tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post113129624713977225..comments2024-03-01T21:01:15.174-06:00Comments on Biblical Christianity: "Cessationism": ragged dress for a rich ladyDJPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-49734358680045283042015-01-20T09:25:00.955-06:002015-01-20T09:25:00.955-06:00Sorry to make an extra post, but this one is more ...Sorry to make an extra post, but this one is more about my opinion and personal story on the topic, so I guess there's no helping that...<br /><br />Anyway, when I first heard the term 'cessationist', and even until recently, I had the entirely wrong idea what this meant. The doctrine I imagined it to be was actually something like Christadelphianism, or thereabouts. Thanks for being the one to clarify that 'cessationism' relates to the issue of Spiritul gifts, in the contemporary sense, rather than the presence of the Spirit in believers in the past nineteen hundred years. <br />I'm not sure how much you claim has stopped or when that is supposed to have occurred, but if it hasn't then that implies Scripture is just as evolutionary as naturalism. That is to say, total rubbish. Given God's Word is not 'total rubbish' and is Spirit-inspired, so I can only assume that there was a cessation of some sort at some point. <br />The third option could mean we may all staple together a variety of the Christian help books which most relate to us + the Torah + our favourite Biblical stories + our preferred 'Gospel accounts' + that letter from the un-Godly pastor who said it's okay to explore our identity outside of Christ + whatever else that supports our egotistical, sinful ways, then call it 'scripture'. <br /><br />So yes, I identify with Scripture being 'closed' and that any inspiration the Spirit may give today cannot be the Scriptural kind. I don't necessarily acknowledge Cessationism in what I would consider it's fullest scope, but I do acknowledge the concept in regards to the completion of Scripture, which can't be added unto(Deuteronomy 4:2) in anything less than a command from God to a prophet or apostle. This rules out modern apostles being able to write authoritative works in the Spiritually inspired sense.<br /><br />In saying all this, and as much as I'm not appealed by the 'Charismatic Church' I also don't see the benefit of assuming God's Spirit can't operate through us today. Nor do I know of Biblical contradictions to this possibility being founded in sound interpretation of an intended verse. I have read some of your articles relating to this, so I'll share the relevant questions and concerns I have where they belong; I'm simply expressing my changing definition of 'cessationism' and how it now differs from my initial assumptions, yet not completely.Zac Dredgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02814074040708083807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-40295051589668674432015-01-20T07:31:03.269-06:002015-01-20T07:31:03.269-06:00While I'm not saying I necessarily associate a...While I'm not saying I necessarily associate as being a 'cessationist' I do see your plight. I have no congregation or seminary degree, and am not from the US of A(let alone Missouri, though a friend of mine is), but I do have a penchant for naming things. As such I will endeavor to find you a name of positive nature and thoughtfully descriptive dimensions to apply to the doctrine which you so adamantly associate with.<br /><br />Here are some ideas: <br /><br />-Scripturalist's/Scripturalism; to side-step the 'suffinceincy-there-of-lengthening clause' and communicate a sense that this is implicit. Scripture alone is the defining factor; let the association of it's reliability follow in the causal sense. If it catches on people will get this without it being in the title.<br /><br />-Authoritarian's/Authoritism; to reference the Word of God as having all authority. Not quite as positive but possibly more descriptive. Someone can acknowledge the Bible as Scripture and stil not be clear on the authority this indicates.<br /><br />-Follower's of the Word/Church of the Word; Simple reference to John 1 and other such descriptions of Jesus, the Christ, as the Word 'who became flesh'. Therefore swapping 'Christ' for 'Word' is still a completely accurate term for a Christ-ian, yet could be used to reference a specific doctrine as it's currently an un-used substitution in the official sense. <br /><br />-Leather-Bound Arsonists... okay, so that's all for now. I can probably think of more if none of those three suffice.Zac Dredgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02814074040708083807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-19895294442335642912010-04-28T18:42:19.752-05:002010-04-28T18:42:19.752-05:00You know, I had a very radical, powerful conversio...You know, I had a very radical, powerful conversion that included the Holy Spirit coming through the Throne Room of Ezekiel 1 and showing me just who God is and just who I am and brought me to dust as I agreed with my own damnation for deigning to hold my own wisdom above Scripture, thereby holding myself above Himself in value and worth...and it was then as I held back the vomit from the view inside the blackness of my own heart that the cross that I'd always believed <i>about</i> showed up in the darkness of my swollen-eyed/tear-filled vision and became very real and I was filled with gratitude and then His love was literally shed abroad in my heart. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is an amazing thing at that time and ongoing, and as the Scripture says, the Holy Spirit will exalt Christ and teach us and convict us and comfort us. And He does it by illuminating the Scripture and by giving a love for it that can only come through the Spirit of the One who authored it in love.<br /><br /> So I tend to knd of get a "hiccup" when I hear people say that they affirm what Scripture says on one hand and in the next breath add a "but" usually followed by "I prayed about it and God told me...." Been there, done that, saw and agreed with my own damnation for it. <br /><br />That said, I have had some powerful experiences since then, either in prayer or in Scripture but in <i>every single case</i> it always affirms Scriptural truths, humbles me more, and exalts Christ more as it comforts me and leads me to a deeper faith in and love for the Bread of Life as He nourishes me through His word while I wait upon Him and am driven deeper into a joyful submission to Him and just a more grateful, even exalted worship from what it had been before. It really is living and active and sufficient in truth, and He is most definitely with me always, as He has promised. When I have a question about something the Scripture means, I study it out and I take it to the Throne and ask about it, to be taught its truth and for the grace to bow the knee to it. <br /><br />So I just have to wonder what it is that people need if the Word-made-flesh, the Living Water, the Bread of Life, that which proclaims itself to be adequate in equipping the man of God for every good work...isn't enough for them. The One who authored that book isn't going to change His mind and come out with something new.Barbarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16604068110452745043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-89006875679771580072008-09-05T07:57:00.000-05:002008-09-05T07:57:00.000-05:00I've thought that, and I like it. But how to make ...I've thought that, and I like it. But how to make it (A) a substantive, and (B) a single word.<BR/><BR/>I mean, are these people "Sola Scripturists"? "Sola Scripturians"? "Sola Scripturoids"? "Solenoids"?<BR/><BR/>Hm. That last one... maybe....DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-3550930395897429352008-09-05T07:52:00.000-05:002008-09-05T07:52:00.000-05:00The "closed-Canon" position sounds equally negativ...<I>The "closed-Canon" position sounds equally negative, and the same folks who are de facto open-Canoners are de jure closed-Canoners. "Really-closed-Canon"? Nah. How about "sufficient Scripture"? Again, formally many Charismatics affirm that position, whileactually undermining it in fact with every argument for their stance. "Really-sufficient-Scripture"? Nah. "Completed revelation"? Better, but clumsy.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Sola Scriptura?Barbarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16604068110452745043noreply@blogger.com