Should the Church Seek for Miracles Signs?
Hi Michael,
I’ve got a very devote Eastern Orthodox friend (he left evangelicalism and converted a few years ago…he is 24…) he goes on and on about all these fantastic miracles…about saints whose bodies do not decay and even omit “fragrance”…um…something about fire that won’t burn a bishops beard or something…I don’t know…sounds legendary…
What should we make of them? Deny them?
____________________________________
Dear Pastor,
I don’t know. It sounds like folk theology to me as well. As I said in a previous blog, this type of mindset is common no matter where you are. In other words, it is not an East or West thing, but a characteristic of the human conditions. People flock to where the “miracles” “signs” are. While I understand this mentality (since miracles and signs can and often do evidence the presence of God), it is hard to determine what the meaning of such miracles are.
Does it mean that since these things are happening, then that is where the true church is? I am sure that is how many would interpret it. If the miracle itself becomes the determining factor of the true church, I believe that we will be standing on shaky ground. The church exists where the Gospel exists. It does not matter whether it is Orthodox, Catholic, Pentecostal, or an Evangelical Bible church. The Gospel must be the foundation for the church, not miracles signs.
The question I would ask about saints’ bodies not decaying, omitting “fragrance,” and beards not burning is one of meaning. What do these type of miracles mean?
I think we need to be very careful that these types of occurrences, whether they happened or not, do not replace the Gospel and become a Gospel themselves. When this happens, as we have seen in many abuses coming from some of the less responsible in the charismatic movement (I will let you decide who), the Gospel gets completely lost in sensation seeking. Eventually, the one true miracle of Christ’s resurrection which does communicate something -Â God’s message of righteousness, our horrible sinful condition, and His love, grace, and mercy -Â doesn’t find a place. I would go out on a limb and say that the biggest problem with the church today is the loss of the Gospel and its replacement by sensation seeking Christianity.
Having said that, we do need to be careful that we don’t put God in a box of our own theological design. Advances in the Gospel through the progress of revelation were authenticated through miracles. Paul said that his authority and message should not be believed because he simply claimed such, but that the miracles and signs that accompanied his ministry authenticated his message. When he defended his authority and message to the Corinthians who were conflicted because of the alternate message of those who claimed the same authority as Paul, he sought to establish himself as an true apostle with true authority.
2 Corinthians 12:12 Indeed, the signs of an apostle were performed among you with great perseverance by signs and wonders and powerful deeds.
It would seem that miracles and signs were not so much acts of benevolence or uninterpreted awe, but signs of authentication to a message. This is why Paul could claim the authority he did. As well, this is why we should never accept any claims to ultimate human authority vested by God without the accompaniment of the message with such signs. This was established very early so that God could protect His name–His reputation–in Duet 13 and 18. Otherwise anyone could claim to have such authority. It was and is an issue of responsible discernment.
While I can’t say whether such miracles [and signs]Â are indeed occurring or what they mean, I can tell you that the miracle of the resurrection did occur and exactly what it meant. I would stick to this. Where this Gospel of mercy is found and believed, there is the true church.
Should we seek such miracles signs? No. That which has been given is sufficient. Should we ignore miracles signs? No. God may send a message accompanied by such as He has done in the past. The key is in the meaning of the miracle sign. Have I ever seen such a miracle sign accompanied by a message? No. In my opinion, God has not intervened in such a way since the last Apostle. If this is true, all claims of ultimate authority and inspiration are only found in that which has already been authenticated in the Scriptures.
None of us control God. At any time He can cause a saint to have a special fragrance, send a prophet to speak on His behalf, write a new book and put it in the Bible, or authenticate a human head of the Church. I don’t determine this and there is nothing in the Scriptures which would say He cannot do these things. Therefore, I am always open, but responsibly skeptical about such things.Â
Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Should the Church Seek for
MiraclesSigns? - What Part of Gentleness and Respect Don’t
YouWe Understand? - A Warning About Pseudo or “Pancake” Apologetics
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura - Part Five - What is Tradition?
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura - Part Four - What Did John Believe?
Sean on 17 Aug 2007 at 2:49 am #
As a pentecostal, I believe in miracles and healings. I believe that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8), and that he does the same works today as what he did while on earth. According to Scripture, signs do accompany the preaching of the Gospel, and I don’t see why this should be just a one-time thing, ceasing after some early goal of “establishment” has been reached. I think this is an area that the reformers went wrong on that we are still paying for, though I do understand the reason why they went the direction they went. (And with the direction recent blog discussions have gone, I’m not going to be the one to bring that reason up.)
More important than their sign value, I see these acts as demonstrations of God’s love. In Matt. 14:14, it says that Jesus healed the sick, not to prove who he was, but because he had compassion on them. He fed the multitudes for the same reason, but when asked for a demonstrative sign immediately after, he refused. As Paul explained whenever he wrote about spiritual gifts, their purpose is primarily for the edification of the local church, not to prove a doctrine or show one’s authority. He may have needed them for that, but that wasn’t the reason behind the long instructions in 1 Cor. 12-14. “Let all things be done for building up.” That, too, argues for their continuation and not cessation. B.B. Warfield, brilliant teacher that he was, missed that point almost completely in his polemic against contemporary miracles.
Yes, we should seek miracles and all the spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:1). But we should seek them in a healthy manner. As one healing evangelist repeatedly warned, “Don’t be a flake.” Don’t obsess about them. Don’t seek them to the neglect of other, more important things. Don’t try to manufacture them or formulize them. I think genuine miracles will be like biblical miracles, concerned primarily with the liberation and healing of the suffering and contributing to the redeemed, sanctified life Jesus brings. Miracles not connected to the ongoing life of the body, such as those associated with relics, I’m far more skeptical about.
I’m not out to win converts, but please consider these points if you haven’t before. I’m a pentecostal and an academic, and I do serious academic work on pentecostalism. It’s frustrating for me sometimes because we (generic) can talk about so many other things irenically, but when this issue comes up, the conversation drops down to the level of a middle school playground argument.
JoanieD on 17 Aug 2007 at 5:51 am #
Sean, I also agree that God still allows miracles to occur as an indication of his compassion, power, and glory, though I cannot claim to have seen a healing type of miracle. Some folks will talk about people making a life change and how it is a “miracle” and I am not talking about that, though those are probably even more wonderful than the physical healing miracles we are discussing. And I am not talking about people who call it a “miracle” when a tree falls down and just misses them. Those things are great, but when people start calling it a miracle when the tornado misses your house but totals your neighbor’s, you get close to saying God WANTED to hurt your neighbor. So I never go in that direction. And I, too, am uncomfortable with things like crying statues, etc., and don’t know how to respond to those things. And I don’t think that it is wrong to ask for a healing. I suppose people may think that if you don’t get a healing, that it may weaken your faith. But I think you can still ask, “Lord, if it be your will that I be healthy, please open me up to allow your healing. If there is some lesson that I need to learn through this sickness, disability, whatever, then help me to understand that too. Amen.”
Joanie D.
Sean on 17 Aug 2007 at 6:04 am #
Joanie,
That’s a good point. A miracle is not:
-Providence, God’s common grace given to all his creation.
-An answer to prayer, in most cases. It is something more spectacular than that and rarer.
Some people call both of those things miracles, but that I think is stretching the definition to the point that the original meaning is destroyed.
irreverend fox on 17 Aug 2007 at 7:56 am #
thanks Michael!
here’s the problem…what if “we” are wrong and these types of miracles did not cease with the death of the last Apostle…what if these types of miracles continued throughout the channels of our history validating the human authority of the Orthodox/Catholic Church? Seems like that should be on the table as well shouldn’t it? if you start with the presupposition that these “types†of fantastic manifestations of God’s power ceased with the last Apostle then of course all these accounts of corpses making the signs of the cross, beards that won’t burn…bodies that won’t decay…healings and other signs would be suspect. But why start with that presupposition? What if these signs continue to validate a human authority…the Orthodox community…today just like they did in the days of Paul and Peter?
Felicity on 17 Aug 2007 at 8:19 am #
CMP:
2 Corinthians 12:12 Indeed, the signs of an apostle were performed among you with great perseverance by signs and wonders and powerful deeds.
It would seem that miracles and signs were not so much acts of benevolence or uninterpreted awe, but signs of authentication to a message. This is why Paul could claim the authority he did. As well, this is why we should never accept any claims to ultimate human authority vested by God without the accompaniment of the message with such signs. This was established very early so that God could protect His name–His reputation–in Duet 13 and 18. Otherwise anyone could claim to have such authority. It was and is an issue of responsible discernment.
REPLY:
Mark 13:22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. 23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.
Don’t you worry that someone with a false “sign” would claim the authority of the Apostle?
Gifts are for “building up” and by the fruits you shall know them–not by the “awesomeness” of the signs.
Nick N. on 17 Aug 2007 at 10:10 am #
Good points guys… As a Charismatic-Pentecostal I certainly believe that miracles can and do still occur and I hold this position based on what I read in Scripture first and my experience second, but I find myself frustrated at times at what so many my Charismatic-Pentecostal brethren attempt to pass off or credit as ‘miracles’ (such as some of the things Joanie mentioned).
A young lady asked me last month about how we can perform miracles all the time like a Benny Hinn (God help us!) or other ‘faith healers’. My response was that: (1) Miracles happen when God wants them to happen, and (2) that if they happened all the time then they would not be miracles.
I often hear from various believers that they don’t believe there have been any miracles (and/or sign gifts) since the death of the last apostle and I get varied answers as to why they believe this — Michael, I’d be interested to hear why you hold this view.
Felicity, your comment has a special significance in something that I’m dealing with right now. I have a couple of friends who believe that Oneness Pentecostals are saved because they have attended their church services and seen demons cast out, people speaking in tongues, and miracles performed — They perceive this ‘power’ as fruit and can’t imagine how these people could perform such acts without being filled with the Holy Spirit. The Scripture you posted is one that I have brought up in trying to correct their understanding but sadly as is the case with many Charismatics, they have relied on experience first and whatever contradicts it is given much less thought.
In response to the question asked in the title of this blog post I would say, No, the Church shouldn’t seek for miracles — we should seek for God and enjoy the miracles that follow. =)
C Michael Patton on 17 Aug 2007 at 11:03 am #
I think that I may have said something that miscommunicated. When I said “God has not intervened in such a way since the last Apostle” I put “in such a way” in italics hoping this would communicate what I am saying. I believe in miracles. God did not go a-wall when the last Apostle died. What I meant is that I don’t believe that God communicates in such a way as to authenticate a messenger, apostle, or prophet since the death of the last apostle. (Not that I am saying He could not, I just have never seen or heard of one outside of folk tales).
My question, like I said, if these type of odd things are happening, what is their meaning and significance? What do they communicate?
As well, the question “should the church seek miracles” I had hoped was qualified by the repetition of this question with “should the church seek such miracles. Believe me, I do pray for miracles everyday with regards to my mother.
Having said that I am still skeptical toward any miraculous claims simply because there are so many charlatans out there. Miracles are miracles, not regulars. I have only seen one miracle in my life and its message was very confusing.
In the end, I think that we should pray for a miracle that this post can be understood.
C Michael Patton on 17 Aug 2007 at 11:07 am #
Felicity, good question: “Don’t you worry that someone with a false “sign†would claim the authority of the Apostle?”
This is why Duet 13 gives us instructions that the one who claims to speak on behalf of God must do two things: 1) Perform a sign or wonder, 2) Speak in accordance with already revealed truth.
Vance on 17 Aug 2007 at 11:35 am #
One point you made struck me as important, and I had never thought of it before: that what has been given is sufficient, thus we should be seeking any more.
The primary reason the miracles were performed by Jesus and the Apostles was to confirm for the hearer of the message that the message was true. Before these miracles were written down and passed along by Scripture, throughout the Apostolic age, such miracles continued to have the same use.
Since then, we have THESE SAME miracles that convinced the original hearers of the Gospel provided to us in the written word, as evidence as well. So, to the extent that the miracles were used for that purpose, no additional miracles are needed.
Of course, that was not the ONLY reason for miracles, and so miracles for the other reasons have continued on occasion. But I think this could explain the lack of consistent “dramatic” miracles that we saw in the Early Church. We HAVE those miracles today: right there in Scripture, to accomplish that purpose.
Vance on 17 Aug 2007 at 11:36 am #
Sorry, that first paragraph should say “we should NOT be seeking any more.”
C Michael Patton on 17 Aug 2007 at 12:19 pm #
OK, I edited the post so that it is hopefully more clear.
Sean on 17 Aug 2007 at 12:19 pm #
Following on what Vance has brought up: the fact is that we DON’T have the miracles used to authenticate the Gospel in NT times. We don’t have them in several ways:
-We only have brief records of a few miracles that Jesus did out of many that were not recorded. Most of these are reduced to, “and he healed their sick.”
-Outside of a few occurrences in Acts, we have no records of any of the miracles, signs, and gifts displayed in the early Christian communities. And most of the signs in Acts were related to public ministry, not the ongoing manifestation of gifts in local congregations, which are only tangentially mentioned in a few Epistles.
-At Corinth, gifts and signs were abundant enough for Paul to write several lengthy chapters about them, but we don’t have a narrative description of any of them. We don’t have record of a single prophetic word uttered at Corinth (which pretty much sinks the idea of spiritual gifts being temporary revelatory aids used to help produce the NT.) And yet we have detailed instructions for their use preserved in our canon, meant as instruction for us today.
-We don’t have existential knowledge of ANY of the above ancient miracles.
This last point is what Lessing described as the “broad ugly ditch,” which I’ve previously mentioned, a concept that has fired religious discussions in the West for over two hundred years. In “On the proof of the Spirit and of power, he writes (paraphrasing here from memory), “If the church did miracles today, I could believe easily, but miracles do not happen today, so how can I believe they happened in the ancient times?” This problem has fostered some of the decline of faith in the West, and I would contend that the reformers’ doctrine of cessation greatly exacerbated it.
I cannot say we have the same miracles they had then. We have records of them, something far different. The biblical miracles serve primarily as confirmations to those who already believe. To those outside, I would wager they are far less compelling, if at all. But if we could demonstrate the Spirit and the power like it was demonstrated back then, what a difference it would make.
These things were not given for us simply to read about. They were given for us to experience as part of the life of the community of the Spirit. One of the greatest tragedies of the church is our neglect of these precious gifts that he gave us to demonstrate not just his power but his love.
*******
Michael writes, “In the end, I think that we should pray for a miracle that this post can be understood.” I echo that heartily. The problem with talking on the internet is that we never have the time we need to carefully craft our words so that they are clear to all. If the above is offensive or confusing in any way, please don’t reject it but forgive it. It’s late over here, and I’m rambling and possibly hyperbolic.
Sean on 17 Aug 2007 at 12:21 pm #
If not clear, that last paragraph of my post applies to my post, not to what anyone else has written.
C Michael Patton on 17 Aug 2007 at 12:26 pm #
Vance, you understood me!
“Since then, we have THESE SAME miracles that convinced the original hearers of the Gospel provided to us in the written word, as evidence as well. So, to the extent that the miracles were used for that purpose, no additional miracles are needed.”
“So, to the extent that the miracles were used for the purpose . . .” Exactly.
I am not saying that God could not use miracles for that purpose, but we have to be careful. People who claim absolute infallible authority (prophets, Popes, repressive pastors, etc.), must still show such signs. As I have told often told people, I would have no problem believing in a modern-day prophet or even a Pope, so long as they displayed these type of signs that they were from God AND they were in concert with already revealed truth. But to submit without such signs is naive. Anyone could claim to be from God, but not anyone can raise the dead claiming to be from God.
Matthew 9:5 “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk ‘?
Lots of people claim the prerogative of God, but who can say “get up, and walk”?
C Michael Patton on 17 Aug 2007 at 12:29 pm #
Sean, you are funny. Thanks for the perspective you give. It is always interesting.
ChadS on 17 Aug 2007 at 12:35 pm #
Michael,
I think miracles are still real and present in the church today. Their messages should all be one in the same: that is directing us to focus on Jesus Christ and the new life all believers have in him.
Should the church seek out miracles? If by “seek out” you mean go looking for miracles then I’d probably have to say no. That’s like looking for looking’s sake which has the chance of allowing less than authentic “miracles” being seen as real or charlatans infiltrating the ranks of believers. This goes along with what JoanieD said about trees barely missing people or tornados taking out the neighbors house.
If by “seek out” you mean be ever vigilant and prepared to see the miraculous when it occurs then I’d say yes. This means that all should be spiritually ready and in a state of grace so that when miracles do occur they can be discerned and at the same time frauds can be picked out.
ChadS
C Michael Patton on 17 Aug 2007 at 12:38 pm #
I am curious to know how you all would have answered this:
Hi Michael,
I’ve got a very devote Eastern Orthodox friend (he left evangelicalism and converted a few years ago…he is 24…) he goes on and on about all these fantastic miracles…about saints whose bodies do not decay and even omit “fragranceâ€â€¦um…something about fire that won’t burn a bishops beard or something…I don’t know…sounds legendary…
What should we make of them? Deny them?
Vance on 17 Aug 2007 at 12:43 pm #
Sean, IIRC, most of the miracles performed by Jesus and the Apostles were before those who did NOT believe, so that they WOULD believe. There are Scriptures which explain that very purpose. And, while we don’t have a detailed description of every miracle performed, remember that each individual might only have been exposed to one or two, whereas we have a record of dozens. I think these are meant to be testimonies to us for the same purpose they were originally given.
I have been raised in Pentecostal home, my father was an Assembly of God pastor and evangelist until his retirement. I currently attend and A/G church, and my cousin was just assigned as senior pastor to his first pentecostal church. I have been raised among an acceptance of healing, speaking in tongues, being slain in the Spirit, etc. It is precisely BECAUSE of this long exposure that I have a high skepticism of such phenomenon. I have seen too much of the shallow, unlikely and even outright false. I do believe that God can and does work miracles and even signs today, but not for the same purpose and, thus, not in the same degree or style, as in the Early Church.
Vance on 17 Aug 2007 at 12:50 pm #
Michael, I would first ask: “is this likely to be how God would interact with us today?” Of all the ways He could show Himself and His power, would THAT be how he would do it? What would be the specific purpose of that particular sign?
Then, of course, I would do as even the Catholic Church does: start with extreme skepticism and begin a thorough investigation to determine whether the facts are supported sufficiently to begin with. Does it have more evidence than we would find for a ghost or UFO sighting?
In short, out of respect for TRUE miracles and signs, and to ensure the testimonial power of those true works of God, I would refuse to give it credence until it was virtually undeniable.
Felicity on 17 Aug 2007 at 1:07 pm #
CMP:
I am curious to know how you all would have answered this:
REPLY:
I probably would have sent him a dictionary.
ChadS on 17 Aug 2007 at 2:29 pm #
Michael,
You wrote: “I’ve got a very devote Eastern Orthodox friend (he left evangelicalism and converted a few years ago…he is 24…) he goes on and on about all these fantastic miracles…about saints whose bodies do not decay and even omit “fragranceâ€â€¦um…something about fire that won’t burn a bishops beard or something…I don’t know…sounds legendary…
What should we make of them? Deny them?”
It would be wrong to deny them right out of the gate because they seem so fantastic. Vance is right on. Catholics would start with a sceptical view and then if no natural or scientific explanation could possibly explain the occurance then it would be declared miraculous. However miracles of that sort (incorruptible, sweet smells emanating from a body etc.) are seen as God confirming the holy and virtuous life led by those people.
ChadS
C Michael Patton on 17 Aug 2007 at 2:59 pm #
That is an interesting interpret ion of the smell! I would hate to smell my own carcase
How would you determine that this is what it means, even if it were legitimate?
ChadS on 17 Aug 2007 at 3:29 pm #
Michael,
Your wrote: “How would you determine that this is what it means, even if it were legitimate?”
If incorruption is being offered as evidence in a cause for canonization then there would be other evidence in addition to this one.
First, the incorruption would have to be determined to have no other possible natural origins. For example embalming, mummification, an inhibition of natural enzymes etc. I’m certainly no expert on this stuff but it would a very scientific and rigourous examination.
Then if the person was recently deceased people that knew him or her would be interviewed. They would testify to the life of the deceased: were they prayerful, did they believe in God, did they have upstanding moral character. Their writings would be checked and examined for orthodoxy and determined there was no doctrinal error in them.
Then all the evidence both for and against would be submitted to Rome for further study to see if this person should be canonized.
The incorruptibility would never stand on its own as final proof of a person’s holiness.
How would I determine what it all means? I can’t determine anything by myself. If you’re trying to bait me into more discussions on authority, I’m not biting.
ChadS
C Michael Patton on 17 Aug 2007 at 3:32 pm #
lol . . . no I was not wanting to go there either!! I just wondered if there was a particular tradition concerning this type of occurance that codified its meaning.
kolabok21 on 17 Aug 2007 at 4:14 pm #
I often do not comment here, but today seems as good as any other.
I would like to define, or better yet separate the words into groups for example, when we say miracles and when we say signs & wonders, are we not talking of two different utterances’?
Secondly, I believe that what makes a church; Not dependent on denomination, (does not matter if it is Pentecostal, Evangelical “Protestantâ€, Catholic or Orthodoxy, but rather dependent on the gospel. In other words is it Christ centric or man centric that determines the character of the church.
Now I do believe miracles happen all the time not thru any man, but as an act of mercy and grace of God. Example the man diagnosed with terminal cancer and yet for some unknown reason (unknown to man) this guy several weeks later is in total remission.
That my brothers and sisters is a miracle, a true story by the way, the man was happy because he was going to die and be with the Lord. Evidently the Lord said not today my good and faithful servant, IMO.
Thirdly, I believe the Pentecostal movement has taken a turn down the charismatic path a little too far, because the man is portraying the healings i.e. signs & wonders as divine work of the body of believers (man centered or Christ centered).
The movement really took up steam in the early part of the last century, if you have heard the expression “the Latter rain†you will know what this means and why so much is made of it (the movement).
I personally have not witnessed any of the signs & wonders and pretty much agree with Michael Patton, though I believe miracles do happen, they are from God almighty and not from mortal man. I leave myself open for the possibility that it is possible it could happen, but, just as it was stated in an earlier post “Signs & wonders†was done by the apostles and not beyond. We are in the age of miraculous things all pointing or should be pointing to God and the Advent of Christ.
If anyone can do any of the signs & wonders, then he or she would be an Apostle, then raising the dead, healing the sick, giving sight to the blind and casting out demons is part of the norm. I don’t see it today; we are to busy articulating our theological differences and dissecting other religions. Let me say once again I do not claim it does not happen (miracles), but the signs & wonders as defined do not, but then again what do I know, check this out
http://www.holyfire.org/eng/
Bryant
ChadS on 17 Aug 2007 at 8:43 pm #
Michael,
I’m not aware of any tradition or anything that relates to why a body would remain incorrupt. For all I know there could be perfectly valid scientific reasons why they don’t decay. Since Catholics and Orthodox are the only ones that typically dig up remains to verify they are the person we believe them to be then it stands to reason that the only incorrupt bodies we have up to this point are Catholic and Orthodox. There could be other incorruptibles out there that are of different faiths. Don’t take this to mean I’m denying miracles. There could be both miraculous acts of God that keeps a body incorrupt and mundane physical reasons a body doesn’t decay.
Now, Michael, I see you struck “miracles” from the post title and inserted “signs.” Do you see them as being fundamentally different? Or am I missing something in the definition of the terms? When I see the word “signs” unfortunately my mind goes right to the “signs following” holiness churches. Maybe somebody can clarify this for me, did those holiness churches (the ones that do snake handling, drinking poison etc.) influence the charismatic pentecostals or are they separate branches with a common root? If my history is correct the snake handling movement originated in Tennessee sometime in either the very late 1800s through the early 1900s, but the Pentecostal movement had it’s origins in California. Can anybody shed a little light on this for me.
ChadS
irreverend fox on 17 Aug 2007 at 9:29 pm #
hey Michael…I don’t believe my follow question (comment 4) was dealt with…
Sean on 17 Aug 2007 at 9:32 pm #
Chad,
The (American) pentecostal movement is descended most directly from the holiness churches that emerged during the second half of the nineteenth and first few years of the twentieth centuries, which in turn came out of the Methodists for not being holy enough.
The charismatic renewal, on the other hand, is the entry of pentecostal spirituality into the mainline denominations that began during the 1950’s/60’s. It is largely lacking the Wesleyan root.
The Appalachian snake handling movements are extremely isolated from both mainstream pentecostalism and the major holiness groups such as the Church of the Nazarene. A fair number of them are Oneness churches that deny the Trinity. Their influence is negligible to nonexistent, and their persistence is an embarrassment to the broader renewal movement.
The link between the two is the textually suspect ending of Mark. Many pentecostals accept this as genuine if not original. They (we) believe that the signs of speaking in tongues, casting out demons, and healing the sick will follow “whosoever believes.” The vast majority would interpret “they will pick up serpents” simply as God’s protection from danger, like with Paul in Acts 28. This is the basis for the “signs and wonders” talk. The same ideas could be obtained, albeit less dramatically (and we do enjoy our drama), from the spiritual gift passages in Paul. So for most claim to have “signs following,” they simply mean, “This is a church that believes in and practices the gifts.”
Sources: The Dictionary of Pentecostal & Charismatic Movements; V. Synan, 1971, The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States.
Sean on 17 Aug 2007 at 9:41 pm #
Fox,
This was actually what set off (or at least contributed to) the Reformers’ teaching cessationism. They were challenged by the church to produce signs to prove their doctrine. They responded, “We need no signs; we have the Word of God.” The revelation in Scripture for them trumped any sign anyone could produce.
I put this forward simply as history, not argument.
***
On a related note, for me, I’m not open to further additions to the canon or the faith. The Gospel is the Gospel, and we have the fullness of the revelation of Christ that God has for us. All that is left is the parousia, when truly all these other things will pass away. Till then, however, I will look to use gifts to build up the body in love (1 Cor. 1:7).
***
Michael, thanks for the LOLs. One of my greatest joys is when my students, many of whom have never studied in English before, laugh at my jokes. I’m happy to see that the humor works, at least somewhat, outside of the classroom.
Nick N. on 17 Aug 2007 at 9:45 pm #
kolabok21,
You said: “If anyone can do any of the signs & wonders, then he or she would be an Apostle,”
Two things… (1) Is your presupposition that there are no more apostles? If so then why? (2) Were the 70 (or 72) disciples whom Jesus sent out (Lu. 10) all apostles? And I would add to that those false christs and false prophets who work great signs and wonders (Mat. 24:24) as well as the figure many understand to be the antichrist (2Th. 2:9) — are they all apostles as well?
You said: “I don’t see it today”
Is your position that you must personally see it for it to be true or that you must personally see it in order to believe it? I’d also ask what circles you frequent. In Charismatic circles the sick are healed and demons are cast out with some frequency — the dead being raised to life is another issue (but I believe that resurrection qualifies as a miracle).
You said: “Let me say once again I do not claim it does not happen (miracles), but the signs & wonders as defined do not”
Doesn’t this assume a greater knowledge and experience than you could possibly have? Perhaps it would be better to say that you don’t believe signs & wonders happen any more or perhaps that you have not yet seen enough evidence to convince you of such. Just something to think about.
Chad S.
The snake handling churches came out from the ‘mainline’ Pentecostal churches in the 1920’s. The modern Pentecostal movement really got its start in Topeka, KS under the leadership of Charles F. Parham in 1901. William J. Seymour carried the teaching and experience to Los Angeles, CA in 1906 and that is when the famous Azusa Street Revival began and continued for about 10 years. I’d highly recommend Cecil M. Roebeck, Jr.’s The Azusa Street Mission and Revival: The Birth of a Global Pentecostal Movement, (Nelson, 2006) for a very readable treatment of the events that led up to and went on at the Azusa Street Revival.
Hope that helped =)
Nick N. on 17 Aug 2007 at 10:00 pm #
I apologize if this is off topic but Sean’s comment raised a question in my mind — perhaps you can blog about this next week.
Sean,
In reference to your position on the canon — is that limited to newly minted writings, or would that cover a newly discovered manuscript(s) from antiquity that was attributed to an apostle (although not necessarily pseudepigraphical)? I don’t know if you’ve read Dan Wallace, J. Ed Komoszewski, and M. James Sawyer’s Reinventing Jesus, but they list apostolicity (was it written by an apostle or an apostle’s associate), orthodoxy (did it conform to other known apostolic writings/teachings), and catholicity (was it accepted early and by a majority of churches) as the criteria for determining the canon [p. 126] — If a newly discovered writing(s) met these criteria with as much of a degree of probability as the books that we now have in the canon would you inclined to accept them or not?
I’m just curious to know and I understand if you don’t see fit to respond as this is off the subject of discussion.
Sean on 17 Aug 2007 at 10:22 pm #
Hi Nick,
I don’t think that’s too off topic. I normally don’t do hypotheticals, but I wouldn’t accept either new or ancient writings as canonical. We know of course that Paul and the other apostles wrote more than what we have in the NT. If a manuscript came up that appeared genuinely apostolic, the question arises: why was it absent for so long? I believe the Holy Spirit guided the church in the preservation and circulation of the canon, and if a genuine writing didn’t get in, then there must be a reason for it.
From a different perspective: what contribution could such a writing make? We would judge by the canon we have now. If it contained new and different doctrine, we would reject it. If it contained nothing new beyond what we would have in the NT, then why add it? I would of course study and respect such a work, as I do the post- and sub-apostolic writings, but I do think the canon is reliably closed, and for good reasons.
kolabok21 on 18 Aug 2007 at 6:27 am #
Nick,
You raise a good point! Would we say there is no difference between the 1st and the 21st century, in regards to the signs & wonders? Perhaps better said, do the things associated with signs & wonders of the apostles (those given authority) still apply today?
I do not mention miracles, because miracles happen all the time and my concern is do we still see signs & wonders today?
I personally have not as of yet seen a sign or wonder and doubt it will happen in a Baptist church (not saying God can not, rather our Pastor should not or could not) this answers your question about the circle I am in. Maybe I will, have thought to attend a Pentecostal church for my own curiosity.
Chad gives a good research on the issue congrats, though nothing was mentioned about the latter rain movement and its purpose.
I do not deny anything is not possible with God even today if he wills it to be so be it, I believe on faith whether it happens or not though when it comes to things of signs and wonders that a church or the person of the church, then I have to adhere to 1John 4:1 and Matt 7:1-5 Deut 13:1-3 18:22 and Paul 1 Corinthians. 12:3 primarily thou the whole chapter lay out the theme.
Perhaps your 3rd question should remain just that a question, since the only knowledge I can have is what is revealed by God thru the Holy spirit as I study scripture, do we all not adhere to this?
Felicity on 18 Aug 2007 at 8:42 pm #
CMP Post #8:
Felicity, good question: “Don’t you worry that someone with a false “sign†would claim the authority of the Apostle?â€
This is why Duet 13 gives us instructions that the one who claims to speak on behalf of God must do two things: 1) Perform a sign or wonder, 2) Speak in accordance with already revealed truth.
REPLY:
And who decides if something is spoken in accord with already revealed truth? You’ve created another catch 22, Michael: Only one who performs those two tasks can speak with authority, and yet your second requirement precludes ANY authority because only one who performs those two tasks can determine if it is authoritatively in accord with revealed truth. How does one get judged authoritative by those with no authority to judge? Just yet another contradiction in your “theology.â€
C Michael Patton on 18 Aug 2007 at 10:56 pm #
Felicity, there is no need to talk such a way. Please try to be kind and have a cordial conversation. It just won’t work any other way.
“And who decides if something is spoken in accord with already revealed truth? You’ve created another catch 22.”
And who decides that you are correct in making the Church infallible? You? Ok, once again, as I have said so often and will not belabor any more, we are in the same river, different boats. Can’t you even begin to see this?
C Michael Patton on 18 Aug 2007 at 11:01 pm #
Fox, sorry it has taken so long. Not much time to keep up with all this
You said:
“what if “we†are wrong and these types of miracles did not cease with the death of the last Apostle…what if these types of miracles continued throughout the channels of our history validating the human authority of the Orthodox/Catholic Church? Seems like that should be on the table as well shouldn’t it?”
Absolutely. God is God and we don’t close the doors for his intervention in any way…we just recognize it. That is why I am very open others who speak with the absolute authority of God (prophet or “pope”). They just have to show the signs and be in concert with previously revealed truth. Like I said, I have never seen this before, or even heard of a case where this is probably. But we MUST remain open to it. Our systematic theology, no matter how coherent it seems, cannot place God in a box He did not place Himself in.
Felicity on 19 Aug 2007 at 7:23 am #
Michael,
Why is a catch 22 theology deemed more logical than the theology historically present for 1500 years and historically consanguineous with Jewish tradition and Biblically attested to?
You say, “Our systematic theology, no matter how coherent it seems, cannot place God in a box He did not place Himself in. “
You are stating this as fact (that God didn’t make the “boxâ€: i.e. the Apostolic succession system) and yet you have no sign of prophetic authority that allows you to say such things as fact per your “system.†By your own “system†no one should give your view credence. It’s illogical—and your system prides itself on its intellectualism. There is evidence—historical and Biblical that God DID place himself in that “box†so that man could come to know Him in the Fullness of His Revealed Truth.
C Michael Patton on 19 Aug 2007 at 11:43 am #
Let us press on . . .
Felicity on 19 Aug 2007 at 12:07 pm #
I’m just using your own hermaneutic and directing its gaze at your claims. What’s wrong with that?