What is the relationship between preterism and cessationism?

[Gavin]

And where do you stand?

(Cessationism is the belief that miraculous spiritual gifts like speaking in tongues passed away around the end of the apostolic age.)

[Gavin]

Request: can a moderator of this section edit the poll to take out the first "be" in the third option? Thanks.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Gavin, specifically with tongues, that sign can clearly be understood as a judgment sign to apostate Israel, and once her punishment came, and the kingdom removed, there is no need for that sign. That is the argument made in brief by such as Gentry.

[John Reece]

Today @ 04:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147455#post147455)
Dee Dee Warren:

Gavin, specifically with tongues, that sign can clearly be understood as a judgment sign to apostate Israel, and once her punishment came, and the kingdom removed, there is no need for that sign. That is the argument made in brief by such as Gentry.

If the theme of the context of 1 Corinthians 12-14 were summed up in the one verse referenced above, Gentry and his fellow cessationists might have a leg to stand on :smile: .

1 Corinthians 12-14 is not about signs, it about the purpose of ta pneumatika.

See this thread just started by Gavin:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147465#post147465

[Hitch]

The only connection Im sure of its that many converts to the preterists view have come from pentecostal backgrounds.

H

[studyhound]

10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child;
NKJV. . (electronic ed.) (1 Co 13:10-12). :: ,.

I see the whole gifts thing tied in to the body of Christ maturing, When we as christians mature in to the complete body and have worked out the petty differences, Spiritual gifts are no longer needed. Because we will love one another in maturity

:love:

[adam.naranjo]

::ALARM:: MODERATOR ::ALARM::

The one VOTE for "If you are a preterist, you will probably not be a cessation" was my vote, and it was an accident. Oops!!



I meant to say, "If you are preterist, you will probably but not necessarily be a cessationist."

For the most part, informed preterists have a solid hermeneutic ability. (informed -- people who really know WHY they are preterists, and have really studied out eschatology and ecclesiology) and are honest with scripture -- letting it speak for itself -- and tend to have a stong understanding of the overall picture of the unfolding story of scripture. I think that one important element that many don't realize is understanding the earthly ministry of Christ -- It helps you see why certain things have ceased as normative. Thats all i'm sayin'. Wait one more thing, I don't know a single non-cessationist preterist. And most of the Charasmatics I know are Dispensational Futurists.

I back up what DD said, and I recommend This book by Kenneth Gentry -- The Charasmatic Gift of Prophecy, a reformed response to Wayne Grudem (http://kennethgentry.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=KG&Product_Code=CGP&Category_Code=B)

And I suggest this MP3 series from Greg Bahnsen -- "Modern Tongues Movement" (http://www.cmfnow.com/subcatmfgprod.asp?0=207&1=418&2=-1)


As well as,
Greg Bahnsen's "The Final Word" -- an MP3 series on the 'Modern Prophecy Movement' (http://www.cmfnow.com/subcatmfgprod.asp?0=207&1=418&2=-1)

[John Reece]

Today @ 02:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=185208#post185208)
adam.naranjo:

. . . . Wait one more thing, I don't know a single non-cessationist preterist . . . .

That's because you don't know me :smile: and my preterist non-cessationist friends (pastors and teachers).

I not only studied everything written by Gentry and Bahnsen on the subject of their cessationism, I engaged in extensive personal correspondence with each of them in the late 1980's / early 1990's. Neither of them was able to present to me any convincing exegetical basis for the cessationist dogma, which seemed to me to be based not really in the biblical texts themselves, but in presuppositions which they sought to support with anything they could martial for that purpose in the biblical texts.

So appeals to Gentry and Bahnsen as authorities re cessationism only leaves me with a :smile: .

[Dee Dee Warren]

I think the arguments for the cessation of tongues are pretty convincing in preterism.

[John Reece]

Today @ 12:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=185675#post185675)
Dee Dee Warren:

I think the arguments for the cessation of tongues are pretty convincing in preterism.

Pure presuppositionalism vs. pure exegesis.

The is no "-ism" in exegesis.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hmm, actually I think it is the application of what we know, the message of the Scripture, to the issues at hand. I do find the cessation of tongues argument very convincing in a preterist framework, but I remain agnostic on the issue.

[TedO]

Adam,

I concur with John Reece.

I am a tongue speaking :duh: almost preterist. I am also a confirmed non-calvinist. None of these conclusions were reached without serious thought and study.

Ted

[HerodionRomulus]

07-13-2003 @ 12:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147822#post147822)
studyhound:
I see the whole gifts thing tied in to the body of Christ maturing, When we as christians mature in to the complete body and have worked out the petty differences, Spiritual gifts are no longer needed. Because we will love one another in maturity
:love:


Seems to me the Church still has a
loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong
way to go.
:argh:

[Hitch]

God;s never been in a hurry yet.

[Griffin]

I have a LARGE problem with telling an Omnipotent Being just what He can do, when, with whom, and how. God apparently blessed particular craftsmen with the requisite knowledge to build and furnish the tabernacle; just because He hasn't done it recently does not mean that He either can't or won't. It can be theologically dangerous to build doctrine on example or experience.

I also suspect that there may be a little (possibly unconcious)evolutionist thinking behind the theory that certain gifts have ceased. Explaining that people used to need these additional Divine helps in the old days may lead to arrogance (and the danger of spiritual pride). Just because we have comparitively good modern medicine does not mean God's people will not require physical healing by the laying on of hands. Paul teaches that when the perfect comes the imperfect will pass away. I do not think we're there yet.

Finally, what does the Body of Christ (or its members) gain by such a doctrine? If prophecy and tongues as described in 1 Cor. 14 no longer exist it would seem that Christianity is the less for the loss. (It would also seem to be a waste of text for these detailed instructions to apply to a single generation.) When I pray for a miracle or a healing I take hope in YHWH my Healer and Provider.

[Smusiak]

there really is still no universal agreement on what tongues was in the first century...from a strictly exegetical standpoint...non that were convincing...but I am fully convinced that preterism should not be the deciding factor in ones view of the spiritual gifts...I know very few charismatics who after coming to a partial preterist position, changed views on the gifts...but thats just my experience...

[Griffin]

Alright Smusiak, I'll bite. What exactly is a confessing former partial preterist protestant? (I'm not sure if I quite got that right, but trust you'll know what I mean.)

[smilax]

08-15-2003 @ 07:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=185678#post185678)
John Reece:
Pure presuppositionalism vs. pure exegesis.

The is no "-ism" in exegesis.Too bad I wasn't around for this one.

I have to disagree for several reasons.

First, exegesis must take context into account. If preterism is true, our redemptive-historical context is one thing. If it is false, it is another. We cannot take a purely naturalistic view of history unless we are either deists or just plain atheists; and as such, we cannot speak of the historical context apart from what God was doing at such and such a time, not simply what we were doing. Scripture does not exist in a vacuum; to interpret the the text divorced from context is potentially damning.

Second, systematic theology, properly understood, tells us eternal truths regarding the person, character, and work of God--an even greater "context" than the historical one. Systematics will inform our exegesis; this is simply the practice of letting Scripture interpret Scripture. It is conceded that one's theological convictions may be elevated against the clear testimony of the written word; but that simply means we screwed up along the way while constructing them.

Finally, the idea of "pure exegesis" does not seem particularly helpful. The historical-critical "exegetes" of liberal persuasion conclude JEDP, Trito-Isaiah, Q, Deutero-Paul, etc. They claim to be objective, but they are driven by a denial that, for instance, predictive prophecy exists. Mid-Acts dispensationalists see Peter commanding baptism and conclude that he was in another dispensation without even attempting harmonization. Low-brow skeptics take the text and read it "like a newspaper." Who has the audacity to claim he is totally objective? It's just a matter of seeing whose presuppositions are correct.

In any case, this thread is supposedly about how preterism and cessationism relate, i.e., "If preterism is true, then..." So the sound bite is pretty irrelevant.

[John Reece]

Today @ 04:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=243517#post243517)
smilax:

First, exegesis must take context into account.

Yes.



. . . .

Systematics will inform our exegesis; this is simply the practice of letting Scripture interpret Scripture. It is conceded that one's theological convictions may be elevated against the clear testimony of the written word; but that simply means we screwed up along the way while constructing them.

Which is why I do not put any stock in systematics.



Finally, the idea of pure exegesis does not seem particularly helpful. The historical-critical "exegetes" of liberal persuasion conclude JEDP, Trito-Isaiah, Q, Deutero-Paul, etc. They claim to be objective, but they are driven by a denial that, for instance, predictive prophecy exists. Mid-Acts dispensationalists see Peter commanding baptism and conclude that he was in another dispensation without even attempting harmonization. Low-brow skeptics take the text and read it "like a newspaper." Who has the audacity to claim he is totally objective? It's just a matter of seeing whose presuppositions are correct.

Writing a list of presuppositional positions does not prove that it is impossible to set aside one’s own presuppositions as well as those of others while doing exegesis. Look at post # 25 in the thread link below and tell me what presuppositions are being imposed upon the text:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2455&perpage=16&pagenumber=1



In any case, this thread is supposedly about how preterism and cessationism relate, i.e., If preterism is true, then… So the sound bite is pretty irrelevant.

You think so. I think not.

:cheers:

[smilax]

Today @ 08:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=243650#post243650)
John Reece:
Which is why I do not put any stock in systematics.Do y'dig the Trinity?
You think so. I think not.

:cheers:Cool.

(Side note: even though I typically doubt the value of word studies, at least by themselves, the thing you're doing with covenant rocks.)

[John Reece]

Today @ 12:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=244402#post244402)
smilax:

Do y'dig the Trinity?

Yes.

[adam.naranjo]

John,

Have your heard Bahnsen's arguments? You mentioned reading Bahnsen, but, I didn't realize that Bahnsen had actually written anything. I have only heard him speak on the issue.

I would love to hear what you have to say as far as exegetical arguments go. You have to be far more specific than, "Neither of them was able to present to me any convincing exegetical basis for the cessationist dogma" -- I've heard those kinds of rhetorical
attacks before, and knowing, reading, and listening to Bahnsen...I just don't believe you :) (perhaps you didn't like his exegesis) Bahnsen's "the final word" is a solid argument for cessationism. In fact its a deductive argument with premises that can not be argued against without running the risk of contradicting some major christian doctrines.

--------
Adam

[John Reece]

Today @ 06:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=249176#post249176)
adam.naranjo:

John,

Have your heard Bahnsen's arguments? You mentioned reading Bahnsen, but, I didn't realize that Bahnsen had actually written anything. I have only heard him speak on the issue.

I would love to hear what you have to say as far as exegetical arguments go. You have to be far more specific than, "Neither of them was able to present to me any convincing exegetical basis for the cessationist dogma" -- I've heard those kinds of rhetorical
attacks before, and knowing, reading, and listening to Bahnsen...I just don't believe you :) (perhaps you didn't like his exegesis) Bahnsen's "the final word" is a solid argument for cessationism. In fact its a deductive argument with premises that can not be argued against without running the risk of contradicting some major christian doctrines.

--------
Adam

Adam,

I corresponded with Bahnsen personally and extensively on the subject in the 1980s. His arguments were based entirely upon presuppositional premises. I tried, unsuccessfully, to get him to relate to my exegesis of the texts, to which he was not responsive. His only use for exegesis on the subject of ta pneumatika was in service of his presuppositional premises.

I'm sorry, but age and health problems have gotten the better of me and I no longer have the energy to try to persuade by means of exegesis someone who is already convinced to the contrary.

Blessings,

John

[TedO]

John,

I have been studying this topic this week. I'd love to hear your insights on it (I am a non-cessasionist, or a charismatic, or whatever the term should be).

One interesting thing I was looking at was the term edify oikodomeoo in 1 Cor 14. This has the idea of building up from the foundation, not to lay the foundation. This fits with Eph 2:20 that we are building up the church on the teaching of the scriptures in the old (prophets) and new (apostles) testaments, but with the ongoing edification of the Holy Spirit in the individual lives of believers as well as the church.

Anyway, I really find the cessasionist case weak also. If you would share your thoughts with me hear or by PM I'd be grateful.

[John Reece]

Ted,

I'll respond via PM.

John