7 of Frank’s arguments from experience:
1. You’ve appealed to me several times to admit that there’s nothing in my experience that resembles anything close to the ministry of Jesus and the apostles, but if I were to produce men who could do such, you’d be repentant of your view. (A confession of a lack of experience (seeing it to believe it) being the reason for your view)
2. You’ve clearly stated that the cessationist position depends on other evidence outside Scripture in order to arrive at its conclusions.
3. You’ve given more weight to arguments from alleged silence in scripture which you’ve suggested is proof of a lack of experience even in the early church, than you have to clear passages and themes that teach otherwise.
4. Despite the fact the Bible never defines the manifestations of the Spirit as “apostolic gifts” or “sign gifts”, you have unfairly and persistently assumed that category on our discussion from the beginning–without having to defend it first for me or our readers. I’d like to point out to the reader that the assumed yet undefended use of that category is an interpretation based in non-experience forced on both the Bible and this conversation, but that truly stems from the cessationist tradition (interpretation of past and present historical experience), not from clear definitions or categories supported by Scripture.
5. You’ve redefined the “manifestations” of the Spirit in I Corinthians 12:4-11 as “apostolic gifts”, presumably, in order to make sense of your current lack of experience, discomfort with our “lesser” experience, fear of deception (potential negative experience), and to justify that your position that it’s no longer necessary to take seriously the Holy Spirit’s words to eagerly desire the gifts for church strengthening (because they were limited to “apostolic” experience). In other words, you use your limited experience, either personal or observational, to project on to your interpretation of the Bible and redefine them as “apostolic gifts”.
6. You have appealed rigorously to the existence of abuse (negative experience).
7. You’ve simply just admitted that you plainly don’t have them, by being honest about what you’ve experienced so far.
I mention these in this way because these arguments only point to the fact that this is clearly not a just a biblical debate, but an experiential one.
In other words, you have presented me and the readers “evidences” which, in your opinion, are experiential evidences strong enough to suggest we should be intellectually obligated to act on them, regardless if they are directly supported by scripture or not.