Why I’m a Cessationist ( yes it’s longish for a post )

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?

And Acts 2 is a miracle of hearing, not speaking.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

3 Likes

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!

1 Like

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.

BioLogos tends to have a high turnover of participants on the forum. But I do hope you will stay.

1 Like

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.

3 Likes

Here’s an article about the miracle gold teeth: “Dental miracles” the latest to hit Toronto

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

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.

4 Likes

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.

5 Likes

Well if I did not present the best argument using scripture ( which no one has countered ) and by pointing out how no one is able to prove they have these supernatural powers beyond reasonable doubt like the apostles , then the non scriptural arguments and zero proof of superpowers presented something far less valuable.

I just expect Christians to be able to at least counter and present a series of arguments using scripture. After all we base our beliefs in part of of their scriptures. Without the scriptures where is any Christian belief found. What I also expect is not to constantly be told it’s just some white thinking when race is irrelevant in cessationism along with scientific understanding and so on. Since the majority of cessationist I’ve met are also YECs and Africans.

Cessationism is based off of theology, not science. It’s based off of the belief that a god exists, that the god is Yahweh and that Yahweh had a son who died and rose again and gave supernatural power to his chosen apostles who performed gifts to show they are speaking on behalf of God. All of those beliefs are found only in scripture. So arguments should be centered around that. If not, then let’s not pretend the discussion is supposed to be about faith.

It’s just in general it seems that theology discussions in here have very little to do with scripture. I think for me the best thing to do is not treat BioLogos as a Christian organization but as a humanist organization that uses religious jargon to explain aspects of nature and social reform.

Before bouncing I’ll just lurk for a while and see if I get anything beneficial out of it and if not that’s equally fine. I’m going to withdraw from the convo and just lurk a bit though. I think I’ll try to spend some more time with PS and see if maybe that’s more my fit. I’ve never really gave it a chance.

That was never said. I said the opposite actually a times.

I understand. Of course it is a big part of what I like about it here. For people outside the faith that sort of reasoning has no appeal or relevance. I can see how it could be a source of friction between those who share a high regard for it. But there is obviously still room for varying approaches. I admit I have a low regard for merely finding text which seems to say what you already think yourself as there is so much available, though I imagine you make a case on more than that.

I have on idea how widely accepted that may be but it is news to me. The term “supernatural” itself is pretty loathsome to me intellectually thought this isn’t about my sensibilities. From my perspective, whatever makes the connection is to that degree good. If it involves beliefs which mean you must hold science and history as suspect that would be a high price. But I doubt that whatever it is which grounds what is sacred and divine is something which lends itself to rational argument at all. So for me there is no rational basis for accepting that speaking in tongues, taking the sacrament or praying to God is either ruled out or necessary, and I don’t think there is any reason to think the Bible’s chief purpose is to rule on how God may be worshiped. But at what point do those who disagree feel the need to delineate who is in and who is other? That is something else not obvious from the outside.

It seems like what actually happens is people find what justifies what works for them. But I think the more basic question is what is the Bible for, not what does it state in certain passages or in the majority of passages. From my perspective what is sacred is not beholden to reason, not even with a highly valued book. I’m highly suspect of the value of Logos in this realm. I suspect it is prized because it leaves people feeling in control. I won’t argue that it is a white privilege issue but it is certainly a holdover of the European enlightenment period to favor rationality over emotion, bodily experience and inspiration. I feel certain what is more spiritually is not like us in that way. Just my 2 cents worth though. I don’t expect it to buy me much within institutional religion.

Whatever works for you. What is PS?