Tag Archives: cessationism

Another Reason Why the Historical Absence of the Spiritual Gifts Does Not Mean They Have Ceased

Posted on June 24, 2010 by | 7 comments

This is a guest post by Jesse Wisnewski, blogger at Reformed and Reforming and MDiv student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

Back in February of this year I wrote a piece on why the apparent “absence” or “disparity” of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (i.e. revelatory and miraculous) is not a valid reason to contend for their absence today. Today I’m not going to rehash what I already said, but rather I’m going point to another reason why this position is invalid.

While reading through Garrett DeWeese and J.P. Moreland’s Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult, I discovered that this particular historical argument for the cessation of the gifts of the Spirit is considered an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantium), which is an informal fallacy of reasoning.

What is an Argument from Ignorance?

As defined by the authors, an argument from ignorance is:

This fallacy involves citing the absence of evidence for a proposition as evidence against it.  But of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (pg. 20).

In other words, just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean there isn’t anything.

For instance, if I were to learn something new today that happened in world history, this doesn’t mean that this fact wasn’t true until I learned it.  It has always been true, I just didn’t know that it was until I first read about it.

How Does this Disprove the Cessationist Postion on History?

Even though many cessationists point to the supposed lack of historical evidence for disproving the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit today, the supposed lack of evidence is not evidence of their absence.

To claim that the supposed lack of historical evidence supports cessationism fails on two fronts:

First, it goes against history since there is a plethora of historical records (also see The Charismata in Church History).

Second, it goes against reason to say that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.

Although miraculous activity may have surrounded certain times in Biblical history (Moses, Elijah and Elisha, Jesus and the Apostles) this doesn’t mean that the Spirit of God was not working at any other time in between or after those clustered periods.

In the End

When I first became exposed to the [reformed] Doctrines of Grace, I tried to force myself to believe in the cessation of the gifts of the Spirit.  It wasn’t because I thought it was Biblical, I had some bad experiences and didn’t like what I was seeing around town, on T.V., and hearing on the radio.

After considering the typical reasons given in support of the cessation of the gifts of the Spirit, I just couldn’t go there.  The case for the apparent “absence” or “disparity” in the quality of the gifts of the Spirit in history and today is one of them.

I believe that this position fails to take into account the relationship of the sovereignty of God in relationship to the gifts, the historical evidence for their continuation, and the logical fallacy of pointing to the absence of evidence for the evidence of absence.

This is another reason why I am open to the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit today.

7 Comments

Posted in cessationism, church, continuationism, Gifts, Gifts of the Spirit, guest post, history

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Is That What History Really Teaches Us? (Response to CMP, part 5)

Posted on June 21, 2010 by | 5 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 five.

Michael,

The unspoken premise behind your historical argument is that over the centuries the church has looked pretty much the way Jesus intended.  Really?  Anything that goes missing, then, is like the dog that didn’t bark, prima facie evidence that the thing has dried up at the source.  It is something that God just isn’t doing any more.  Once we start playing that game, however, it is difficult to know when to stop.

There are a number of ways to respond to your part five, “An Argument from History.”  As for your specific citations of Chrysostom and Augustine, Scott has countered these quite handily in an earlier post here.  Jesse Wisnewski makes a similar argument at Reformed and Reforming here, and also makes the observation here that it illustrates the fallacy of an argument from ignorance.  Then there’s the point that you take us on a snipe hunt for the elusive “supernatural sign gifts”, showing that if you set your definitions and expectations just right, you can be assured of coming up empty handed.  This is your own “glaring weakness” in commenting on about Jack Deere’s argument, where you say:

He equates evidence that the historic church believed in the miraculous with evidence that they were continuationists. You can’t equate the two without misrepresenting what is at stake.  The historic Christian church has believed in the miraculous, they have not believed in the continuation of the supernatural sign gifts, by and large.

On the contrary, Michael, I’m afraid it is you who have misrepresented the situation by insisting on your own minimalist definition.  Continuationism in the first place is not about “gifts” but that Jesus Christ:

…continues His work of glorifying His Father, building His Church, and advancing His Kingdom through the ongoing, vital and dynamic interconnection He maintains with those who are in Him, accomplished through the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit…

From my earlier post “What Continues?”

This empowering presence is referenced in a number of forms such as prayer in Jesus’ name (John 14:13-14), the prayer of faith for healing (Jas. 5:15), and signs and wonders (Acts 4:30).  The phenomenon that this empowerment is parceled out through the different members of the body gives rise to the concept of “gifts” (1 Cor. 12:4).  Parallel terms here include “service,” (v. 5), “activities” (v. 6), “manifestations” (v. 7).  Elsewhere they are called “distributions” (Heb. 2:4, though typically translated “gifts”).

Isolating the term “gifts” only serves to distort the issue, particularly when pared down to the scripturally dubious category “sign gifts.”  This category serves as a nice sharp container where the used, hazardous and unwanted bits may be safely disposed of, but it is not only absent from church history, it doesn’t even appear in the Bible (more here.)  And I’ll have more to say as I respond to your part seven.

I want to take a somewhat different tack, however, in responding to your argument from history.  As I suggest in my first paragraph, the same kind of disappearing act occurs with other aspects of apostolic teaching, and I don’t think you, at least, would see these as evidence God is no longer doing that sort of thing.

1.  Salvation by grace alone through faith alone.  It is amazing how the sharp edge of this central apostolic truth goes blunt shortly after the death of the apostles.  The Shepherd of Hermas, for example (ca. AD 150), which is listed among the “Apostolic Fathers” proclaims that once you are baptized, you can sin and repent only one time (Mandate 4, chapter 3).  If this were true, we’d all be toast, of course.  Thank God for the butter of His grace!

We again pick up a clear understanding of grace with the Protestant Reformation, but what are we to say about the intervening centuries?  The truth wasn’t completely absent, but unmixed expressions of it are scarce for several centuries.  We now have some five centuries since the doctrine’s recovery, but do we conclude that in the interval God had withdrawn sola gratia?

2.  Believer’s baptism.  Speaking of baptism, I understand your ministry statement of faith is deliberately short and broad, but I think you personally hold to believer’s baptism by immersion, if I am not mistaken.  At any rate, I think this was the “normative” apostolic practice, but it did not fare so well in the history of the church.  Even the Protestant Reformation largely did not restore this, except in what some would designate as “fringe groups and cults.”  Some really do argue for de facto paedobaptism from the course of history.  Would you?

3.  Premillennialism.  Understand that I am directing this specifically to you, Michael.  A number of people will not agree with this point, including Scott, but it is given as an example.  I believe you hold that the apostolic hope was premillennial, but that this understanding disappeared for the most part early in church history.  It had a resurgence around the nineteenth century.  So in the sweep of history, it is not that different from the time frame you attribute to continuationism, which you say was not “in any way normative before the twentieth century.”

This historical premise is definitely used by some as an argument against premillennialism.  What about you?  Are you a de facto amillennialist?

So what do we really learn from history?  Don’t we end up proving a little too much if we take your approach?

These are just a few of examples.  You could probably suggest any number of reasons why particular doctrines or practices ceased to be “normative” over the years, without suggesting that God was “no longer doing that.”  Indeed, we ought to exhaust every other possibility before going with that option.  Ignorance?  Tradition?  Clerical status?  Biblical illiteracy?  Misunderstanding?  Distortion over time?  Fear?  Disbelief?  Poor leadership?  Politics?

The church is often likened to a ship.  Over the years wooden sailing vessels require periodic maintenance.  Their bottoms becomes fouled and their wood suffers from rot.  The barnacles need to be scraped off and the original woodwork restored.  Unfortunately, some of our ecclesiastical institutions of long standing over time became in many ways more barnacle than timber.

From time to time more extensive refits have been necessary. The best known is probably the Protestant Reformation, which largely focused on soteriology.  Today, I humbly suggest,  it is time for recovering apostolic pneumatology.

Semper reformanda.

5 Comments

Posted in cessationism, charismatic, continuationism, Gifts, Gifts of the Spirit, history, Holy Spirit, Jack Deere, Michael Patton, pneumatology, Power, prayer, sign gifts

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Response to Patton’s “Why I’m Not Charismatic” (Part 4)

Posted on June 14, 2010 by | 7 comments

by Scott

Marv and I are currently working through a series in which we are interacting with Michael Patton’s eight-part series entitled “Why I’m Not Charismatic”. You can also download Patton’s series in a 22-page PDF file.

Thus far, we have posted three articles responding to his first three parts.

By the way, you will probably notice right up front that Marv’s posts carry much wittier titles and arguments than mine. I guess I am the dry, dorky, pastoral-theologian. Oh well. Thankfully we are a tag-team here. So now I somewhat dryly continue on with part 4.

If you read part 4 of Michael Patton’s series, I suppose you will respond in either one or a combination of ways: 1) anger, 2) frustration, 3) brokenness, 4) embarrassment and a whole host of other possible emotions.

Patton’s part 4 is a kind of side excursus where he shares of one particular person’s negative experiences with prophecy. Even as a continuationist, I am quite aware of such stories and examples right throughout Pentecostal, charismatic and third-wave circles. Matter of fact, as the proverbial statement goes – We’ve all been there, done that. Even if we haven’t personally been a part of negative experiences, we’ve at least seen such on television or heard enough stories from our friends and colleagues.

And such truly breaks my heart. But, even more, it breaks the heart of our Father.

But let me start off by giving what is probably one of the wisest nuggets I can give when it comes to the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts: Abuse and misuse should not lead to no use, rather it should lead to biblical and healthy use. Or, to say it another way: Abuse and misuse should not lead to disbelief in something, rather it should drive us to truly understand how to faithfully walk it out in accordance with the Scripture.

Those who know me and read my stuff regularly will note that I say that statement quite a lot. And I expect a rolling of the eyes from some due to the perpetual nature of the statement from my lips (or keyboard). But I believe that is truly the biblical approach to most problems we face with the practise of our faith. And I definitely disagree with the approach of abandoning something all together because of abuse and misuse.

Again, I know that abuse takes place. I know things go wrong. At times I want to hurl at what I see on what is labelled as ‘Christian television’. But I cannot allow such to push me to abandon what 1) I believe Scripture teaches and 2) what I have seen God do in mine and the lives of others.

Here is reality: There is abuse right across all aspects of the Christian life. We can name just a few. What about leaders who sexually abuse children? Should we never trust leaders? I don’t believe that is the answer. Divorce rates are just as high in the church as in the world. Should we just abandon marriage? I don’t believe that is the answer. I know plenty of people claiming the name Christian but don’t live at all like the one we are named after, Christ. Should I abandon the faith all together? I don’t believe that is the answer.

Again, I believe the answer is this: Abuse and misuse should not lead to no use, rather it should lead to biblical and healthy use.

Well, that is not a band-aid answer to fix all things. What might possibly be needed is deep emotional healing from abuse. What might also be needed is to find another church community to be a part of. But I believe a mature body of Christ will not ultimately allow abuse and misuse to determine where they stand. They will rather desire to pursue God, study the Scriptures and look to see what it teaches outworked in their lives, which includes the workings of the Holy Spirit Himself.

Now, the person that Patton quotes in his article also observes that none of the prophecies that he has heard spoken have ever come true. None.

I don’t know this person in particular and I don’t know the people who he says have ‘prophesied’. So I really cannot address him or them particularly. But what I can say is that I have heard plenty of prophecies in my life in Christ that have come to fulfil their purpose. I don’t use the normal phrase of ‘prophecies that have come true’ because, while I am ok with that wording, I do believe it can create a wrong perception about prophecy.

What does Paul say the fruit of prophecy will be?

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

And to see this accomplished, one does not have to predict something. You see, we have fallen into the trap of believing prophecy is only about predicting things to come. Not only the hearer, but also the one speaking can easily fall into this false notion.

Now listen, I do believe prophecy can have a predictive element. But that is secondary to its primary purpose of being a specific message from God (an unveiling of God’s heart and purpose) that brings about edification, exhortation and comfort to the body of Christ. And when we allow prophecy to function in the bigger framework that God Himself desires, we will realise that 1) we don’t always have to announce that something is going to happen and 2) we aren’t looking for it to ‘take place’ within our own prescribed time frame.

Again, I believe prophecy can have a ‘predictive’ element to it. I’ve seen this in my own life. Right now I’m specifically thinking about a prophecy given to me by a ministry partner a few years back as a group of leaders were gathered together. It came to fulfilment (and is still being fulfilled), but only after about a 3-year period.

And that’s just it. When prophecies are given that speak of something that will take place at some point in the future, we in this microwave generation of everything-must-happen-in-3-minutes sit around expecting it to happen automatically. Or, we might give it a week or two at most. But don’t we realise that even some prophecies found in Scripture took a long time to be fulfilled? There was the 25-year waiting period for Isaac to be born. There were the centuries of waiting for the Messiah to actually arrive. And we are still waiting for Christ to return to make all things new.

Not only that, but we must also realise that there is an unfolding nature to some prophecies. As I said, a ministry friend of mine prophesied something that took about 3 years to come to fruition. But I believe that prophecy is still being fulfilled, still unfolding with its blessing and fruit from God. Plenty of prophecies from Scripture fall in that category as we are still living in the Messianic age of the new covenant. God is still pouring out His Spirit on all flesh (Joel 2), still writing His laws on people’s hearts rather than tablets of stone (Jeremiah 31).

The problem is that we build such wrong assumptions of what prophecy is. And this is not only true for the cessationist but also just as true for the continuationist. You know the silly ones:

  1. You must begin a prophecy by stating, ‘Thus saith the Lord…’
  2. You must use Thee and Thou.
  3. You must shout.
  4. You must include a few Hallelujahs.
  5. You must only prophesy on Sundays and not the other days of the week.

Those are a bit silly, but we do build up wrong presuppositions of what prophecy is. Here are more likely ones:

  1. Prophecy is always predictive. [I addressed this above.]
  2. Prophets did not exist after the apostles came. [Plenty of prophets existed in the New Testament: Agabus, Judas and Silas, prophets in Antioch, Philip’s four daughters, prophets in Corinth, etc.]
  3. Prophets are specifically those who wrote the Old Testament Scriptures. [There were plenty of prophets that did not pen one word in Scripture – Elijah, Elisha, Nathan, Agabus, etc.]
  4. Prophecy must be accompanied with signs. [Is that true of all prophets like Nathan, Gad, Micaiah, Agabus, Judas and Silas, etc?]
  5. Prophecy must be fulfilled within our prescribed time frame. [I dealt with this above.]

And there are a host of other false assumptions of what prophecy is and what the ministry of a prophet is. It takes time to take off the wrong lenses and see them replaced with the correct lenses. But it is possible. It happened with me and it happened with my colleague here, Marv. We both were cessationists and we both had our theology radically changed via God’s Word and true interaction with the Spirit’s gifts.

A couple of more things.

Patton included these words from the disillusioned person who had converted from continuationism to cessationism:

If you have the gift of prophecy and it is working for you and you have evidence to back it up, please contact me. I would love to be proven wrong. I am serious as a heart attack. I’d rather prophecy be happening rather than not.

I’m not trying to give a cop-out excuse and side-step things, but this is really not how it works. I promise you this isn’t the design of the Spirit of God Himself. Maybe I should have listed it above in the false presuppositions we have about prophecy. Prophecy isn’t like an on-off light switch that you kind of control when you want. I’m sorry to say this, but it just does not work like that.

Now, for the one who is used regularly in this gift, I would not deny that they could ‘on the spur of the moment’ be used in prophecy. But it doesn’t work with an, ‘Oh yeah, prove it.’ You remember what happened to the Son of God right before His crucifixion. People were beating Him, taunting Him and saying, ‘Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?’ (Matthew 26:68). He could have. It would have caught there attention. But such did not fit into the purpose of prophecy or the plan of the Father.

What I can do is give you testimonies in my life, which I have alluded to above. And I can point you to some posts even on this blog that gives examples of faithful prophecies and hearing God’s voice (see this post, this post and this post). But I am pretty convinced, at least from Scripture (i.e. 1 Corinthians 12:11), that this is something God is in charge of. Not to mention that it seems pretty obvious that these gifts were not accessible in an ‘on-off’ fashion from reading the narrative portions of Scripture where these men and women of God were used in such gifts.

Oh, we are called to pursue Him and His gifts. But this is not a water faucet that we turn on and off whenever we want. Even Jesus looked to the Father to know when to do something and what to speak:

Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. (John 5:19)

Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. (John 14:10)

Remember, I post this article very aware of the grave failures of prophecy and other spiritual gifts. I can probably even easily point to my own failings with prophecy: 1) speaking that which I should not have and 2) not speaking what God I should have. And maybe we are all sometimes guilty of number 2 because of number 1. So I know the pain and hurt. I have seen it and heard plenty of stories to shake my head at.

But, though experience does truly shape our theology, and such is not evil in and of itself, I always encourage the flock that I shepherd, a flock of multi-cultural and multi-church backgrounds, that abuse and misuse should not steer us away from what Scripture teaches and God desires. Rather we will look to be a people that know God’s heart by centering our understanding in His Word and we will look to practise such gifts with as much faithfulness as possible as we stay humbly submitted to Him. That, I am convinced, is the heart of God.

7 Comments

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

Tagged , , , ,

“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 , , ,