Category Archives: charismatic

“Charismatics are wrong ‘cuz it never happened to me” …and Other Stupid Statements. (Response to CMP, part 3)

Posted on June 8, 2010 by | 35 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 three.

Michael,

First, please don’t take the title too seriously.  It is, as you might suspect, an hommage to your own provocatively titled series, last seen here.  Besides, you start your part three by admitting that its argument is (a) not a very good one and yet (b) one that works for you.

I appreciate the irony though.  In certain circles it is Self-Evident Truth that Continuationists (a) follow experience over Scripture, and (b) are doing that “evil and adulterous generation” sign-seeking thing (Matt. 12:39; 16:4).  Yet here you tell us, first, that while the preponderance of Scriptural evidence backs Continuationism, you remain a Cessationist due to your experience.  Then, second, you demand a sign, failing which, you remain a (de facto) Cessationist.  It’s refreshing, to say the least.

With that introduction, here are a few thoughts on your part three.

1.  You are “open” Biblically and theologically to Continuationism.

The other day I heard somebody on the radio giving the usual condescending admonition to Continuationists always to give Scripture priority over experience.  This same guy kept making reference to “the four sign gifts.”  It was the first time I’d heard these given a definite number.  (Does that mean tongues has ceased but interpretation of tongues continues?)  I’d really like for him to put his money where his mouth is and show me the Bible passage teaching “the four sign gifts.”

Be that as it may, of course Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.  Michael, you pointed out some strong Biblical support for Continuationism in your part two.  As Scott has observed, you did seem to leave out Christ’s own teaching on the eve of his crucifixion (John 14-16).  This, I submit, is the place to start, and really leaves no doubt that the Father’s plan, the Lord’s instruction, and the believer’s expectation should be:

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. (John 14:12)

So, Michael, if the Bible teaches something, if Christ teaches something, what kind of response is it to be “open” to it?  Try saying, “I’m open to that salvation-by-grace-through-faith thing, but I’ve never had a genuine gospel experience.”  The apostle Paul tells us to: “Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.” (1 Cor. 14:1) I mean, you don’t suppose “be open to” is an adequate translation of zeloute here?

What I am trying to say, Michael, is that as far as you’ve come from your previous self-confessed bias against Continuationism, if the Bible supports it, then why not move beyond “openness”?  Your lack of experience, I suggest, is in part due to lack of conviction that the Bible really teaches this.  What you see depends on what you expect to see.

POLICE INSPECTOR: “By George! How ever did you see that?”
HOLMES:  “Because I looked for it.”

2. Your expectations.

So what are you looking for, Michael?  May I suggest, based on some of your remarks, that you may have spent some time barking up the wrong proverbial tree?

First, as odd as it seems there is a whole preconceived notion about just what a “gift” is that may need rethinking.  You remark:  “I have never witnessed anything that would lead me to believe that someone has, as their gift to the body of Christ, any of the particular gifts…”  Well, if by this you mean some kind of at-will wonder-worker, I don’t think this has ever been the case. 

The concept of “gifts” is a reference to the fact that the works of Jesus, done by the Body of Christ, are distributed among the members.  These are first of all gifts given by the Lord to us, not our gifts to the Body.  Second, I don’t think the Bible teaches us it was like a team of spiritual X-men:  X has the power of prophecy, Y has the power of healing, Z has the power of tongues.  Based on what Paul says, on a given day any believer may give a prophecy, though not all will (1 Cor. 14:26, 31).  It may have been that some people particularly excelled in a particular gift, and so may be associated with it, but I think it is fallacious to understand a rigid one-for-one correspondence.

Second, in regard to prophecy, you refer to “the surrendering of my mind.”  I don’t think that is what New Testament prophecy calls for.  Paul says prophecy gives “upbuilding and encouragement and consolation” (1 Cor. 14:3).  It may instantly resonate with someone (1 Cor. 14:24-25) or else is to be weighed (v. 29). 

As far as requiring a “sign” is concerned, well first, I thought you considered prophecy a “sign gift.”  Isn’t it already a sign, then?  “prophecy is [a sign] not for unbelievers but for believers,” Paul says (1 Cor. 14:22). 

Besides, with all the New Testament teaching on prophecy, and the clear “democratization” of prophecy in Acts 2, you go to Moses for the example of how things are to be done?  Deut. 34:10 states: “And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.”  It might be nice if all who prophesied lived up to Moses example, but I wouldn’t expect this.  Is this really reasonable?

Also (and I just love it when Cessationists tell Continuationists how spiritual gifts ought to work) you opine:

If someone claims to speak on behalf of God—if someone claims to have a prophetic gift—you have every right and obligation to demand an attesting sign. As well, if you think you are a prophet—if you sincerely believe that God has called you to such a ministry—you need to tell God that you cannot do so without such a sign.

Okaaay, kids, always remember to talk back to God.  Umm, Michael,  in the first place, you draw on the example of Moses, whose demand for authenticating sign was not so much a sign of faith, as of reluctance, hesitation, doubt.  God had already given him His word to proclaim, and Moses hemmed and hawed until he ran out of excuses.  Go and do thou likewise?  So say you, Michael?

Second, this whole thing isn’t about anyone’s claim to have this or that gift.  It’s about believers being the Body of Christ, and God giving His words and doing His works through us, as he did through Jesus (John 14:10).   

Furthermore, it isn’t only prophets who speak on behalf of God.  Teachers, such as yourself do. 

As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God.  (1 Pet. 4:10-11)

 

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (2 Cor. 5:20)

 

Are pastors, teachers, and evangelists also to demand from God a sign, since they too speak on behalf of God?  Well, the good news is, we don’t need to demand, because God has always planned to co-testify as we deliver His message (Heb. 2:4).

In regard to what you say about healing, again, I think you are under a misconception to imagine a “gift of healing” as attached permanently to a particular person.  This is not necessarily what we as Continuationists are saying.  Moreover, your conceptually separating  praying for healing from “gifts of healings” is also missing the point.

But you knew I would say this, didn’t you.  And you head this response off at the pass.  You are told “that’s not the way it works.”  And, of course, you, a Cessationist–never seen it–know better:

If you say, “It’s not like that. God simply uses me sometimes to heal. I never know when he is going to and when he will deny such a request.” I would say that we are simply talking past each other. In my estimation, you do not have the gift of healing. You, like everyone else, simply have the ability to pray for healing, leaving the answer in the hands of God.

 

I agree about the talking past each other here, but, Michael, let me say gently, it might behoove you back up, hold your preconceived notions loosely, and listen to that perspective–there just might be something to learn.

When you begin to learn, you first do not even know what you do not know.  Some things need to be unlearned before learning can take place.

3.  The learning curve.

I don’t say that, or write these posts, claiming vast amounts of knowledge.  Only, it is really is a strange thing when Cessationists are sure they know more about spiritual gifts than Continuationists.  You point out how others aren’t doing it right.  Their prophecy is banal.  Their prayer for healing and any subsequent answers to prayer is not “the gift.”  Well, I agree that the Continuationist side may not be doing everything quite right.  Yet they are believing the Lord’s instructions, and doing something, and mixed results are better than no results. 

The church today largely has to rediscover what has been forgotten.  As with any practice, there is a learning curve.  At one time, these were passed on.  Jesus instructed His disciples how to minister in power, and they taught others.  Well, we haven’t got that now, I grant you. And I am not for an instant suggesting that contemporary Continuationists are infallible guides.  Still, how wise is it to completely disregard these?

So where are we to begin today? To recover what the Scripture teaches but generations have not really practiced?  You begin with the Scriptures, of course.  You begin by being convinced from Scripture that the works that Jesus did ought to be in evidence in the church today. 

But what does this look like?  Prophecy, for example.  How do you do it?  How do you know when it is happening?  Does it feel like something?  Does the prophesier hear a voice?  Audibly?  Inaudibly?  How do you really know it’s God?

I submit, Michael, you won’t know the answers by sitting on the sidelines.  There is hit and miss here, trial and error.  Does that seem little too messy?  Well, what are we supposed to do?  Don’t like the whole glass-half-empty thing?  The Cessationist answer seems to be “I don’t see any New-Testament quality miracles,” so out it all goes. 

What about half full?  How about getting in there and helping?  Don’t quite like the way things look in the Pentecostal, Charismatic, Third-wave, whole Continuationist world? So many of the Bible-scholar, teacher types have retreated into Cessationism, and left others to fend without them.  Is there a lack of balance in Continationism?  Whose fault is that?  Those who are in the game or those who are not?  For my money, I’d point a finger or two at the armchair quarterbacks.

4.  Get in the game.

So what we’re talking about here is you’ve never had a “genuine charismatic experience.”  Well, okay, you used to go to a “third-wave” college.  These days, do you ever put yourself in an environment where you might just have such an experience?

I was going to point out, if you were not already aware, that you have a fabulous opportunity in Sam Storms having moved to Oklahoma City.  Then of course I saw here that he’s now on Theology Unplugged.  Okay, so you two have met.

Still, my point is Credo House is what, 3-1/2 miles from Bridgeway Church?  Dr. Storms is, as you know, top notch in Bible exposition and theology.  And I doubt you can find a better go-to-guy for Continuationism–in these United States, anyway.  I believe Dr. Storms was not in town when you wrote this series last year.  So okay.  Now, however, you have no excuse.

35 Comments

Posted in 1 Corinthians 14, cessationism, charismatic, church, continuationism, experience, Gifts, Gifts of the Spirit, God speaking, healings, John 13-17, Michael Patton, prophecy, Sam Storms, sign gifts

Tagged , , , ,

Response to Patton’s “Why I’m Not Charismatic” (Part 2)

Posted on June 2, 2010 by | 7 comments

by Scott

So Marv and I have set out to interact with Michael Patton’s 8-part series, “Why I’m Not Charismatic”. You can view Patton’s whole series here or you can download the e-booklet by clicking here.

Thus far at To Be Continued, Marv has interacted with part 1. In that post, Marv clarified that the usual (or ‘normative’?) words put forth in describing the continuationist-cessationist debate are not always helpful. Thus, Marv looked to challenge some of Patton’s definitions when discussing such a topic – words like charismatic, normative, ordinary, extraordinary, supernatural, and sign gifts.

I now proceed to interact with Patton’s part 2.

I will first begin by saying that part 2 is somewhat of an easier section to deal with, being that Michael Patton presents what he believes are five strong points for the continuationist case. Even if, in the end, Patton would not identify himself as a continuationist with regards to all the gifts of the Spirit, his willingness to identify positive points from the ‘other side’ shows his own integrity. We can very easily fall into the trap of speaking antagonistically or misrepresenting the other side. Yet it is obvious that is not Patton’s desire in his articles.

So let’s look at the five specific points Michael lists as the stronger arguments for continuationism.

1. Acts chapter 2 seems to suggest that the gifts of the Spirit (particularly prophecy) would be normative for the church.

In points 1 and 2, Patton begins with the book of Acts. From a New Testament perspective, I would have begun with the Gospels, looking at the teachings and works of Christ Himself as well as what He promised to His subsequent followers. Well, in reality, we could start with Genesis. And, in one sense, Patton does recognise this in point number 3. But let me explain a little more of why we need to centre this discussion in Christ (if we are not already aware of why).

In all, if we have anything, we have a Christ-centred faith. Every aspect of our faith – belief and practise – must be centred in Christ. And so we turn to centre our practise of the gifts in Jesus Christ Himself.

With regards to this practical part of our life, I am a firm believe that, whatever work Jesus took up in His life and ministry on earth, He would expect His church to continue that work. That is simply how the story is to unfold. Hence why we see a continuation of the works of Jesus in the book of Acts:

1In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. (Acts 1:1-2)

Jesus said He was going away, but He would send another like Him that would continue the same exact work (i.e. John 14:16-17, 26; 16:7; etc). And the Holy Spirit would specifically continue that work through the body of Christ.

The Spirit of Christ was sent by Christ to empower the body of Christ to continue the work of Christ. Did we catch that? Read it again.

So this all centres in Christ. If Christ was prophet, then the Spirit is prophetic and has been sent to empower the whole body of Christ to be prophetic (more on that here). If Christ was teacher, the Spirit also is a teacher and has been sent to empower the whole body to carry a didactic dimension in their ministry (even if we each are not specifically teachers).

So, while we need to look at Acts, for it presents a very positive outlook for the continuation of all of God’s gifts, we as new covenant believers must centre all of our theology in Christ Himself.

As for my own personal thoughts on Acts 2, after the Spirit had fallen on the 120, Peter has a revelation: This is the fulfilment of Joel’s words spoken so long ago. Joel said that, in the last days, God would pour out His Spirit on all flesh. This was happening right in front of eyes and ears as the tongues of fire descended and new tongues were spoken.

The last days had just been initiated right then and there. This was not to be some few final years before the parousia (presence/coming of Christ). The last days began some 1977 years ago at that great Pentecost.

What was the fruit of this outpouring?

As I hinted at above, God’s people would become of prophetic community. Oh sure, God would continue to have those specifically gifted as prophets (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11; etc). But from now on, during the last days of the Messianic age when Messiah would reign over all heaven and earth, God’s Spirit would allow all of God’s people to be utlitised in the prophetic. Moses had longed for it (Numbers 11:24-30), but this was the beginning of the prophethood of all believers, as I’ve written about before.

This work of the Spirit would break all gender barriers and age barriers: sons and daughters; young men and old men; male servants and female servants.

Because the last days are the entire age from Pentecost onwards (or we might technically say first advent of Christ to second advent), we must expect God’s people to always function as a prophetic community. This includes revelations, prophecies, visions, dreams, words of knowledge, words of wisdom, etc. None of this has to be leather bound and added to the New Testament, and thankfully Scripture stands as a measuring stick of whether such prophetic words and actions are truly of God today. But there is no doubt that the last days are to be a continuing work of Jesus by the prophetic Spirit amongst His prophetic church in the world.

2. The entire book of Acts seems to show that the supernatural gifts are common within the Church.

There are two problematic words or phrases that come forth in Patton’s words under this point:

  • Normative
  • It is very difficult to build too much theology from narrative

I’ll refer you back to Marv’s thoughts on this enigmatic word normative, for he does a fine job in the first installment of this series, as I quote from below:

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.

No doubt we might say that, whether good or bad, there is somewhat more of an expectation of all gifts of the Spirit within continuationist circles. For all practical purposes, if one is not sure if certain gifts of the Spirit exist or, even more, believe certain gifts no longer exist, there would not be much expectation in either of these groups. You might even find that those who make a profession that they are open to such gifts will still find a lack of expectation due to the uncertainty (I share more here about only being open to the gifts).

But, from my perspective, let me define this word, normative.

Even within the book of Acts, we easily forget that it was written over some 30 (+/-) years. Though it records quite a few prophecies, healings, miracles, and other varying acts of the Spirit, it doesn’t necessarily present a case that we should expect such gifts every single moment of every single day. But, to be honest, to argue that something must happen ‘every single moment of every single day’ is a very modern way of thinking. I don’t believe the ancient Hebrews and Jews thought in such detailed, 24-hour time periods. But moving on…

Though the above paragraph possibly gives more leverage to the cessationist, let’s think this through some more. One thing to recognise is that not every single healing, miracle, prophecy, etc, would have been recorded across the book of Acts (just as every preaching instance would not have been laid out in Acts). The Spirit was quite alive and well across the varying cities, towns and churches. We get glimpses of this in places like Galatians 3:5 and 1 Corinthians 12-14. So there was definitely more Spirit-activity going on than what we find recorded in Acts.

Secondly, the book of Acts contains a church that, though it was growing rapidly, was still a very small group by comparison. Maybe by the end of Acts (early 60’s AD) there was a church of 100,000. Maybe more, maybe less. But that is a healthy educated guess.

But today, in 2010, estimates are that there might be some 2 billion believers across the planet. That is a lot of followers of Christ! Not to mention that there are some 500 million within Pentecostal, charismatic and neo-charismatic church circles. So, though each person might not be utilised every single day in healings or miracles or prophecies or words of knowledge, we would expect the whole body of Christ being utilised in all gifts of the Spirit on a very regular basis. Remember, the Spirit is at work amongst a lot of Christians. Though, even as Marv recognised, there are ebbs and flows at times within history. That is ok.

The phrase one can normally here from the cessationist (or non-continuationist) is one which Michael gives: It is very difficult to build too much theology from narrative. I understand the argument somewhat, but I really think this kind of statement fails to be faithful to Scripture.

If this statement is true, then we have to be careful not to build ‘too much theology’ from major portions of the Bible, including most of the Pentateuch, the historical books of the Old Testament and the Gospels. But, of course, such a notion is silly.

What we need to realise is that we can learn from narrative, especially the didactic narrative of Scripture (see Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11). A story in and of itself might not be written to teach. But I am pretty certain Luke wrote to teach us something. Right?

As one author states:

‘If for Paul the historical narratives of the Old Testament had didactic lessons for New Testament Christians, then it would be most surprising if Luke, who modelled his historiography after the Old Testament historiography, did not invest his own history of the origin and spread of Christianity with a didactic significance.’ (Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p7)

We have got to stop arguing that we cannot build theology from Acts. Such an argument fails and fails pretty bad. Rather, Luke will provide us with a great richness to our pneumatology, ecclesiology, Christology, and so much more, if we allow for Acts to be a didactic narrative. Not to mention that there is a verse that goes something like this: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching…

3. All of Scripture supports the idea that it is God’s nature to work in supernatural ways.

I won’t spend a lot of time here, since I have shared much on points 1 and 2 already. But, interestingly enough, Patton even quotes from Jack Deere’s Surprised by the Power of the Spirit to support this point.

And, lo and behold, Deere also takes time in the same book to show how the supernatural activity of God starts in Genesis and goes right through the whole of the biblical text. This is very consistent with the nature and character of the God whom we serve. If He had been doing such for thousands upon thousands of years (rather than in just a few cycles around the times of Moses, Elijah & Elisha, and Christ & the first apostles), then we must expect that same God to continue to act in such ways consistent with who He is, what He says and what He does.

4.  The New Testament never explicitly states that the supernatural
sign gifts would cease.

This is true, very true. Though many passages have been used to teach that the gifts would cease – four well-known being 1 Corinthians 13:8-12; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Hebrews 1:1-2; and Hebrews 2:3-4 – these passages do not actually teach cessationism. I share more in this article, and Marv specifically looks at Hebrews 2:3-4 in this article.

Patton even takes time to look at 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 himself, giving his thoughts on why that verse does not support cessationism.

The thing is that, most present-day studied cessationists don’t simply quote a few verses and say, ‘You see, these gifts were meant to cease.’ And the same stands true for the reverse with continuationism. More than quoting a few Scriptures, it comes to dealing with a theological framework. And, for the cessationist, as Patton recognises, it comes down to 1) recognising certain gifts had a revelatory and confirmatory purpose and 2) that revelation and confirmation was connected to the message of the gospel before it was completed in the first apostolic witness now recorded in the Scriptures.

Therefore, now that we have the completed Scriptures as God’s revelation and confirmation of the gospel message, these gifts are no longer needed, or they are at least not normative. But, even now, the modern-day cessationist will probably say, ‘Oh these things can happen, but not normally.’ And they would probably argue that these are not normally needed any longer because we have access to the finished product of the canon of Scripture.

Well, see my thoughts above on normative. But suffice it to say: Christ walked in all of these things, He sent the Spirit to continue that same exact work, and that same work was to be continued via the body of Christ (though He can do things apart from us, for He is sovereign), since we are called to be Christ in the world today. There would have been solid expectation that Christ’s body would function just as Christ did Himself.

But, let me say this: If we as theologians, who centre our theology in the Scripture, cannot ultimately argue for the cessation of the gifts from the biblical standpoint, then we are ultimately building our own theological boxes that cannot hold together. To say it another way, we can espouse great theological treatises. But if we are not able to solidly back up that theological framework from Scripture, then we have a bit of a problem. And Patton has already recognised that the Bible does not explicitly say these gifts will cease. What are we to believe, then?

5. Personal Experience

For many a Christians, to announce that experience has been a reason why they believe anything, especially as one determining factor for their pneumatology, this would be deemed unhealthy. But, what we must be willing to recognise is that experience shapes our theology (I share more here). We cannot get away from it, both cessationist and continuationist. Hence, the reason why Michael Patton ultimately says he is a de facto cessationist – he believes he has never truly experienced certain gifts of the Spirit like prophecy and miracles, at least in the way he understands Scripture to teach about them.

Matter of fact, I think just about every continuationist I know would say that one of the reasons they believe in the continuation of all gifts of the Spirit is because they have personally experienced them. And, even wider than that, most people who say they believe in Jesus would refer to some kind of experience(s) with the living God as to why they believe and want to follow Jesus. This is part and parcel to life and our faith, and God is quite ok with that.

So, knowing Michael’s own presentation of the positive case for continuationism, I’m not sure why he would still want to lean towards being a de facto cessationist. But, in the end, I do understand that experiencing something is important for our theology. Very important.

Thus, there are two things I can recommend to Michael: 1) Please re-consider some of your definitions with terms like normative, sign gifts, revelatory and confirmatory gifts, etc. I think wrong definitions and expectations will be a hindrance towards moving into a biblical view of the the gifts of the Spirit. 2) Don’t read more theology on the topic, as you are already quite aware of many of the continuationist arguments. Rather, build relationships with solid continuationist believers. That is one of the greatest ways to see our faith stirred in this area. At least that is my testimony.

7 Comments

Posted in cessationism, charismatic, continuationism, experience, Michael Patton

Tagged , , ,

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 , , , ,

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 , , , ,