Except for once out of thousands of people over a decade , branching multiple denominations, I’ve only met one person who believes cessationism is the end of all supernatural events. I think they are the ones using it wrong and I would have to see them line out their biblical argument as to why they include the other parts.
I’ve always found the cessationist argument as not weak at all. I find it so strong I don’t even pretend that there is another even remotely close argument which is why I figure 99% of the counter arguments are personal experiences and most of those experiences are not even one of the things I lined out.
But take prophecy and wisdom. What are the examples of prophecy and wisdom in the Bible? Always seemed like it was tied to the entire movement or a significant part of it. I don’t see enough evidence to think that prophecy was these small fortune telling like events. I also spent the majors of my life accepting and believing in spiritual gifts existing and seeing churches full of “ these powers “ being performed. As stated, I was dragged to Benny Hinn convictions, tent revivals with “ resurrections “ of dead people brought in pick up trucks and speaking squealing and howling in the tongues of angels.
So I always ask?
Why was the powers given?
Why does it repeatedly say that apostles had to show up and lay on hands?
Are we waiting for new scripture from God now?
Why don’t we see these events happening beyond doubt just like the apostles did?
But ecstatic, somewhat weird, spiritual experiences are not. Ever read Teresa of Avila?
I agree with @jammycakes that there are some kooky and problematic things done in the name of charismatic worship and that certain streams are flat out grifting. But I don’t feel threatened by the fact that Pentecostal/Charismatic expressions of Christianity are the most influential and fastest growing forms of Christianity in many parts of the world right now. I don’t think we need to prove they are legit on the one hand or explain away their experiences on the other. I am keenly aware that my preferred epistemologies and ways of processing my experiences are white, Western, and shaped by the modern scientific world and its constructs. Lots of the world’s cultures have more holistic, spiritually integrated approaches to perceiving reality and interacting with the world and I think it’s colonial and paternalistic to impose my constructs on their experiences with God and the world. Their testimony is their testimony. We shouldn’t have to validate or test or judge or explain everyone else’s encounters with God in order to feel secure in our own beliefs and relationship with God.
Well I was taught by a a Russian, two Africans, a Haitian and a guy from Hong Kong about cessationism. It helps to find a disperse group of people when studying something. If I just stuck with white Americans I would probably think those things still existed. But as someone with friends and acquaintances from mostly non white nations I am lucky enough to have came across cessationism. It’s why I’m also able to state why I believe what I believe and why I’m able to challenge others and see if they can prove their magic.
Know who I hear taking about white privilege the most? Liberal whites women who learned about their middle class privilege in college by their white professors. They seem to be the ones that want to label everything as white empowerment. They pull out this white guilt card every time they can’t defend a position and act like it’s the other people who are trying to feel secure about something.
So when discussing a theological issue what helps is using theology. Unfortunately just saying white privilege and saying “ we don’t need to validate their experiences when it’s then experiences being questioned is illogical. It’s not a argument to say, “ I think people can speak in the langurs of angels and if someone whose not white experiences it then we can’t question it”. It’s almost border like racist to presume non White people can’t defend their positions and then best they can do is tell us their experiences.
What’s the point of trying to pretend to harmonize religion and science when the science and religious texts are being tossed out the window on a doctrinal discussion.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
41
Spiritual in what way? Yeah, such experiences are completely natural. I have witnessed such intimately and can completely, utterly assure you that despite my initially being ‘open’ to the proposition that this was the work of the Holy Spirit, it wasn’t. If you want as full as possible a clinical account, by a non-clinician, I will provide it.
The Spirit of God, metaphorically, is in our achievement of social justice. Not in writhing on the floor in orgasm, stoned out of our heads on endogenous opiates. How’s that going for us?
Metaphors aside, while this is a common (false) dichotomy, I was thinking recently whether a dichotomy is false just when it’s a restricted either-or rather than a both-and, but would it also be false when there is a third or fourth possibility.
Speaking of social justice, I’m a big fan of Paul when he writes about economic justice in terms of fairness and desert. As much as I can agree with Rawls, it’s the principle of desert that I would have liked to seen expanded upon… but then… what a dilemma!! And the need to transcend reason… and become reacquainted with the source of all wisdom.
Speaking of “pulling out cards!” Sounds like the whole notion of white privilege is a sore spot that provokes you toward certain reactionary narratives. Just as you see “cessationism” as a good fit for explaining much in the world right now, don’t hold it against others who see the reality of white privilege and the considerable explanatory power it has for a lot of our recent history and sociology. That isn’t a claim that everything done under the banner of that explanatory rubric is automatically righteous or generates good solutions. Of course not. But it’s hard to get worse than the denial of the same for generating bad outcomes.
I don’t get bothered by white privilege talk at all actually. I’ve brought tot up several times myself in here…….
What I do get tired of is when it’s brought into every argument when it’s just not related as if it’s some kind of conversation ended.
Another issue is people confusing the reactions of white guilt for white privilege. I also don’t try to shove racism into every niche. It’s not like I’m the only one recognizing this type of problem in the world.
So when we are talking about do these miracles actually exist today and can someone actually do them and verify it and bring up scripturally, multiple verses across multiple books and chapters on why they believe it.
A real argument consists of more than , “ oh these people who don’t experience the supernatural don’t have anything in their faith to fall back on and third world countries see it all the time and if some whose not white tells me they experienced this supernatural event I need to just accept it and not ask for evidence…… then what’s the point to have a discussion if nothing is asked to be verified…… people are saying oh so and so speaks in the language of angels and it’s somehow wrong to be like well where is that and debate that and ask for clarification…
Sharing random thoughts is cool but it’s not something that actually contributed to discussion.
When people don’t have a solid opinion they often result to what comforts them and for some what comforts them is taking a discussion into a area about something they better feel they can defend, and be validated for defending. It’s something everyone does. But it’s not actually a counter argument.
I agree with some (maybe most) of your points. And to be fair - I haven’t followed the cessationism discussion closely enough to be expressing much opinion about that. My reaction was just more about …
I don’t think anyone here is asking you to “accept” anything that you don’t see evidence for. But there seems to be a lot of room between accepting something, and categorically rejecting an entire population of experiences whole cloth. It may just be that when you say you can’t accept x, y, or z, others hear you arguing for wholesale rejection of it all by everyone who is reasonable. And maybe you are. But I think it’s just fine to “not accept” it as in you personally just don’t find it compelling, but merely keep it at provisional arm’s length for yourself. It may be just a language thing of how strongly you want to push a claim or how others are hearing you. I’ve probably already butted in more than I can personally justify - carry on!
I feel like I’m sort of at the point where I’m just going to become a lurker and stop making any posts because outside of a few responses in general it’s just a waste of time and all that energy just goes into something made into pms. I appreciate BL and although it’s mostly the podcasts I enjoy the forums were nice enough for the majority of time. I sincerely wanted to half ass at least fit in with the discussions but it’s more of a burn out for me now. It’s not from any one person or thread just feels that way. I do hope BL is able to put their cash wjer s their mouth is and all goes well.
The variety of Christian experience is amazing. So do whatever floats your boat.
But it’s still true that the Charismatic movement has relatively recent origins.
Cool. I personally learned about white privilege teaching in the inner city and living in an Indigenous community for ten years. I’m not trying to “defend” charismatics or present an “argument,” I’m trying to listen to them and respect other people’s different experiences. You asked about where in the Bible they get their interpretations and I told you which passages they point to and what they interpret those passages to be talking about. Something like that is never going to amount to “proof.” You haven’t “proved” cessationism simply by listing some Bible verses and saying what you think they mean. You have just explained how you arrived at your perspective.
I have been discussing with a person who thinks that new believers sometimes have demons, even if they get the Holy Spirit after becoming a believer. He insisted that we should cast out demons from these persons if a person with the gift of distinguishing of spirits notes a demon in such a believer. He claimed that many new believers suffer unnecessarily because churches do not teach correctly about this.
My understanding is very different from his ideas. I do not believe that Holy Spirit and demons can live in the same person. If a person is a believer and the Holy Spirit lives in him/her, we can exclude the possibility of demon possession.
Emotional instability is possible, that is not very rare among believers.
I don’t. I’m not inclined to “explain away” spiritual experiences.
Sure, everything humans perceive can be explained with reference to the physical/chemical workings of the human brain. I find such explanations to be reductionistic and ultimately unsatisfying though. I do not believe we are at our core biological machines, or that the natural world is all our consciousness has access to.
2 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
53
No less robust than I would hope. Explaining doesn’t explain away. There is nothing to explain away, nothing to reduce. If God grounds being, what has that got to do with people being quite naturally weird?
Let me understand this. Is everyone, who claims that God answered their prayers, a liar? Because if God ceased with his miracles, how could he answer prayers?
I agree with you. That a natural account exists does not subtract from the vibrancy of one’s actual experience. That experience may not be persuasive for anyone else but if it tips the scales toward what you are inclined to believe any way, so be it. I still think it is better if you can simultaneously maintain the recognition that no proof for everyone is possible from these personally confirming experiences. But if faith matters that needn’t deter you. Everyone needs some faith in their stance toward the world. None of us on either side can make the case that ours is the best or uniquely correct one.
Well then no PM on this one and I do hope we’ll continue to hear your voice in these discussions when you feel moved to do so. It must be a tough call for Christians when differences arise that are wrong in the light of the scriptures as you read them to know when you should expect agreement from others who place great store in that book and when you should step back and acknowledge there really are different interpretations which don’t require anyone to be mistaken. It seems like this can come up anywhere so merely avoiding feedback here may not solve the problem. Of course if one finds a congregation small enough one might avoid it altogether. But then you have to wonder whether you’re missing out on something.
From the stories you’ve shared it is clear that being bold enough in your faith is important to you. From my experience here there can be no question but that you have plenty of courage. Maybe it is only a matter of adjusting expectations regarding what other people should do when you do speak up for your beliefs? What would it look like if we all speak up for what wisdom we may have and honest differences are exposed? That seems to be the world we have.