Cessationism in the bible.

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

Cessationism in the bible.

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

"Impartation" theology
Re:

For those interested only - On Cessationism. (Christopher Yip)
Re:

For Christopher (Bill )
Re:

Bill, Read Powell's Article (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Reply for All to Read (Bill )
Re:

Let's Return to Cessationism. (Christopher Yip)
Re:

I will read Powell - Will you read Wallace ? (Bill )
Re:

Wallace is another cessationist. (Christopher Yip)
Re:

re:Walace / My Final Answer (Bill Roth)
Date: 2001, Jul 10
From: Christopher Yip CKHY

Bill,
YOU: I brought Wallace's article up to show that all cessationists do not concur on what cessationism really is. Just like all Protestants (I hope I spelled it right for you) do not concur on major points of doctrine and Theology.
ME: And I was trying to tell you that you have read Wallace wrongly. Can you tell me in what way is Wallace's cessationism different from any others? I know of strands of dispensationalism but cessationism?
I have highlighted from the four articles at BSF that Wallace's cessationism is the same as Powell's, or Geisler's, or Warfield's or any of the cessationists you might have come across.
Cessationism is simply this: sign gifts have ceased but not miracles and healings. Many have not even begun to understand this simple definition. Non-cessationists are arguing for the existence of sign GIFTS by pointing to the modern-day occurrences of miracles and healings. Does cessationism deny the existence of miracles and healings? If even you think so, then you are a careless reader, sloppy even.
Tell me please, what are the different cessationisms?
YOU: Yes, of course this came from a non-cessationist site. As I am a "non-cessationist." (Oh' how we like to put labels on each other!)
ME: It's just a name. Am I to read some conspiracy theory into this snide remark?
YOU: Wallace claims to be a cessationist and then describes how he uses the gifts that are supposed to have ceased.
ME: I beg your pardon? Let me take a moment out and re-read the four articles. Please wait while I do that ....
OK. I'm done. Here's Wallace's definition of cessationism:
"Second, I speak from a non-charismatic or cessationist position. That is to say, I believe that certain gifts of the Holy Spirit were employed in the earliest stage of Christianity to authenticate that God was doing something new. These "sign gifts"--such as the gifts of healing, tongues, miracles--ceased with the death of the last apostle. This is what I mean by "cessationism." (The Uneasy Conscience of a Non-Charismatic Evangelical)
Did Wallace attribut anything to do with the healing of his 8-year old son to sign gifts? Not at all. He tells us the story:
"In December 1991, Andy was kicked in the stomach by a school bully. He developed stomach pains which persisted for quite some time. Two months later, through a providentially guided indiscretion, Andy left the bathroom door open when my wife walked by. She saw something that horrified her: his urine was brown. That same day, she took him to our family physician. This began a series of doctors and specialists. None of them had a clue as to what was wrong. Finally, he was admitted to Children's Hospital on April 20, 1992, scheduled for a kidney biopsy...
As the hours during and after the surgery wore on, we found ourselves getting hit with wave after wave of dreaded news. Andy, indeed, had renal cell carcinoma (RCC). And it was not just the normal type--which was lethal enough. Andy had the more potent strain of RCC. Less than ten children ever diagnosed worldwide have lived beyond two years with this strain of RCC. Apart from radical surgery, it's virtually untreatable and incurable, as far as medical sci-ence knows." (ibid.)
This is the context in which Wallace re-discovered the spiritual experience of trusting God. He explains the emotional turmoil within him,
"We decided to go with chemotherapy, because the risk of not doing it, wondering whether that might kill him, was too great to bear. I cannot adequately describe what the next six months were like--for Andy, for me and his mother, for his three brothers. But I can tell you that I was in an emotional wasteland. I was angry with God and I found him to be quite distant. Here was this precious little boy who was losing his hair, and losing weight. At one point he weighed only forty-five pounds. His twin brother at that time weighed eighty-five pounds. Andy was so weak that we had to carry him everywhere.
Through this experience I found that the Bible was not adequate. I needed God in a per-sonal way--not as an object of my study, but as friend, guide, comforter. I needed an existential experience of the Holy One. Quite frankly, I found that the Bible was not the answer. I found the scriptures to be helpful--even authoritatively helpful--as a guide. But without feeling God, the Bible gave little solace. In the midst of this "summer from hell," I began to examine what had become of my faith. I found a longing to get closer to God, but found myself unable to do so through my normal means: exegesis, scripture reading, more exegesis. I believe that I had deper-sonalized God so much that when I really needed him I didn't know how to relate. I longed for him, but found many community-wide restrictions in my cessationist environment. I found a suffocation of the Spirit in my evangelical tradition as well as in my own heart.
It was this experience of my son's cancer that brought me back to my senses, that brought me back to my roots. And out of this experience I have been wrestling in the last eighteen months with practical issues of pneumatology." (ibid.)
So does it mean that Wallace now believe in the gifts of healing and miracles? NOT AT ALL. Wallace restated his firm conviction in cessationism just before he delivered his eleven theses:
"I believe that in North America today, there are two brands of conservative Christianity, neither of which is wholly satisfactory. There is charismatic Christianity--the free spirited, right brain, experiential roller coaster. And then there is the evangelical rationalism--uptight, left brain, logical, talking head, argumentative. Neither of these is adequate. Don't get me wrong: I'M A FULLY COMMITTED CESSATIONIST. I BELIEVE THAT THE SIGN GIFTS CEASED IN THE FIRST CENTURY. But I think that cessationists need to begin doing serious business with God. We need a deep-rooted repentance--both individually and communally." (Ibid.)
Note that throughout the experience and article, Wallace indicated clearly that cessationism is the biblical position. Wallace's appeal to cessationists here has NOTHING to do with cessationism per se but with the excess of rationality over emotions in our relationship with God.
Instances where people are healed in answer prayer are not instances of the exercising of spiritual gifts but the direct work of God in response to prayer. If believers gather and pray for a sick person and that person is healed miraculously, this is not evidence that the gift of healing exists today. This demonstrates that God answers prayer.
I'm SURPRISED an exegete such as yourself can be so sloppy in reading the article. Robert Longman Jr's quotation might have given the impression that Wallace is regretting or begin to regret his cessationist position but reading his entire article will dispel it, if you read it, that is.
YOU: However, Wallace does have heart in his theses which Powell seems to lack. Powell is all intellectual rope a dope.
ME: So, does this mean you agree with Wallace's cessationism?
This is quite true of most biblical exegetes when they are exegeting Scriptures since exegesis is not an emotional exercise but a rational one. As I have said, Wallace's wise words should be heeded by all exegetes but this has nothing to do with his convictions which remain cessationist.
YOU: I think you are wanting to get into an intelectual discourse and dance all around the Scriptures. I will not have any part of it. Your intelect is obviously superior to mine. So I concede to your intellectual prowess. But .....
ME: Hmm. Sorry but it sounds more like a cop-out to me. You wanted Scriptures to be exegeted. I gave you one and now you say I want to dance all around Scriptures. Is that so? If you are saying Powell or Wallace or myself have twisted Scriptures to demonstrate cessationism, I would expect an exegete such as yourself to show some exegetical rebuttal but here you are, wriggling your way out?
Anyway, it doesn't matter to me if you are interested or not. As I have said, my posting on cessationism is to present the cessationist's view to those interested. You can, like some others here, use emotional arguments to which I would not waste byte responding. If you rebut with exegesis and reason and evidence, I would be most glad to respond.
YOU: The bottom line is this.
1. The Bible knows nothing of cessationism.
ME: Yo, obviously you paid only lip service to me when you said you would read Powell. What's Powell doing? Playing marbles with Scriptures? Or what about Wallace whom you asked me to read (and I did ... a whole lot more)? Why don't you read his entire article? And the one on Hebrews? The bible knows nothing of cessationism? Tsk tsk.
I will argue more of this biblical clues in point 7.

YOU: 2. Neither "cessationists" nor non-cessations are in concensus on this most important issue.

ME: Er, so? This describes the situation of almost every doctrine we know. There will be those for and against. What's the point? Furthermore, this statement serves no purpose - can you tell me how this knowledge that there is no consensus impacts your conviction? As far as I can see, you are still the staunch non-cessationist you are. Obviously there is enough evidence for you to conclude the non-cessationist case.
Making such a statement is wasting byte here.
YOU: 3. The gifts or manifestations of the Holy Spirit are being effectively used by many Christians today in churches all over the world; Catholic, Protestant and so called "non- denominational.
ME: If this refers to gifts other than sign gifts, sure, cessationists agree. Repeat - cessationism teaches that SIGN gifts have ceased with the passing of the last apostles, NOT ALL GIFTS.
And if your statement refers to sign gifts, then the onus is on you to provide evidence which can be cross-examined. So far, I have BB Warfield's book, Andre Kole's book, Norman Geisler's book, John MacArthur's book on this subject in which they expose the falsehood of such alleged operation of sign gifts around the world. These are NOTHING like the sign gifts of the apostles.
YOU: 4. The "gifts" are also being "misused" by many Christians today through emotionalisim and disorderly behavior.
ME: Please specify what gifts you are talking about. If sign gifts, then refer to my preceding comments. It is not the case of sign gifts being misused which take for granted that they exist when they don't. And it is precisely because they don't exist hence they have to be forged. Ask a non-cessationist with the gift of healing to go to the streets and heal the sick and handicapped non-believer and demonstrate the power of God as signs and wonders for them (which is what the apostles did with their sign gifts) and see what happens. Excuses, excuses, excuses.
YOU: 5. There are many "false" practices being pawned off as "gifts" such as "Faith Healers" and "slain in the spirit" amongst others.
ME: Interesting. How do we know these are false? What is the criteria? Wouldn't the criteria involve being an apostle or an eyewitness to Jesus' resurrection for those who exercise sign gifts according to Scriptures?
YOU: 6. We are to "covet" the gifts that are most edifing to the Church.
ME: I'm SURPRISED yet again by you. I had thought quite highly of your exegetical skills. Zeloo in 1 Cor 12:31, 14:1, 39 does not mean for the individual to "seek" after spiritual gifts.
Thomas Edgar, in his book Satisfied with the Promise of the Holy Spirit, explains:
"Although zeloo is sometimes translated as “covet” or “desire,” a thorough study of zeloo indicates that it means “to be zealous”. A study of classical and koine Greek reveals that this word has the meaning “zeal” (or, negatively, “jealousy”) in every instance.
The Greek language has words that definitely mean “to seek” (e.g., zeteo, orego) and “to desire” (e.g., thelo, epithumeo, and bouloma:), but they are not used here. Paul is not against using these explicit words, since he does so in other verses. He uses zeteo frequently (nineteen times). He uses orego to describe the act of seeking to obtain or striving after the office of a bishop (1 Tim. 3:1), but he does not use it anywhere regarding spiritual gifts. The various words for desire also occur many times in Paul’s Epistles (thelo, sixty times; boulomai, eight times; epithumeo, five times), yet he does not use any of them in this verse.
The interpreter has no reason to interpret zeloo in this passage as “seek.” The context is decidedly against it. The word has in view one’s attitude and cannot, therefore, mean to seek something. It is also doubtful if the meaning “covet” or “desire” is ever the best meaning. Thus, in this context it is definitely improper to interpret it this way. Even with this meaning it would not refer to individuals in this passage but to the church’s attitude as a whole. The meaning of 1 Corinthians 12:31 is clear in its context. The church (as a group) is to be zealous (enthusiastic) for the greater gifts that edify, such as apostle, prophet, and teacher, rather than for such gifts as healing and tongues.
First Corinthians 14:1 and 14:39 use the same word and are very similar in their meaning and context; therefore, they should be interpreted in the same way. After an interlude in which he discusses the value of love (1 Cor. 13), Paul says, “Be zealous for spiritual things, but much more that you prophesy” (1 Cor. 14:1, author’s translation) [The term gifts is not used in 14:1. The Greek word pneumatika, also used in 12:1, is the word translated “spiritual things.” It probably refers to gifts in this context, but could possibly also include the manifestations and ministries as well (see also 12:4-6, referring to manifestations, in the same context as 12:1)]. The argument beginning in this verse and continuing through verse 25 has nothing to do with an individual seeking certain gifts, but concerns the priority or preference that the church as a group should give to the edifying gifts in the assembly [That 1 Cor. 14 refers to priority of activity in the assembly rather than to the priority of individual desires is obvious, but must be kept in mind in order to understand the verses involved. Therefore, it is the priority given by the church as a group to the ministration of gifts in the assembly that is discussed. First Cor. 14:1 says, “Be zealous [enthusiastic] for spiritual gifts, but especially that you prophesy.” The phrase “that you prophesy” definitely refers to the attitude of the church as a whole, since the context of 1 Cor. 14 is decidedly against every individual prophesying. Paul has already stated that all are not prophets. The concept that everyone is to prophesy would also invalidate the entire emphasis of chap. 12, viz., that all members do not have the same function. Therefore, 1 Cor. 14:1 must refer to the attitude of the church as a whole]. As already stated, 1 Corinthians 14:39 is similar. The entire church is to be zealous for prophecy.
Each of these verses expresses the concept that the Corinthian church, and the individuals within it, should have a zeal for edifying the assembly (by prophesying) rather than being zealous (as they were) for speaking in tongues. The idea of individuals seeking certain gifts is not in view. Even if some insist, contrary to the evidence, on translating zeloo as “seek,” it is clear that it is the church as a whole and not individuals who are to do this." (Chapter 3)
YOU: 7. The "gifts" will cease when our Lord returns. But Love will abide forever.
ME: The passage in Corinthians does say that gifts will all cease when our Lord returns but the question is: do they all cease at the SAME time, that is, at the return only? or are they ceasing since they were first given? I believe the following study shows that the gifts have been ceasing according to their utility in God's plan.
Sign gifts are mentioned in the following places:
- AD 56: 1 Corinthians 12 and 14
- AD 57: Romans 12
- AD 60: Ephesians 4
- AD 60-67: Ephesians - 2 Timothy
Note the listings:
- the number of gifts listed decreased with time, the "vanishing" already started in first century
- later period: no tongues, no healings, no exorcism, no raising of dead
- last two lists have no sign gifts
- last reference to use of sign gift was AD 58 (Acts 28:9), two years before end of Acts (v 30)
- beginning with Paul's imprisonment (AD60-67), Paul could not heal even his needed helpers such as Timothy, Epaphroditus, and Trophimus.
So what we can conclude that the gifts are all declining, starting with the sign gifts. It will ALL cease when Christ comes again.
YOU: This will be my final response to you on this matter.
ME: Suit yourself, Bill but thank you for giving me pointers to which I can give the cessationist's answers.
Christopher