation. I speak the Word by the Spirit.

the house of cards comes down when we tackle it from TONGUES, and when we admit tongues was gentile languages - a SIGN for unbelieving jews.

But it doesn't. Tongues were languages. The unknown tongue was not. And contrary to popular continuationist belief, not everyone has the gift of tongues including the unknown tongue.

And tongues can/can have cease/ceased without it being inclusive of the gifts at large.

they're not mentioned outside jews being present, and the Bible is in large measure an Historical record. it's what THEY did. we read it.

As is all scripture. That's a simple summary definition of hermeneutical intent and practice.

we have that which is perfect (complete) the final words from God, now canonized.

I know that's the declaration, but there's no supporting exegesis beyond adopting that concept. "...then face to face; now I know in part; but then I shall know even as also I am known."

Unless you no longer see through a glass darkly, but now face to face; then that which is perfect has not come. The last part of ch13 is what deals cessation fits. There's an unavoidable if/then context.

And NOW abideth faith, hope, love. This isn't future tense, so can't be the focal point of alleged post-cessation reality.

The focal point of this passage is all coming to the point of love being the preeminent feature of all our being and action from the heart. Giver over gifts.

That's why the counterfeit is to substitute gifts and New Age non-agape "love" while practicing Kundalini. Satan is an angel of light. All the goth occultic stuff is just the black to obscure the off-white of his real agenda. Hybridizing to faith to be worshipped as god. Inversion, just like everything in Kabbalah.

The natural AoD was the forshadowing of mankind as the AoD. The natural before the spiritual.

I'll go read those threads and get back to deal with the text.

by **strangelove** Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:34 am

Just tell me what "childish things" means please.

1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Use all the context that you like.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:02 pm

Strangelove wrote:Just tell me what "childish things" means please.

1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Use all the context that you like.

As referred to in Ephesians 4:14, it's every wind of doctrine (didaskalia) and being tossed to and fro and carried about with them.

"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;"

Didaskalia is not what most infer it to be from a casual English perusal, just like with virtually every other doctrine that gets conceptualized into existence by the same means.

There was certainly no cessation of the above in the late 1st century OR the late 3rd century (writing and canonization of scripture, respecetively). Childish things aren't the gifts. The gifts were given to contribute to the childish things being done away.

Teleios isn't used in reference to scripture in the whole OF scripture. But teleios IS used to refer to gifts and to us all coming to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, etc.

I'm still catching up on reading zone's CC thread links so I don't double up on content that's already being addressed by both sides.

I see issues with both sides, as always. "That which is perfect" is not the Second Advent, and the Continuationists are making ridiculous claims without exegesis. Nobody cares about unverified/unverifiable vague and sensationalist claims. Experience is subordinant to scripture. Period. (But that applies to Cessationists as well.)

by PneumaPsucheSoma Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:15 pm

zone wrote:here's a pretty good examination of the whole matter.
look it over, see if you find any error.
let me know.

http://www.bible.ca/tongues-ceased-perfect-come-1Cor13-8-13.htm

Hi, zoner.

I've checked out this link and there are definitely some exegetical problems. I'll put it all together in my ultimate response after I finish catching up on reading the CC thread links.

As usual, the Continuationists are mauling the topic themselves. It's why I don't like to affiliate by title or description.

by **strangelove** Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:16 pm

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
Strangelove wrote:Just tell me what "childish things" means please.

1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Use all the context that you like.

As referred to in Ephesians 4:14, it's every wind of doctrine (didaskalia) and being tossed to and fro and carried about with them.

"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;"

Erm....hold on. Why are you referring to Ephesians 4:14?

I'm asking you what "childish things" means in 1 Corinthians 13:11.

Read the whole of 1 Corinthians 13 (it's a very short chapter) and tell me what "childish things" is. Use the context of the chapter in question don't go jumping off to a whole different book of the bible.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:48 pm

Strangelove wrote:

Erm....hold on. Why are you referring to Ephesians 4:14?

Because they're the same thing.

I'm asking you what "childish things" means in 1 Corinthians 13:11.

And I answered.

Read the whole of 1 Corinthians 13 (it's a very short chapter) and tell me what "childish things" is.

Do you not read the whole counsel of God? It's the same thing as Ephesians 4, which is why I referenced it. Both passages are dealing with the gifts and their role in teleios for the body of Christ.

Scripture is utilized to interpret scripture. Teleios for the body of Christ is never related to the canon of scripture; but it IS utilized to refer to the gifts, and relative to childish versus mature/complete/perfect.

That's part of the problem. Many isolate passages to build conceptualized doctrines. Cessation is but one example.

You do realize Corinthians and Ephesians have the same author, both heavenly and earthly, right? The Holy Spirit penned them both throught the Apostle Paul, and these passages deal with the same issues. 1Corinthians 13 can't be divorced from Ephesians 4 in regards to gifts, teleios, and the body of Christ.

The very resources zone linked for cessation utilize the same passages for reference. (One of which insisted the Bible is the sword of the Spirit. It isn't. Rhema is the sword of the Spirit, not graphe or biblios; and not even logos.)

Use the context of the chapter in question don't go jumping off to a whole different book of the bible.

Oh, so after telling me to use whatever context I like; now that I've used a valid and relevant parallel context, then you insist I use only the context of the chapter you want to build a concept for a doctrine from instead of the whole counsel of God.

This is what I'm talking about when I speak of others not being divested of bias to discuss neutrally regarding such doctrinal topics. It doesn't happen.

A myopic and pre-disposed position will insist on such limitations. Again, the Cessation position has BY FAR the greater initial burden of proof. That's what I've asked for, and very humbly and cordially. Instead, I'm fielding questions and being funneled to a narrow understanding that eschews any of the other relevant counsel of God in scripture.

You're attempting to flip the script and place the burden upon me and Continuation rather than take the initial burden of Cessation. From the beginning response, you're calling for MY textual evidence (which I'll be happy to provide when I'm finished reading the links, as I said) rather than providing any. And when I pause briefly in reading all the links to answer your question, you attempt to invalidate my valid answer of scripture to scripture.

Inferring "childish things" to be the gifts is exactly that. Inference. By comparing and contrasting like themes and passages, we're not left with the feebleness of mere inference. Scripture plainly tells us what is childish.

Cessation itself is one of those winds of didaskalia that tosses to and fro; just as Kundalini counterfeiting and abuse does to the gifts. So is Arminian versus Calvinist and the endless remaining plethora of dichotomous opposing views of didaskalia. The arrival of the inspired text didn't bring an end to all that and is not "that which is teleios". That which is teleios is what brings an end to childish things.

You have no exegesis, only conceptual inference. I'm revisiting this for exegesis. I'm aware of what the adamant positions are, so reiterating them isn't necessary. Supporting them exegetically from the whole counsel of God is what's necessary and relevant. That's what I'm looking for instead of bare opinion and simple inference.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:40 pm

Just to reiterate... I'm not spoiling for an argument. I'm not attempting to veil or feign an adversarial encounter over Cessation versus Continuation. That's anywhere and everywhere, and I can jump in the middle of dozens of ongoing debates on forums right now.

I'm looking for true exegetical evidence of Cessation and the willingness to understand and undertake the burden of proof from Cessationists.

I'm wanting that perspective from someone who knows the truth of Kabbalah and Kundalini, and shares an understanding of things relative to those functional truths like Geocentricity and the fallacies of modern Scientism as nothing more than ancient occultic religion. That narrows the possibilities for discussion venues, which is why I broached it here in spite of whatever differences we have otherwise.

So far, I'm seeing what was illustrated in one of zone's links, with the Bible (compiled canon) being considered the sword of the Spirit. Scripture is what can be the death of the letter rather than the life of the Spirit. Graphe is not rhema or logos.

I'm the one reaching out from a neutral position divested of bias. If the gifts have ceased, then much of what I cherish is accounted for by other means.

I don't speak in tongues, whether languages or the unknown tongue. I don't need sensationalism. I don't need to feel all special by someone giving me "a word". Healings can be valid without the gifts administering them. There's nothing in my faith or practice that requires or depends upon the gifts directly.

But I see no valid exegesis for the cessation of the gifts as the canon being "that which is teleios". There is NO theme whatsoever in other scripture as confirmation and witness that childish things are the gifts. On the contrary, the theme for teleios in scripture is the demonstrated maturity of the body of Christ culminating at some point.

So my conversation is not the same as any other thread topic on other venues. I'm not inherently arguing for Continuation. I'm truly looking for any plausible argument for "that which is teleios" being the canon of scripture; and for once to have a Cessationist take the appropriate burden of proof instead of being entitled because of a pre-supposed concept of inference from a single passage of scripture.

The tactics of Cessationists are no more tenable and credible than all the Continuationists talking about tummy-aches as healing and gibberish as tongues. Is anyone capable of objectively handling the word of truth? I find few who are.

And I'm even appealing to a Dyohypostatic Trinitarian and a Conceptual Trinitarian for this conversation. So that's quite a thing to begin with.

Where's the exegesis devoid of majority attempted inference from one isolated passage that does violence to other passages? I'm not seeing any, but this is my further means of divesting any potential bias I have by coming to adamant Cessationists for that.

So far, it's disappointing and unconvincing; but I'll finish reading the links and let the convo run its course.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:59 pm

And here's a point as I'm reading...

zone (from CC)
"I basically reject the angelic prayer language option on the ground that there is no 2nd witness; scripture compared with scripture indicates angels speak to men in their own languages."

But where's the second witness for 1Corintihians 13 relative to "that which is teleios" being the canon?

When I introduce a second witness for teleios relative to gifts and the body of Christ, etc. from Ephesians 4, it's insisted that the context must be within the singular passage of 1Cor. 13 (above from Doc).

Where's the witness? Why is my witness impugned and disregarded?

I'd say bias and ideology. That's not what I'm looking for. I was hoping to find others engaged in determining the truth beyond predisposition.

Just as the activity and results attributed to the gifts can be otherwise accounnted for overall if they have ceased; Kundalini can still be singled out as counterfeit if the gifts have not ceased.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:05 pm

And...

zone (on CC)
"these are our Scriptures, Old Testament and New, and nothing in them is written so that they can not be understood clearly (except for those who are still blind and deaf)."

Is this why we have 33,000 sectarian divisions of belief? Because scripture is so clearly understood?

Even the foundation of O/orthodox Theology Proper presents an immanent and impotent God who couldn't and didn't create ALL; and with INternal processions of a Logos and Pneuma as inferentially manufactured individuated hypostases. But scripture indicates the processions were ex- and ek- (out of/from), and there is only on hypostasis for God, with the express image OF THAT hypostasis.

And all other views had to be forcibly anathematized. The differences didn't just cease.

I don't see the clarity among all the divisions of didaskalia.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:11 pm

And this...

Sarah (from CC)
"His Word is eternal. He never said the sign gifts were eternal. They were for a season,a time and a place."

Why the exaggeration based on concept? Scripture doesn't say gifts were for a season, a time and place.

This is no more credible than the idiotic things Continuationists often say.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:49 pm

Hmmmm....

And the gift is a word of knowledge, which is gnosis. Not epignosis or oida. (In the thread on CC, Still_waters indicated the revelation to write scripture was among the gifts. LOL. That's as stupid as the Continuationist comments.)

It might be most interesting to see if you as Cessationists even really know what the various gifts are. Many Continuationists don't, and they just function as they are told the gifts are.

What are the word of knowledge and the word of wisdom? What is the gift of faith? What are each of the gifts, specifically?

by PneumaPsucheSoma Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:56 pm

And for the sake of being equitable for those who misrepresent Cessation...

psalm6819 (on CC)
"Greetings brothers and sisters,

I can't quote a scripture that someone else has not yet quoted but I can say this: my husband was in a wheelchair after being diagnosed with another stroke,neuropathy, and Alzheimer's Disease. His prognosis for survival was very poor. There was no hope. No medicine could bring back the section of the brain affected. I got my Bible and started reading about healing and I started praying. My only hope was God. Within two months Tom began walking, talking,and he knows what's going on. Do I believe God's gift of healing is still available? You bet I do, every morning I see a miracle get outta bed."

This is the perfect example of someone misunderstanding the Cessationist position. This is NOT the gifts of healing. This is the healing of God through petition of prayer, etc. No indication of Continuation whatsoever. God still heals whether the gifts have ceased or not.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:20 pm

More problems for Continuationists who think cessation is the Second Advent...

And from Stephen63 on CC
1 Corinthians 13:8-13 (KJV)
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. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

V12 is context for V8. "Face to face" means face to face with Christ. Most bibles have these verses sectioned together, because they belong together

1 John 3:2 (KJV)
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

When we are like Christ in our heavenly bodies, there will be no need for spiritual gifts, For we will wholly be the sons of God. Who needs to be healed in Heaven? Who will need anything in Heaven? This is "that which is perfect"(complete).

The "face to face" in 1Cor. 13 is NOT us face to face with Christ. It's a mirror.

by **strangelove** Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:08 am

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Because they're the same thing.

Ya know PPS. Exactly the simple points that Paul is making in 1 Corinth 13 is what you are exhibiting in this thread.

Paul makes a list of virtues in that chapter, and says that some are completely useless without others. Some are worth going after and others are to be put away.

You make such a fuss about "head virtues". But because you are lacking "heart virtues" then it's worthless. You are severely lacking honesty here and it's pitifully obvious. The motive is clear. You have a predisposed philosophy, based on worldly experiences which you claim are certain men and maybe yourself performing supernatural acts. Therefore you are trying to fit the text to your philosophy. Only such a childish motive such as this would make you jump from the chapter in question to a completely different book of the bible to try and find an answer to the question.

"Childish things" is a DESCRIPTOR. It's not a specific thing! Therefore you OBVIOUSLY have to use the IMMEDIATE context to know what those "things" are. Your reams and reams of "head" waffle will not...I repeat....NOT hide this fact.

Here, let's make a list of all the virtues that Paul talks about in that chapter.

Head virtues:

1) Fancy talking
2) Prophecy
3) Understanding mysteries
4) All knowledge
5) Giving goods
6) Takin' a bullet for the cause

Heart virtues:

1) Charity
2) Faith
3) Hope

And then he makes a coupla general analogies to emphasize which virtues are ultimately important (HINT: it's heart virtues). This is not difficult, only someone with a motive would not be able to take this chapter "as is".

PPS, you talk a lot. You use fancy words...you seem like you understand all the mysteries and have a lot of knowledge. But I skim over your stuff pretty quick. It all sounds like a tinkling bell or a sounding brass, because you lack the most important virtues. To Paul's list you could easily add HONESTY. Childish things dominate your spiel.

You can waffle on as much as you like. But 1 Corinth 13 is a simple book, clear as crystal. Only fools working under the delusion of becoming supermen would complicate the text beyond understand to fit their preconceived fantasies.

Good day.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:27 am

Strangelove wrote:

Ya know PPS. Exactly the simple points that Paul is making in 1 Corinth 13 is what you are exhibiting in this thread.

I knew you'd degenerate this to ad hominem without exegesis. And no, I haven't exhibited gnosis; but since you don't have epignosis (in which love abounds) or oida, nor do you know the difference, it's your puffed-up gnosis that comes at me. I encounter it all the time, online and live.

Your status as a novice functioning in gnosis is what's the problem. I've come here to a hostile environment (on this topic) specifically to revisit this with as much neutrality as anyone can summon. You never exhibit that characteristic whatsoever.

Paul makes a list of virtues in that chapter, and says that some are completely useless without others. Some are worth going after and others are to be put away.

You make such a fuss about "head virtues". But because you are lacking "heart virtues" then it's worthless. You are severely lacking honesty here and it's pitifully obvious.

No. I'm the one who came here for conversation with Cessationists. You just have no real exegetical answers from the text except your conceptual opinions of ideology. I'm the one who has posted the ididocy and error of Continuationists and their motives, etc. I'm not the one who isn't honest. You can't find neutral with a thousand clutches to approach a doctrinal dichotomy.

I can. I'm quite seriously looking for superior exegetical proof to consider a return to Cessation. That's why I broached the topic. It sure wasn't to endure your spiritual immaturity, regardless of your researched knowledge base on certain topics.

The motive is clear. You have a predisposed philosophy, based on worldly experiences which you claim are certain men and maybe yourself performing supernatural acts.

No. I've made myself very clear, and humbly and honestly so. YOU are the one with the pre-disposed philosophy AND ideology. And your position has the burden of proof. I'm the one being equitable and vulnerable and as honestly humble as I can possibly be.

Therefore you are trying to fit the text to your philosophy.

No. I'm not. I'm utilizing appropriate hermeneutics and apologetics. The common Continuationist position of the Second Advent being "that which is teleios" is untenable. The predominant Cessationist position of the final work of the canon being "that which is teleios" has NO prevailing theme whatsoever in scripture.

Only such a childish motive such as this would make you jump from the chapter in question to a completely different book of the bible to try and find an answer to the question.

And you're just continuing to be an inflammatory idiot because you're inept. Fortunately, I deal with many who are so disposed, and I will continue my thorough revisiting of this topic. Evidently nothing of value is going to come from your ideologized novice posts. But I'm disgusted with the abusive practice of tongues and the outright usurpation of the Christian faith by Kundalini and how truly good-hearted people are being dragged into error.

So don't tell me how "dishonest" I am after me openly expressing such things about the problems with Continuation and criticizing the most common view of Continuationism relative to "that which is teleios". I'm not the one with a cork up my butt every time someone dares disagree with their little pet new-believer doctrinettes.

I became a Continuationist after examining exegesis of the text, and have continued to do so regularly with criticism of my own peers. So go on with your big bad puffed-up self in your gnosis. I'm looking for truth, and the Word is truth rather than the opinions of men, including yours.

"Childish things" is a DESCRIPTOR. It's not a specific thing! Therefore you OBVIOUSLY have to use the IMMEDIATE context to know what those "things" are. Your reams and reams of "head" waffle will not...I repeat....NOT hide this fact.

Oh, go stick a pin in yourself and deflate. The immediate context is the same overall topic as Ephesians 4. Even Cessationists draw the two together, along with Romans 12 on a limited scale.

Here, let's make a list of all the virtues that Paul talks about in that chapter.

Head virtues:

1) Fancy talking
2) Prophecy
3) Understanding mysteries
4) All knowledge
5) Giving goods
6) Takin' a bullet for the cause

Heart virtues:

1) Charity
2) Faith
3) Hope

And then he makes a coupla general analogies to emphasize which virtues are ultimately important (HINT: it's heart virtues). This is not difficult, only someone with a motive would not be able to take this chapter "as is".

What a bunch of drivel. There's SO much agape in your post. I'm overwhelmingly compelled by your puffed-up gnosis. I love how scripture speaks of "head virtues" (it doesn't, it's your semantics) and heart virtues (same-same).

PPS, you talk a lot.

Not as much as you, unless it's about actual exegesis of the text. The Word is truth.

You use fancy words...you seem like you understand all the mysteries and have a lot of knowledge.

It's epignosis and oida, not gnosis like yours. Gnosis puffs up, like you are. I came here for a indepth search to completely reconsider what scripture has to offer from anyone else's exegetical perspective. You never offer that. Just novice bloviation if someone dares have another view or can drill yours into the dirt during an honest search.

But I skim over your stuff pretty quick. It all sounds like a tinkling bell or a sounding brass, because you lack the most important virtues.

I'm not really all that concerned with your opinion, newborn. You don't demonstrate any qualities from the 1Corinthian passage in question. I came here openly and humbly, knowing the potential conflict.

To Paul's list you could easily add HONESTY. Childish things dominate your spiel.

Gifts dominate my spiel? You said childish things were the gifts. I'm not the one exhibiting gnosis and being all prickish. All I've done is answer a question you posed and expose your shallow and narrow usage of the text for YOUR predetermined purpose.

Not once have you ever considered the Continuationist position to oppose it with exegetical proof. All you bring is ad hominem and accusation.

You can waffle on as much as you like. But 1 Corinth 13 is a simple book, clear as crystal. Only fools working under the delusion of becoming supermen would complicate the text beyond understand to fit their preconceived fantasies.

Blah-de-blah, says the gnosis-puffed novice. You can't even engage in the basics of examining the whole counsel of God. This is just more pathetic ad hominem and arrogant condescension to hide the fact that you have no understanding of the Word to actually present and contend for your alleged faith.

Where's your witness for the childish things in 1Corinthians? You have a stand-alone interpretation of a stand-alone passage that YOU have a pre-disposed position about.

Good day.

Yes, it is; and in spite of your infantile rant of ineptitude. Why are you such an immature believer, pretending to be of age? You don't even know the difference between the types of knowledge in scripture, yourself exhibiting the gnosis of the passage being discussed while trashing the epignosis I've conveyed that love abounds in because of oida.

I made it quite clear I wasn't disingenuously spoiling for a fight. I could go anywhere on the internet and find many threads on various forums on this topic to do that. My purpose in coming here to reinstitute this topic was genuine.

I'm not any more sick of the Kundalinists than I am of the ideologized egomaniacal Cessationists. And yet I still came here hoping to discuss this topic for new insights and potential change of position. But that won't come from your prideful bloviation. I only adhere to the Word by the Spirit. Your fruitless ad hominem is useless.

From the beginning, you placed the burden of proof on Continuation. That burden is on Cessation. And I'm truly searching this out for the dozenth time according to scripture. That won't be affected by your ridiculous posturing and other drivel. I see merit in some of what zone has been citing on the CC thread.

Luckily, there are many Continuationists that are as big of idiots as you are, so I don't have to be swayed by your loveless and fruitless novice "how" any more than I am by their insolence, etc. Scripture will prevail over marginal interpretations OF scripture.

by **strangelove** Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:49 am

LOLZ!

Hit a nerve. Very Happy

Ok the only part of your post that is actually on topic is this:

PPS wrote:The immediate context is the same overall topic as Ephesians 4.

Wh.....what?

Lemme read that again a sec...

Nope...still doesn't make a drop of sense. The immediate context is the set of virtues that Paul lays out in that chapter. Some he says are worth going after and some not so much. The "childish things" OBVIOUSLY means the virtues that are not so important to seek. With all your head virtues you just cant accept this because it goes against your beliefs! You go on about biblical exegesis but this is such a basic error.

1 Corinth 13 is still a very simple chapter that can be very well understood in it's own context without hopping over and kidnapping "overall topics" from other books.

This is the issue we have. Can you please stick to discussing that?

You can't explain the "childish things", so you are muddying the meaning beyond comprehension by launching into hyperdrive and ending up somewhere completely different in order to explain it away.

The rest of your post is simply desperate childish anger and blatant name calling which, I assure you, will not be tolerated much longer.....and also more tinkling of bells which you hope to make yourself sound really really clever.

It doesn't. It just proves 1 Corinth 13 right. (if you don't ignore it's simple meaning).

by PneumaPsucheSoma Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:06 am

Strangelove wrote:LOLZ!

Hit a nerve.

Ok the only part of your post that is actually on topic is this:

Wh.....what?

Lemme read that again a sec...

Nope...still doesn't make a drop of sense. The immediate context is the set of virtues that Paul lays out in that chapter. Some he says are worth going after and some not so much. The "childish things" OBVIOUSLY means the virtues that are not so important to seek. With all your head virtues you just cant accept this because it goes against your beliefs! You go on about biblical exegesis but this is such a basic error.

1 Corinth 13 is still a very simple chapter that can be very well understood in it's own context without hopping over and kidnapping "overall topics" from other books.

This is the issue we have. Can you please stick to discussing that?

You can't explain the "childish things", so you are muddying the meaning beyond comprehension by launching into hyperdrive and ending up somewhere completely different in order to explain it away.

The rest of your post is simply desperate childish anger and blatant name calling which, I assure you, will not be tolerated much longer.....and also more tinkling of bells which you hope to make yourself sound really really clever.

It doesn't. It just proves 1 Corinth 13 right. (if you don't ignore it's simple meaning).

LOL. No, I'm the one who evidently hit a nerve. Ban me. I'm sure that's easier than presenting exegetical truth. You just ignore anything that isn't aligned with your predetermined induced view. You have no exegesis. You have no witness from scripture for teleios being the completed canon.

You ignore contextual equivalents, even though other Cessationists quote those passages, including zone's sources (LOL). Everything else is just inference, which you excel at. The gnosis is amusing, though.

Why make such a tedious topic so provocational with obfuscation?

I'll continue perusing zone's contributions on CC and the evidence in her links. Some of it is erroneous; but some is compelling and has merit for serious further prayerful study.

(Thanks, zone.)

The first order of business should be to produce a witness from scripture or explain why a witness isn't necessary.

by **strangelove** Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:20 am

The exegetical truth is in my post above.

I havn't talked about teleios or completed cannon or anything other than simple understanding of 1 Corinth 13 which is the chapter you wanted to talk about.

But you don't like simple understanding do you?

It has to be ultra complicated.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:22 am

I carefully and repeatedly attempted to approach this openly and with a searching heart for truth. Anything negative or personal from me was responsive, not initiative. I repeat the below.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Just to reiterate... I'm not spoiling for an argument. I'm not attempting to veil or feign an adversarial encounter over Cessation versus Continuation. That's anywhere and everywhere, and I can jump in the middle of dozens of ongoing debates on forums right now.

I'm looking for true exegetical evidence of Cessation and the willingness to understand and undertake the burden of proof from Cessationists.

I'm wanting that perspective from someone who knows the truth of Kabbalah and Kundalini, and shares an understanding of things relative to those functional truths like Geocentricity and the fallacies of modern Scientism as nothing more than ancient occultic religion. That narrows the possibilities for discussion venues, which is why I broached it here in spite of whatever differences we have otherwise.

So far, I'm seeing what was illustrated in one of zone's links, with the Bible (compiled canon) being considered the sword of the Spirit. Scripture is what can be the death of the letter rather than the life of the Spirit. Graphe is not rhema or logos.

I'm the one reaching out from a neutral position divested of bias. If the gifts have ceased, then much of what I cherish is accounted for by other means.

I don't speak in tongues, whether languages or the unknown tongue. I don't need sensationalism. I don't need to feel all special by someone giving me "a word". Healings can be valid without the gifts administering them. There's nothing in my faith or practice that requires or depends upon the gifts directly.

But I see no valid exegesis for the cessation of the gifts as the canon being "that which is teleios". There is NO theme whatsoever in other scripture as confirmation and witness that childish things are the gifts. On the contrary, the theme for teleios in scripture is the demonstrated maturity of the body of Christ culminating at some point.

So my conversation is not the same as any other thread topic on other venues. I'm not inherently arguing for Continuation. I'm truly looking for any plausible argument for "that which is teleios" being the canon of scripture; and for once to have a Cessationist take the appropriate burden of proof instead of being entitled because of a pre-supposed concept of inference from a single passage of scripture.

The tactics of Cessationists are no more tenable and credible than all the Continuationists talking about tummy-aches as healing and gibberish as tongues. Is anyone capable of objectively handling the word of truth? I find few who are.

And I'm even appealing to a Dyohypostatic Trinitarian and a Conceptual Trinitarian for this conversation. So that's quite a thing to begin with.

Where's the exegesis devoid of majority attempted inference from one isolated passage that does violence to other passages? I'm not seeing any, but this is my further means of divesting any potential bias I have by coming to adamant Cessationists for that.

So far, it's disappointing and unconvincing; but I'll finish reading the links and let the convo run its course.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:26 am

Strangelove wrote:The exegetical truth is in my post above.

I havn't talked about teleios or completed cannon or anything other than simple understanding of 1 Corinth 13 which is the chapter you wanted to talk about.

But you don't like simple understanding do you?

It has to be ultra complicated.

You don't have simple understanding. It would be fine if you did. You don't.

There isn't any exegetical truth in your post above. It's attempted inference. And teleios IS the central issue, which you haven't addressed. And that's okay, too.

by **strangelove** Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:36 am

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:You don't have simple understanding. It would be fine if you did. You don't.

There isn't any exegetical truth in your post above. It's attempted inference. And teleios IS the central issue, which you haven't addressed. And that's okay, too.

You WANT teleios to be the central issue so you won't have to broach the simple, crystal clear message of the chapter.

That simple message being that we should live by faith, hope and charity, and not the peripheral childish things like fancy talking, thinking you know it all...and trying to impress people with your actions.

Big heads sink Christians.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:57 am

For Cessation or Continuation of the gifts (the topic at hand), teleios has ALWAYS been the issue. I can't help that you're not aware of that. Ephesians 4 has to be reconciled to this passage. You can't do that, so you isolate them and have no witness for your stand-alone interpretation.

Yes, I'm always compelled by your overwhelming agape. There's no dichotomy in 1Cor. 13. It's not faith/hope/love or gifts. It's a "how", not a choice of "whats".

Then engage in deflation.

Do you have anything besides inference? Do you have a witness for your interpretation? Do you have a reconciliation of Eph. 4 with 1Cor. 13? No. No. And no.

by **strangelove** Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:07 am

Keep ignoring the simple meaning of the chapter.

Keep tinkling your bells.

tinkle tinkle....

reconciliation...witness for interpretation..things besides inferences..

fancy fancy big words......tinkle tinkle.

1 Corinth 13 is still crystal clear. A 5 year old can understand it.

But your buddy healed a village full of blind peeps (or so you think), therefore you have a problem with the chapter.

your problem.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:13 am

Strangelove wrote:Keep ignoring the simple meaning of the chapter.

Keep tinkling your bells.

tinkle tinkle....

reconciliation...witness for interpretation..things besides inferences..

fancy fancy big words......tinkle tinkle.

1 Corinth 13 is still crystal clear. A 5 year old can understand it.

But your buddy healed a village full of blind peeps (or so you think), therefore you have a problem with the chapter.

your problem.

Pure puffed-up loveless gnosis from you, as always.

Love abounds in knowledge. Just not the puffed-up kind you have that disparages others and can't deal with scripture.

I have no problem whatsoever with ANY chapter in all of scripture, including this one. I just know how to reconcile the whole counself of God.

There has to be some explanation for godly men laying hands on people and them being healed. But I've not made mention of any such thing since I've been revisiting this topic.

I'm not the one who thinks he knows it all, and hasn't ever attended a church. It's me that's being deafened by your brass and cymbals. (There aren't any bells. Mabye read the text. LOL)

by Sponsored content