Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 2)
In the last post I breifly described what it means to be Charismatic in the theological sense of the word. In essence, it does not necessarily have to do with a belief in God’s intervention in history or his willingness or power to perform modern day miracles, but, properly speaking, it has to do with a particular belief often called “continuationism.” As apposed to “cessationism” the “continuationist” believes that the so-called supernatural sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, and healings (among others) are still active gifts of the Spirit given to people today. The church, according to continuationists should seek, expect, and promote the use of such gifts. All Charismatics are continuationists and all continuationists, properly speaking, are charismatics (even if you must use a small “c”).
Now I want to give a short defense of the Charismatic/continuationist position. Please understand these represent what I personally believe to be the strongest arguments, biblically, theologically, and practically, for the position, but this does not represent an exhaustive list of the arguments.
1. Acts chapter 2 seems to suggest that the gifts of the Spirit (particularly prophecy) would be normative for the church.
Notice especially 14-21 where Peter is explaining to the many Jews gathered to see why these people were speaking in tongues.
“Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. 15 For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: 17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 20 the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. 21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’”
Peter is obviously arguing that the events that they are witnessing are evidence of the “last days” prophesied by Joel. Peter believes that the powers being displayed are evidence that the “last days” had begun. Including in these last days events are great miracles. But most importantly, Peter believes that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit during these days results in specific events: “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” These last days events do not indicate a certain duration or cessation. In fact, it would seem that they will last until the “day of the Lord.” Therefore, it would seem that Peter believes that the giving of such gifts is a perpetual norm of the last days.
2. The entire book of Acts seems to show that the supernatural gifts are common within the Church.
While I don’t believe that this is as strong as the last (for it is very difficult to build too much theology from narrative), it would seem that the entire book of Acts—a book devoted to the birth and growth of the Church—illustrates that these type of gifts are normative for the life of the church.
3. All of Scripture supports the idea that it is God’s nature to work in supernatural ways.
If one were to examine all of Scripture, it would seem that, generally speaking, with exceptions here and there, God speaks to his people in supernatural ways. Therefore, the supernatural gifts of the Spirit are evidence of a continuation of God’s presence within the Church serving as a means of comfort, power, and extension (foreshadowing?) of the Kingdom.
As Jack Deere says,
“If you were to lock a brand-new Christian in a room with a Bible and tell him to study what Scripture has to say about healings and miracles, he would never come out of the room a cessationist” (Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit [Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan, 1997], 54).
4. The New Testament never explicitly states that the supernatural sign gifts would cease.
While this is an argument from silence, it is important to note that the New Testament does not explicitly say that any of the gifts would ever come to an end. In fact, it would seem that the assumption of many New Testament leaders, including Paul, that the “sign gifts” would continue until Christ comes. We have already noted Peter’s testimony above, but also notice what Paul has to say in 1 Cor. 13:
“Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”
Ironically, many cessationists (including myself at one time), have used this passage to defend a belief in the cessation of the gifts. But, in reality, it speaks better for the continuationist’s position.
Yes it does say that “tongues will cease” and that prophecy would “pass away,” but notice when Paul believes in the cessation of such will commence: “When the perfect comes.” The question becomes What is “the perfect.” Some cessationists have argued that the “perfect” is the completion of the Scriptures—the perfect revelation. The idea is that once the Scriptures have been completed, there is no longer a need for gifts such as prophecy, tongues, or any other prophetic gift. Hence, there is no longer a need for confirmatory gifts such as healings and miracles since their purpose was to authenticate the message of the speaker.
But contextually it is highly unlikely that “the perfect” is the completion of the Scripture. The context suggests that “the perfect” is the second coming of Christ—the day of the Lord. If this is the case, this passage advocates at least some form of continuationism. Notice the parallelism:
“Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.
Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”
I have highlighted here using formatted text to illustrate how the text seems to function. Notice that the passing away of tongues and prophecy parallels seeing “face to face” and being “fully known.” It would seem that the best understanding of being “fully known” and seeing “face to face” is not the completion of the New Testament, but the second coming of Christ, for when else will we see “face to face” in Paul’s theology? Paul is looking to the eschaton, believing that all gifts are temporary, but their cessation does not come until Christ comes.
5. Personal Experience
Finally, probably the most powerful testimony to the continuation of the so-called supernatural sign gifts is that of personal experience. If someone has seen or experienced such gifts in their lives, it is very difficult to argue against them. While experience should not be determinative, it would seem that with the lack of conclusive biblical evidence that such gifts have ceased, the believer has a legitimate argument that if they have experienced the gifts they, de facto, have not ceased.
What arguments to you find to be the most persuasive?
Charismatics/continuationists: do you have anything to add?
I know that this blog is titled “Why I am Not Charismatic.” I will soon get to this, but I want to do the best I can to give you a balanced understanding of the issue so that we can all work through this important (and often divisive) issue with great integrity.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- Open Forum: Question from a Reader . . .
- Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 1)
- It’s a boy!! Update and Pictures
- Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 6): Excursus: It's Not About Miracles!
- Why I am Not Charismatic (Complete)
Print This Post

bethyada on 16 Dec 2008 at 1:23 am #
I am a continuationist. I was aware that 1 Cor 13 was used by cessationists but was never impressed by their interpretation. It seemed that it was talking about the end of earthly time, thus what you have suggested. I am interested in your next post as I thought this was their best argument.
One can also look at situations in the Old Testament like David, the prophets, even Saul. So the New Testament is a continuation of the Old but in a new, expanded way: many people, Gentiles, permanent presence of the Spirit (ie. unlike King Saul).
One could add further verses from Acts 2:
Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.
This would suggest that far off means in time following the you, your children, … far off descendants. Unless the Greek insists that this is spatial and not temporal. And that it is for everyone the Lord calls which includes us 2000 years later.
Lisa Robinson on 16 Dec 2008 at 1:36 am #
Well I’m glad you qualified this particular post with being a presentation of continuationism because otherwise I might think you were jumping ship
As you know, I have much to say on this topic and it will be interesting to see where you are taking this. But quickly for now, I think this examination should compel us to ask the question of what are the gifts for? If they were and are for the purpose of God showing himself through supernatural occurrences, then that does lend support for the continuationist argument. But, I think that view shortcircuits the use of gifts in Acts as being the foundation for people to come to faith in Jesus Christ and to edify the body in Christ as the church was being implemented. The gifts were a means to an end, which is Christ.
Matt on 16 Dec 2008 at 2:07 am #
I am interested in this discussion as I was saved through a charismatic experience. Since this time I have fallen more away from this and into a more conservative side of things. I would probably be a cessationist but have not seen any biblical evidence for this. Hope that you will address this in your next post.
Merry Christmas Matt
learning on 16 Dec 2008 at 2:56 am #
Hey Lisa,
I would disagree with you in part. Yes, one of the functions of miracles was to authenticate Jesus and the gospel but were miracles necessary in order for people to believe? No. Romans 1:16 says ” I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is THE POWER of God to everyone who believes.” Miracles can open doors but they are not necessary. God gives miracles for many functions, not just for one function (authentication). The assumption is that the early church needed miracles and such to propel it like a rocket. Miracles were used to launch the early infant church, so it is argued.
Paul states clearly what the purpose the gifts of the Spirit are in Ephesians and 1 Corinthians….for the building up of believers. That’s the primary purpose of the gifts of the Spirit.
God gives the gifts of the Spirit to strengthen the body of Christ. It’s also interesting to point out that if the gifts of the Spirit were for the purpose of just leading people to Christ then Paul’s explanation in 1 Corinthians 12 doesn’t make sense. Paul says
” to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit FOR THE COMMON GOOD. ”
Paul again in 1 Corinthians 14:26 states again the main purpose of the gifts of the Spirit :
” What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. EVERYTHING MUST BE DONE SO THAT THE CHURCH MAYBE BE BUILT UP. ”
If the gifts of the Spirit were for the purpose of being evangelistic tools then what does one do with Paul’s explanation in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 as well as 12:12-27? In 1 Cor. 4-11 Pauls point is that there are varieties of gifts or different gifts within the body of Christ given to us by the Spirit. Then in 1 Cor. 12:12-27 Paul goes on to compare the variety of gifts within the body of Christ to that of a physical body of a person. Paul is saying that in order for a physical human body to be healthy all of it’s different parts are necessary. Paul says this is the same for the body of Christ. In verses 17 Paul says :
” If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell ? ”
Paul’s point is that all of the gifts of the Spirit are necessary for the health of the body of Christ. These are the gifts that he just went over in verses 4-11. If the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in 1 Cor. 12:8-11 have ceased then one does away with Paul’s analogy.
learning on 16 Dec 2008 at 3:02 am #
Hey Lisa, ( i dont know if you got to read my reply to your questions from the 1st post; here is part of it)
….Tongues as ‘ a sign ‘ for unbelievers……..
1.) when it comes to v.22 you have to go back to verse 21 to understand what Paul means by ‘ a sign ‘ for unbelievers. Does by ‘ a sign ‘ does Paul have in mind an evangelistic aid or something else. Let me quote Max Turner (who has a really good book in which he deals with the main objections and names of cessationism. It’s pretty technical but very good. It’s called ‘The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts’. In it he grapples with just about everyone including charismatics……Gaffin, Warfield, Dunn, Grudem, Menzies, Bickle, Farnell, MacArthur, etc….)
On tongues being ‘ a sign ‘ for unbelieves Turner agrees with Grudem :
” Grudem argues that the word ’semeion’ has a double connotation in the LXX: it can mark a ’sign’ either of God’s blessing on his covenant people and/or of his judgment o unbelievers. In Isaiah 28:11 the point is that Israel have not listened to God when he spoke clearly so he will now speak through the foreign language of an invading army. Paul is alluding to this, and making captial out if, when he tells the Corinthians not to speak in tongues (without interpretation); for that way of God’s speaking would be inappropriate – certainly not an evangelistic aid (for they will say
‘you rave’), but rather a sign of God’s judgment (God refuses to speak in anything but a foreign language and incomprehensible language). PROPHECY , on the other hand, precisely because (in contrast to tongues) it is God’s self-revealing and communicating presence, is a sign of his blessing of his people. The convicted outsider can see this and says, ‘ Truly God is amongst you’(v.25)….. Paul does not claim tongues on their own to be a positive sign to unbelievers at all ( though if they were interpreted or recognized- a situation Paul does not envisage- he would no doubt attribute to them a positive value.)……Tongues may mistakenly be made to function as a sign to unbelievers, but then only as a negative one. Paul, for his part, does not think this is their proper purpose, and so he prescribes that they be used only with interpretation, when they may approximate the positive sign value of prophecy. We may thus exclude the view that Paul thought of tongues as primarily intended for the outsider. It is worth noting that Pauls argument seems convoluted here because essentially he only introduces the Old Testament quotation to make the polemical point (over against Corinthian boating in tongues) that , as far as the Old Testament sheds any light on the issue, (uninterpreted) tongues are not a sign of God’s especial blessing of his people, but his judgment on unbelief. ”
The confusion comes when we think that the purpose of tongues is to be an evangelistic tool. 1 Cor. 14 is pretty clear this view of tongues holds no water. The gifts of the Spirit are primarily given for the building up of the church. Paul is clear on that. Paul thought of tongues being ‘ a sign ‘ for unbelievers not the way the pharisees asked Jesus for a sign….sort of like an evangelistic tool for people to come to faith….but rather sign to unbelievers of God’s judgment. Hope this helps.
sjs889 on 16 Dec 2008 at 3:13 am #
From a personal perspective, I am of the opinion that your theology has to change when you experience the gifts of the Spirit.
It will be interesting to see where you are going next, and how you will account for the fact that a significant number of people experience God’s action in their lives differently from you, and how you will explain to people healed how this is different from what was normative in the NT.
Merry Christmas
ScottL on 16 Dec 2008 at 3:38 am #
Michael -
You gave very fair and helpful thoughts in regards to charismatic theology. Thanks for your integrity.
One thing you did mention is ‘it is very difficult to build too much theology from narrative.’ I know you didn’t rule out such, but I think Luke is both historian and theologian in his own right. As we look at both his and Paul’s theology (and the others of Scripture) together, we can build a very holistic pneumatology. One theologian, Roger Stronstad, in his book ‘The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke’ states:
“Consequently, just as the recognition that Luke is a theologian as well as a historian makes Luke-Acts a legitimate data base for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, so the recognition that Luke is independent of Paul will broaden the New Testament data base for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. To recognize these two facts is to rehabilitate Luke as a historian-theologian of the Holy Spirit and to allow him to make a significant, unique, and independent contribution to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.”
Those are some good thoughts. I. Howard Marshall argues similarly for the case of Luke being a theologian in his book ‘Luke: Historian and Theologian’. And interestingly enough, while Paul only refers to Spirit baptism once, Luke does three times. And while Paul only refers to being filled with the Spirit once, Luke does nine times. Thus, Luke probably has some helpful insight on the topic. And, of course, Luke and Paul don’t contradict one another, they compliment one another. (Not to mention how we do build theology from other narrative parts such as the Gospels, Genesis, Exodus, etc.)
Also, you did a great job in exegeting 1 Cor 13:8-12 and how it is sometimes misused by cessationists. Many cessationists also refer to Heb 2:3-4 and 2 Cor 12:12 to build a case for the ending of signs, wonders, miracles and spiritual gifts. But I think they are improperly understood as well. I had looked at all three of these passages in an article I did on Apostles Today. If you are interested.
I guess your conclusion will be that you are not a hard-lined cessationist, but not a charismatic either.
Thanks again.
britphil on 16 Dec 2008 at 6:23 am #
Hey Michael…guess what, I’m learning…
It wasn’t so long ago that I would have read the first part of this series and launched in…but gladly I waited and I’m so glad that I did. It’s really good stuff.
With regard to your first post, when you said that you used to choose what books you bought based on the cessationist/continuationist stance of the author, my first impression was “that’s pretty grim” until I thought about it and realised that I probably do the same but in reverse!
I am what I would term (hopefully) a sensible/rational continuationist, by sensible/rational that means that I do have severe reservations about some of the more extreme stuff. It is also in response to Lisa’s earlier comments about her reservations about the health/wealth teaching. Can I just purport that such teaching is largely an American and possibly African development which has never really caught hold over here in the UK. Maybe it is to do with the more reserved/cautious/rational Western European mindset but I do not detect it as being as much of a problem here as it is in the USA.
Also, I do think one aspect which is very rarely mentioned is the fact that over the past couple of decades the “charismatic movement” has matured beyond recognition from what it was when it first started to break across denominations in the US/UK. At times it feels that some strong anti-charismatics are making assessments about the movement as it was some 20 years ago rather than as it is now.
“I am interested in this discussion as I was saved through a charismatic experience. Since this time I have fallen more away from this and into a more conservative side of things. I would probably be a cessationist but have not seen any biblical evidence for this. Hope that you will address this in your next post”
I think Matt makes a really salient point here, in that as he and Lisa are evidence of, we journey in our experiences..and the journey goes both ways.
From my own perspective, just in case you think I grew up with a “charismatic” background that is not the case. I probably should have done, given that my maternal great-grandfather was the pastor/leading light of then first Pentecotsal independent evangelical church in the town where I grew up. However, it was pretty much sensational hellfire and brimstone stuff and my Mum was frightened off by it and to cut a long story short, she and my Dad, through the influence of the mission-minded local vicar, joined the “low church not too overtly evangelical” Church of England parish church right at the bottom of our street.
It was there that I grew up and my early spiritual formation took place until as one of just two seventeen year olds at the church, with deep questions of my own I started to attend the neighbouring parish church which was at the vanguard of the charismatic/renewal movement under the ministry of a courageous, dynamic pioneering vicar and his gifted wife.
To cut a long story short it was not long before I committed my life to Christ and a lot of the knowledge and teaching that was contained in my mind, became very real in my heart and soul and applicable to my everyday life. In the year that I was there I grew an awful lot spiritually.
I then left my home town and church to study in a town some 100 miles away in the Midlands. I had every expectation that the church I would choose to worship at would be of a similar ilk. As it turned out, the church I eventually spent the next three years of my life at only had one thing in common with my home church in that it was an evangelical Anglican church…but it was a far more conservative evangelical church, whose worship was far more traditional than my church at home with an organ and a robed choir instead of a worship group leading worship. Although I confess I did get somewhat frustrated with the worship at times, the fellowship was some of the warmest I have ever known and I found the teaching deeply challenging and thought provoking. The vicar and his wife were from my home city, and very different to the vicar and his wife at home (actually not too different in that both wives were very gifted in their own right with powerful women’s ministries of their own).
Again I grew incredibly…but probably the experience at this time which had most effect on me was my time spent in leadership of the university Christian Union. I was President for a year and our group contained students from every denominational stream/emphasis you could think of, both charismatic and non-charismatic alike and it was a great challenge to me to ensure that I remained as objectively minded to both sides of the debate as I could.
I then started work after college in a large town in he South of England where the evangelcial Anglican church I attended was 500 strong, and where a lot of really hard work was done to “maintain the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” to provide a spiritual home for charismatics and non-charismatics alike. The question I have is..shouldn’t this be the norm rather than the exception?
If a church provides a home only for charismatics or solely for cessationists is it truly glorifying, honouring and pleasing to God, that someone should feel automatically excluded and prevented from attending or being a member of a church because of their doctrinal stance on this issue? I think this is a really important question which we run away from rather than grapple with and address.
After a couple of years I returned to my home city where I rejoined my home “charismatic” church of which I am now on the leadership team. One other part of the journey is that I am involved in creating Fresh Expressions/emerging versions of church for those who may find traditional versions of church difficult to relate to. Over the last couple of years I have found that balancing the more verbal/rational/literary spiritual; diet experienced on a Sunday morning with the visual/multi-sensory/contemplative dare I say a slightly more catholic approach has been immensely helpful to me.
Sorry to go on a bit, but we do journey and shouldn’t be afraid to do so. I would also like to stress that, regarding the maturity bit, the charismatic church I have rejoined is probably less in the vanguard than it used to be and somewhat restrained. If I am honest at times I think we have maybe too safe and conservative and need to recapture some of the dynamic/cutting edge ministry that has maybe been lost along the way.
With regard to my overall stance I have never been able to fully understand the biblical basis of the cessationist stance in that I cannot see where Scripture explicitly, or even implicitly forbids the use of the more “supernatural” (oh how I dislike that word…can we find a better expression please!!) spiritual giftings. I have yet to see a persuasive or convincing argument put forward.
I fear that actually, at its heart is a certain insecurity and a desire to do the same to God as we do to each other ie tie him up in ribbons and keep him safely in a box with a label attached so that we can attempt to control Him and how he chooses to operate rather than be open to allowing Him to control and direct the building up, growth and development of His church.
Having “bad experiences” at one “chariamatic” church and extrapolating that to cover all charismatic churches as a whole and to declare that they are all “off beam” is por and lazy theology to me I am afraid. For every bad experience in a charismatic church there are countless others who have had equally bad experiences in a cessationist church and whose growth and development only really took off after they had left it to join a church where their giftings could be encouraged and developed. I count myself very much in this mould.
Michael I love the way in your second post that you explore the arguments for continuationism. So compelling (and as you say, by no means exhaustive) were they, that I was left wondering in astonishment why you remain a cessationist..but I am sure you are going to tell the full story over the continuing threads!
And one final thing..my hunch is that this largely centres around the area of healing/tongues. (Guess what guys..I don’t speak in tongues and ahave no overwhelming desire to!) I am going to appeal for a “third way” in that I actually believe that there are many “soft” cessationists who maybe are “antil-healing/tongues” but who are more open to some of the other supernatural manifestaons of the Spirit for the common good.
I look forward to hearing the responses of people here. This is a really good series.
Lisa Robinson on 16 Dec 2008 at 7:24 am #
Hey Learning,
Yes I did see the response on the other post. This is finals weeks for me so the quick read and drop is all I can muster for now
I would not disagree with you statement that the gifts are for the edification of the body. In fact, I would say that Romans 12 and I Cor 12-14 demonstrate that is exactly what they are for. The issue, in part, is if the gifts in the context of the early church are the same gifts that we need now in our context. I would further add that I am specifically referring to tongues, which I Cor 14:22 tells us are a sign for the unbeliever. And I don’t think we can dismiss the role that the gifts had in the authentication of the gospel, which in our present day context, is not needed. Remote parts of the world, maybe. I am not a hard cessesationist.
In terms of prophecy, I would say that there is no longer an office of the prophet, which is God’s spokesperson. Prophecy carries an authority that Hebrews 1:1-3 tells us is placed in the Son, whose revelation is now inscribed. If we have the authority we need in Scripture, what do we need prophecy for? I know that some believe that you can be prophetically gifted, which is different than being a prophet. I don’t know that we can make that separation on a Biblical basis but I am still wrestling with that.
In terms of miracles and healings, I believe that God can heal whom He wants anytime he wants for our good but primarily for His glory.
britphil on 16 Dec 2008 at 9:37 am #
Please do not feel as though you have to reply to this as I would hate to be the person responsible for dragging you away from your studies. Anyhow I guess you are far more disciplined than I ever was in that I could easily be lured away by the offer of a coffee and a chat with a friend on any and every occasion possible, rather than some much needed work/revision time!
I have this feeling that Michael might finish with a flourish by saying that in reality and practice most of us are a combination of cessationist and charismatic although we would probably hate to be thought of as such.
But first let me comment on your own, as ever, eloquently argued points. Am I the only one who is baffled by the scriptural injunction that tongues is for mainly for unbelievers. My hunch is that most earnest and sincere enquirers would run a million miles away from a congregation full of ecstatic tounges-speakers.
To expand on my own experience, quite early on following my initial commitment, I went through a phase where I earnestly sought the gift of tongues in private but gradually became aware that I was wasting a lot of prayer time/spiritual energy and it began to dawn on me that my time and energies cold be spent much more productively, profitably and effectively in other directions. That probably classifies me as a heretic in some charismatic circles but hey…who cares?? I certainly don’t!
However I am happy to partake in worship where speaking/singing in tongues takes place so long as no pressure is put on me to conform. Whenever that happens I will dig my feet in and purse my lips tightly! With regard to my own church experience, we are probably far less tongues-centric than we were some years ago, although I know there are people who pray privately in tongues, or will do in a small group/more intimate setting or on occasions when the laying on of hands for healing takes place.
“The issue, in part, is if the gifts in the context of the early church are the same gifts that we need now in our context.”
This is where I really struggle with the classical cessationist position. I find it really interesting that those of us who engage with Fresh Expression/emerging church issues and base our position on the need for cultural engagement and on contextual grounds are often dismissed by the same people who hold a view on cessationism which is all about relating the Biblical teachings to their culture and is rooted in a particular context . I do find it hard to grasp how spiritual gifts can somehow be relevant for a certain period of time and then there suddenly without any explanation is a cut-off point and such giftings are not only to be experienced or developed no longer but to be actively and positively discouraged.. Could someone please explain to me when that cut off point was, and who decreed that this should be the case and upon whose authority this decision was made?
Also I just think this is pretty thin ice to to skate on. If the same gifts are not needed now, are the same fruits of the Spirit not needed now either or are they somehow timeless? Are the incredibly slimmed down list of non-supernatural giftings outlined by Michael in his first posting really appropriate and sufficient to truly and adequately engage with and meet the challenges of today. I doubt it persoanlly myself. What suddenly changed so dramatically, contextually or societally to render the supernatural giftings impotent or redundant all of a sudden?
I am much more inclined to recognise and endorse a “spiritual fruits and spiritual gifts” more holistic ministry, believing a both/and scenario to be more effective and desirable than an either/or position.
“And I don’t think we can dismiss the role that the gifts had in the authentication of the gospel, which in our present day context, is not needed.”
Hmm I’m not so sure I can agree with you on this one Lisa. I’m sure that any intelligent and honest enquirer/questioner, would soon be asking the question after reading the Book of Acts, why aren’t these things happening in the church today? And if not, shouldn’t they be?
Or maybe we should rename the Book of Acts “the book of the Acts of the Apostles solely for the time of the Apostles!” If we really believe that, then we have to say the same for every book of the Bible, including the gospels, that each one was only for its time, context and culture and not for the here and now.
“In terms of prophecy, I would say that there is no longer an office of the prophet, which is God’s spokesperson”
This is where you may feel that I am a bit barmy but I am going to argue here that I believe the non-supernatural gift of preaching and teaching needs to have a more “supernatural” prophetic edge to it in order for it to be truly effective. What do I mean by this?
Well I would hold that preaching which purely seeks to expound the Scriptures but does not seek to take what God is saying through his word to his people,and to attempt to apply it and make it relevant, sensible and appropriate for people living their lives in the 21st century, is preaching which is somehow deficient in its nature and character.
The difficulty with this approach is that this requires the preacher/teacher not to be content merely with “a good preach” which pleases the congregation but to really and seriously truly engage and grapple with the text and say OK this is what God says, but how are we to apply this in the here and now, not in some theological ivory tower, but where the rubber really hits the road. By definition that may often need to have a contemporary prophetic slant/edge. My hunch is that often preachers don’t have the time and energy or quite often sadly neither the desire nor the the inclination to really grapple with the text in its fullest sense and application or to believe that this is necessary.
Theological colleges which pride themselves on turning out gifted preachers need also to be teaching their students about the prophetic edge there has to be for their preaching/teaching ministry to be truly effective. When God speaks through Scripture, the Holy Spirit applies what is taken from the writings within the context of the canon of Scripture yes, but equally He takes it and firmly embeds it in real everyday life and into a context which is experienced completely outside the canon of Scripture, if that does not sound too confusing.
“In terms of miracles and healings, I believe that God can heal whom he wants anytime for our good and primarily for his glory.”
I am with you 100% on this Lisa but I think this raises far more questions about the cessationist stance than the continuationist position.
I actually think that, when you scratch beneath the surface, many cessationists are more continuationist in principle and cessationist in practice. If the supernatural gifts are not for today how can God still heal and perfrom miracles? If so, does he only heal and work directly ie via prayer but without any laying on of hands whatsoever?
Also in the gospel writings, even with miracles themselves God did not choose to work independently of us. At times God chose to work in conjunction and co-operation with human beings ..it was the disciples who were asked to distribute the bread and fish after he had prayer over it and also to collect the basketfuls afterwards, involving them both before, during and after the process by which he miraculously fed both the four and the five thousand. Can He still not co-operate with us today in the ways in which He chooses to work? Is our God the kind of God who “goes it alone” or is He not more of a Team Player, teaching us important things along the way as we engage with Him? I find it a difficult position to hold that God works through continuationist means in certain circumstances when he chooses yet is most definitely cessationist in certain others. It just feels like a case of “having your cake and eating it” and hedging your bets a bit…just in case!!
Having said that there are issues around healing where I am definitely more cessationist than continuationist, such as was discussed yesterday in areas such as Alzheimers,, strokes, certain forms of mental illness and disability. This is partly because I prefer from issuing false hope and to try and encourage people to see that fullness of life can be both sought and experienced across the whole spectrum of the human condition.
I shall be really interested to hear your response..especially if you are from the cessationist side of the fence!
Lisa..you are excused…get back to your studies…this minute!!
ronquiggins on 16 Dec 2008 at 10:39 am #
As others have stated, I can hardly wait for the next post on the subject. In the interim, I might remind us of three points:
1. Acts is not only narrative but also a transition book of church development. Hence, caution should be used in determining doctrine – depending on where you are in the book.
2. Church fathers such as Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Augustine & Eusebius all stated in their writings that the gift of languages used to be around but was no longer practiced.
3. The definition of prophesy might need to be determined for this conversation. Three come to mind – foretelling, new revelation, and preaching.
Sarah Mae on 16 Dec 2008 at 11:08 am #
My “tongue speaking” friends always quote scripture that has to do with Jesus dying for not only our sins, but for disease, etc. Therefore, if we don’t believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit and healings, we are saying Jesus’ death wasn’t enough.
Robert Jimenez on 16 Dec 2008 at 12:59 pm #
Britphil,
Great response, I have many of the same sentiments as you.
You mentioned that ““supernatural” (oh how I dislike that word…can we find a better expression please!!) spiritual giftings”
Gordon Fee uses the term “Spirit manifestations”, which according to him it is “Paul’s own term in context”. Maybe that would be a better term to use. I have recently been introduced to Gordon Fee (hard to believe since I have been a charismatic since 1980, when I gave my life to the Lord). But thank God I was led to his writings.
I am going to quote a bit of what he has to say regarding the Spirit. From “Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God, Gordon Fee”
“For him (Paul) life in the Spirit meant embracing both fruit and gifts simultaneously and vigorously – what I have come to call life in the radical middle…to recapture Paul’s perspective: the Spirit as the experienced, empowering return of God’s own personal presence in and among us, who enables us to live as a radically eschatological people in the present world while we await the consummation.” pg. xv
He goes on to point out that Paul was not writing in such way as if he was knowingly contributing to the New Testament, but rather for him the “new covenant was not a written record at all but a historical reality, experienced anew at the Table of the Lord and realized on an everyday basis through the presence of the Spirit” pg 3
He claims that the greatest problem for him is “the nearly unviersal tendancy to divorce the list of Spirit manifestations (Paul’s own term in context) in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 from it clear setting of Christian worship” pg. 163
I think for those of you who are really serious about this subject (i.e. Spiritual Gifts, or the Holy Spirit), you should read Gordon Fee’s books. For the very serious I would recommend “God’s empowering presence – The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, Gordon Fee 967pg). If you are looking for an exegetical breakdown then get this one.
For those that would like something more manageable I would recommend “Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God, Gordon Fee 208pg”
Gordon Fee is a recognized Theologian, and highly respected. He is not a third waver, but raised within the Assemblies of God (AG), and AG ordained minister. He does not hold to the classical pentecostal position of speaking in tongues is the initial sign of being filled with the Holy Spirit. I cannot express what a great job he does in both of these books.
Jugulum on 16 Dec 2008 at 1:55 pm #
Lisa,
On tongues, I think there’s a lot more complexity to the Biblical evidence than your comments are recognizing–particularly on the “sign for unbelievers” issue.
You might take a look at an entry I just posted a few days ago about the subject. In the entry, I’m not trying to take a position, but to identify all the questions I can.
An Exhausting Set of Questions on Tongues
Jugulum on 16 Dec 2008 at 1:59 pm #
Sarah,
Yeah, the “healing in the atonement” idea is unfortunately widespread–though not universal–in the charismatic movement.
The charismatic Sam Storms has an excellent article on the subject.
Jugulum on 16 Dec 2008 at 3:40 pm #
Britphil,
I don’t think that’s really a valid charismatic/cessationist distinction. It’s an area where the two groups don’t use terminology quite the same way.
You’re assuming that “prayer for healing with the laying on of hands” is “the gift of healing”. But cessationists don’t think that way.
For most cessationists, “the gift of healing” or “the gift of miracles” means something like “able to heal or work miracles at will”. But for most charismatics, “the gift of healing” means “God often answers my prayers for healing”. I think that’s how the two groups view it, anyway.
It’s odd… Jack Deere makes the same mistake in Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. At one point, he’s arguing that miraculous gifts happened throughout the entire Old Testament. And he points to the miracle of creation as an example! He assumes that if God works a miracle, that counts as a miraculous gift. Even though there wasn’t a human involved!
An interesting question: What’s the difference between an answered prayer, and a miraculous gift? If my whole town is praying for a drought to end, and God miraculously ends the drought, does that mean that we all have a miraculous gift?
C Michael Patton on 16 Dec 2008 at 3:54 pm #
Jug,
Very good explanation. I agree completely that this mistake is often made. People use evidence for the miraculous to prove continuationism. But that is certainly not the issue as I belabored to point out in the first post in this series.
clearblue on 16 Dec 2008 at 4:15 pm #
I come from a very strongly cessationist (indeed, anti-charismatic) background. One large part of the reason for the strong reaction against charismatics in my parent’s generation has been the way that charismatics have been very divisive and subversive in the church (sort of like the situation in Corinth). In other words, the gifts of the spirit were claimed, but little of the fruit of the Spirit was in evidence and enough of the ‘works of the flesh’: ‘contentions, strife, dissensions, party-spirit’ (Galatians 5:19-21).
For myself, I long ago gave up trying to defend cessationism on the basis of 1 Cor. 13 (the way it was theologically justified) and would now hold to a more cautious but middle of the road view.
What I really wanted to share, however, was the response I got to asking questions of missionaries to China from my church’s background about reports of miracles, etc, happening in China. Bear in mind that these missionaries are also from an ultra-cautious background concerning charismatic things. Their answer was that, yes, miracles were happening (they gave some examples of healing through prayer which led to the conversion of local communist party officials), but that (a) these miracles were happening in rural areas amongst very poor, illiterate people and (b) that after these people had become Christians and had recieved the Bible and started being taught, the miracles stopped.
The missionaries definitely considered these miracles to be signs in the sense that they served the purpose of confirming the reality of God to atheists and the truthfulness of the gospel that was being preached. Their incidence dropped (or stopped) with conversion and Christian growth.
C Michael Patton on 16 Dec 2008 at 4:23 pm #
That is very interesting.
Jugulum on 16 Dec 2008 at 4:29 pm #
CMP,
I want to draw out another important implication: Charismatics and cessationists actually agree about this a lot more than they sometimes realize.
When charismatics say that “God gives the gift of healing today”, many of them mean “God may decide to often answer one person’s prayers for healing”. They mean that Joe Christian might see people healed more frequently than other people do. They don’t mean that Joe Christian can heal anyone he wants.
There’s still questions. Like:
1.) How do we talk when we pray for healing? Can we pray with the assumption that God will say “yes”? (Some charismatics think we should pray with command & authority.)
2.) What role should healing have in evangelism?
But keep in mind with #2: If a charismatic means that we should be quick to offer prayer for the people we meet, then isn’t that a good thing? Whatever you think about the gifts?
Lisa Robinson on 16 Dec 2008 at 4:44 pm #
Jugulum,
You are probably right. But I will have to sift through the comments and really reflect on the issues, something I just don’t have enough time for now.
Brit,
If I were really disciplined, I wouldn’t be here at all until after Friday when all my stuff is due. Maybe my version of coffee and a chat
Jugulum on 16 Dec 2008 at 5:08 pm #
Lisa,
Heh. Good luck with finals. (Er, wait, we’re not supposed to say “good luck”, are we? Oh well.)
BTW, I recommend Grudem’s book on prophecy and Caron’s exposition of 1 Cor. 12-14, for more food for thought on this subject. (Note: I’m not sure I endorse Grudem’s definition of prophecy, but his book has some great discussion to think about.)
Stephen on 16 Dec 2008 at 6:47 pm #
I am surprised that with all of this discussion on spiritual gifts no one has brought up anything that the High Priest of Christianity (Jesus himself) had to say on the subject. I am especially surprised since this site seems to be dedicated to reclaiming the mind for Christ. Christ taught that his TRUE disciples would do the things that he did and more.
In a post above ‘clearblue’ mentions people in China receiving spiritual gifts before they know anything but then they loose them once they have been ‘taught’. Could this be because they were taught wrong and that the teachings they were taught did not truly lead them to be Disciples of Christ who are transformed into a new creation that lives in and though love with God’s love pouring out of them? Could it be that the teachings, doctrine, theology, ect that they were taught actually told them that they didn’t have to be a true disciples that died to all of their own self will and nature in order to take on God’s nature?
My view is that the Spiritual gifts are still available….there is just a MASSIVE lack of TRUE disciples of Christ who read what he said then obey it. Today’s Christianity is about “being saved” not being a disciple of Christ who views him as Master and obeys what he teaches. Even many people who study the Bible to great lengths never truly allow it to shine deep into the depths of their heart in order for it to transform them. They become more Biblically educated, more informed, more learned, but unfortunately that is often times just their own self pride and self’s ability creating a false religion that is nothing more than an external shell. True religion of Christ is when HIS words/teachings come alive in your heart and life and manifest out into the world. It is when being saved means that through the teachings and power of Christ he has REMOVED your sinful nature and destroyed it.
I am a firm believer that we don’t see the spiritual gifts that Christians are entitled to because it’s rare that we see a true Christian who has given up their life, their self will, self desire, ect….in order to learn from Christ how to live for God. This is plain to see because Christianity is so massive that with roughly a third of the world being supposed ‘Christian’ there should not really be any problems in the world, it should be over flowing with God’s love that loves even a enemy. If todays modern Christianity is actually Christianity and filled with disciples then it should prove itself by its fruit (John 15:8)….yet it does NOT prove itself to be anything more than a religious extension of the world.
This is why I am not modern day Christian, yet Jesus is certainly my Master, he has removed the sinful and prideful nature from my heart and I am eternally in bondage to him. And while I have not personally healed anyone, I do experience spiritual gifs such as prophesy for a specific person on a regular basis.
The student when fully trained will be like the teacher ~ Jesus
With all of my Fathers love,
Stephen
learning on 16 Dec 2008 at 8:40 pm #
Clearblue
That is interesting. But the gifts of the Spirit are different. They are for the church. Yes, God uses miracles and such to open doors but it’s clear in scripture…..the gifts are for the church.
EricW on 16 Dec 2008 at 8:53 pm #
Their answer was that, yes, miracles were happening (they gave some examples of healing through prayer which led to the conversion of local communist party officials), but that (a) these miracles were happening in rural areas amongst very poor, illiterate people and (b) that after these people had become Christians and had received the Bible and started being taught, the miracles stopped.
That has got to be the best argument against theological education (or overevaluating it) that I’ve read in a long time!
It reminds me of the old joke of the poor old Pentecostal preacher being given a tour of the Vatican by a well-dressed and highly-educated Catholic priest.
After being shown the artwork and treasures the Vatican held, the priest said to him, “As you can see, we no longer have to say, ‘Silver and gold have I none.’”
To which the Penteostal preacher replied, “Yes, I can see that. But can you still say, ‘In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk’?”
Didn’t Paul say, “For the kingdom of God is demonstrated not in idle talk but with power”? (NET Bible)
EricW on 16 Dec 2008 at 9:02 pm #
I meant to write: “That has got to be the best argument against theological education (or overvaluing it) that I’ve read in a long time!”
(And if you saw my study/library/books, you’d know that I don’t discount the value of a theological (or other) education.)
ScottL on 17 Dec 2008 at 8:37 am #
Grudem is open to prophecy in a reformed openness.
I would say his book – The Gift of Prophecy in the NT and Today – is maybe a good starter for reformed minded people becoming open to the gift of prophecy. But his arguments are so intense and intricate that I can see many taking his view on prophecy and, thus, not being able to move forward anymore. So, maybe not.
I think his view of prophecy falls short of Biblical understanding, and he also believes OT prophets and NT apostles are basically the same thing, in that they were the authoritative proclaimers and writers of God’s word during their time. Sounds nice and neatly packaged, but it doesn’t always fit into such package. I believe his understanding has watered down prophecy so much that it loses any sharp edge to being from God. He seems to embrace that we make a disclaimer every time before prophesying such as, ‘I think the Lord could possibly maybe be saying…’ I can’t agree with that.
Even his own seminary professor (Edmund Clowney) challenged Grudem’s position in his book The Church (not harshly, they are still friends). So, I don’t think Grudem’s thesis was very good. It was like he was trying to leave the door cracked open, but didn’t want to open it too much because of his high respect for the canon of Scripture and fear of unaccountable and unweighed prophecies. That is noble, but fear, of any measure, will most likely never be helpful in forming our understanding on topics.
Jugulum on 17 Dec 2008 at 12:08 pm #
ScottL,
I share your questions about Grudem’s watered-down version, though I suspect that there’s something to it.
For instance, his connection between OT prophets and NT apostles. The New Testament does look toward apostles for authoritative teaching–and never toward any of the prophets that are mentioned. And his argument from “weighing/sifting/testing/discerning prophecies” is important. As are his observations about the Greek for “prophecy”, and the way that word was used in the 1st century. (If we’re talking about a different word than the Hebrew word–a word with a definition & usage that’s broader than the Hebrew word–then it becomes a bit more reasonable for NT prophecy to be less authoritative.)
I thought this part of your comment was…”meh”.
Ed Clowney disagrees. So what? Lots of people have true beliefs that their seminary profs disagree with. (And Grudem may have other seminary profs who agree with his thesis!)
Someone could say, “D.A. Carson sees merit in Grudem’s position. So, I think Grudem’s thesis was very good.” And that would have precisely as much merit as your observation about Clowney.
I will, however, check out Clowney’s critique. Thanks! (I’d like to find some good interaction with Grudem’s ideas.)
anti-Diogenes on 17 Dec 2008 at 11:57 pm #
I would say that the second BIGGEST thing that has *disuaded* me from cessationism is *how they treat “charismatics.”
There are segments of the body of Christ I disagree with theologically, but I treat them with love and give them a lot of deference generally.
I don’t see this happen hardly ever from cessationists towards “tongues talkers.”. I usually see rampant name-calling and accusatory language like “deceiver.”
I appreciate your tone and manner of writing here.
Waiting for more….
ScottL on 18 Dec 2008 at 11:48 am #
Jugulum -
In regards to Edmund Clowney’s critique of Grudem’s thesis on prophecy: he only does this in one of his chapters in the whole of the book, so it is maybe 15-20 pages. Here was the thing that I found interesting. Both Clowney and Grudem are reformed theologians. Yet, Clowney is much less open to prophecy than Grudem, actually I think Clowney would say it does not exist. Yet, Clowney showed some fallacies in Grudem’s argument. Here was a hard-nosed cessationist critiquing a soft-cessationist/soft-charismatic. That is why I thought it was interesting. Not to mention that I thought Clowney’s arguments, albeit they are only in 15-20 pages, were good challenges. Grudem answers Clowney back in the newer edition of his book of prophecy.
Alden on 18 Dec 2008 at 4:53 pm #
I am a continuationist, although I would not be considered a Pentecostal or strong Charismatic (I do not believe that individuals are given specific gifts, but that the gifts are available to the church).
Experience is, I think, can be a basis for both continualists as well as cessationasts (of course, for them it would be a lack of experience…). I’m interested in the theological justification for your position, as I think it is impossible from Scripture to support a position that the gifts stopped with the Apostles; again, that seems to be based on an understanding of historical experience rather than Scripture.
One thing that I think is interesting about the cessationist position is that they don’t discount all of the “gifts;” as you’ve pointed out, they still pray for healing and miracles. However, I think they’d have a different position about prophecy and speaking in tongues. How do you support this divided approach?
Eclectic Christian - Michael Bell on 18 Dec 2008 at 5:39 pm #
Michael,
I think this whole cessationist argument is really a North American/European thing.
One keynote speaker at Urbana (sorry I forget who) made the point that if you go out on the mission field as a cessationist you will soon discover that the rest of the world looks through a very different spiritual lens.
I wonder if our rampant consumerism in North America has made us blind to some spiritual matters.
Case in point. I am what you would describe as a “quiet charismatic”, charismatic in theology, but not so much practice.
There have been occasions where I have been given one of the sign gifts to use for the benefit of the body. (Was this temporary or permanent – I don’t know, but that is for another discussion.)
I visited a poor church in North Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. I was a first time visitor, there with a friend. When I walked into the church I felt this overwhelming sense of evil, like I have never felt before. Was something in the service causing me to feel that way? I couldn’t figure it out.
So I asked my friend to come outside and pray with me. We asked God to protect the church. When we went back in, the sense of evil was gone.
My friend suggested that I talk to the pastor. I protested, he didn’t know me from Adam, and how would a pastor feel if someone told him his church was full of evil. My friend insisted, saying that he would vouch for me, and that it was important that the pastor knew what had happened.
We went to the pastor, and told him what had happened. The pastor didn’t blink an eye but said to my friend. “How far was he sitting from person X?” My friend said two seats over and one row back. The pastor said that this would explain in because person X had been experimenting with the occult, and his fear was that this had opened a door to bring spiritual forces into the church. The pastor then turned to me and said. “If God has given you this spiritual gift, I would encourage you to consider attending a church where this gift is allowed to be exercised. By not doing so you are restricting what the spirit wants to do through you.”
I never did fully follow his advice, but it did open my eyes a lot more as to what the Spirit may choose to do in a believer.
Incidentally, I don’t think I ever went back to that church, but my friend told me that two weeks later Person X had manifested a demon in the church, and had to be taken out of the service and delivered. Yeah, I know that it sounds a lot like Frank Perreti, but it s really hard to be a cessationist when you have had experiences like that.
Yet in Yuppyville, Southern Ontario, where I now live, I think it would be very rare to find experiences like that. (Unless of course your church chooses to deliberately work with the poor – but few are doing that.)
EricW on 18 Dec 2008 at 7:00 pm #
I remember a pastor once saying something to the effect that if we want to receive the same Holy Spirit the disciples and the early Christians received, and know that we received the same Holy Spirit that they received, then we have to receive it the same way they did. I.e., he was saying that if, as the Book of Acts seems to confirm or bear witness to, the sign to the early church that a person had received the Holy Spirit was that they gave forth some kind of prophetic or charismatic utterance or exclamation or manifestation – e.g., tongues or prophecy or ecstatic behavior – then we should not settle for anything less or anything else. Because if we don’t have what they had or get what they got or do what they did, then how will we know that what we got is what they got, and what we have is what they had? :^)
Even after the church had become ritualized in its baptisms, the initiation was still accompanied by exorcisms (e.g., Apostolic Constitutions or Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, etc., IIRC).
learning on 18 Dec 2008 at 7:27 pm #
Eclectic,
I would agree with your comment on cessationism being a western thing. I have had the same thoughts and feelings about this whole topic. Timothy C. Tennent in his books ” Theology in the Context of World Chrisitianity “, in his chapter on Pneumatology states :
” The Reformation’s emphasis on the authority of Scripture, ecclesiology, and Christology are clearly reflected in the post-Reformation attempt to systematize the theological deposit of the Reformers. However, this meant that, as was the case during the patristic period, a full development of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was delayed and several vital aspects of his person and work were neglected in post-Reformation Protestant theology in the West. Over time, several major theological traditions developed that either denied completely or extremely limited the active role of the Holy Spirit in performing miracles, divine healing, demonic deliverance, prophecy, tongue speaking, and other elements that later became central features of the Pentecostal doctrine of the Holy Spirit. For example, this tendency is evident in many expressions of Reformed theology as well as in the later nineteenth-century emergence of dispensationalism, although the precise lines of their argumentation against the exercise of the gifts of the Holy Spirit today are different from one another………..the point is that theological reflection in the West gradually became dominated by a range of theological systems that denied that the exercise of the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit was a normative, much less essential, part of the church’s ongoing life and witness in the world…….
…….Traditional Western theologies were written by scholars who received their education in respected universities that were deeply influenced by Enlightenment assumptions. The Enlightenment worldview creates a high wall separating the experiential world of the senses – governed by reason and subject to scientific enquiry- from the unseen world beyond the wall; such a world either does not exist (naturalism) or, if it does, we can know little about it (deism). The result has been essentially a two-tired universe that separates the world of science from the world of religion………
………..However, much of the world finds this mechanistic, rationalistic worldview of the Enlightenment unintelligible. For most people there is no real wall of separation, and the border that separates this world from the unseen world is more of an open frontier than a high wall with a few approved border crossings. The whole of creation is animated by spirits and various dynamic unseen forces, including demons and angels. Frequently, spiritual explanations are more common than naturalistic ones because their overall worldview is more spiritualistic and relational than naturalistic and mechanical…..
………….In the past, when missionaries arrived with their modified Enlightenment worldview and their restricted, truncated pneumatology, they did not know what to say when someone claimed that a drought was caused by God’s judgment, or when concerned parents came and asked the missionary to cast out the demon tormenting their daughter, or when someone claimed they had received a revelation to preach the gospel in a particular new region. Sadly, the missionary had no training or categories to respond to this worldview. They had inhabited a Christianized version of a two-tiered universe, whereas they were working among people who lived in what Paul Hiebert insightfully calls the world of the ‘ excluded middle ‘. The only catergory the missionaries had was a term like ‘ superstition ‘, which they frequently resorted to in order to explain these ‘ spiritualized ‘ explanations of what surely had its basis, they reasoned, in naturalistic explanations. These missionaries were evangelical in their theology, but when it came to applied pneumatology in real life contexts, they were functional deists. This is why Lesslie Newbigin argued that Western missionaries were one of the greatest forces of secularization in history “.
EricW on 18 Dec 2008 at 9:05 pm #
learning wrote: These missionaries were evangelical in their theology, but when it came to applied pneumatology in real life contexts, they were functional deists.
Evangelical = believing in and proclaiming the Good News:
1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit…
14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15 He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17 The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21 and he began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4)
It seems to me that to be “evangelical” means to also be pneumatological in real life contexts and situations. :^)
Why He’s Not Charismatic | Through A Glass, Dimly on 07 Feb 2009 at 4:28 pm #
[...] 1 Part 2 Part 3 – Prophecy and Healings Part 4 – [...]
Buddy on 12 Jan 2010 at 8:34 am #
Hi CMP,
Regarding 1 Cor 13:8-10
8“Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
Verse 8 certainly references prophecies and knowledge as “passing away” and references tongues as “ceasing”. Then verse 9 references knowing and prophesy as “in part”. Tongues is not mentioned in verse 9. Verse 10 then says that when the perfect comes, the PARTIAL will pass away. Verse 10 doesn’t mention tongues and uses the “pass away” as was used in the previous verse when referring to knowledge and prophesy. To me, this seems to support your position.
Blessings,
Buddy