Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 6): Excursus: It's Not About Miracles!

# on 14 Jan 2009
Current Issues in Theology & Spiritual Gifts

Comments (36)

Related Posts

• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 1)
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 5): An Argument from History
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 2)
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 8): I am a De Facto Cessationist
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts

36 Responses to “Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 6): Excursus: It's Not About Miracles!”

1. ScottL on 14 Jan 2009 at 5:59 am #

   No doubt it is worth noting that both sides believe in miracles and healings, but also distinguishing between their particular beliefs about how often and how such miracles and healings come about.

   I guess what you might argue is that a cessationist believes miracles can happen, but it is through the normal means of prayer that we see these happen, not laying on of hands and almost a declarative proclamation of, ‘Be healed!,’ as we see in the Gospels and Acts. The latter expressions are usually more of a description of the charismatic. Thus, the charismatic sees both as acceptable (fervent prayer and laying on of hands & proclamations in Christ’s name), while the cessationist generally sees the former (fervent prayer) as the means of healings and miracles, and most times those healings might be progressive than instantaneous.

   In all, I think the charismatics leaving comments, or at least most, or at least me, understand you are not trying to argue that cessationists do not believe miracles and healings ever happen. But you are arguing they are not normative, a regular part of Christians lives, and possibly arguing they don’t happen by means of the same way Christ and the first apostles accomplished such.

   To this, it is somewhat difficult to approach. Some quotes were given from church fathers of such practices of multiple spiritual gifts, and even healings and miracles. And the quotes given (multiple of them) did not say that every once in a while we heard or saw these things. There was mention of multiple occurrences (maybe pointing to ‘regularity’).

   Still, the regular/normative argument becomes difficult. Is it regular or normative to expect these? Well, I might try and answer with wisdom by saying, ‘Yes and no.’ In general, I don’t expect such things to come from every Christian’s life. Matter of fact, I have been used very infrequently in such a gift as prophecy, and have never laid my hands on anyone for spontaneous healing, that I can remember, though I have had hands laid on me and known God’s healing. Yet, I know some friends in my life who have multiple testimonies of such, and I have seen a few of these.

   Yet, considering that there are one billion (or more) Christians in the earth, we could say such things are normative, considering the Holy Spirit has many more people submitted to Him for His use. Thus, I would say that miracles and healings, and other gifts of the Spirit, happen every day from ‘the rising of the sun to the setting of the same’. No doubt there are heightened measures of this in places like China, India, Africa, and South & Central America. It challenges us in ‘the west’, yet knowing that these things happen in the west as well, as I have seen them and many of my ministry partners walk in.

   In regards to this be a more modern phenomenon (1900 to present day), I am ok to see it as heightened in the past 100+ years. As I commented on another article of yours, it might be somewhat in regards to the early rains and latter rains that Joel referred to in 2:23. Just as Israel expected an early season rain and a latter season rain for their crops, and since the Spirit is very much described as water in Scripture, we could possibly have expected a heightened move of God’s Spirit in the ‘last of the last’, similar to a heightened measure in the first century. Yet, we do not know if we are in the last of the last. It is just something to consider.

   Thus, I do believe we must consider these things as somewhat normative, at least today. History was written by those in the lead, and just because those in the lead may not have reported frequent manifestations of the Spirit’s power in healings and miracles, this does not negate the possibility of such. Yet, if a people are convinced (or even always cautious) of such things not happening, outside of a sovereign move of God, I doubt they should expect anything (back then or presently). I supposed that is what happened with Azusa Street and on from there – God just decided to break in. I don’t negate history, but I know history is not the determining factor in the moves of God’s Spirit.

   I know I have not said anything new to you. I just wanted to interact and encourage you that I understand your heart.

2. minnowspeaks on 14 Jan 2009 at 9:24 am #

   CMP–your arguement continues to sound to me like making a definition in order to be “correct”. And I might add create division. “I am a cessationist. How about you?” “Well, I think I’m a charismatic because I expect to see miracles more than the average Joe and I’ve experienced a healing. Oh yeah I speak in tongues, too.” Why? How is this helpful or advancing the gospel? What good is accomplished with God in mind? Is anyone served? It’s like you’re discribing a sliding scale with some magical point on it after which you are in one camp or the other. Only, because you pick that point it keeps sliding so that only those in your camp can be “correct” about whether a variety of gifts (esp. prophecy and miracles) are actually for today, leaving those in the camp who think they are for today without any room to stand.

3. Markd on 14 Jan 2009 at 9:37 am #

   I believe in the miraculous. I also believe that miracles are stop gap measures often used to bail out God’s children when they follow after their own counsel. Are they necessary for “proof”, no, but it was nice to feel my back at ease once again. I had a nagging “go to the chiropractor, you idiot” pain for about six months. Four weeks ago, without even asking God to do anything about it, someones faith, annointing, or whatever was working and I happened to be in the general vacinity and, well, its been four weeks since my back has hurt.
   The pain was all my fault. My weed trimmer is too short and I spent my summer vacation stooped over it to earn some extra $s.
   Now, I alluded to another idea, that of living in the blessing of God. Stuff that we accept as normal (heart disease, stress, obesity, back problems, money problems, money problems, money problems) are really not normal and by using the instruction manual God has given us, most, if not all can be avoided. No, its not as exciting as a miracle. I would rather live in the blessing of God every day than to rely on miracles.
   BTW, my wife was given a death sentence almost exactly five years ago. Glioblastoma Multiforme, one, if not the most deadly of brain cancers. Her doctor, also a military surgeon talks about her case every time he goes anywhere. Every time he relays their (other neurosurgeons) reaction, we just smile. He knows and we know that she is alive today because of the miraculous healing power of God. She wrote a book about it…

4. ScottL on 14 Jan 2009 at 10:34 am #

   minnow -

   I don’t think I need to take up for Michael, but I would give him the benefit of the doubt as not trying to divide the body of Christ, but rather trying to clarify his heart.

   I think it, no doubt, difficult by writing articles and leaving typed comments. We can’t see body language, hear tone of voice, or other such things. For example, someone could read my comment above, or throughout the series, and think I am one arrogant person. Maybe I am, or maybe I was just sharing some thoughts. No doubt this kind of misunderstanding through the medium of typing might have happened with Michael and that led to him write this article to ‘clarify’ his view. He might have thought his view was being attacked as some silly argument without much thought or consideration, when it is plausible that many were just sharing some thoughts and ideas, yet for a challenge, but with no selfish intent.

   Again, it isn’t easy when typing. Thus, I would try and give Michael the benefit of the doubt.

5. John C.T. on 14 Jan 2009 at 10:37 am #

   I’ve been following the various posts, though I may have missed or forgotten some,

   What I have yet to see is the presentation of any verses in the Bible that indicate some of the gifts are intended as signs, and that these gifts were intended to be present only for the short time when the New Testament scriptures were being written. Consequently cessationist arguments turn on the fact that few o no people today in the west appear to be experiencing these gifts. And since God has not spoken about that fact, we are left with human arguments and picking and choosng from hisotyr (if hisotry is so important, we should all go back to the R. Catholic church).

   regards,

6. Lucas Fordham on 14 Jan 2009 at 11:08 am #

   If the early church needed miracles to authenticate the Gospel message, shouldn’t we need the same power? They get miracles and we get a book. Hey Jesus rose from the dead and here is a book to prove it. Hey Jesus rose from the dead so let me pray for this blind man and Jesus will heal him because Jesus is alive.

   I know it’s more complex than my above statement but that is how the average Joe Sixpack and Sally housecoat perceive reality.

   Lucas F.

7. Lucas Fordham on 14 Jan 2009 at 11:14 am #

   I guess that I should add that I became a Christian and believed in Jesus without seeing miracles but then again I am also a reformed Christian so I guess it shows you how I feel about God electing to save some and not others based on his own free will choice to do so.

   I just sometimes wish we would see explosive miracle power to shut the mouths of people like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris who always use Humes argument against miracles.

8. Layton on 14 Jan 2009 at 1:50 pm #

   CMP said:

   “Folks, we all believe in miracles to varying degrees. If you don’t then you have departed from the historic Christian worldview and slipped into some variation thereof (something of the deist sort).
   Even most cessationists believe that God could gift anyone with the gift of tongues or prophecy at his will.
   A charismatic, however, believes that these are normative and that we should expect them. Did you get those two important words? Normative. Expect.”

   Absolutely right! Charismatics do see these gifts as NORMATIVE and they do EXPECT them. And what is to be said if we do not experience or participate? Are we lacking in the Spirit? Are we in rebellion? Are we ignorant? Are we arrogant? Are we without faith? Are we sub-spiritual? The charismatics I have had experience with do accuse non-charismatics of these things. Im sure not all are like this and forgive me if I painted you with the wrong brush.

   I welcome any gift God wishes to give me. I believe there are miracles . I believe there are healings. I do not expect them nor do I demand them. However, I believe the Holy Spirit distributes gifts as He wills.

   1 Cor. 12″ 4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.” Did you catch that, ” as He wills”.

   Some folks are discouraged when they don’t see the spectacular. They may blame themselves, their Christian ministers, or God Himself. This has ruined the faith of some I know.

   Let us trust the sovereignty of God in these matters and stop the blame game.

9. Layton on 14 Jan 2009 at 1:57 pm #

   Last post

   Forgive me, I did not mean to paint all Charismatics with the same brush. Only to relay my experiences.

10. Marv on 14 Jan 2009 at 6:17 pm #

    Disclaimer: I just found this post and haven’t had a chance to read
    the earlier ones in the series. So my comments are just on this one
    and comments that follow.

    First, I request a bit more precision: Charismatic and Continuationist are not
    simply synonyms for one another. I am an non-Charismatic Continuationist.
    Charismatic relates to a historical movement which integrated Pentecostal
    second-blessing theology in denominational contexts outside the traditional
    Pentecostal groups. Continuationist indicates the view that gifts described in
    the NT persist into the current day, but does not necessarily affirm a baptism
    in the Spirit as an event subsequent to conversion.

    Second, I would like to observe that reference to “sign gifts” as such is, in
    my opinion, a dead giveaway that the speaker is a cessationist. It always
    strikes me as faintly dismissive. There are various uses of “sign” in reference
    to spiritual gifts and instances of miracles, but the use by cessationists seems
    to carry some baggage with it, specifically an intimation about the purpose for
    such gifts. I think this generally suggests more than can truly be supported
    by Scripture.

    Another giveaway word is “normative.” I am not entirely sure what this really
    means. I would think that not carrying out the desires of the flesh, for
    example is “normative” for believers, but in history and in experience this is
    pretty iffy.

    Also I would question the validity of describing some gifts as “supernatural”
    to the exclusion of others. If it is the activity of God on our depraved selves
    it is supernatural.

    I agree that it is not about believing in miracles or not, per se. It is in fact
    about believing the Bible. Why I am not (no longer) a Cessationist is that
    I just can’t support it by the Scriptures. What you see in the church down
    the street, what you see on TV, what you see in history, what you see in
    your own life–make these arguments if you want, but they are decidedly
    secondary. My reading of the Bible indicates ongoing minstries of Christ,
    that He is pleased to effect through His body. I used to argue for cessation
    of certain of these, as I was taught to do, but I found I couldn’t make them
    from the Scriptures with intellectual honesty. They simply do not work.

    Don’t see much in the way of results?? Sure, let’s explore the reasons why,
    but “God just doesn’t do it that way any more” is definitely not the only or
    best explanation for our experience or lack thereof.

    Also, the suggestion in one comment about miracles through prayer vs
    miracles by declaration etc. is, I think, making a false distinction. The Father
    brining glory to Himself through answers to prayer, a la John 15, is not a
    different phenomenon to the power given to be His witnesses in Acts 2.

11. Eclectic Christian - Michael Bell on 14 Jan 2009 at 9:52 pm #

    CMP,

    I have following this series with interest with only a couple of comments thrown in. There seems to be one major flaw I have seen in your arguments.

    If I were to use a parallel situation…Theologically I believe that the bible teaches that faith in Christ transforms lives. But as I look at the lives of Christians around me, I fail to see it. They have the same divorce rates, affairs, gluttony, etc. So although Scripture talks about being transformed into the image of Christ, it seems that I must conclude, that this is somehow not meant to be normative for today. Sure is may happen on occasion. I am sure all of us know stories of a drug addict who became a Christian and cleaned up his life. But these stories are few and far between, and can not at all be considered normative. Rather they are anecdotal stories, that would probably be expected from any statistical population group. So although the Bible seems to teach differently, I must be considered a cessationist and conclude that Christ does not transform lives.

    Now I know what I have just written, is way overboard, and don’t think for a second that I believe what I have just written. (Although sometimes I am tempted to think that way.) But it sounds so much like what you are saying about the “sign” gifts of the spirit. Yes, it seems to be biblical that they are still around, but that is not your experience. Sounds a lot like experience dictating theology and not the other way around. Something the charismatics get accused of all the time.

    Mike Bell

12. yipeng on 14 Jan 2009 at 10:47 pm #

    I appreciate your clarification in helping to seperate theology and reality.

    It has helped me to question what I believe and why I do.

13. minnowspeaks on 14 Jan 2009 at 11:04 pm #

    Scott–Thank you for the gentle correction. I am not trying to accuse CMP of intentionally creating division. I apologize for letting my frustration with this arguement cause me to be insensitive to how I came across.
    Layton–The extremes are always ugliest. I have heard cessationists accuse charismatics of being possessed because they speak in tongues and charlatans because not everyone they pray for is healed.

14. Nevin on 15 Jan 2009 at 4:39 am #

    I think most of us understand that quoting occured miracles from the Church Fathers doesn’t prove the continuation of the sign gifts view; however, there were many quotes given that didn’t simply refer to miracles, but to ‘gifts’. I purposely quoted (comment 20 of previous post) from the early church, those quotes which referred more specifically to ‘gifts’. If Church history in general supports cessationism, how are we to handle such seemingly contradictory quotes? In the very least, it seems to make that statement inconclusive. It seems to suggest that more reseach is needed before we can claim that orthodox church history supports cessatiionism. So, not all evidence is referring only to miracles…to say otherwise is only half the story.

15. bethyada on 15 Jan 2009 at 4:59 am #

    Cessationists can often be heard saying “That is why they are called ‘miracles’. If they happened all the time, they would be called ‘regulars’!” With this I agree.

    Miracles are such because they go against natural law. It is not their frequency. Even if I walked on water across the lake every day to work it would still be a miracle.

    I think the bigger issue for your distinction is whether God imparts the ability of miracles on specific persons. Do some people have giftings from the Holy Spirit such that God performs wonders thru this person on a somewhat regular basis.

16. Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 15 Jan 2009 at 6:29 am #

    Why is no-one arguing from an exegetical standpoint? I’ve been following this series of posts hoping that it would turn to an exegetical discussion of texts.

    I saw a comment making the argument that the Apostles got signs, but we got “a book”. Considering that Peter saw Jesus (which no Charismatic can prove they have), and could still say that we have a more sure word of prophecy in the Scriptures (2 Peter 1:16-21), that comment is rather denigrating to the power and authority of the Scriptures.

    Looking forward to some exegesis real soon

17. ScottL on 15 Jan 2009 at 8:03 am #

    Marv -

    You stated – ‘Also, the suggestion in one comment about miracles through prayer vs miracles by declaration etc. is, I think, making a false distinction. The Father brining glory to Himself through answers to prayer, a la John 15, is not a different phenomenon to the power given to be His witnesses in Acts 2.’

    No doubt I would agree. But in the context of Michael’s article in which he claims cessationists believe in miracles and healings, I would probably distinguish that a cessationist believes these things come about through prayer in a general sense. Whereas a continuationist would conclude that healings and miracles can come through a variety of ways (in the supernatural sense), whether it be prayer in one’s personal prayer time, laying on of hands and instantaneous healing through prayer, laying on of hands and proclamation in Christ’s name for healing (which is really communicating with God), and so many other ways we see from Christ and those in Acts.

    So, do know that I don’t want to divide it up nice and neatly. I was just making a comment in considering Michael’s own thoughts that almost every Christian truly believes in miracles/healings.

    minnow -

    Thanks. It’s ok. I’ve been there myself many a times.

18. Layton on 15 Jan 2009 at 8:19 am #

    minnowspeaks

    I was refering to my “normative” experience with those who fit Michael’s definition of “Charismatic”. My experience and understanding of those included in this definition is that what you call extreme cases are the norm. I conceeded I have not had experience with everyone who is charismatic.

    This is Michael’s definition, “A charismatic, however, believes that these are normative and that we should expect them. Did you get those two important words? Normative. Expect.”

    I am saying that his definition fits my experiences and is a one reason why I am not a Charismatic.

19. Minnowspeaks on 15 Jan 2009 at 8:28 am #

    #10 Marv–glad you joined the discussion. I think you bring up a great point regarding our ability to argue the ceasing of any “gifts” from scripture vs our tendency to argue from experience. We love (myself included) to explain away scripture which is unsupported by our experience without calling ourselves into question. Makes one think…

20. ScottL on 15 Jan 2009 at 8:48 am #

    Douglas -

    No doubt Michael will bring in the Scriptures that are relevant. He loves studying the Word. And, I do believe that Scriptures have been referred to by many throughout this series in the comment sections. I tried to bring up a few to consider.

21. Markd on 15 Jan 2009 at 10:32 am #

    #10 Marv
    “…the suggestion in one comment about miracles through prayer vs
    miracles by declaration etc. is, I think, making a false distinction. The Father
    brining(sic) glory to Himself through answers to prayer, a la John 15, is not a
    different phenomenon to the power given to be His witnesses in Acts 2.”
    Sorry if it was my post that garnered this. I wasn’t entirely clear. There was prayer involved in my back healing, just not mine. For my wife, there was untold numbers of prayers sent to the throne. Hers, mine, and anyone else I could name. If personal experience is not valid what is?

22. buddyglass on 15 Jan 2009 at 1:19 pm #

    I feel like you’re creating somewhat of a false dichotomy between “strong charismatic” and “strong cessationist” when in fact there is somewhat of a continuum between the two.

    I might not think the gifts are “normative” and don’t “expect” to see them reguarly, but I might still think they are MORE active and have MORE of an expectation of seeing them than a strict cessationist.

    Know what I mean? One could, for instance, hold the position that the gifts are normative and to be expected in situations where they would be needed, however one cares to defined those situations. In the missionary field is one big one. So then, that person might “expect” the gifts to occur, just probably not in their local church.

    My point is that there are folks who consider themselves charismatic who nevertheless don’t meet your strict definition of “charismatic”, but who are still generally “more charismatic” than those who consider themselves to be “cessationist”.

23. Marv on 15 Jan 2009 at 1:33 pm #

    Prayer vs laying on of hands etc. Sure I was keying on a comment,
    but I find it a pretty common concept in this kind of discussion.

    By God’s arrangement, Christ’s Body is supposed to witness in power.
    That’s why he told his disciples the Comforter was coming and that fulfilled
    prayer would glorify the Father. And then the Comforter came and so begins
    a whole new era with the Spirit empowering Christ’s body, so that what He
    “began to do and teach” in His earthly ministry, He continues to do in the
    church. His ministry is spread out through the body, like the President’s
    executive authority is delegated and divided out to his cabinet.

    By God’s plan, we are talking about God’s power being demonstrated through
    human beings. That is why we get surprising indications that what Jesus
    was doing in miracles was done as a man, THE Man, empowered by the
    Spirit. Remember He is the Messiah, the ANOINTED: empowered for service
    by the Holy Spirit.

    Why would God the Son need the Spirit to do a miraculous event?
    He doesn’t, but that is what He chose to do. Why? So he could pass this
    on to other humans, His disciples, empowered by the same Spirit, the
    Comforter. So what He did, “anyone who has faith” could do. His words, not
    mine.

    The miracles of Jesus’ ministry, if you will pardon the suggestion, were pretty
    small potatoes for the Second Person of the Trinity, who created all things
    and holds creation together by an act of His will. Healing the sick, dividing
    the loaves: this was Christ in His office as the Second Adam, the Man God
    appointed (the God-man) to do it all right, and bring redemption for the
    people God is forming for Himself. He was not only God, He was with God.
    That is why we get Peter’s surprising statement that Jesus did his miraculous
    acts because “God was with Him.” (Acts 10:38) He says Jesus was “anointed
    with the Holy Spirit and power.” (ibid.) Now who else has been anointed with
    the Holy Spirit and power? Jesus told His disciples “you will receive power
    when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Acts 1:8) to be witnesses.

    Well, that was the apostles, wasn’t it? He also told them to teach US all that
    He had commanded THEM. So did He mean it when He said “whoever believes
    in me will also do the works that I do?” (John 14:12) Here he EXPLICITLY links miraculous works and prayer: “Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” (v. 13) Witnessing power, miraculous
    acts, answered prayer, spiritual gifts, it’s all reference to His amazing and
    gracious empowerment and commission for us as His Body.

    Jesus healed etc. because God was with Him. Then He arranged that by the
    same Spirit He would be with us. How long? Until the apostles died? Until
    the Bible was written? HIS words: until the end of the age.

    That’s why I am a continuationist.

24. minnow on 16 Jan 2009 at 4:06 am #

    Amen Marv! #23!

25. John C.T. on 16 Jan 2009 at 11:59 am #

    And when the Spirit came at Pentecost, it wasn’t just to the writers of the New Testament (and Paul was absent, by the way), nor to just the 12, but to everyone in the upper room.

    It is also enlightning to look at CMP’s next post, about “validity” in which he argues that the validity of Chrstianity does not depend on the inconsistent and often poor evidence of the Sprirt’s work in the lives of believers. The death and resurrection of Jesus is valid apart from experience.

    What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The validity of the charismata does not depend on historical experience, nor on present experience, nor on the testimony of and in the lives of believers, but rather the validity of the gifts depends on the Spirit, and on its actually being given by God and it’s actually occrruing the initial time in the upper room.

    If CMP wants to make the validity argument about Jesus death and resurrection, then he has to make the same argument about the gifts.

    That brings us back to the recorded words of Jesus, and the Word of God through the various apostles. When one looks at those words, at what God promised, there is no indication that the gifts (or some of them) were only temporary, or only for the purpose of a sign. There is every indication that they were for the body of Christ, for the building up of that body, and that there are as permanent as the gift of the Spirit Himself (who now indwells us as God within the temple of our bodies just as He formerly indwelt the temple of Solomon).

    If we see a lack of gifts in our church (and not all do), that does not, therefore, mean that cessationism is true, because that is only an observation made about the outward appearance of the life of the Spirit in the church. The gifts are, despite that, valid. We must therefore search for an explanation of their lack in areas other than “cessationism” linked to the supposed lack of a need for so-called “sign” gifts.

    regards,

    regards,

26. Layton on 16 Jan 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    John C.T.

    You said, “We must therefore search for an explanation of their lack in areas other than “cessationism” linked to the supposed lack of a need for so-called “sign” gifts.”

    I am curious, what explnation would you give for the lack of the gifts in a church?

    BTW, I am not a cessationist and I have agreed with you that labeling some gifts as “supernatural sign gifts” presupposes a cateloging (sp?) of gifts which I find is unacceptable.

    thanks

27. John C.T. on 16 Jan 2009 at 1:22 pm #

    The problem of framing.

    CMP defines a group of christians that he then labels “charismatics”. The christians in this group may come from and be found in a variety of backgrounds and churches, but they share some essential characteristics: “the so-called supernatural sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, worker of miracles, etc. are normative for the church and that we should commonly expect people to be gifted with them.”

    Note in the definition some key terms: “sign”, “normative”, and “commonly expect” (I note also the unecessary and pejorative use of “so-called”, but I’ll leave that alone for now). While that may be truly descriptive of a certain group of Christians today, CMP has not shown that it is the properly descriptive essential characteristics of the Christians in the various churches Paul wrote to, at the time he wrote to them. Consequently, undermining the present group he labels “charismatic” does not default one to the the position of having to belong to the group he labels “cessationist”. One could agree that the position and beliefs of the current “charismatic” group are wrong, without having to then join the cessationst group (which is what some of the other commenters above have observed).

    It certainly has not been demonstrated that tongues (etc., in CMPs’ list) were intended to be and to only be “sign” gifts, nor, among things, that the other gifts were not supernatural. Furthermore, it has not been established that the current “charismatic” understanding of the normativeness of the gifts in the life of the church is the same as the understanding of those early first century churches. That point has been raised several times by commenters, though CMP appears to dismiss all such comments when he declares that “Just about every objection that I have seen so far has been something I have belabored with blood, sweat, and tears to say is not the issue.” At any rate, he has not responded to those comments.

    What the commenters have made efforts to establish is that there is a range of what could be considered “normative”. Some would argue that the historical experience of the church, in which in many centuries was a decidedly less frequent occurance of gifts, was still within the range of normative. Some have argued that gifting and normative does not mean frequent and regular–a person who is gifted with a healing may only perform it a few times a year or in their lifetime but still be considered to have been gifted by the spirit (my paraphrase). Others have pointed to the notion that our expectations are not God’s, and that even within charismatic churches God should not be expected to act like a coke machine that distributes when we expect Him to.

    Hence the responses are only beside the point (beside CMP’s point) if the entire issue is properly restricted to only the framing that CMP gives it. I agree with those that point out that CMPS’s framing is not the only possible framing of the issue and that his framing may not be (in my belief is not) the correct one.

    regards,

28. John C.T. on 16 Jan 2009 at 1:29 pm #

    Layton (#26)

    Not having been raised in charismatic circles, nor having moved and worshipped in them (though I did know such people), and gifts not being a reason why I am a follower of Jesus, I’ve never thought about teh absence of gifts deep enough to have a particular belief about their absence. In general, I think that the history of the church does show that the beauracracy did make concerted efforts to squlech the manifestation of the gifts, and to teach that their absence is proper and normative, and by so doing did greatly grieve the Spirit. Moreover, the church lost and did not record much about the proper use and experience of the gifts, which would have and should inform our current impoverished understanding of how and why and when to experience and use and express these gifts.

    There is also some part of the explanation that will likely always remain unknown in this age, for the mind and purposes of God are not completely knowable, and the Spirit, like the wind, blows where He wishes.

    I’m not saying that I’m correct, only that those are my current thoughts.

    regards,

29. Layton on 16 Jan 2009 at 1:50 pm #

    John C.T (#28)

    The explanation I find as most tenable and biblical is simple – God has not gifted where or when there is no need. I leave the gifting to the sovereignty of God (1 Cor. 12).

30. samuel on 16 Jan 2009 at 3:21 pm #

    Michael,

    Reasons why i hate Charismatic

    1. People who claim they have these gifts use it to promote themself. They always want to say how great they are.

    2. Since they are gifted, they want all people’s request to go through them. They bahave as authentic dealers for God mercy. They never encourage people to pray for themself.

    3. Central idea in Christian faith is the trust on the Son to have fellowship with God. charismatic people’s trust is more on the vision, word(a word from a person who claims he got it from God), prophecy, and other signs. They have empty trust. Even if they trust Christ with the help of these signs, they are not complete trust.

    charismatic folks are handed over to deception and they will never understand truth. All they want is to be hero. They can join show business.

31. Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 17 Jan 2009 at 8:50 pm #

    I was really disturbed by Marv’s last comment (#23). I became a soft cessationist after years of being a Pentecostal because I was seeing that for some continuationist Christians, the signs and wonders were being used as gimmicks to impress folks into a decision for Christ, rather than the simple, “foolish” means of the preaching of the Word and allowing the Spirit to work – as was the custom in the Acts and Epistles. Do we REALLY need miracles, signs and wonders for the Gospel to do its work? I should hope not…

32. Grackle on 17 Jan 2009 at 9:41 pm #

    Layton, CT, Paul did not just say it depends on God’s will and left it at that. He also said, “earnestly desire the greater gifts”. Was that not also God’s expectation?What does God meant by ‘earnestly desire’? What does it mean but to persistently and fervently, ask, seek, and knock. It means taking the trouble, meeting challenges, and paying the price. Do you see anyone doing that? So God placed a door, but it is not going to be opened to those unwilling to play the game His way.

    Continuationism has moved on for those who are earnest. Like Marv here I believe. Consider ‘miraculous’ healing. Why can’t anyone see that God actually grants His Church healing through several levels? Briefly:-
    1.Healing for the unsaved in conjunction with evangelism. The 12, then the 72, were sent out to announce the Kingdom, drive out demons, and heal the sick. All this they did, weeks before being empowered by the Spirit. They simply did miracles by the power in the Name of Jesus. There is no reason why this cannot happen today.
    2.Healing for the saved within the Charismatic Liturgy. This is the one mentioned by Paul in 1st Corinthians and the one most confused with (1) above. But the operational context is “when you are gathered together” (14:23,26) in a church service.
    3.Healing for the saved by Elders (James 5:14). The appointment of elders are ordained by God (Titus 1:3). To highlight this, God places the onus on the sick to ’summon’ the elders in recognition of their authority over him and his illness. The elders respond with the appropriate symbol (the oil) representing the Spirit who made them overseers (Acts 20:17,23).
    4.Healing for the saved ‘by each other’ (James 5:16-19) through trust, transparency and fervent prayers. Here God honors a spiritually healthy fellowship with healing.
    5.Personal faith and responsibility.

    As you can see, there is no single panacea. Even a Cessationist church can perform miraculous healing. If some churches regularly observe point 3, it will be normative for them. If another regularly observes point 4, it will normative there. And so on. It all boils down to the ‘obedience of faith.’

    Currently, points 1 and 2 are jumbled together in the Cessationism-Continuationism debate. But I think they need to be distinguished to narrow down the issue. For me, yeah, it is not about miracles but every Scripturally directed practice should be normative and it is really up to us to play the game by the rule.

33. Clint on 19 Jan 2009 at 1:09 pm #

    It is interesting that, with very little reference to Scripture, you have determined that God no longer takes pleasure in glorifying Himself through the use of certain gifts of the Spirit. If you don’t have a certain gift, does that mean it does not exist? I hope the gift of mercy doesn’t cease as easily as you can declare tongues to have. God bless you. Thank you for being Christ-centered.

34. Marv on 19 Jan 2009 at 3:29 pm #

    Samuel #30. What can one say? Thanks for telling us why you hate…???

    It is probably not worth responding to but, oh, well…

    Not entirely sure whom you have in mind.

    I don’t think anyone advocating continuationism here is into self-promotion, wanting everyone to pray through them (!), trust vision etc [more than God’s Word, I take your meaning], wanting to be the hero…

    Sounds like everything you ever needed to know about continuationism you have seen on TV.

    The issue is not whether there are goofy and cheesy people out there touting this or that theological perspective, but whether certain aspects of the teaching of the New Testament are time-limited or whether they are in force for us today.

35. Marv on 19 Jan 2009 at 3:57 pm #

    Douglas #31
    …whom I have apparently disturbed with my comments.

    I notice how many people describe becoming cessationists…due to their observation of various Pentecostals or Charismatics….

    Odd that it is continuationists who are generally accused of basing their theology on their experience…whereas, in my limited experience…it is largely cessationists who have an experiential anecdote behind their theological position.

    Regarding “signs and wonders…being used as gimmicks to impress folks into a decision for Christ…” and why not just the preaching of the Word…”as was the custom in Acts and Epistles…”

    Interesting evocation of Acts, where there is scarcely an act of evangelism without rather overt “supernatural” manifestation somewhere.

    “Do we REALLY need miracles, signs and wonders for the Gospel to work…”

    I think you are largely missing the point, evidently due to some bad examples…of which, admittedly, we have no shortage. Our evangelism relies wholly on the power of God. The gospel is the power of God for salvation for anyone who believes. There is no evangelism that is not supernatural. Do we suppose that Jesus found the gospel so weak that he worked miracles to buttress it? (God forbid) Or the apostles?? The work is always God’s, and He is sovereign in how He proceeds on each person that He draws to Himself. Essentially, He reveals His sweetness and goodness and overcomes the deadness of our hearts by His Spirit. Sometimes He is pleased to effect this by the hearing of the spoken or written word. We see others so touched by an invitation to lunch (Zacchaeus), acts of God’s kindness and mercy. It has nothing to do with OUR “need” or anything about us at all. It is a matter of what the Sovereign God is pleased to do. Any in my reading, at least, of the Scriptures, He has ordained the gifts in the Body for this purpose (among others perhaps). My reading of the Scriptures may well be faulty, but that’s really all I have to go by. I can’t rely on or defend the behavior of any particular people or groups.

36. John C.T. on 21 Jan 2009 at 10:36 am #

    I wonder how a cessationist would deal with the direct Biblical statements on phrphecy? ephesians 4:11 states that Christ gave some as prophets. Why? Three reasons (1) For the perfecting of the saints, (2) for the work of the ministry, and (3) for the edifying of the boyd of Christ. Hmmm, I don’t see anywhere in that list that prophecy was given to confirm and validate the giving of the written Word of God. And for how long was it given? “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge . . .”. Hmm, doesn’t seem to say “unitl the closing of the canon”.

    Now, the fact that I have never given a prophecy, or heard one given, or been convinced that someone has given one, does not mean that the gift has ceased and cannot happen, adn taht if someone claims to have given a prophecy it must (logically) be of Satan because it cannot be (in current times) of the Spirit.

    Similarly, what is the reason Paul gives for the gifts in 1 Corinthians 12? “to every man to profit”, not to confirm the giving of the written Word. And what, moreover, is the point of verses 11 and following? It’s all about the various parts of the body needing each other. That is, the parts of the body not blessed with prophecy or tongues or other such gifts needs the part of the body that does have that. The gifts are in relation to the needs of the body, not in relation to the closing of the canon or the validation of the ministry of the apostles.

    Furthermore, “continuationist”, “charismatic”, and “cessationist” are not biblical categories. They are categories relevant to the western cultural experiences and theological traditions. Consequently, teven if one demonstrates that “charismatic” according to CMP’s definition is wrong or invalid or even inconsistent with the Bible, that does not take even one step to demonstrating that cessationism is true. That is, ev en if the current charismatic cultural expectations of “normativeness” and “frequency” are wrong or unbilbiical, that does not mean that the Biblical charismata have ceased, or that we are reduced to only acknowledging that miracles (a non-biblical word) exist.

    The further problem with CMP’s post, which many commenters have struggled against, is that “charismatic” has a far broader meaning, and is a far broader category, than his definition. Many who chip in here would consider themsleves “charismatic” but would not fall within CMP’s definition. And, arguably, their use of “charismatic” is a more normative use than CMP’s restricted use. CMP has picked out one small area of “charismatic” to argue against, and it would be better, I suggest, to not write “charismatic” in his posts without accompanying it with some sort of qualifier. Maybe something like “I’m not a signs and wonders charismatic”, or “I’m not an expectational charismatic”–granted, those are a bit wordy, but I’m not the one who is using a particular meaning of “charismatic”.

    In addition, CMP links his restricted definition to “continuationism” (by using the “/” he indicates that the are equivalent alternate terms) and makes it ooposite and exclusive to “cessation”, as if those two categories take up that whole field and divide it between themselves. hence, he directly implies that “continuationism” is the same as his restricted understanding of charismatic (“normative”, “expectation”). But, as I pointed out above, that is not true. “Continuationism” is a far broader category that includes both those who expect sign gifts every time they meet another Christian and those like Grudem or Moreland who see a far more restrained experience of gifts as appropriate.

    CMP also does not provide adequate grounds or reasons for his statement that, “then you are not really a charismatic. The expectation is key. The normative is essential.” I don’t see that at all, either in the Bible, or in contemprorary writing about the charismatic gifts and experience. And even if it were true taht all writers who believe that all the charismata still happen used those two terms, each of those two terms is capable of a wide range or scope in meaning. How frequent does something have to be to be considered normative? what is the standard where an experience crosses the line from “occasional miracle” to “normative experience”? The same goes for “expected”; I expect the Spirit to produce all the charismata, even the ones that we in the West would consider unusual, even though I have never experienced them personally nor seen them demonstrated. There are also those who expect to see the gifts actually happen every Sunday. Yet both of us have an expectation. Someone might say that my expectaion is in the nature of “can” and “possible”, while the latter’s expectation is more in the realm of “will” and “probable”. Yet are both not legitimate expectations?

    Based on the above, I suggest that CMP’s two categories, as he defines them, are not only definitionally inadequate, but also do not provide an adequate foundation for a useful analysis and discussion of the experience, or not, of the gifts of the Spirit.

    regards,

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

3000 characters or less or your post will disappear!

Also, be sure to read the blog rules.