click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts
by C Michael PattonJanuary 22nd, 2009
84 Comments
I have said that there is no compelling reason to say that the Bible teaches the so-called supernatural sign gifts have ceased. I have also said and demonstrated that the history of the church evidences a de facto cessation of the sign gifts. As well, I have said that, despite being open to the gifts, my personal experience is lacking with regard to any of these gifts, either through direct or indirect experience.
Because of this, I would say that the only responsible position for me to hold right now is that of a de facto cessationist. In sum, this is why I am not a charismatic.
Some have objected to my beliefs citing what they suppose to be an inconsistency. While admitting that the Bible does not present any compelling evidence that the supernatural sign gifts have ceased, I am still not a charismatic. Why is this? Isn’t the Bible, not personal or ecclesiatical experience, my ultimate guide?
The answer is yes, the Bible is my ultimate guide. It is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice. If church history or “Michael history” says one thing and the Bible says another, then I (in theory) go with the Scriptures.
However…
While I did say that the Scriptures do not present any compelling evidence that the gifts have ceased, I don’t believe that they present any compelling evidence that they have continued either. In fact, I would say that the Bible does not necessarily speak to the issue any more than it does the closing of the canon. Remember, the Bible does not present any compelling evidence that the canon is closed, yet I believe based on the same de facto arguments that Scripture is no longer being added to. I would argue that the Scriptures have been (for lack of a better word) “closed” due to an exhaustion of purpose. Interestingly, charismatics would make the same argument, believing that the while Scriptures never explicitly say that that the canon is closed, they believe it has nonetheless. Why do we all believe that the canon of Scripture is closed even though the Bible itself does not say that it has closed? If we were theologically honest, our answer would be very simple: Because it, as a matter of fact, closed! It is a de facto argument. The canon of Scripture is closed because God has not sent a verified Apostle or prophet who added to it in the last 2000 years.
After we consider the de facto closing of the Scriptures (“canonical cessationism”), we then build a theology as to why the Scriptures have closed. This is a legitimate attempt to explain what is a matter of fact. It does not create the fact, it just explains it.
The same can be said with regard to supernatural sign gifts such as prophecy, tongues, and healings. Because they, de facto, seem to have ceased, we then attempt to offer an explanation. Here is a brief post de facto explanation as to why I believe the supernatural sign gifts might have ceased.
Exhaustion of purpose: The gifts were used for the establishing of the Gospel message in history. It seems reasonable for God to introduce himself uniquely every time he intends to provide further revelation of himself to mankind. In the history of redemption, the Christ advent and the Gospel message needed signs that accompanied it or belief would be unwarranted. Once the church was established and the historic verification of Christ accomplished, there was no longer any need to continue with such “sign” gifts.
Paul seems to indicate that this was the case as he implicitly argued that the reason for his ability to do extrordinary miracles was due to the Apostolic message he proclaimed. As others were claiming to be so-called “super apostles” (those who have an authoritative message from God), he argues that true Apostles will have these gifts to authentic their message.
“The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.” (2 Cor. 12:12).
As well, there are certian events and happenings in redemptive history that don’t need to be repeated. Notice what Paul says to the Ephesians:
“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” (Ephesians 2:19 – 3:1)
The “foundation” is the key. If the foundation represents a part of the structure (i.e. the Church) that is not a repeated necessity, then so does that which comprises the foundation. Everyone would agree that the work of Christ is not repeated over and over. So also, it seems to be, that the work of the Apostles and the prophets, which established the work of Christ, does not repeat itself. It is forever a part of the foundation.
There also may be a de facto ceasing of the gifts even in New Testament times. Notice what the writer of Hebrews says:
“How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, 4 God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will” (Hebrews 2:3-4).
Notice that the message of salvation was first spoken by the Lord (subject #1—first generation). It was then confirmed by those who heard (subject #2—the Apostles and prophets—second generation). The “to us” is the key. The writer of Hebrews indicates that the Gospel was confirmed to them (subject #3—third generation), not by them. This seems to indiate once again that the supernatural gifts primarily served a confirmatory purpose, not simply a benevolent purpose. It also (and most importantly here) seems to suggest that these confirmatory gifts were already beginning to exhuast their purpose. The writer of Hebrews and his audience (the “us who heard”), it would seem, did not possess these gifts themselves, but relied upon the witness and testimony of those who did possess these gifts.
These are meant to offer biblical reasonings why the gifts ceased, if indeed this is the case. Again, they are not arguments for cessationism, they simply present reasons why they might have ceased.
I am not a charismatic, but I am not a necessarily a cessationist either. I will speak to this next.
Similar Posts:
- Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 5): An Argument from History
- Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 8): I am a De Facto Cessationist
- Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 6): Excursus: It's Not About Miracles!
- Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 1)
- Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 2)
Loading ...
84 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
The use in Hebrews of four separate words in a manner that seems to indicate that each word has a separate referent (“by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts”) usggests that a “gift” of the Spirit is not the same as a sign, wonder or miracle. If that is so, then the citation of 2 Corintians would not seem to be relevant, because it refers to “signs and wonders and miracles.” ” only, and not to “gifts”. If so, then the 2 Cor. quote can’t be used to support the proposition that “gifts” were intended to authenticate the message of the apostles.
regards,
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, but I am taking this as a valid implication. The signs and wonders were done by certian people who seemed to be able to do this as part of their ministry. I could be wrong, but that seems to be the same thing as a gift. I think that it is the most responsible way to take it.
Like or Dislike:
0
I see your point, and I’ll think about it, but I’m not yet convinced.
regards,A
Like or Dislike:
0
The “signs and wonders and miracles” of 2 Corinthians are those of an
*apostle*. They are not the same as the “gifts”, of which Paul tells the
Corinthians that they were not lacking “in any gift”. The one belongs to
him, as an apostle, and the other belongs to the church.
Like or Dislike:
0
So John, for the sake of arguement, I will not dispute. I do have a question: Do you believe that the gift/office of an Apostle has ceased? If so, why? And if so, would you be a cessationist with regard to this gift alone?
Then how would you relate that to the passage in Eph 2 where the apostles and the prophets are part of the foundation along with Christ. (BTW: I believe that Paul has OT prophets in mind primarily in that passage).
Like or Dislike:
0
This has been a great series of posts, especially since I am currently working on a manuscript for a book about spiritual gifts. This is definitely a huge part of that discussion.
I await the rest of your series.
Daniel
Like or Dislike:
0
Sign gifts in the early Church were for unbelieving Jews. [ I Cor. 14;22]. They ceased when the canon was completed [I Cor 13;8].
Tongues were never spoken by a woman [I Cor.14]. Yet that is what the charismatics do today.
The Bible is God’s final Authority not emotions or ecstatic experiences.
Dr. Paul Foltz
Like or Dislike:
0
Regarding the apostles, our “New Jerusalem” has upon its foundations the names of the twelve apostles, twelve, no more, no less. This city is not an allegory but an actual city, the measurements of which are detailed in the Revelation.
Being the New Jerusalem indicates that its foundations are that of the new covenant church.
I suggest that apostolic ministry is unique to the original men and is not transferred in full force to others in succession, meaning that the epoch of apostolic signs and miracles has passed.
Even so, the Revelation speaks of a new and rapidly approaching epoch, or “season” in which new signs would appear not from men but directly from Heaven, not the least of which are the two witnesses who will perform signs and miracles on the earth as a witness for Christ, but not as apostles who built the church foundation; it will be as witnesses before a world on the verge of final judgenment.
Like or Dislike:
0
Re #7. I’m not aware of any respected commentary, including conservative evangelical commentaries in the last 30 years that have interpreted those verses in that fashion. Could you please provde some sources? Certainly, on the face of it, those verses don’t appear to mean that as they don’t mention Jews specifically, don’t mention the canon, and refer to both brothers and sisters in the parts theat deal with tongues specifically. In addition, and I don’t mean to discourage posting, but the comments appear to be significantly off the topic that CMP raised.
regards,
Like or Dislike:
0
Doc Foltz
You write: “The Bible is God’s final Authority not emotions or ecstatic experiences.”
Well, that is obviously true, but as some of this discussion has shown (in my opinion) at least is that the Bible is far, far more consistent with continuationism than cessationism. If I may take a look at your citations above, vis a vis your comments and conclusions.
“Sign gifts” is not a particularly Biblical phrase. In I Cor 14:22, the gift of tongues is referred to as a “sign” and specifically for unbelievers (not “unbelieving Jews”). Verse 21 does cite the OT in regard to speaking to “this people” by “foreign tongues,” but Paul certainly does not advance the idea in his development that it has to do with Jews in particular and is without application to unbelieving Gentiles. Anyway, all this is about tongues and not about so called “sign gifts.” You are simply not representing the Biblical statement accurately here.
Then you say “they” ceased when the Canon was completed, and you cite 1 Cor 13:8. Now this is a citation that can only convince when preaching to the choir (though I understand you are in this choir), because the very close context screams out for an eschatological understanding. That means not only that these things are said to cease at the return of Christ, but by implication remain until the Second Coming. Bringing in the Canon here is pure eisegesis. Again, your assertion is not representing the Biblical statement accurately.
And then you say that “tongues were never spoken by a woman.” We do need to do a logic check here, I’m afraid, sir. The grammar of your statement is such that I take your meaning to be that in the early church, no woman ever exercised the genuine gift of tongues. Now, I am sure you realize that by the nature of evidence, such an assertion of universal negative would require some very specific statements to that effect from the Scriptures. To say no verse ever specifically refers to a woman speaking in tongues, may be a true statement, but it is far from the same thing as the Bible saying no woman spoke in tongues. Acts 2:5 does refer to some men who are doing so. Now Peter’s citation of Joel here, interestingly, makes reference to prophecy, not tongues as such, but we do see both males and females referred to here. (v.17) This might, at least, give pause to a confident assertion that “tongues were never spoken by a woman.”
However, this is not the passage you cite, but I Cor 14. I suppose that you are referring to v. 34 where Paul states that women should keep silence in the churches. I have heard the argument interpreting this as “women should not speak in tongues.” Now if Paul has this meaning, and that he is trying to stope women from speaking in tongues, it must be because some women were, in fact, speaking in tongues, and this falsifies any assertion that they did not. Of course the preceding eleven verses mainly are actually talking about prophecy, not tongues (there is one reference to tongues in them), and we do know from Peter and Joel (and also from Paul in I Cor 11:5) that women did prophesy. And verse 35 specifies the women talking in terms of asking questions to their husbands. We agree, I would think, that they were not addressing their husbands in tongues. Besides, in verse 39 Paul commands them NOT to forbid people to speak in tongues, which pretty much indicates that he was not telling them five verses earlier to forbid speaking in tongues for some people, namely women. Again, I am afraid that your assertion is something less than an accurate indication of what the Bible states in this passage.
Now I used to use some of these, and have heard all of these in the past. Generally, I find them accompanied by a disgust for the practice of speaking in tongues (which somehow seems to stand in for all so-called “sign gifts” as a class). I do not know whether you react to such practices with disgust, but at last we agree: the Bible is God’s final Authority not emotions (such as disgust).
Like or Dislike:
0
As rational as your line of thought might be, it isn’t sola scriptura. You have a theology that the canon is closed because there are no verified apostles? The proposition that there are no verified apostles, and you do not expect to find them is extra-biblical. Despite your valiant attempt, there is no verse that says new scriptures are dependant upon apostles, verified or not. And the lack of a verified apostles for an interval could be an open canon where the time between drinks is long, or else it could mean you haven’t stumbled upon these apostles.
If you call yourself a cessationist because of what you have experienced, that is not sola scriptura either. As logical as it may or may not be, it is not sola scriptura. You’d be better off defining yourself as a charismatic who has never witnessed the charisma. Either that or give up sola scriptura.
Like or Dislike:
0
Peter, it does not sound like you understand what sola scriptura really is. I would suggest studying it some. The best book that I know of that might help is “The Shape of Sola Scriptura.” Very helpful.
“The proposition that there are no verified apostles, and you do not expect to find them is extra-biblical.” This does not make any sense as it is self-evident that it is extrabiblical. If it were in the Scripture, it would be self-defeating!!
Like or Dislike:
0
As well, I have a series here on Parchment and Pen that I would suggest reading on a defense of sola Scriptura. It might help you understand where Protestants are coming from.
Like or Dislike:
0
This might be a bit of a red herring, but isn’t the Greek word that is translated Apostle, when translated into Latin, becomes the word from which we get Missionary.
An isn’t it interesting that Missionaries are the ones who most experience “signs and wonders.” Could it be that when new “Apostles” (read Missionaries) are needed, there is an accompanying need for “signs and wonders”?
Just a thought. I might be totally out to lunch on this one.
Like or Dislike:
0
The Word, and the sacraments are the only “signs” that anyone needs. They are the only things that we can trust in…absolutely.
“The devil can come all dressed up as an angel of light.” – St. Paul.
You cannot trust in “signs and wonders”. They might be from God…they might not.
Some of us do walk by faith and not by sight.
The important thing about the gifts is their use (also St. Paul)
Funny how St. Paul keeps turning up with respect to this question.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael
You wrote: “Then how would you relate that to the passage in Eph 2 where the apostles and the prophets are part of the foundation along with Christ. (BTW: I believe that Paul has OT prophets in mind primarily in that passage).”
But in chapter 3 of Ephesians (just a few verses after the reference in chapter 2 that you allude to) Paul wrote: “… the mystery of Christ … was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.”
Isn’t it more likely therefore that prophets in Ephesians 2 & 3 are NT prophets rather than OT prophets?
Like or Dislike:
0
“Peter, it does not sound like you understand what sola scriptura really is.”
Maybe I understand it all too well. How is your defacto cessation – you believe a theological proposition because “it is a fact” different to say, believing in the intercession of the saints because “it is a fact” and because “that is what the church for 2000 years has experienced”? You experience cessation, we experience intercession. The same epistemological foundation for each.
“This does not make any sense as it is self-evident that it is extrabiblical.”
How on earth is it self-evident? Apparently you haven’t had any Mormons on your doorstep lately, quoting how God appointed apostles in the Church (1 Cor 12:28). Assuming cessation of apostles is like assuming cessation of charismatic gifts, or cessation of presbyters, or cessation of .
Like or Dislike:
0
Phil (#16) raises an excellent point.
I would raise two additional points. First, why does Paul not refer to authentication as a function of the gifts when he delas with them in depth in his letters to the Corinthians. As several people oave noted (including me) in comments on the previous posts in this series, the gifts (including tongues, etc.) are giving for the building up of the body (as explicitly stated).
Second, when Paul does address the authentication of himself as an apostle and his message, he does not refer to tongues and such gifts. He refers to other signs. In Ephesians 3 re refers to the acknowledged fact that he received revelations from God. In 2 Cor. 11 Paul speaks of many things that authenitcate him versus others–and it does not include gifts. in Acts, Luke records many wonders that authenticate Paul (bitten by poisonous snake, escape from death, healtings, touching his cloteses, etc.) and at no time referes to gifts as authenticating him as an apostle. In 1 cor. 9, Paul referes to the fact that he has seen Jesus.
So I return to my question in #1 above. The use of different words implies that the words refer to differnt things. The use in Heberews of four different words implies that gifts are not signs. The lack of a reference to gifts in 2 Cor. implies that gifts are not in view. CMP’s reply in #2 is merely an assertion without any evidence or argumentation to back it up. The use of the four separate words by God’s writers implies different things, not that they are the same, contrary to CMP. Indeed, CMP’s reasoning is like saying the writer of Hebrews talks of four colours, red, blue, green, and orange, and the writer of 2 Corinthians writes of three, red, blue, green, but since they are both artists it must obviously mean that orange is green.
regards,
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, I don’t know if you would be interested or have time, but I have started some articles over at Theologica from more of a continuationist perspective. I would appreciate any interaction with them. Here is the link to the first article and here is the link to the second article.
Thanks
Scott
Like or Dislike:
0
Once again Peter, you are working under a different definition of sola Scriptura and evidencing much typical misunderstanding. I imagine you are a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Either way, the solution would be to a least try to understand what the historic Protestant understanding of sola Scriptura.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
I note that you make your first reference to “sign gifts” prefexing a “so-called” to it. But why even employ the phrase “sign gifts” at all? It is a dismissive phrase. By using it you telegraph that you are going to arrive at a negative conclusion about them. It makes a nice box that makes them all the easier to toss away. And what is in the box? I realize you gave a list in your first post, literally in a box. But I am wondering what makes them SIGN gifts? I know tongues is called a sign in I Cor 14:22. Prophecy MAY be called a sign in that verse (the Greek of course does not repeat semeion in the context of prophecy). What other gifts are specifically referred to as signs of some sort?
Other contexts refer to signs and wonders. This is, of course, quite generic and must cover several different types of events. Are these signs also “gifts” so that we can use the phrase “sign gift” based on these verses?
At any rate, the most salient of these targets seems to be tongues. This may be another give-away by the use of “sign gift,” since tongues is the only one can be unequivocably called a sign gift, because of 1 Cot 14:22, as far as I know. What it seems to me to give away is that what is in view is MAINLY tongues. The rest are brought along for the ride.
I guess I would challenge you to do is to “build the theology” without recourse to the phrase “sign gifts.” I mean, it is essentially circular argumentation otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yah right. Why don’t you explain to us how your experience of (or lack thereof) of signs and wonders is more theologically compelling in a sola scriptura model than the historic church’s experience of intercession of the saints. Just saying “you don’t understand” is condescending.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sorry I couldn’t reply sooner. My work computer, for some reason,
couldn’t access this thread.
C. Michael Patton writes: “Do you believe that the gift/office of an
Apostle has ceased? If so, why? And if so, would you be a
cessationist with regard to this gift alone?”
Well, I could answer this in two different ways, as most scholars
recognize that there seem to be two separate understandings of
“apostle”in the New Testament. I do assume, however, that the main
category of “apostle” is of an office that has indeed ceased, but that is
because the nature of the office is such that it required (notwithstanding
the exceptionableness of Paul’s circumstance) a historical continuity
between the earthly Jesus and the one standing in the office. This
office logically *had* to cease, because there could only be one
generation of people who could fulfill this office–that is, there was
only one generation historically connected with the historical Jesus.
(The obsolescence of this office had nothing whatsoever to do with
the emergence of a NT canon, as you seem to think. The causal
connection ran in the other direction–the canon was put together
because the Church recognized the need to preserve the apostolic
testimony for future generations. There is no hint *anywhere* in
the New Testament that the office of apostle had anything even
remotely to do with the creation of a New Testament.)
C. Michael Patton writes: “Then how would you relate that to the
passage in Eph 2 where the apostles and the prophets are part of
the foundation along with Christ. (BTW: I believe that Paul has OT
prophets in mind primarily in that passage).”
My understanding of Eph 2:19-20 is that the foundation of “apostles
and prophets” refers to the apostolic kerygma. In other words, the
foundation of the church is the kerygma, which was the testimony
of the apostles, supported (as we see in the missionary speeches
in Acts and elsewhere) by prophetic prooftexts. I’m not sure what
you’re getting at. I agree with you that the prophets are OT figures,
but the reference is not to the persons or ministries of the prophets
and apostles, but rather to their message. It also appears that you
are reading the foundation metaphor chronologically–a common
enough mistake. Foundation metaphors can refer just as easily to
the structural aspect of a foundation as they can to the chronological
aspect. I suggest that that is the role that the kerygma (*viz.* the
message of Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and
sending of the Spirit) plays for the Church. That message–that is,
the Gospel–is the Church’s foundation (which is also what Paul
meant in 1 Corinthians 3 when he referred to *Christ* as the
foundation).
Like or Dislike:
0
Marv,
I am not sure I follow. There is no reason to believe that the deck of the arguement is stacked just because they are called sign gifts (which I did qualify in the first post). The third wave charismatics should be perfectly comfortable with such teminology. I went to a third wave undergraduate university and I took a graduate course in signs, miracles, and wonders. They had no difficulty definining them as sign gifts.
Sorry for the nuance that brings to the conversation on your end, but it simply goes to show how diverse people’s thinking is about this issue.
I am, however, TRYING to stay as balanced as I can.
Like or Dislike:
0
Peter, it is not meant to be condencending. You are simply starting with your assumptions and presuppositions (which I take as staw men) and then arguing from that vantage point. I can’t follow you there. While I appreciate and understand where you are coming from, I am standing on different ground. Any discussion based on your presuppositions about what you think sola Scriptura means will not produce responsible conversation or use of our time at this point.
Not meaning to be dismissive, but sola Scriptura is not the point of this post. I did do a series on this (which is still incomplete) that you can look at. Look at the categories on the left.
God bless my friend.
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, it is more subtle than this, but you might as well ask:
“Are the temporary gifts meant to be permanent?”
Okay, if you say “sign gift” was a phrase current at this college, I’m not doubting this. But I seldom hear this phrase except in a dismissive context. But my point goes further. Why even use it? What does it mean for you?
And how does THAT particular group get labelled as “sign gifs?”
If you’re talking about “signs and wonders,” why not talk about signs and wonders?
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Your “cessationist by default, not by explicit teaching” perspective is reasonable. You’re not letting a lack of personal & historical experience trump what Scripture establishes. You’re saying that Scripture leaves the question of cessation open.
(To Peter: Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the only infallible authority. It doesn’t mean, “You shouldn’t believe it unless Scripture says it.” Michael is saying that he believes the sign gifts have ceased, like he believes in the theory of relativity.)
And you may be on the right track, with Hebrews 2:3-4. It doesn’t demand cessation, but it does suggest that signs were waning. (Daniel Wallace makes that argument here.) (By the way: The first time I heard this argument, I didn’t buy it. But I kept looking at the passage, and it began to look more reasonable.)
But Michael, I want to hold your feet to the fire on one point. In brotherly love.
The Necessity of Signs
Pardon? Belief in the Resurrection was not warranted on the basis of the eye-witness reports? It required signs & wonders from the apostles? Unless God gave miracles, belief wouldn’t be warranted?
Question 1: Did you really mean to say that?
Clarifying question: You said, “the historic verification of Christ [was] accomplished”. So, we don’t need signs & wonders now, because we have the testimony of the first generation of Christians? They told us about the signs & wonders, so we don’t have to see them ourselves? Is that what you mean?
Assuming I understood correctly:
Question 2: Do you see the glaring inconsistency?
If the testimony of the apostles wasn’t enough to warrant belief in the Resurrection without signs, why is the testimony of the first generation of Christians enough? If signs are required to warrant believing the testimony, where are our signs? What’s the difference?
In other words, why should we believe that signs were performed by the apostles, if we’re not justified in believing in the Resurrection without signs?
Like or Dislike:
0
Jug, good points. Will have to think about this, but I think I concede.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
I took my argument from Jack Deere’s book, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. (I don’t agree with everything in his book, but he makes some good points. He also talks about the argument from 2 Cor. 12:12, by the way.)
I’m still wrestling to understand the function & purpose of signs. What is the stated biblical purpose of miracles?
If 2 Cor. 12:12 is saying that miracles are the signs of an apostle, then what about people who performs false miracles? Wouldn’t a better understanding be that the signs of an apostle were performed, along with miracles? That seems to go better with passages like Acts 14:3, where signs & wonders confirm the message. It also explains why non-apostles (like Stephen) performed signs & wonders. And why there are false signs & wonders.
And if signs & wonders confirm “the Gospel”, then they would still have a place today. If we pray for them. If God, in his sovereignty, decides to send them.
But, we need a balanced theology of signs. Signs aren’t necessary for anything. The Spirit of God brings conviction, with or without signs. We can rejoice if God does send signs, but they’re not the focus of Christian life. Signs point to something. Or to Someone. Signs aren’t the substance of Christian life.
Passages like Hebrews 2:3-4 may suggest that signs were passing away. (Maybe God sends signs when the gospel penetrates an area for the first time?)
So… If God isn’t sending us the signs & wonders of the apostolic era, we shouldn’t assume there’s a problem. But neither should we be complacent about it. We can (and should) still pray for God to work powerfully, in whatever way will bring the most glory to Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jug, I do agree. I have nothing against sign and wonders. I don’t think that even cessationists do.
Like or Dislike:
0
Signs and wonders, signs and wonders…we want ‘em.
Truly a ‘sign’ of our lostness.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Sure. Honestly, I was aiming the “plea for balance” more at the charismatic side.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, this blog entry is all about defending your cessationist stand in light of sola scriptura. So I put it to you that if applying the escape clause for sola scriptura that you outline here allows me to defend all the traditional things that you reject, then you need to explain why you are being consistent. Sola scripturaists here are going to rightly be saying the same thing, albeit from the other side of the fence.
Like or Dislike:
0
Peter,
I’ll try to give you a nutshell answer, and I’ll use your example of prayer to (or intercession of) saints. I don’t want to make this an argument on whether prayer to saints is valid–I’m not going to talk about the merits of either side. I’m just going to explain how Michael is not being inconsistent. And I’ll keep it brief–we need to respect Michael’s desire to keep this combox on-topic. At best, this is tangentially related.
The pieces are in my earlier comment.
Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the only infallible authority that we have available, higher than any other. It doesn’t mean, “You shouldn’t believe it unless Scripture says it.” It means, “Nothing trumps Scripture.” If Scripture leaves something open, then historical & personal experience might still convince us something is true.
Sola Scriptura also typically means that Scripture is sufficient to equip us for ministry & Christian life. I.e., a sufficient guide for the life of the church. That there are no key practices left out.
Applied to cessationism: Michael is saying that Scripture doesn’t tell us whether the sign gifts will continue throughout the Church Age. There is Biblical basis for the practice of signs & wonders, but the Bible doesn’t say they’ll cease, and it doesn’t say they’ll continue. So the question is open. Our experience can then suggest an answer, as long as its compatible with what Scripture does say about it.
Applied to prayer to saints: Protestants argue that Scripture does say something about prayer to anyone other than God. We argue that Scripture forbids it. (I know you will want to counter-argue, or maybe say that “prayer” to saints isn’t actually “prayer”. But we’re talking about the internal consistency of the argument combined with Sola Scriptura.) We also argue that there is no Biblical basis for the practice. So on those grounds, the question is not open, and it is not parallel to “de facto cessationism”.
Experience that conflicts with Scripture is different from experience that comports with Scripture.
Like or Dislike:
0
Peter, all I do is once again encourage you to read my prior comments.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’ve read them before, and am as confused on this occasion as before.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jugulum: How is what you are saying different from me saying perhaps, that presbyters and episkopoi might not continue. Or even further that moral requirements might not continue.
Like or Dislike:
0
If God had wanted his church to know that gifts were to cease, he could have revealed that to Paul. Apart from the Greek language stuff, Wallace’s argument is unconvincing for that reason. Paul might not have foreseen a potential cessation of the gifts because he was still experiencing them, but God could have revealed it to him as He did many other things. It seems very odd that God would not have been clear about such an important part of church life as his gifts, especially when he had Paul write so much about it.
12 Cor. 12:28 speaks of things appointed “IN the church”, and so related to the ongoing life of the church.
Tongues are the only gift spoken of as a sign. Since Paul lists and discusses the other gifts without noting that any of the others are signs, it is reasonable to conclude that the functions of the other gifts were other than signs.
regards,
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP -
If we read 2 Cor 12:12 carefully, we see the word ‘signs’ is used in 2 different manners.
The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.
The first time the word ‘signs’ is used does not refer to miraculous signs. Rather, it refers to ‘signs of a true apostle’. Paul uses this phrase to contrast his work as a true apostle with the selfish ways of the ‘super-apostles’ (see 2 Corinthians 12:11). Paul had just spent chapters 10-11 defending his apostolic calling by telling of all the things he had been through for the Corinthians. This is the how the word ‘signs’ is firstly used. Paul reminded the Corinthians that he came with the signs of a true apostle – having a servant heart for them, even willing to suffer for them.
Paul, then, goes on to say that he was also used in signs, wonders and mighty works. The second use of the word is in reference to miraculous signs. Paul wasn’t trying to say I came with signs as an apostle, and thus, signs are only connected to apostles. He was saying he came with the ‘true signs of an apostle’, which meant he was willing to suffer for those he worked with, unlike the super-apostles, and was used in signs, wonders, and mighty works. Nowhere in this passage does he solely connect signs and wonders to apostles. Matter of fact, we cannot forget about people like Stephen (Acts 6:8), Philip (Acts 8:4-7, 13, 39) and Ananias (Acts 9:17-18). These three were definitely used in signs and wonders, miracles and healings, and, to our knowledge, none of them were apostles.
Therefore, I do not believe this verse can be used to teach that signs, wonders and miraculous works were only for first-century apostles and, thus, have ceased. We must read the context carefully, and when we do, we realize that Paul used the words ‘signs’ in two different ways.
Like or Dislike:
0
John CT,
You said,
“If God had wanted his church to know that gifts were to cease, he could have revealed that to Paul.”
In my opinion this is a very poor argument. It argues that if God wanted the church to know x, then he would have revealed x to Paul. Since he did not, then x should not be believed. I could insert quite a few things in x.
If God wanted his church to know that the canon was closed, he would have reveald this to Paul. He did not, therefore the canon is not closed.
You see what I mean?
Like or Dislike:
0
Jug, your brilliant. I mean that brother
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP
It seems to me your concept (as summarized by Jug in post 34 so well) is the right way to understand the concept of sufficiency of the bible.
Why is that concept so hard to understand? And I don’t mean specifically any posters here (although it may apply), but more generally in the blogosphere?
Why do Christians insist on perfect clarity in all issues? Is it a natural outgrowth of the victory of aristotelianism in our western european world?
Like or Dislike:
0
From what I have observed, thanks to TV channels and internet, I have now a rather final conclusion about this issue about signs on the part of so-called charsmatics and Pentecostals.
I have not seen anything edifying our believers community (‘Church’, not denominations or their practices). All I can see is ‘show business’ ‘peddlers of God’s words’ and practice fit for shamanism.
Can anyone tell us, for example, anything good coming out of one’s having ‘speaking tongues’ other than their psychological satisfaction and prideful content feeling about themselves and among the same? What is this show of slaying by spirit, falling down on the stage in the church. Where the crucified Christ in all of these nonsense.
What about prophecy? Are they talking about prediction about future of the world or one’s fortune?
Christianity has been getting rotten from inside. How are we going to stand against onslaught of atheism, who-cares people, Islam’s taking over (now full swing in Europe), liberalism, pseudo-Christians (those celebrating Wade and Roe, including Obama)? How should God bless ‘America’? Why he should? The only thing we can ask is ‘Have mercy on us, the degenerate generation’.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ounbbl,
I couldn’t agree with you more.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ounbbl,
I find it fascinating that your reaction to these things is largely that
which Paul says the “uninformed” would have if they walked into
a glossolalic church service: “You are mad”. And, also like Paul, you
recognize that these things are not edifying in a corporate sense.
But that’s where the similarities end, as Paul recognizes that
glossolalia, a gift that doesn’t edify in a corporate setting, *is* a
legitimate gift (indeed one for which he is grateful to practice more
than all the Corinthians!), and that it *does* edify on a personal
level.
Like or Dislike:
0
Peter,
A good question to ask, though the answer isn’t obscure. It’s the difference between “Why don’t we see anyone with sign gifts anymore?”, and “Maybe we don’t need to appoint elders or follow these moral requirements anymore.” Isn’t that a pretty big difference?
In a little more detail:
Gifts of signs & wonders are something that God gives, or he doesn’t. We can’t initiate them. We have no control. (Though we do have influence of a sort, through prayer which God may or may not grant, and through having faith.) So this discussion is about how to explain why we don’t see them anymore. It’s not about whether we should allow them anymore.
But the office of pastor/elder/bishop is one that God gave to us, for us to implement. The church appoints new elders—hopefully with the help of the Holy Spirit. Similarly, moral requirements are commands that God has given us to follow. When we see a command or a guideline, we don’t get to say, “That doesn’t apply to me,” unless the Bible says so.
Your point is valid if we’re talking about allowing prophecy & interpreted tongues in the church. Now, some cessationists think the Bible teaches that these gifts ceased. On that premise, they can forbid attempting to practice them in the local church. (That would be similar to the Bible saying, “The office of presbyter will cease after the first generation.) But if you’re a “de facto cessationist” like Michael, then you still need to follow Biblical guidelines for allowing & discerning alleged prophecy & tongues. (Michael couldn’t look at 1 Cor. 14:39—”earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.”—and say, “That doesn’t apply to me.”)
Like or Dislike:
0
Dac,
Aw, shucks.
Like or Dislike:
0
In response to ounbbl’s words: “Christianity has been getting rotten from inside. How are we going to stand against onslaught of atheism, who-cares people, Islam’s taking over (now full swing in Europe), liberalism, pseudo-Christians (those celebrating Wade and Roe, including Obama)? How should God bless ‘America’? Why he should? The only thing we can ask is ‘Have mercy on us, the degenerate generation’.” I believe the proper resonse is fund in Romans 9:14-18 ~ “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.” God’s blessings are a result of God’s will, no other reason. Rest in Him.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ounbbl -
No doubt much misuse and abuse has come into Christ’s body. It breaks the heart of God. And it is widely displayed on tv for others to see.
Yet, we must keep in mind that misuse and abuse should never lead God’s people to no use. It should lead them to want to study the Scriptures, be accountable to the body of Christ, and know what is pleasing to God.
We must guard against being reactionary, but must respond with truth. Thankfully we have the Scriptures and the Spirit to guide us, and we have the body of Christ to challenge us where we fall short.
Be encouraged that we can, by His grace and mercy, see these things practiced healthily.
Like or Dislike:
0
The question was asked how do “tongues” help the Body. One example–A woman in a service did not primarily speak English. Her son was in a dangerous situation in a foreign country and she had not heard from or about him in a very long time. She feared the worst. A member of the congregation who did not know the woman or any foreign language got up during the service and said she had a “tongue”. She was given permission to speak and did. The woman whose language was not primarily English jumped up–the pastor thought it was with a translation, which I guess it was. With tears running down her cheeks she thanked the other woman profusely and said the message had been about her son–that he was a live and safe. A couple days later the “tongue” interpretation was confirmed with a word from her son.
In general tongues can be “helpful” because when we pray in tongues our own agendas are removed from the situation we are obediently praying about.
More Comments:
1 2 Next »