Tom said:
In the case of Calvinism and Arminianism, it is impossible to be neutral even if they don't realize it. Though some say that they hold to some of the 5 points of Calvinism, in reality if one point is not true, then logically the other 4 fall. However, that does not mean that the person is at that point of realization.
In my case with cessationism and non-cessationism, though I would like the matter completely settled in my own mind, I am not there yet.
If that means I am either a cessationist or a non-cessationist, I would have to say my actions would make me a cessationist. But I am not sure if that would be completely accurate since the matter isn't settled in my mind.


The matter is actually "black or white". If one holds that the ecstatic (revelatory) gifts even may be relevant for the period after the death of the last Apostle, then that person holds to non-Cessationism. If a person is non-committed to being against something then they are of necessity for it and vice versa. (cf. Matt 12:30) It is logically impossible to be neither for a truth and at the same time not against a truth. If the matter was in regard to choosing between two opinions where both were true or acceptable, e.g., should one wear a blue shirt or a brown shirt, then indecision would not logically mean one was in favor of one or the other. Kabish? Admittedly, it is possible yet undeniably illogical to hold to two conflicting ideas where both are claimed to be true, e.g., one who believes that Credobaptism is acceptable AND Paedobaptism is acceptable, i.e., in regard to the former, ONLY immersion of an adult qualifies as biblical baptism. And in regard to the latter, baptism of infants qualifies as biblical baptism. This is very much the same claim some make in regard to Arminianism and Calvinism. The fact is one cannot hold both as equally true since the two are antithetical. The issue of being convinced of one or the other is irrelevant. Indecision can only be deemed as an acceptance of one over the other or a denial of the verity of both, particularly when it relates to biblical doctrine (true vs. false).

Tom then asks:
I have a question for you. You have mentioned the term 'soft cessationist' in this thread. What do you mean by that? Can you give an example between a soft cessationist and cessationist?

In its most simple form, "hard" cessationism denies any presence of the Holy Spirit and "soft" cessationism only denies the continuation of the ecstatic manifestations (gifts) of the Spirit while holding firmly to supernaturalism.

In His grace,

simul iustus et peccator