Monthly Archives: May 2010

I’m not Charismatic, either, Michael. (Response to CMP, part 1)

Posted on May 27, 2010 by | 11 comments

By Marv

This post is part of a series responding to C. Michael Patton’s eight-part series at Parchment and Pen “Why I am Not Charismatic,” which is also conveniently available for download as a single e-book here.  This is in response to part one.

 

Michael,

Glad we could have this chat.  You know, Paul warns us against wrangling about words, but your first post was mainly geared toward setting some definitions.  So I think we’d better start with some of the terminology.

1. First of all, “Charismatic.”  Looks like we’re going to get tangled up there.  You seem to want to use this as a blanket term, the way I’d use “Continuationist.”  Trouble is, it isn’t a blanket term.  It’s a reference to a specific movement, circa mid-20th century, and adherents of that movement.  Now you might think it ought to refer to any non-cessationists, for etymological reasons, and you might even hear folk using it that way, but I can’t agree.

First of all, early in the 20th century the Pentecostal movement sprang up, and as far as I know they did not refer to themselves as Charismatics, even though they’d fit your definition. 

They had other distinctions, a particular doctrine about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, a second blessing.  Also they tended to found new denominations.  Mostly, I guess, because no one else would have them.  Anyway, at some point, a couple of generations or so later, their practices started to catch on among non-Pentecostals.  These people bought into the second blessing, baptism of the Spirit thing, with some modificatons, but stayed in their own denominations, and spread their understanding there.  They called themselves Charismatics.

Now, there are others who overlap with these people in terms of finding Biblical practices such as prophecy and healing… well, Biblical… Yet these people were never part of the Charismatic movement, and distance themselves from a great deal of the teaching and practice of that movement.  For example, they may not at all buy into the baptism of the Spirit thing à la the Charismatic movement.

So what do you call these people, who don’t self-identify as Charismatic, but are not Cessationist?  Well, Continuationist works well for me.  And that’s what I am.  (As if you haven’t already figured that out from our blog title.)

I understand that in part two you are going to refer to “Continuationism,” and you say “all Charismatics are Continuationists.”  And you should have said “not all Continuationists are Charismatics.”  But you didn’t; you said, “all continuationists, properly speaking, are charismatics (even if you must use a small ‘c’).”

Now, Michael, you had been going pretty well there, until then.  Maybe you can correct it on the next reprint.  (heh, heh, I know it’s an e-book…)

Look at it this way.  I hear a lot of people misuse the term “dispensationalist” as if it meant “cessationist.”  Now some people even think all dispensationalists are cessationists, which is also wrong.  But what if I decided, well, doggone it, I’m just going to use the word that way anyway.  So I say something like, “all cessationists, properly speaking are dispensationalists (even if you must use a small ‘d’).”  I mean, it does nothing, really, to the other guy, but it sure makes me look uninformed.  Just sayin’, Michael.

Nevertheless, I realize this is a bit unfair, since you’ve already written all your posts.  So anyway, I’ll read “Continuationist” when you say “Charismatic.”  But I might bring it up again.  Probably will.

2. The next word I want to bring up is “normative.”  That’s a great one.  I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone use it except a Cessationist (and by the way, I should disclose, I used to be one).  What does it even mean, anyway?  Does it mean the same as normal?  I google it, and I still can’t find anything that really fits in this context.  It’s simultaneously kind of an empty word and a loaded word.  Now, that’s hard to pull off.

Does it mean “something everyone should expect in his or her Christian life?”  I guess that would mean pastoring a church is not “normative.”  Does it mean when you see it happening, you don’t have to automatically assume it’s fake?  Well, I guess not, because you seem to believe in divine healing, and yet wouldn’t exactly call it “normative.”  Does it mean something God intended for the Church to be engaged in throughout the Church age?  Well, I think we’re getting somewhere with this one, but there certainly seem to have been ebbs and flows in history, for whatever reason. 

There was a period of time when for some centuries Israel had no prophets.  Does that mean prophecy wasn’t normative for Israel?  Or should we really describe historical oddities in a different way? 

3.  I love it that you define some gifts as ordinary and others as extra-ordinary.  Hey, here’s a question for you:  are the extra-ordinary gifts normative?  Heh, heh.  You picking up a hint of circularity there, Michael?  You practically say a Charismatic is one who believes the extra-ordinary is normative.  It’s kind of like saying X is someone who belives you can see the invisible or hear the inaudible.  It’s a great schtick, really it is, Michael. 

Only, yeah, you’re really begging the question by this “extra-ordinary” business.  It prejudices the discussion.  Similar ways to treat this are to refer to these as “dramatic” or “spectacular.”

The fact is, you’ve gotten yourself latched onto a faulty idea from the start.  Yes, God’s acts in our lives do often commend themselves as being of divine origin, unexplainable otherwise.  They do in fact, in a sense, make the invisible visible.  They call attention to the reality of God, his eternal power and divine nature, and such.  That is, they bring glory to him.  Yet what has that effect on someone maybe very, very ordinary.  It ought to be the case when looking at the starry sky, for example.  It’s something we experience when prayers are answered, divine timing, that sort of thing. 

But these aren’t characteristic of prophecy on the one hand and not of teaching on the other.  Or healing, but not encouragement.  When any of these are done in the power of the Holy Spirit, the extra-0rdinary, i.e. divine and not merely human, heavenly and not merely mundane, nature of these acts commend themselves.

4.  That brings us to supernatural.  Honestly, Michael, you are a teacher.  I suppose you avow the gift of teaching.  Anyway, I guess you see it as “normative.”  Yet it is not supernatural?

My goodness, your very faith is the gift of God given to you through the Spirit.  You can’t even believe in Christ apart from a supernatural act of God.  Cessationists are fond of saying conversion is the greatest miracle of all.  And so it is.  Yet, beyond that the obvious point goes missing.  Your ability to analyze, to express yourself, to persuade may all be “natural” abilities, but when you teach in the Body of Christ–I mean if you’re doing it right–you are exercizing the power of God through you.  Read Acts 1:8 for goodness sake. 

Michael there are no non-supernatural gifts of the Spirit, none.  To make that distinction for the so-called sign gifts is simply a failure to properly grasp what God is doing through his Body the Church.

5.  So let’s talk about “sign gifts.”  This is something of a personal bête noir for me.  I have a particular post just on that term.  I don’t need to repeat myself, or my other recent post on Heb. 2:3-4, but that verse states that God co-testifies to the gospel by the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  It doesn’t say sign gifts, some gifts or the extra-ordinary, non-normative, spectacular, or dramatic gifts.  In fact, it says through signs, wonders, various miracles AND gifts of the Holy Spirit.  May we not understand from the Word of God that any gift ministered by the Holy Spirit functions as God’s witness to salvation in Christ?

6.  I won’t  take issue with your definition of Cessationist.  You lay out some particular claims made by this perspective.  You make a lot of distinctions, categories, lists to help define this camp.  I’m sorry, Michael, but I find this truly a house of cards: revelatory, confirmatory, temporary, permanent. (Egad, there’s that monstrosity “pastor-teacher.” Don’t get me started!)  Ever feel your boxes are a tad artificial?  Hey, I don’t think your charts are normative.

Essentially, by your own description, you say Cessationists are those who make the following assertions:

a.  Certain spiritual gifts serve to (and have the purpose of) confirming the gospel, while others don’t.  [I’ve already spoken to this one.]

b.  There is no other (primary/significant) reason for these confirmatory gifts to exist apart from this purpose.

c.  The close of the Canon makes this sole purpose of these confirmatory gifts obsolete.

d.  Since they are obsolete, we know that God no longer performs them through His church.

But, Michael, there is not a single one of these propositions that is taught in the Bible.

Yet the ongoing Spirit-empowered ministry of the Body of Christ is present all through the New Testament:  The Upper Room Discourse (John 14-16), Acts, Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 12-14, Gal. 3:5, Heb. 2:3-4, and so on.

It’s there, but it’s obsolete, and should be understood to be such?  Is it like the Constitution of the U.S. the text of which still refers to senators as chosen by state legislatures, and still contains language about that deplorable 3/5 compromise?  Only we know when we read them they are no longer in force? 

So where are the amendments to the the New Testament, Michael?  Cessationists seem to be those who proclaim phantom amendments to our Church Constitution. 

All Continuationists are really saying is, old orders are good orders.

11 Comments

Posted in cessationism, charismatic, continuationism, Gifts, Gifts of the Spirit, Michael Patton, sign gifts

Tagged , , , ,

What about Hebrews 2:3-4?

Posted on May 26, 2010 by | 15 comments

By Marv

Hebrews 2:3-4 is one of the “usual suspects” that is rounded up from time to time, the allegation being that it supports Cessationism.  Does the evidence really indicate this?  No, not really, but Biblical material that may be used to back this point of view is so scarce that I suppose you have to take what you can get.

If facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if both the law and the facts are against you, you need Daniel Baird Wallace, PhD.  The eminent Greek scholar has a short article on the topic entitled “Hebrews 2:3-4 and the Sign Gifts.”  I think I do not overstate when I say that the article is technically dense and not all that easy to follow.  Think of Peter on Paul: “There are some things in them that are hard to understand” (2 Pet. 3:16). Its very opacity, however, serves a rhetorical purpose: it discourages critical analysis of his arguments and encourages an ipse dixit acceptance based on Dr. Wallace’s well-deserved reputation.  This explains citations I’ve seen of the article that take an “Emperor’s New Clothes” approach; “okay, I don’t get it, but Dr. Wallace is a smart guy, and he says it’s so.” 

Yet, it is important to recognize that Dr. Wallace never claims to find Cessationism actually taught from the passage, but merely that it “seems to involve some solid inferences that the sign gifts had for the most part ceased.”  What Dr. Wallace is offering here does not seem to be so much his own expert opinion, but something akin to a legal brief:  selected arguments that could be made from the evidence, without necessarily personally endorsing them as valid.  How “solid” then are these inferences?  Not very, I’m afraid, as this post intends to demonstrate.  To say that the case is not very strong is no knock on Dr. Wallace. Who better to make the best possible case that can be made from the text?  Yet even he cannot make bricks without clay.

So I find myself once again taking issue with Dr. Wallace, whom as I have repeatedly stated, I hold in the highest esteem.  However, the conclusion of his article states:

I do not pretend to think that this sole text solves the problem of the duration of the sign gifts. But whatever one’s views of such gifts, this passage needs to be wrestled with.

Taking this as an invitation to respond meaningfully, I then accept graciously and offer my analysis in the spirit of fraternal dialogue.

Let us begin by citing the passage in its context, starting with verse 1 of the chapter, with the portion of the passage that Dr. Wallace treats underlined:

Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.  For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

1.  My first objection is with the phrase “sign gifts” in Dr. Wallace’s title.  This has the effect of injecting a concept foreign to the text itself.  The passage refers to “gifts of the Holy Spirit” as a class, and not to any subset of these.  Dr. Wallace never presents an argument that the term here (merismois, not the more familiar charismata) is meant to indicate only “certain spiritual gifts,” but merely dives in using that phase.   More than a little gratuitous, this is “assuming facts not in evidence.”  In fact, since the author explicitly mentions signs, wonders, and miracles, and then gifts of the Spirit, it would seem reasonable to expect these last at least to include “gifts” that are not also “signs.”  At any rate, it is hard to see how any cogent Cessationism argument from this passage would not take down teaching and mercy along with prophecy and healing.

2.  His argument begins by countering a Continuationist argument in a way that is hard not to characterize as “spin.”  Cessationists assert that God empowered certain activities through His Church early on and then deliberately ceased to do so at a certain point of time.  Is it illegitimate to ask “where is that in the Bible?”  His response (which takes some force from the loaded term “prooftext”) is that we would hardly expect such a statement, given that the NT writers (a) themselves exercised the gifts and (b) anticipated the Parousia in their lifetime.   I don’t dispute Dr. Wallace’s logic but isn’t this then essentially an admission that the cessation of particular spiritual gifts is not something that New Testament actually teaches.  

3.  The meat of Dr. Wallace’s case, however, involves syntactic consideration of the grammatical unit in which the phrase “gifts of the Holy Spirit” is found.  This is something called a “genitive absolute,” and  the ESV renders it: “while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.” Dr. Wallace takes pains to argue that its participle sunepimarturountos, “co-testifying,” bears a temporal adverbial relationship to the immediately preceding finite verb ebebaiothe, “was confirmed.”  This latter is in the aorist tense and has unquestionable reference to past time.   It is true that the participle generally piggy-backs on the tense of the main verb. 

Dr. Wallace ruminates at length on the proper place to connect the genitive absolute semantically.   He does this rather needlessly, though, I think.  He is certainly correct in his conclusion here, and there are several other reasons for it that he doesn’t mention.  At one point though he does suggest an unlikely alternative, with a notation that it would align with Continuationism.  I don’t know whether any Continuationist ever did argue for that analysis, but it lets him appear to shoot down a Cessationist argument, albeit a phantom one.

There are a number of significant points in this argument which require comment, but one almost makes all others moot.  The most important objection is made by Dr. Wallace himself, albeit relegated to a footnote at the bottom of the second page:

The aorist indicative means “it happened,” but we cannot legitimately extrapolate from that a meaning, “and it doesn’t happen now.”  The aorist can’t be used to state a negative in the present time.

Having assured us we cannot do it, he then proceeds to do it anyway.  Oddly, what “we cannot legitimately extrapolate” in the footnote, becomes the chief of his “solid inferences.” 

He offers examples of cases in which the aorist does in fact refer to only-past-not-future events (and at least the one about the finished work of Christ is valid). So we know that a past event can be once-for-all,  but this is no indication that events behind the aorist in this passage are.  In fact, Dr. Wallace’s second footnote specifically refutes the idea, since he states that John’s writing of Revelation was yet future.

4.  A genitive absolute is a structure derived from the circumstantial participle.  Dr. Wallace describes the circumstantial participle and specifically the genitive absolute as expressing “adverbial relations.”  I understand why he makes this statement, but I don’t think this is the best way to describe the function of the circumstantial participle in general terms.  The circumstantial participle serves as part of the syntactic scheme by which Greek puts together related predications within a sentence.  Semantically, this grants to each predication in a sentence a value relative importance to the whole, something linguists call prominence.  Generally, a sentence has a single finite verb, the central predication.  Either before this finite verb, after, or both, there are associated participles that typically, though not exclusively, encode predications of secondary rank, that is with lower prominence. 

Greek stongly prefers this hierarchical system of subordinating, known as hypotaxis, rather than coordinating, or syntaxis.  By contrast Hebrew greatly prefers syntaxis.  You can see this in the heavy use of “and” in Gospel of Mark, probably the most Hebrew-like Greek in the New Testament.   Hebrews, on the other hand, is (paradoxically?) the least Hebrew-like, and the Greek in the New Testament that most nearly reaches Classical Greek style.  It thus favors hypotaxis and sophisticated use of participles.

English preference falls somewhere between Hebrew and Greek.  This means that sometimes what English would express by coordination, Greek expresses with a participle.  The best known example I can think of is the “attendant circumstances” usage Matthew 28:19 where the participle/finite verb sequence is very correctly rendered by syntaxis in English: “Go therefore and make disciples.”  Trying to imagine some adverbial function in the participle here, such as temporal, is simply misunderstanding the syntax.

Of course the relation of the circumstantial participle may be and often is one we would categorize as adverbial, such as time, means, manner, or reason (when, how, or why).  These are often used where in English we use a subordinate clause, introduced by a subordinating conjunction.  They are often translated this way.  However, Greek uses subordinate clauses in addition to circumstantial participles.  So what’s the difference? The chief distinction is this:  a coordinating conjunction specifically indicates the semantic relation.  A circumstantial participle is understood to be dependant, but the nature of the relation is not indicated.  This is because it is either (a) self-evident or (b) multiple, or (c) just not important. 

The specific relation is only discerned from context.  In any case whatever the relation of the circumstantial participle may be determined to be, that relationship is not a high-ranking bit of information, else it would not be left implicit.  What this means in this case is that even if the participle sunepimarturountos should best be understood as temporal, the text does not treat this as a very important fact.  Accordingly, an analysis that does is distorting the text’s own force of argument.

5.  The genitive absolute is a specific type of circumstantial participle, one that supplies (in the genitive case) a semantic “subject” for the participle.  This allows that subject to be different from the subject of the main finite verb.  Typically also that subject would appear nowhere else in the sentence, though this is not a firm rule.  The genitive absolute has a range of usage from the common to the rather recherché.  The latter is exemplified by this passage, Hebrews 2:1-4, which is as elevated an example of Greek as any in the New Testament. 

This brings us to what is, without question, the most misleading assertion in Dr. Wallace’s article.  He describes the function of the genitive absolute as “usually of a temporal nature,” and further specifies that “over 90% of genitive absolute constructions are temporal.”  I have no reason to doubt that this is factual, but without resorting to Mark Twain’s quip about statistics, let me state in no uncertain terms that percentages is not the way to exegete the function of a word.  It would be all too easy to jump from “usually” to “probably” in this passage.  That would be a mistake.  Allow me to explain.

I mentioned earlier the range of use for the genitive absolute.  To understand what I mean, I would like to refer you to a table that lays out the distribution of genitive absolutes by New Testament books.  It was compiled by Lois K. Fuller and appears in her article “The ‘Genitive Absolute’ in New Testament/Hellenistic Greek: A Proposal for Clearer Understanding.” 

She lists a total of 312 genitive absolute constructions in the New Testament.  Strikingly, these are disproportionately found in the narrative books.  Expository genre, such as the epistles contain relatively few.   Among these Hebrews contains the most.  Narrative literature, the gospels and Acts alone contain 264 of the 312 usages, or some 85%.  Note the similarity to Dr. Wallace’s figure of 90%. This is due to the way the genitive absolute is used in narrative literature. 

This is where the “usually” temporal usage comes in.  Time reference is of the essence of narrative structure.  Events follow one another in what linguists call contingent temporal succession.  The genitive absolute comes in handy here, useful in making transitions, indicating a setting in which one event crosses another event in time.  This is its dirt-simple use, employed even by writers who make no claim to refinement of style, such as Mark.  In the following examples, I underline where the genitive absolute is located.

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem… (Matt. 2:1, NASB)

When evening came, after the sun had set, they began bringing to Him all who were ill and those who were demon-possessed.   (Mark 1:32, NASB)

As they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them (Acts 4:1, NASB).

This relatively common, temporal, type of genitive absolute is easy to identify.  It typically occurs in initial position (“usually,” Dr. Wallace states in Beyond the Basics, p. 655), and in context it clearly serves as a transition, introducing the setting into which another action occurs.

The structure of Heb. 2:4 could hardly be more unlike these.  It is sentence final, not initial, and there is no hint of a transition.  It does not constitute a setting for another action.  There is no reason beyond citing statistics to take it as temporal.

6.  Dr. Wallace himself has this to say about temporal adverbial participles in Beyond the Basics:

As we have said, the temporal participle answers the question When?  As well, if a particular adverbial participle is to be labeled as temporal, this should be the primary element the author wishes to stress…  Therefore, once you have identified the temporal force of the participle, you should then go on and ask whether another more specific semantic value is intended. (p. 624)

Does Dr. Wallace do this himself?  Not that I can see.  He simply relies on the statistical data of the genitive absolute in very different contexts.  Does the “God also bearing witness…” unit actually serve to answer the question When?  Does it delimit the time frame in which the gospel “was attested to us by those who heard?”  I submit that this would be a difficult case to make, to see time as its primary function. 

7.  Can we in fact determine a more specific semantic function?  Yes, but to do so we have to back away from the tree and take a look at the forest.  Surprisingly, Dr. Wallace does not do much to consider the context, which is the single most important factor for determining and the semantic contribution of each individual part to the overall flow of argument.  He might perhaps have surveyed the fourteen uses of the genitive absolute by the author of Hebrews to gain an idea of his proclivities, to determine whether “usually temporal” applies to him.

A larger perspective is provided by an approach known as discourse analysis.  Taking this into account, we note first of all that the epistle uses time as an important theme, in particular the word “today.”  The very first verse of the epistle draws a contrast between the distant past (the fathers, the prophets) and the very recent past (us, the Son), and the author builds on this idea through the whole letter.  This is most evident beginning in Heb. 3:7: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion…”  He builds on “today” again in vv. 13 and 15, and repeats it in 4:7.  His primary point for his readers is that their experience of the recent past, reception of the gospel of Christ, supersedes the traditions of the distant past, and demands a choice in the present: “Today.” 

This is exactly what the author is saying as he begins chapter 2:

“Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.” (v. 1)

He then lays out again the distant past/recent past contrast, noting the superiority of the latter:

For since the message declared by angels (distant past) proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? (recent past) (vv. 2-3)

He then elaborates on the preeminence of the recent past experience:

a. “It was declared at first by the Lord,”

b. “it was attested to us by those who heard,” and

c. “God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.”

“Angels” is easily trounced by Christ, the apostles, God himself, signs, wonders, miracles, spiritual gifts.

That all these are in the past from the perspective of the readers is not due to any hinted cessation of activity, but due to the author’s theme that what the readers have already been told requires their allegiance in the present time. 

What then is the genitive absolute of verse 4 doing?  I mentioned earlier how Greek uses grammatical form to signal relative prominence between predications.  In this case the genitive absolute, calling attention to itself by its being in sentence final position, seems rather to serve as a prominence-enhancing device. 

The author lays out the three witnesses to the gospel in stair-step fashion, with increasing prominence leading to a climax, the three demonstrating the superiority of the gospel to the Old Covenant Law:  first, Christ, then the apostles, then God’s own testimony.  That this is a case of increasing prominence is indicated by other grammatical features.

First the reference to Christ in v. 3a uses a very unusual structure involving yet another circumstantial participle and an infinitive, which places it on the bottom rung in terms of prominence, especially since the infinitive is passive.  The phrase archen labousa laleisthai, literally means something like “taking beginning to be spoken.”  Another semantic feature involved here is known as focus.  At this point the message is in focus (indicated by soterias, “salvation”) and the messenger is de-focused, in this case, perhaps surprisingly, this is Christ.  It is not indicating He is unimportant, but the text here takes Him out of the focus momentarily by relegating reference to him to by an agency phrase, dia tou kuriou, “through the Lord,” and this at the end of the unit. 

That the next step rises in prominence is accomplished primarily by shifting to the finite verb of the sentence ebebaiothe, “was confirmed.” This too is passive, however, and the focus continues to be on the message.  The apostles too appear in another agent phrase “by those who heard.”

With verse four, we reach the third step.  There is now a focus shift from the message to the messenger, who is God.  We have active voice rather than passive, and the verb, the genitive participle appears at the head.  I am suggesting that in this case the genitive absolute construction, in its striking position following the main verb also serves to give it prominence.  Beyond this, the author then piles on specifics as to the means of God’s testimony.  The multiplicity is emphasized by the correlative conjunction structure te kai… kai… kai…, “both and… and… and…”

I think a better case can be made for this function than to treat it as adverbial, temporal. This is not to say that its time is not roughly simultaneous to the apostles’ confirmation of Christ’s message.  I think it is, but this is not what the author is getting at.  So even if these three witnesses are all in the readers’ recent past, nothing here gives the slightest hint that what was experienced by “us,” i.e. the readers, will not be experienced by others later.  As Dr. Wallace himself says, there is no legitimate way to infer that it does.

To conclude, I’m afraid I cannot grant much solidity to the suggested inferences in Dr. Wallace’s article.  They fail to consider context, rely on misleading statistics, distort the emphasis of the passage, and distract from the rather clear observation that the Cessationism claim remains without legitimate Scriptural support.  Certainly it is not to be found in Heb. 2:3-4.

15 Comments

Posted in cessationism, continuationism, Gifts of the Spirit

Tagged , ,

The Prophetic Body of Christ

Posted on May 23, 2010 by | 7 comments

by Scott

The gift of prophecy is not some arbitrary gift given to the church so that we can sound super-spiritual and have goose-bump experiences. The gift of prophecy is given for a reason, for a purpose.

There is one major practical reason that prophecy is given to the church, which is stated this way by Paul:

On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. (1 Corinthians 14:3)

Prophecy will bear fruit when it is spoken – fruit that will bring edification, encouragement-exhortation, and comfort. It might also challenge, but that challenge, if heeded as God’s word, will still stir these three characteristics in the life of the believer. It can cause a fog to clear, despair turn to hope, deep worry resolve to peace, and much more.

But, while this is a major outcome of Spirit-directed prophecies, there is still yet a greater reason as to why prophecy is still given to the church today. This might sound over simplified, but it breaks down into these 3 points:

  • As the very Word of God, Jesus was and is the great prophet of human history.
  • The Holy Spirit was sent in His stead to continue the work of Jesus, including His prophetic work.
  • The Holy Spirit is given to the church so that they may be all of Christ in the world today, even the prophetic Christ.

In a simplified manner, that is how it plays out. Jesus >> Holy Spirit >> Body of Christ.

Jesus is the proto-type of every ministry within the body of Christ, from prophecy to mercy to teaching to shepherding to giving to healings to whatever ministry might come forth. Though it might sound somewhat cheesy, we really are called to start with Jesus as to the great example of every ministry made possible to God’s people.

And this is the key to making sure His ministry would continue: Jesus promised to send another Parakletos in His name, even the Spirit of God. That was the plan way back when.

I have always loved these words of Jesus:

Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. (John 16:7)

It was to our advantage that Jesus went back to the Father? Huh?

Yes, for in doing so He could send the Spirit that could now indwell and empower the whole body of Christ, not just a few select individuals. This was the cry of Moses centuries before Christ stepped onto the scene and promised His Spirit:

Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets, that the LORD would put his Spirit on them! (Numbers 11:29)

And, so, when the Spirit was poured out on all flesh – male and female, young and old – this was what the ‘special’ prophets had been longing for and what THE prophet had promised. Peter has a revelation himself at Pentecost that what they were viewing and hearing was a fulfilment of the words of the great prophet, Joel:

17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
18even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. (Acts 2:17-18; from Joel 2:28-29)

The very Word-of-God-become-flesh promised to the give the very Spirit of God to His people. What a fantastic idea! For how could the body of Christ actually be Christ without His Spirit? How could we be Christ to one another and a hurting world if we did not have His indwelling and empowering Spirit? Well, we simply could not.

And, if the very Spirit of God was given by Christ to His church, would He expect anything less than for us to continue in all the varying ministries He Himself walked in? I cannot imagine such. The very Spirit of God who empowered the incarnate, fully human Son was also given to empower the current incarnate Christ in His fully human body, if you will. The hundreds of millions that make up Christ’s body today are Christ incarnate today. That’s exactly how He meant it. And Jesus knew that the best way to help us be Him in the world is to give us the same Spirit that empowered Him as a human man.

It truly is a marvellous plan.

So, in a much bigger sense, the gift of prophecy, while it is a blessing to us and we are strengthened by it, is given that we might continue the full work of Christ. And, again, every single ministry gift given has been given so that we might continue in the full work of Christ.

Thus, we find in this one of the main purposes of the Spirit of God being given to His church. It would not just be fine and dandy for Christ to charge us to continue His work without supplying and equipping us with His Spirit. We would have failed pretty miserably (though sometimes we do in the midst of such a provision). So, as the Father sent the Son, the Son now sends the Spirit. Quite a team.

This was to our advantage because, as a human-incarnate man, Jesus was only able to do so much by Himself. He touched many lives, but it was still limited as a human. But He knew that, as the exalted Christ, He could send His Spirit to empower literally billions down through the centuries to finish what He started.

This stirs me even now to complete His work, to catch the prophetic heart of Christ as I gather with the saints, have conversation with friends, and meet with the varying peoples that God brings into contact in my life. To have an ear attuned to what He might say, to speak it forth, and see it come as a kind of two-edge sword into the lives of people. This is a privilege.

But more than that one moment, we start to the get the sense that we are participating in something far larger than our tiny selves. We are walking out the very ministry of the Lord of heaven and earth. And, in doing so, we can be certain that we will see and taste the fruit of edification, encouragement, exhortation and comfort in the midst of prophecy. And that fruit will taste very sweet.

So, let us keep in mind that Christ has and always will desire that His body be a prophetic people. No gender barriers, no age barriers allowed, a true reality of the age of the Spirit. And we can, by the Spirit of God, speak forth the words of God that call people to be drawn in to the bigger purposes of God, the redemptive purposes of the kingdom of God. This stirs me deeply.

7 Comments

Posted in body of Christ, church, Holy Spirit, Jesus, prophecy

Tagged , , , ,

Surprised by the Power of the Spirit – Book Review

Posted on May 18, 2010 by | 6 comments

by Scott

A few decades back, there were not many solid biblical and theological resources available on the Holy Spirit from a more charismatic or Pentecostal (or continuationist) perspective. But such has drastically changed in the past few decades with a plethora of resources on continuationism now available to Christians. Here is a short but solid list at my co-authored blog, To Be Continued.

One such continuationist theologian is Jack Deere with his book, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. He also has authored Surprised by the Voice of God, which I hope to dip into one day in the near future.

Deere is an interesting case, and you will see this in the book as he shares his own story. He had been an associate professor of Old Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary (from now on DTS), which has been known for its cessationist position throughout the years. But, as Deere shares his story of moving from cessationism to continuationism, he tells of a phone call that changed his life forever. This phone call set into motion a chain of events that left him convinced that the Holy Spirit and all of His gifts are still available to body of Christ today.

In the end, Deere had to leave DTS, as his new found continuationist beliefs did not allow for him to stay within the confession of faith of the seminary. From reading the book, you get the sense that the parting of ways was not nasty, but I’m sure it was not easy for either sides – Deere or DTS. My colleague here at To Be Continued, Marv, can share more insightful thoughts about Jack Deere, as he had Deere as a professor at DTS and was also part of the Vineyard movement of which Jack Deere was also a part of as he worked closely with founder John Wimber for a time. But it seemed the parting of ways with the seminary was done respectfully, and I say that because I did not sense any animosity from Deere in the book, which is a great plus.

One of the things I liked about the book was that it included storied accounts throughout the book – Deere’s transition to continuationism and practical examples of the charismata of the Spirit in his own life and others. It wasn’t just theology. For me, I don’t need the theology. I am convinced of continuationism. Instead, I like to be encouraged with accounts of God’s power at work through the Spirit amongst the body of Christ. That is what stirs me most.

Still, for those who are unsure of the continuation of all spiritual gifts, or who may even be antagonistic to such, the theology in the book is solid, looking to be grounded first and foremost in Scripture. Thus, I think it worth a read for any continuationist or cessationist that is looking to faithfully interact with a continuationist perspective of Scripture.

A warning for someone who is more cessationist: I am confident you will find statements that you will not like. What I mean is that, at times, Deere does not butter things up. There are times when he makes very poignant and honest statements. I believe he feels he can make such statements because he was once a cessationist and can address what he sees as ‘holes’ in the cessationist view. I don’t say this in some ad hominem way, as I am aware there are some who have moved from continuationism to cessationism. Still, there are times when he is forthright with some of the cessationist arguments that I believe fall short of faithfulness to the biblical text.

For example, chapter 5 is entitled, The Real Reason Christians Do Not Believe in the Miraculous Gifts. He shares a few reasons why people do not believe in the miraculous gifts, but he points out one major reason: because they have not seen miracles in their present experience.

That is a major argument for cessationists. And the reverse would probably be true of most continuationists. One reason we believe they still exist is because we believe we have experienced and seen examples of such gifts of the Spirit. Interesting how our experience shapes our theology. We must recognise this. It’s not evil and ungodly. It’s a reality of every Christian (and non-Christian). I share more along these lines in this article and this article.

One of the things I didn’t fully agree with Deere about, which isn’t that major, came from chapter 5. He states that a false assumption of cessationism is believing that the apostle’s healing ministry was the same as the gift of healing. First off, he notes there is an assumption amongst some cessationists that the apostle’s could heal automatically, any time they wanted, at will. But that is far from even the biblical record.

But when Deere refers to the ‘miraculous gifts’, he is not just speaking of healings or miracles, but the nine gifts associated with 1 Corinthians 12:8-10. And because this text, and others, make it clear that these are distributed to the whole body of Christ, he would look to differentiate between the apostle’s ministry in these gifts and the body of Christ’s ministry. He specifically states:

‘The third thing I discovered is that, taken as a whole, the apostles are presented by the New Testament as the most gifted individuals within the church. Although I am sure the apostles received charismata, just as others in the body of Christ, the New Testament never describes their healing ministries with the term charisma. The miraculous ministry of the apostles is designated by the phrase signs and wonders.’ (p69, italics his)

This could simply be a case of appealing to silence, meaning that something must be true because the opposite is never stated in Scripture (hence, there is silence on the matter). Thus, because the Greek word, charismata, is never used in connection with the use of the miraculous gifts amongst the apostles, then their use of such must have been a different category. Again, I’m not sure this fully holds up.

Still, another problem is that non-apostles like Stephen and Philip were used in such miraculous ministries described as ‘signs and wonders’. See Acts 6:8 and 8:4-8. I would not exclude ‘signs and wonders’ from those who were not apostles. And I wouldn’t try and dichotomise the miracles and healings of the ‘normal’ body of Christ from the signs and wonders of the apostles. I don’t think it’s fully sustainable.

Another example is that Paul tells us he speaks in tongues more than all of the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 14:18). And, remember, Deere groups all nine gifts from 1 Corinthians 12 into the ‘miraculous gifts’ (see p68). But his argument is that the apostle’s use of these gifts is more connected to ‘signs and wonders’. Yet, within the Corinthians context, is Paul’s use of tongues that which is for the whole body, or that which is just for apostles, or both? Well, tongues can be utilised as a sign itself (see 1 Corinthians 14:20-25, though this passage has caused much discussion). So, I’m still not sure such a distinction holds up. But, in the end, this is not of huge consequence to the belief in and utilisation of all the gifts of the Spirit. Moving on…

Not only is the book a theological resource for a case for continuationism, but it is also a very practical help at times. Not just with storied accounts of healings or prophecies or words of knowledge, though those give great encouragement, but also with counsel and wisdom in regards to seeking God and the work of His Spirit, even within churches that are cautious or in cases where one would like to encourage their leadership to be open to these gifts.

The final thing I would like to point out is that, in his Appendix B, Deere takes time to address the issue of the existence of apostles today. Most who know me will know that I am an advocate for present-day apostles. I have written plenty in a series on this topic, of which I still have 2 or 3 more articles I would like to post. I also have preached on this topic before – you can download the messages by clicking here.

So I was interested to read his thoughts on apostles today. And, actually, Deere is not closed to the idea of present-day apostles. As a summary to the Appendix, he pens these words:

‘I do not know of anyone today whom I would want to call an apostle in the same sense that I would call Paul an apostle. I am not willing, however, to rule out this possibility, because I do not think the Scriptures rule it out.’ (p275)

This is where the discussion gets down to the nitty-gritty. If apostles exist, are they in the same vein of a Paul, John, Peter, etc? Or are they ‘lesser-than’ apostles? I believe apostles exist today. Would I say they have the same ministry-anointing as Paul? Not really. But I still believe apostles are people of authority, of revelation, who are foundation builders-layers, and who help equip the body of Christ in varying ways, helping us be an apostolic (sent out, mission-minded) people.

For those ‘on the fence’ with regards to the continuation of all the gifts of the Spirit for today, these thoughts on apostles today might cause one to immediately reject Jack Deere as a viable source to consider. But such should not be the case. This work is a solid biblical and theological case for contiunuationism, even if one rejects the idea of apostles today.

Deere is faithful to not only address the cessationist perspective on particular passages of Scripture and theology, but more importantly he is faithful to present a positive, biblical-theological case for continuationism. Hence, it’s not written as a slap to cessationists. Rather it is a signpost pointing to the ‘charismatic’ work of the Spirit amongst God’s people in this present age. Such was one major purpose of Pentecost.

Therefore, I recommend that continuationist, cessationist, and everyone in between look to interact with this book as they think through the validity of the continuing work of the Spirit in all his varying gifts for the body of Christ.

6 Comments

Posted in books, cessationism, charismatic, continuationism, Gifts, Gifts of the Spirit, Jack Deere, resource

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Charismata in Church History

Posted on May 16, 2010 by | 26 comments

by Scott

One argument that seems to arise from the side of cessationists is that church history records that signs, wonders, miracles and healings ceased soon after the first century and with the formation of the New Testament canon. We have noted in the past that such a view cannot be faithfully established from a biblical-theological perspective. But what does history attest to?

We see this in certain words of the early church father, John Chrysostom (AD 347-407):

‘This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?’ (Homilies on First Corinthians. Homily XXIX, 1)

More evidence to support the cessationist case is shown through such words of Augustine (AD 354-430):

‘In the earliest times, “the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues,” which they had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance.” These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away.’ (Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John. Homily VI, 10)

Finally, confessions of faith such as the Westminster Confession of Faith make this statement in its opening section on the Holy Scripture:

‘Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.’

And, no doubt, there are other church fathers and variable sources that could be quoted in support of cessationism.

Thus, the argument goes that signs and wonders, miracles and healings, as well as other such things as prophecy and tongues, were only given in the time of the first apostles to authenticate their message, since the gospel and apostolic writings of Scripture were not yet complete. But, with the completion of the canon of Scripture by John (the apostle), and with these writings later being compiled into the New Testament, there was no longer any need for such gifts. Not only that, but cessationists then go on to support their argument by showing that the church fathers testified that such gifts of the Spirit had ceased, proving they were only for a limited time of authenticating the gospel message.

Yet, the story cannot stop there. We cannot find ourselves quoting a few church fathers as solid evidence for the ceasing of such gifts. Most cessationists, if not all, would claim that the history argument is not 100% evidence against the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit, signs and wonders. But many will, no doubt, be ready to use such to support the cessationist view.

Therefore, let’s take a moment to consider the words of some other church fathers and their specific thoughts about the gifts of the Spirit, specifically miracles, healings, prophecy and tongues. Below are four church fathers in particular:

Justin Martyr (approx. AD 100-165)

‘Therefore, just as God did not inflict His anger on account of those seven thousand men, even so He has now neither yet inflicted judgment, nor does inflict it, knowing that daily some [of you] are becoming disciples in the name of Christ, and quitting the path of error; who are also receiving gifts, each as he is worthy, illumined through the name of this Christ. For one receives the spirit of understanding, another of counsel, another of strength, another of healing, another of foreknowledge, another of teaching, and another of the fear of God.’ (Dialogue with Trypho, ch.39)

‘For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time. And hence you ought to understand that [the gifts] formerly among your nation have been transferred to us. And just as there were false prophets contemporaneous with your holy prophets, so are there now many false teachers amongst us, of whom our Lord forewarned us to beware; so that in no respect are we deficient, since we know that He foreknew all that would happen to us after His resurrection from the dead and ascension to heaven.’ (Dialogue with Trypho, ch.39)

Irenaeus (approx. AD 120-202)

‘Wherefore, also, those who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform [miracles], so as to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from Him. For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe [in Christ], and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. And what shall I more say? It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church, [scattered] throughout the whole world, has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and which she exerts day by day for the benefit of the Gentiles, neither practising deception upon any, nor taking any reward from them [on account of such miraculous interpositions]. For as she has received freely from God, freely also does she minister [to others]. (Against Heresies, Book 2, ch.32, 4)

‘Nor does she [the church] perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she has been accustomed to work miracles for the advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error.’ (Against Heresies, Book 2, ch.32, 5)

‘In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit…’ (Against Heresies, Book 5, ch.6, 1)

Novatian (approx. AD 210-280)

‘…they [the first disciples] were henceforth armed and strengthened by the same Spirit, having in themselves the gifts which this same Spirit distributes, and appropriates to the Church, the spouse of Christ, as her ornaments. This is He who places prophets in the Church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works, offers discrimination of spirits, affords powers of government, suggests counsels, and orders and arranges whatever other gifts there are of charismata; and thus make the Lord’s Church everywhere, and in all, perfected and completed.’ (A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, ch.29)

Gregory Neocaesarea (AD 213-270)

Consider these words from church historian, Justo Gonzalez, as he chronicles some of the things that took place in the life of Gregory Neocaesarea.

‘The most famous of these workers of miracles was Gregory Thaumaturgus – a name that means “wonderworker.” He was from the region of Pontus, and had been converted through the learned witness of Origen. But upon returning to Pontus and becoming bishop of Neocaesarea, his great evangelistic success was due, not to his theological arguments, but to the miracles that he was said to perform. These were mostly miracles of healing, but we are also told that he could control the course of a river in flood, and that the apostles and the Virgin appeared to him and guided his work.’ (Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, p99)

In his book, Evangelism in the Early Church, Michael Green quotes an early church source, The Apostolic Constitutions, making note of the charismata gifts:

‘A passage in the Apostolic Constitutions crystallizes the point well: ‘These gifts were first bestowed upon us, the apostles, when we were about to preach the gospel to every creature, and afterwards were necessarily provided to those who had come to faith through our agency, not for the advantage of those who perform them, but for the conviction of the unbelievers, that those whom the word did not persuade the power of signs might put to shame.’ The charismata given in the apostolic age [first century] had not been revoked: they continued in the Church in the third century.’ (Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, p270)

Finally, it would be interesting to read some of Augustine’s words near the end of his life. Though many cessationists might look to quote him as a pointer towards a more cessationist view in the early church, as was shown in the beginning of this article, what we don’t realise is that Augustine actually had a change of theology near the end of his life.

Michael Green specifically points to his own study of the early church fathers as a reason why he shifted away from a more hard cessationist view, and he quotes these words of Augustine in his own reflections.

‘I am encouraged, in my recantation [from his hard cessationist thoughts in his earlier edition of this book], to be in the good company of Augustine who, in his earlier writings, believed that the charismatic gifts had died out in the Church and were no longer needed. But by the time he wrote The City of God, however, he had realized his scepticism was unwarranted. In Book 22 he tells how he changed his mind “once I realized how many miracles were occurring in our day…It is only two years ago that the keeping of records was begun here in Hippo, and already, at this writing, we have nearly seventy attested miracles.”‘ (Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, p271)

To read more about the changes in Augustine’s theology, one should read City of God, Book 22, Ch. 8, which is specifically subtitled, Of Miracles Which Were Wrought that the World Might Believe in Christ, and Which Have Not Ceased Since the World Believed. Now, what one will notice is that Augustine specifically refers to healings and miracles that happened through relics, which evangelicals have tended to not agree with such a practise.

So the words of Augustine will be challenging to many evangelicals. I am personally not closed to such, not so much to utilise Augustine’s comments to bolster my own theology, but for knowing how things in biblical times were not always done within our prescribed framework: Jesus had a spitting ministry at times with healing (see Mark’s Gospel), Isaiah walked around naked for quite a while (see Isaiah 20:1-3), Elisha’s bones raised a man (see 2 Kings 13:14-21), handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched Paul were used for healing (see Acts 19:11-12). And, if we will pay attention, we will see God has been doing things ‘outside the box’ from creation until now.

Interesting and challenging, not always fitting in OUR boxes to say the least.

Therefore, church history does not unequivocally support cessationism. No doubt there were some cessationists, but there were also quite a few continuationists.

In the end, the Scripture stands as the starting point for forming our theology. Still, it is interesting to study history, since our faith has been walked out over thousands of years. We are not alone in this. And, with such a consideration of history, we have seen that, in all probability, God never ceased in displaying His glory and power through signs, wonders, miracles, healings, prophecy and other various spiritual gifts.

To end, I point out one other resource that might be of great interest to those who would like to study about the charismata of 1 Corinthians 12 throughout church history. It is Ronald Kidd’s Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church. I have not yet had the opportunity to read it, but it was suggested in another book on the charismatic gifts, which was written by a friend of mine.

26 Comments

Posted in cessationism, charismatic, continuationism, history

Tagged , , , ,