Monthly Archives: March 2010

Cessationism and the Authority of Personal Assumption

Posted on March 16, 2010 by | 2 comments

By Marv

I’m not sure whether Daniel Wallace’s recent post on Parchment and Pen, Charismata and the Authority of Personal Experience, was intended to coincide with the annual celebration of the world’s most famous irrational number, π, but it did in fact appear on “Pi Day” (3/14/2010) and does seem to hit the theme of what he considers to be irrational. If it otherwise appeared to you, as it did to me, oddly out of date, this is because it is in fact a repost of an older article. On reading it, I estimated that the references sounded on the nature of fifteen years old. In fact, the Word version available on bible.org is dated 1997, though I suspect the original composition is a tad earlier.

The article calls for a response, I’m afraid, but before I begin, I want to make clear what profound regard and respect I hold for Dr. Wallace. He is not only—literally—the man who “wrote the book” on New Testament Greek, but he was my own teacher and, yes, a personal hero. The fact is that I found my way to both Parchment and Pen and Theologica through hunting down his online writings.

Yet I am going to be so bold as to disagree with some of what he writes, while agreeing with much of it. I have a few slightly-more-than-quibbles to get out of the way first. I find the opening references to “psychic hotlines” and UFOs unnecessarily disobliging. The phenomena under discussion, such as healing and prophecy, are after all such as he agrees genuinely occurred among the Church of the first century, not occulta from beyond the fringe.

Also it is misleading to refer to the continuationist perspective he has in view as “charismatic.” He explicitly aligns the people he refers to with the Vineyard movement, which is part of what is commonly called “Third Wave.” Since the second of the “waves” in question is the Charismatic Movement, there is a significant distinction there that he ignores.

More importantly, however, he allows himself to go beyond commentary on the facts and proposes to offer a psychological explanation for a change in belief, and even more importantly casts this change as an abandonment of basic evangelical principle. He states: “their final authority is no longer reasoning about the Scriptures; now it is personal experience.” I do not believe that he is justified in doing either, and that his conclusion is wrong in both instances.

One may wish to ask how Dr. Wallace, coming from an outsider’s perspective, can be as confident as he appears to be in regard to the psyche of others. May I suggest, from an insider’s perspective, that he has significantly misread the situation. My claim to an inside perspective is based on the fact that: (a) some the individuals he almost certainly has chiefly in mind were also my own teachers and I have some familiarity with them both before and after their “paradigm shift”; (b) I myself fall generally into the lines of the events he describes. As the song says: “apart from the names and a few other changes, the story’s the same one”; and (c) I have spent two decades in the Vineyard milieu, and so know something whereof I speak.

So I can attest that, so far from being swayed by mere experience, these people have made the decision: (1) to believe something that the Bible clearly teaches, specific works of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ, and (2) to disbelieve something they find nowhere in the Bible, that particular aspects of the Spirit’s work ceased after the first (or second) generation of the Church. I am not quite sure how this constitutes substituting “personal experience” for the Scriptures as final authority. It is rather quite the opposite.

On the other hand, a typical cessationist charge is “Can you honestly tell me you’ve seen genuine New Testament quality miracles.” Now, which side is clinging to experience as authority?

What about experience, though? Yes, odd as it may seem, what we are told in the Bible does turn out to be true. Paul describes the effects of prophecy, for example, in terms of “upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.” (1 Cor. 14:3) and also having “the secrets of [one’s] heart…disclosed” (1 Cor. 14:25). I can attest to this effect, as I think anyone who has taken the Biblical teaching on prophecy as valid for today could. Yes, these are subjective matters for the most part, difficult to demonstrate to others. Dr. Wallace puts scare quotes around “prophet,” and dismisses such instances as cold reading.

What am I supposed to believe when apostolic, Scriptural authority teaches me to not to despise prophetic utterances (1 Thes. 5:20)? I know what cold reading is, and I know charlatans have used it to simulate genuine prophecy. However, I’ve also received prophecies the details of which rule out cold reading, and given prophecies which to the best of my ability to discern were in no way instances of cold reading. Still it isn’t the experience that tells me prophecy is a work of the Holy Spirit; it is the Bible.

It is also true that such “paradigm shifts” are often occasioned by personal crises. Dr. Wallace is quite correct that imbalance in Christian life, such as excessive focus on the intellectual aspects, is deleterious to joy in Christ. It is Dr. Wallace’s final paragraph that is at once the most laudable part of his essay, and the most lamentable. It is laudable for the truth of his statement: “the trilogy of authority can be seen this way: both personal experience and reason are vital means to accessing revelation. We are to embrace Christ, as revealed in the Word, with mind and heart.” What is lamentable, is that by making the statement he is implying that continuationists do not understand this.

In fact, Dr. Wallace is describing what may be the single greatest lesson I have learned in embracing continuationism. We have to do not primarily with knowledge or feeling, but with a blessed Person, who has given us His Word and has given us His Spirit, and sent us as He was sent, as is with us until the end of the age. It is in Him that we are to place our faith. I’ve been taught the very same truth by the very people Dr. Wallace suggest have missed it. So while Dr. Wallace’s prescription is on target, I believe his diagnosis is considerably wide of the mark.

2 Comments

Posted in 1 Corinthians 14, cessationism, continuationism, prophecy

Tagged , , , , , ,

An Everyday Example of Prophecy

Posted on March 13, 2010 by | 7 comments

by Scott

I posted an article a few weeks back about the nature of revelation. Though the word usually gets distorted in terms of eschatological understanding or with the gifts of the Spirit, the word simply means an unveiling or an uncovering. It’s like pulling back the curtains to introduce the characters and scene of a play. All of a sudden you get ‘the picture’.

I believe Paul brings it down ‘out of the clouds’ when he shares these words with the Corinthian church:

What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. (1 Corinthians 14:26 NIV)

Paul expected that each person of the body of Christ could be utilised in all these things mentioned above, and more of course. Not all at the same time in every gathering. Such would be overwhelming. And that is what Paul strongly challenged the Corinthians to stop doing. But these gifts of God’s Spirit were available to the whole body.

Why? These things must be done for strengthening the church, building it up (e.g. 1 Cor 14:26).

So, currently I’m leading our house group through a book entitled Becoming A True Spiritual Community. It’s by one of my favourite authors, Larry Crabb.

Now, here is the thing to note: I’m pretty sure Larry Crabb would not identify himself as a charismatic, Pentecostal, nor Third-Wave. I don’t say this in a derogatory way. It’s just that, after reading about six of his books over the past years, I don’t think he would classify himself in that way. And that’s fine.

But, he is definitely a man who wants to hear from the Spirit, tune his ear to the voice of God. It comes through in many of his books. He mainly writes about how the church can better walk out our call to emulate the relational nature of the Trinity. He has a passion to see the whole body of Christ moving towards maturity in spiritual friendships. And, in doing so, he is always bringing in the element of listening to the Spirit when it comes to faithfully relating to and caring for our brothers and sisters in Christ.

All this to say: Larry Crabb is not identifiable as charismatic. But he is identifiable as one who wants to hear from God.

And as I was re-reading through chapter 7 of the afore mentioned book, I found a beautiful story of the gift of prophecy, or we might call it a word of knowledge. In all, it’s a present-day example of God’s Spirit bringing revelation, or uncovering truth, for the building up of the body. Now begins the short account:

The seminar was fifteen minutes from beginning. We had been worshiping God in music for three quarters of an hour. It was now 7:45 on a Friday evening, and I would start speaking at 8.00.

I stopped singing to listen to something rising within me. It was a prayer.

“Lord,” I heard myself say, “if this message about connecting and a new level of community is from You, I must know. If I’ve made it up to give myself something to think about as I grow older, I want to scrap it.

“But if it is really from You, I want to know it with a certainty I cannot deny. And…” – I hesitated; the next thought forming in my mind seemed pushy – “I’d like to know this weekend.”

I prayed the prayer inaudibly. No one heard me but God.

Nearly everyone else in that large auditorium was standing to worship. I knew that I would be on my feet for the next two hours, so I was sitting. The chair to my immediate right on the front row was empty.

A few moments after I finished my prayer, a man I didn’t know slid onto it.

“May I have a word with you?” he asked.

I nodded quizzically, with a slight edge to my nod. After all, I was praying and about to address a large group for two hours. I thought he was a bit rude.

He told me his name, then said, “I am on the pastoral staff of this church. We’ve never met, but since the day we invited you to our church, the Lord has laid you on my heart. I feel strongly impressed to say something to you. I intended to wait till after the seminar but I feel I must tell you now. I’ll only be a minute.”

I nodded again, this time with no edge.

“I sensed that you want confirmation from God that your new direction in ministry is from Him, and that you want it this weekend. I believe God has called you to what you’re doing and He wants me to tell you that this weekend you’ll know.”

A few more words and he slipped away.

End of account.

Absolutely beautiful!

In other church contexts, this could have been prefaced with, ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ It could have been done with a louder voice, running to the microphone so all could hear, etc. But it was simple, real and revelatory.

Actually, if you really read the account, you notice it was very directive. But yet it wasn’t too pushy.

But, in the end, this revelation, this prophecy, maybe this word of knowledge, accomplished it’s purpose as laid forth in Scripture: it was for the common good (1 Cor 12:7) and it strengthened a member of the body (1 Cor 14:26).

Larry Crabb was praying a prayer and God looked upon him with grace and confirmed His direction through another member of Christ’s body.

This is real, this is edifying, this is strengthening.

God revealing His heart. A member of Christ’s body being willing to listen, receive from Him and then share that edifying revelation with Larry.

That’s an everyday example of prophecy.

7 Comments

Posted in prophecy, revelation

Tagged , ,

“Sign Gifts”?

Posted on March 11, 2010 by | 8 comments

by Marv

“Are the sign gifts for today?” one asks.

Well, excuse me, but if we wish to arrive at the right answer, hadn’t we better start with the right question?  And the above is just not the right question.  It is a wrong question, because it presumes the existence of a category called “sign gifts” in the first place.

For example, the very title of Daniel Wallace’s “Two Views on the ‘Sign Gifts’: Continuity vs. Discontinuity” casts the debate in cessationist terms.  Even so, note the quotes around “sign gifts.”  These disappear, however, in the body of the article.  The problem is, while the concept of “sign gifts” provides a convenient holding tank for, as Wallace lists them: “the spiritual gifts of tongues, prophecy, miracles, and healings,” the designation is not a Biblical one, as the following evidence demonstrates:

1. The phrase “sign gift” is found nowhere in the Scriptures.  This observation is only a starting place, since many theological terms are not found as such in the Bible.  However, it is a fact worth noting.

2.  There are no passages where “sign gifts” are separated from other spiritual gifts, as if they formed a distinct category.  Gifts such as “prophecy” and “tongues” appear right along with “teaching” and “mercy.”

Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness. (Rom. 12:6-8)

For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.

And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?  Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?  But earnestly desire the higher gifts. (1 Cor. 12:8-10, 28-31)

3.  Paul uses the term “sign” (Greek: semeion) unambiguously for only one gift, tongues.

Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers… (1 Cor. 14:22a)

It is a question of interpretation whether in the second half of the verse, Paul meant to call prophecy a “sign” too.  The Greek does not have the word for sign here, though it might be thought to be understood from the preceding clause.  The ESV takes it this way:

“…while prophecy is a sign3 not for unbelievers but for believers,”

But includes a footnote: “Greek lacks a sign.”

The NASB has a similar reading.

On the other hand, the NIV takes the opposite position:

“Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.”

The majority of English translations concur, for example:  Wycliffe, Tyndale, KJV, RSV, NKJV, NET, NRSV, NLT, CEV, HCSB.

4.  Paul does refer to “the signs of a true apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12), though he does not say what these are, but only that they were performed “with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.”

5.  Luke refers to signs throughout Acts, and in one passage it specifically refers to a healing as a “sign.”  However, he never refers to “spiritual gifts” at all, much less “sign gifts.” In acts “signs” and “wonders” and “mighty acts” are different ways of indicating what we call miracles.

“What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.” (Acts 14:16-17)

For the man on whom this sign of healing was performed was more than forty years old. (v. 22)

This is in reference to the healing of the lame man at the Beautiful Gate, which was performed by Peter (Acts 3:6).  If this is an example of a “spiritual gift,” then perhaps there is some justification for calling it a “sign-gift.”  Yet, Luke is not calling it both a sign and a gift; the word Paul uses for spiritual “gift,” charisma, is not in Luke’s vocabulary at all.  He does use the entirely different word dorea, but this by this he refers to the Holy Spirit Himself who is said to be given as a gift to believers.

6.  The author of Hebrews at least uses “sign” and “gift” in the same verse, though he speaks of these in parallel, along with “wonders” and “miracles.”  This verse is sometimes used as if “gifts” were here specifically those so-called “sign gifts,” but it is not what

“…while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.” (Heb. 2:4)

7.  There is one other possible source of the concept “sign gifts,” the references in the longer ending of the gospel of Mark.  These verses do not appear to be original, however, as early manuscripts omit them entirely.  However, they do refer to what elsewhere are listed as “gifts” by the term “sign”:

And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs. (Mark. 16:17-18, 20)

I would venture to say that these verses are by far the strongest “Biblical” argument for a category called “sign gifts.”  Perhaps the phrase originally came out of this passage, before there came to be a general consensus that they are not genuine.  I’m not sure if cessationists would be better off with these verses than without them, but in any case the passage has doubtful authenticity and makes a poor basis for doctrine one way or the other.

So to summarize, the Scriptural case for a subset of spiritual gifts, identified as “sign gifts” is far from compelling.  As a continuationist, I do not consent to define the debate in those terms.  It lends a certain subtle circularity to the argument that yields a bit of ground to cessationism, because “sign gift” tends to suggest a narrow purpose and thus limited utility.  If you are a cessationist, I suggest trying to make your case without resorting to this term.  If you are a continuationist, you probably don’t use the term anyway, but if you do maybe you should reconsider.

8 Comments

Posted in Gifts, Gifts of the Spirit, sign gifts

Tagged , , , , ,

The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke

Posted on March 7, 2010 by | 4 comments

A couple of weeks ago, I posted an article about a solid theological book on pneumatology, that is, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. It was entitled, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: In the New Testament Church and Today by Max Turner, professor at London School of Theology. The book must be one of the more modern better books on pneumatology. Well, here is another pneumatological title, The Charismatic Theology of St Luke, by Roger Stronstad.

To start out, one of the pluses of the book is that it is a mere 83 pages. Now, of course, one might say, ‘Only 83 pages as an academic work. Are you sure it’s good?’

Well, I am quite aware of the fact that all things cannot be covered in a 300+ page book, like Turner’s, much less an 83-page book. But I was quite intrigued that Stronstad was able to faithfully look at quite a few things in such a shorter work. He was even pulling in references from various sources, including quite a few intertestamental writings as he looked at some later-BC Judaistic views of the Spirit.

Stronstad is a Pentecostal scholar, so I would tend to agree with a lot of things he has put forth in the work. But I would also couple that with stating that he is quite balanced in his approach.

Yes, he does believe the baptism, or initial filling of the Spirit, can be received following salvation-initiation. But I do not believe he is one to argue too far over the top, stating that this is the only way. He even ends out in his final chapter with some practical and pastoral challenges such as 1) not seeing tongues as the initial evidence of receiving the Spirit or that 2) we steer clear of a two-tier class of Christianity. Both are not biblically warranted, to which I agree.

There are three major and important contributions in Stronstad’s work that I point out in this article:

1) He shows the strong connection between the infancy-inauguration of Luke’s Gospel with the Pentecost initiation narrative of Acts. Stronstad states:

‘In the structure of Luke-Acts, the Pentecost narrative stands in the same relationship to the Acts as the infancy-inauguration narratives do to the Gospel. In the Gospel of Luke these narratives not only introduce the motifs which define the mission of Jesus, but they also show that Jesus will execute His mission in the power of the Holy Spirit. In a similar manner, the Pentecost narrative introduces both the future mission of the disciples and the complementary empowering of the Spirit.’ (p49)

He also makes this statement just a few pages earlier in regards to the parallel accounts of Luke’s narrative Gospel and Luke’s narrative of Acts:

‘The Gospel [of Luke] is the story of Jesus, the unique charismatic Prophet; the Acts is the story of His disciples, a community of charismatic prophets.’ (p34)

No wonder Stronstad would later publish the book, The Prophethood of All Believers, of which I also wrote an article about here.

2) Stronstad also shows how Luke must be considered both historian and theologian, not simply historian. This is not always accepted in biblical-scholarly circles. But doing so will be of great help to us as we consider a full and holistic biblical pneumatology. He makes this important statement in his work:

‘Consequently, just as the recognition that Luke is a theologian as well as a historian makes Luke-Acts a legitimate data base for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, so the recognition that Luke is independent of Paul will broaden the New Testament data base for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. To recognize these two facts is to rehabilitate Luke as a historian-theologian of the Holy Spirit and to allow him to make a significant, unique, and independent contribution to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.’ (p11)

He, then, goes on to challenge our thinking with these words:

‘On the one hand, where it is appropriate, all parties in the current debate must abandon those largely self-serving methodological programs which conspire to either silence or to manipulate Luke’s distinctive theology. On the other hand, all parties must develop a methodological consensus for interpreting the gift of the Spirit in Luke-Acts. At a minimum, this consensus must include the following principles: 1) Luke-Acts is theologically homogeneous, 2) Luke is a theologian as well as a historian, and 3) Luke is an independent theologian in his own right.’ (p12)

3) Connected to the last point, Stronstad also emphasises that Luke and Paul have different emphases in their pneumatology. Of course, their theology is to be harmonized as part of the whole of Scripture’s teaching. Yet, within Paul’s writings, we continually read of the soteriological necessity of the Spirit, which sees the work of the Spirit as bringing people into sonship with God and incorporating them into the body of Christ. But, in Luke, the Spirit is recognised as the Spirit of prophecy that empowers God’s people for mission and service.

And we see this as we compare the use of certain phrases in both Luke and Paul. Interestingly enough, Luke uses the phrase, ‘baptised in the Spirit’, 3 times while Paul only uses it once. Even more, Luke uses the phrase, ‘filled with the Spirit’, 9 times of which Paul only refers to it once as well. Maybe Luke will help inform our pneumatology a little more than we had first thought.

Thus, we see that Stronstad puts forth the arguement that Luke’s pneumatology is about the Spirit being given for witness and service. Hence, why he would argue that the Spirit, from a Lukan-charismatic perspective, could be received post-salvation. He states:

‘If we have interpreted Luke’s Pentecost narrative correctly, then the gift of the Spirit is not for salvation, but it is for witness and service. In other words, with the transfer of the Spirit to the disciples on the day of Pentecost, they become a charismatic community, heirs to the earlier charismatic ministry of Jesus.’ (p62)

Therefore, with anyone wanting to studying biblical pneumatology, especially a Lukan pneumatology, though this book is short and from a more Pentecostal-charismatic perspective, I do think it is worth diving into. For me, I definitely appreciated the work. But may be I am a little biased as a charismatic.

4 Comments

Posted in books, pneumatology, resource, Spirit baptism

Tagged , , , ,

The Case For Continuationism (Part 2) – Sam Storms

Posted on March 4, 2010 by | 4 comments

Here is the second and final article from guest poster, Sam Storms, head of Enjoying God Ministries. The first article consisted of twelve bad reasons for being a cessationist. This post now concerns the positive (biblical and theological) perspective of being a continuationist. Both of these posts were originally posted at Sam’s ministry website here.

12 Good Reasons for Being a Continuationist

1. The first good reason for being a continuationist is the 12 bad reasons for being a cessationist.

2. A second good reason for being a continuationist is the consistent, indeed pervasive, and altogether positive presence throughout the NT of all spiritual gifts.

3. A third good reason for being a continuationist is the extensive NT evidence of the operation of so-called miraculous gifts among Christians who are not apostles. In other words, numerous non-apostolic men and women, young and old, across the breadth of the Roman Empire consistently exercised these gifts of the Spirit (and Stephen and Philip ministered in the power of signs and wonders).

4. A fourth good reason for being a continuationist is the explicit and oft-repeated purpose of the charismata: namely, the edification of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:7; 14:3,26).

5. The fifth good reason for being a continuationist is the fundamental continuity or spiritually organic relationship between the church in Acts and the church in subsequent centuries.

6. Very much related to the fifth point, a sixth good reason for being a continuationist is because of what Peter (Luke) says in Acts 2 concerning the operation of so-called miraculous gifts as characteristic of the New Covenant age of the Church.

7. The seventh good reason for being a continuationist is 1 Corinthians 13:8-12.

8. The eighth good reason for being a continuationist is Ephesians 4:11-13.

9. A ninth good reason for being a continuationist is the description in Revelation 11 of the ministry of the Two Witnesses.

10. A tenth good reason for being a continuationist is because the Holy Spirit in Christ is the Holy Spirit in Christians. We are indwelt, anointed, filled, and empowered by the same Spirit as was Jesus. His ministry is (with certain obvious limitations) the model for our ministry (cf. Acts 10:38).

11. An eleventh reason to be a continuationist is the absence of any explicit or implicit notion that we should view spiritual gifts any differently than we do other NT practices and ministries that are portrayed as essential for the life and well-being of the Church.

12. The twelfth and final good reason for being a continuationist is the testimony throughout most of church history concerning the operation of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit.

[Although it is technically not a reason or argument for being a continuationist like the previous twelve, I cannot ignore personal experience. The fact is that I’ve seen all spiritual gifts in operation, tested and confirmed them, and experienced them first-hand on countless occasions. As stated, this is less a reason to become a continuationist and more a confirmation (although not an infallible one) of the validity of that decision. Experience, in isolation from the biblical text, proves little. But experience must be noted, especially if it illustrates or embodies what we see in the biblical text.]

4 Comments

Posted in cessationism, continuationism, Gifts of the Spirit, Sam Storms

Tagged , , ,