Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts

# on 22 Jan 2009
Christian Life & Current Issues in Theology & Spiritual Gifts & Theology

Comments (84)

Related 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)

84 Responses to “Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts”

1. John C.T. on 22 Jan 2009 at 12:15 pm #

   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,

2. C Michael Patton on 22 Jan 2009 at 12:22 pm #

   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.

3. John C.T. on 22 Jan 2009 at 12:41 pm #

   I see your point, and I’ll think about it, but I’m not yet convinced.

   regards,A

4. John C. Poirier on 22 Jan 2009 at 1:44 pm #

   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.

5. C Michael Patton on 22 Jan 2009 at 1:58 pm #

   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).

6. Daniel Goepfrich on 22 Jan 2009 at 2:48 pm #

   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

7. Dr. Paul W. Foltz on 22 Jan 2009 at 3:46 pm #

   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

8. C. Barton on 22 Jan 2009 at 3:52 pm #

   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.

9. John C.T. on 22 Jan 2009 at 5:28 pm #

   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,

10. Marv on 22 Jan 2009 at 6:20 pm #

    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).

11. Peter on 22 Jan 2009 at 11:37 pm #

    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.

12. C Michael Patton on 22 Jan 2009 at 11:43 pm #

    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!!

13. C Michael Patton on 22 Jan 2009 at 11:44 pm #

    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.

14. Eclectic Christian - Michael Bell on 23 Jan 2009 at 1:00 am #

    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.

15. steve martin on 23 Jan 2009 at 5:35 am #

    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.

16. Phil McCheddar on 23 Jan 2009 at 5:51 am #

    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?

17. Peter on 23 Jan 2009 at 8:59 am #

    “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 .

18. John C.T. on 23 Jan 2009 at 9:19 am #

    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,

19. ScottL on 23 Jan 2009 at 9:40 am #

    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

20. C Michael Patton on 23 Jan 2009 at 11:01 am #

    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.

21. Marv on 23 Jan 2009 at 4:25 pm #

    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.

22. Peter on 23 Jan 2009 at 4:38 pm #

    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.

23. John C. Poirier on 23 Jan 2009 at 4:42 pm #

    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).

24. C Michael Patton on 23 Jan 2009 at 4:53 pm #

    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.

25. C Michael Patton on 23 Jan 2009 at 4:57 pm #

    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.

26. Marv on 23 Jan 2009 at 5:13 pm #

    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?

27. Jugulum on 23 Jan 2009 at 5:16 pm #

    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

    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.[bold added]

    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?

28. C Michael Patton on 23 Jan 2009 at 5:24 pm #

    Jug, good points. Will have to think about this, but I think I concede.

29. Jugulum on 23 Jan 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    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.

30. C Michael Patton on 23 Jan 2009 at 6:17 pm #

    Jug, I do agree. I have nothing against sign and wonders. I don’t think that even cessationists do.

31. steve martin on 23 Jan 2009 at 6:18 pm #

    Signs and wonders, signs and wonders…we want ‘em.

    Truly a ’sign’ of our lostness.

32. Jugulum on 23 Jan 2009 at 6:34 pm #

    Michael,

    Sure. Honestly, I was aiming the “plea for balance” more at the charismatic side.

33. Peter on 23 Jan 2009 at 6:39 pm #

    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.

34. Jugulum on 23 Jan 2009 at 8:21 pm #

    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.

35. C Michael Patton on 23 Jan 2009 at 8:32 pm #

    Peter, all I do is once again encourage you to read my prior comments.

36. Peter on 24 Jan 2009 at 3:15 am #

    I’ve read them before, and am as confused on this occasion as before.

37. Peter on 24 Jan 2009 at 3:27 am #

    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.

38. John C.T. on 24 Jan 2009 at 7:35 am #

    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,

39. ScottL on 24 Jan 2009 at 8:27 am #

    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.

40. C Michael Patton on 24 Jan 2009 at 10:52 am #

    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?

41. dac on 24 Jan 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    Jug, your brilliant. I mean that brother

42. dac on 24 Jan 2009 at 12:34 pm #

    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?

43. Ounbbl on 24 Jan 2009 at 10:42 pm #

    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’.

44. steve martin on 25 Jan 2009 at 2:57 am #

    Ounbbl,

    I couldn’t agree with you more.

45. John C. Poirier on 25 Jan 2009 at 8:01 am #

    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.

46. Jugulum on 25 Jan 2009 at 7:19 pm #

    Peter,

    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.

    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.”)

47. Jugulum on 25 Jan 2009 at 7:22 pm #

    Dac,

    Aw, shucks.

48. roger e. olson on 25 Jan 2009 at 10:55 pm #

    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.

49. ScottL on 26 Jan 2009 at 8:16 am #

    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.

50. minnowspeaks on 26 Jan 2009 at 8:46 am #

    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.

51. C. Barton on 26 Jan 2009 at 10:38 am #

    Regarding the rise of apostasy in the Church: we know that the “interfaith” agenda is now in full swing and that Rome is bidding for the top seat in the new global apostate religion. I’m not sure how Roman Catholics feel about the prospect of rejecting the unique Gospel message for a new-age religion, but papal infallibility is taking a real hit here.
    I also have witnessed first-hand accounts of the more spectacular gifts in operation (e.g., word of knowledge, word of prophesy) and curiously enough they were always in the context of missions or of protection of life.
    Discerning right doctrine is sometimes portrayed as performing brain surgery while standing on one leg on a moving train – but it doesn’t take a genius to know God’s heart and Spirit for His people, or else few would be saved. Salvation is God’s work through our faith, so nobody can brag that they did it themselves.
    Also, no offence, but falling down with seizures and yelping like animals in church is not from the Holy Spirit. Anyone who has been to Haiti or Jamaica would know this.

52. John C.T. on 26 Jan 2009 at 11:18 am #

    Now that the comments are not numbered, they are more difficult to refer to, and I request that the numbering come back.

    In regard to CMP’s comment, ““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.”

    What I gave was an argument from silence, but only to point out that Wallace’s argumentation suffers from equally unconvincing assumptions. I guess that wasn’t clear enough unless one read Wallace’s argument; my apologies.

    Anyway, I don’t believe that it is logical to state that the canon will continue to be closed. It has been closed for over 1900 years, and there is no indication that it has been reopened, but there is no reason to believe that God would not reopen it. Jews after the last book waited over 400 years without another prophet who delivered scripture, and had good reason to believe their canon was closed.

    A problem that I have pointed out continues to plague this discussion: the categories of “cessationist” and “charismatic” as defined in CMP’s first post and subsequently are not exhaustive of the possibilities. I, and evidently others who comment, would not put ourselves into either category as defined by CMP. More exhaustive categories would be “cessationist/non-cessationis” or “charismatic/non-charismatic”.

    regards,

53. dac on 26 Jan 2009 at 12:19 pm #

    Minnowspeaks =

    Is that something you observed, or were told (comment 50)?

    David

    (and I see the comment numbers)

54. John C.T. on 26 Jan 2009 at 12:56 pm #

    Hmm, regarding David’s comment on the comment #’s. I use IE, and all I see are the “#” signs and no numbers after them. Odd.

55. dac on 26 Jan 2009 at 12:58 pm #

    the numbers are before the persons name (in firefox)

    the # sign is just the link to that specific comment

56. minnowspeaks on 26 Jan 2009 at 3:12 pm #

    I, too, see no comment numbers.
    dac: The story was told to me by the pastor involved. The additional comment of how I see tongues being edifying is experiencial.
    C. Barton: Can you explain how this comment: “Also, no offence, but falling down with seizures and yelping like animals in church is not from the Holy Spirit. Anyone who has been to Haiti or Jamaica would know this.” is not offensive? I can certainly understand how someone who has not had experience with certain manifestations of the Spirit would be skeptical but to imply demon possession runs a serious risk of calling good evil.

57. roger e. olson on 26 Jan 2009 at 4:04 pm #

    minnow
    Perhaps it isn’t “experientialism” that’s so “offensive” but the “extremism” of some that are in the charismatic/pentecostal camp. I came out of such an environment. And please, don’t read this as from someone who has been a cessationist all his life. I have not! But as I became a man … This is one of the major reasons I have a dislike for blogs and forums of this nature. RARELY do they edify. and so more often, they are destructive to the Body of Christ! Has anyone yet tied these sort of comments to a soteriological bent yet? If not, wait for it!

58. John C.T. on 26 Jan 2009 at 4:23 pm #

    “imply demon possession runs a serious risk of calling good evil.” True, and Barton’s comment may have been inelegantly worded, but it is not unwarranted to suggest demon possession. Effects such as barking, and laughter do occur in such circumstances (i.e., non-christian, demon appropriate), such as the Hindu kundalini, and are unknown in Christian literature or tradition until recent times (last two decades, usually traced to Rodney Brown). I’ve seen the so-called Toronto Blessing in action and, with respect, think it’s something we can do without. Anyway, it’s not an accusation to be made lightly, as Minnow points out, but it is one that needs to be looked at.

    regards,

    (ps. upon reading my recent comment, CMP, I didn’t mean to imply that you hadn’t read the Wallace argument, only that I had not put into my comment what was relevant from his article).

59. Eclectic Christian - Michael Bell on 26 Jan 2009 at 4:56 pm #

    “laughter… are unknown in Christian literature or tradition until recent times (last two decades, usually traced to Rodney Brown)”

    It is interesting to read the diary of A.B. Simpson, and to read his experiences of being filled with the Spirit. While he never spoke in tongues, Simpson records the following experience after a day of prayer.

    Asked God to accept my offering and ordain me anew. The Spirit came with a baptism of holy laughter for an hour or more and I am waiting for all He has yet to give and manifest.

    The date was September 12, 1907.

    I would encourage those who are interested in what some of the experiences were like in the early days of the Pentecostal movement to read Simpson’s diary from that time. It is really an eye opener.

60. C. Barton on 26 Jan 2009 at 5:03 pm #

    Dear minnowspeaks: I withdraw any insinuation regarding geniune demonic possession, and apologize for the boorish rhetoric; and I have seen and experienced enough to testify regarding various levels of influence by foreign spirits or fallen angels – I believe that lighter influences and oppressve influences are much more common than we care to imagine, including the unfortunate effects of opening the doors of one’s heart to the seducing and animalistic spirits which would gladly ravage our church members.
    Also, consider the doctrines (i.e., denial of Christ) taught by those who “minister” these false signs and wonders.
    Other than that, sorry ’bout the ploop.

    More germain to the topic are the many citations of Paul and others who constantly maintain that the Gifts are for the edification and building up of the church – certainly an ongoing project with no clear end in sight!

61. Peter on 26 Jan 2009 at 11:06 pm #

    Jugulum: “Gifts of signs & wonders are something that God gives, or he doesn’t. We can’t initiate them. We have no control.”

    1Cor. 14:1 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.
    1Cor. 14:12 So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.
    1Tim. 4:14 Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.

    1) It would be easy to form an argument that spiritual gifts ARE within our control “bestowed by laying on of hands by the presbytery” (1ti 4:14).

    2) Furthermore, we are certainly told to desire spiritual gifts, and that IS within our control. It would be odd if God tells Christians to eagerly desire what has ceased and is unavailable.

    3) Many protestants consider the presbytery to be a calling. If that’s a legitimate protestant point of view, then the presbytery is also not within our control either. That leads to the possibility of claiming it ceased. (Quakers anybody?)

    Don’t you think this argument is not that great? It looks to me like a collapse of sola scriptura, because the same arguments can be used to deny anything.

62. roger e. olson on 26 Jan 2009 at 11:32 pm #

    Peter, you commented:

    “1Tim. 4:14 [Open in Libronix (if available)] Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.

    1) It would be easy to form an argument that spiritual gifts ARE within our control “bestowed by laying on of hands by the presbytery” (1ti 4:14).

    2) Furthermore, we are certainly told to desire spiritual gifts, and that IS within our control. It would be odd if God tells Christians to eagerly desire what has ceased and is unavailable.

    3) Many protestants consider the presbytery to be a calling. If that’s a legitimate protestant point of view, then the presbytery is also not within our control either. That leads to the possibility of claiming it ceased. (Quakers anybody?)

    Don’t you think this argument is not that great? It looks to me like a collapse of sola scriptura, because the same arguments can be used to deny anything.”

    Peter, Perhaps the real argument is whether cessationist “presbytery” are false “presbytery” and only continuationist “presbytery” are the true “presbytery”?!?

63. Peter on 27 Jan 2009 at 3:04 am #

    “only continuationist “presbytery” are the true “presbytery”?!?”

    Maybe those who have been ordained without the laying on of hands of true presbytery are false presbytery.

64. John C.T. on 27 Jan 2009 at 7:11 am #

    Given that God was so concerned about his people enduring under persecution and in the end times, and that he therefore gave numerous prophetic scriptures (including an entire book), it certainly does strike one as extremely odd that God would not tell his people that after the first generation they have to do without the gifts of the Spirit.

    Even a practical cessationist position renders significant chunks of the Scriptures irrelevant. Moreover, it means that we have to assume that alleged charismatics are deluded, lying, or affected by the powers of this world. And of course this has been alleged by cessationists. But I don’t really see any escape from those conclusions for the practical cessationist.

    Peter is correct in his argument that if one believes in cessationism without being able to construct a biblical argument for it, then it is open to argue that we should not do many other things because they were for the first generation only. One would be constructing the argument for cessation on grounds other than Scripture.

    regards,

65. EricW on 27 Jan 2009 at 9:03 am #

    Peter is correct in his argument that if one believes in cessationism without being able to construct a biblical argument for it, then it is open to argue that we should not do many other things because they were for the first generation only. One would be constructing the argument for cessation on grounds other than Scripture.

    I think CMP alludes to that when he compares his cessationist viewpoint to his view of the canon. I.e., there is no Scripture that says there will be a completed and unreopenable canon, but his study and observation of church history and church practice supports his doctrine of the canon. Likewise, his study and observation of church history and church practice tends to push him toward the non-charismatic camp, if I read him correctly. I.e., he admits that his non-charismatic position is not solely based on or soley supported by Scripture. But aren’t other Biblical positions also based on grounds other than Scripture? Didn’t the Cappadocians, et al., develop and refine the doctrines of the Trinity and Christ’s nature via philosophical and logical argumentation as well as on the grounds of Scripture? Didn’t even Paul and Jesus appeal to “nature” and not just to Scripture to make some of their points?

66. minnow on 27 Jan 2009 at 9:28 am #

    C.Barton–My exposure/experience has simply been different from yours. I have a friend who is a pastor in Florida and has done some out reach in Louisiana. He was followed around by a child who spoke in “tongues” and manifested animal like noises. It was quite disturbing to my friend who prior to this experience thought tongues were a testimony of the Holy Spirit and so was confused my the child’s behavior toward him. When he finally checked his spirit about the child (prayed silently) the spirit told him “counterfeit”. He immediately understood that the tongues the child spoke were demonic. I do not know how it all transpired but the child was eventually relieved of the demon who was working in her. And my friend learned a very important lesson that he passed on to others (including me)–tongues does not mean Jesus 100% of the time.

67. Eclectic Christian - Michael Bell on 27 Jan 2009 at 10:37 am #

    I think that the downfall of the cessation compared to canon argument is that there is scripture that say that these gifts will continue until Christ returns. So by being a cessationist you are holding your experience (and granted the experience of the church) higher than your scripture.

    As far as the canon goes, the church decided relatively early that they would accept as scripture everything by first generation apostles. There is no scripture to say that the canon must remain open, or the canon must be closed. So in this sense, their decision was not in any way trumping scripture.

68. C. Barton on 27 Jan 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    minnowspeaks: one last comment from me – Jesus said that those who know Him would recognize His voice. How wonderful it is/will be to love Jesus in truth, and really know Him! Then anyone pretending to be from Him will stick out like a red handkerchief on the fairway.
    Let us remember that the greatest, most miraculous gift of all is God Himself – we can indeed know Him intimately and need not fear rejection because of sin – after all that is the Gospel message, that our sin no longer disqualifies us, because Jesus’ blood removes it completely for all time.
    God bless and keep you.

69. minnowspeaks on 27 Jan 2009 at 4:27 pm #

    C. Barton: Upon a less sleepy (and probably kind) reading or your reply I am stumped by this comment: “Also, consider the doctrines (i.e., denial of Christ) taught by those who “minister” these false signs and wonders.” Such has never been my experience or observation.
    John C.T.: I do understand that counterfeit behavior from demonic sources has confused many. I guess that’s why one of the “gifts” is discernment of spirits. I can also understand how some would not find the Toronto format/service to their liking or comfort. At the same time, I am also aware of numerous testimonies regarding the “blessing” that affirm the ministry that has been happening in Toronto. My personal experience in Toronto was pretty neutral.

70. John C.T. on 27 Jan 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    Returning to CMP’s starting post, wherein he writes, “seems to suggest that these confirmatory gifts were already beginning to exhuast their purpose.”

    That statement assumes that the only function of the gifts (and the other listed works of God) was confirmation of the message. however, neither that passage nor any other respecting the gifts states that they had only one function, that of confirmation.

    It also raises (not “begs”) the question, “why would only first generation gentiles need confirmation?” I can see an argument that Jews needed confirmation as regards Christ being the fulfilment of their scripture. But the Greeks & Romans?

    regards,

71. EricW on 27 Jan 2009 at 7:06 pm #

    I don’t understand why we hold to and preach from a Bible that testifies to how God communicates with man and acts in the affairs of men, and use our preaching and teaching and prayers to bring people to a knowledge of this God and a relationship with Him, but then say or imply: “Well, even though this is how this God used to relate to people – you know, dreams and visions and words of knowledge and prophetic utterances, etc. – and He is the same God, and He does not change – well, to tell the truth, He doesn’t do those things anymore and He doesn’t relate to us that way anymore.”

    It kind of reminds me of the scene in the movie The Frisco Kid where the Indian chief keeps goading Polish-rabbi-on-his-way-to-San-Francisco Gene Wilder about whether or not his God could make it rain (they had been suffering a severe drought), and Gene keeps saying that He can … but that He doesn’t. This argument goes back and forth and back and forth, and then suddenly there is a burst of thunder and it starts pouring, and Gene says something like: “But you know, sometimes just like that He can change His mind!”

72. Jugulum on 27 Jan 2009 at 7:12 pm #

    I still need to reply to Peter, but I have a quick couple comments to minnow and EricW:

    minnow:

    I do understand that counterfeit behavior from demonic sources has confused many. I guess that’s why one of the “gifts” is discernment of spirits.

    And why we’re all called to exercise discernment, whether or not we have “the gift” of discerning spirits. Testing everything, & the like.

    EricW:

    I don’t understand why we hold to and preach from a Bible that testifies to how God communicates with man and acts in the affairs of men, and use our preaching and teaching and prayers to bring people to a knowledge of this God and a relationship with Him, but then say or imply: “Well, even though this is how this God used to relate to people – and He is the same God, and He does not change – well, He doesn’t do those things anymore and He doesn’t relate to us that way anymore.”

    Is that intended to be an argument against cessationism? (Whether de-facto cessationism or regular cessationism?)

    If so, what about the intertestamental period? Wouldn’t your question/critique apply to a Jew who told proselytes, “God hasn’t been sending any prophets to Israel”?

    (I’m not a cessationist, myself. Just wondering about this particular critique.)

73. EricW on 27 Jan 2009 at 7:37 pm #

    Jugulum:

    Yes, my comments are an argument against cessationism.

    And I think there is a significant difference between the Intertestamental period of roughly 400 years (and I wouldn’t say that there weren’t charismatic activities then, even if none of the writings from that period became part of the Jewish Hebrew canon of Scripture) and the nearly 2,000 years since Christ’s resurrection and Pentecost, during which time His followers are to be the beneficiaries of the promised pouring out of the Spirit on all flesh while they live in and wait for the culmination of the now-present last days/end of the ages until and when He returns. I.e., it strikes me as odd that Jesus would do a great work and great works in His church and among its members in the 1st century, and then basically leave His church and His people with just a promise and a book, but no continuing acts of the Spirit as He used to establish and strengthen His church then, for the next 1,900 years. That’s a long time even for God.

    On a not-unrelated note, some have said that one of Christianity’s biggest problems is that Jesus hasn’t come back yet.

74. Jugulum on 27 Jan 2009 at 9:17 pm #

    Eric,

    Miscellaneous:
    1.) You argued from “I don’t understand why we hold to and preach from a Bible that testifies to how God communicates with man and acts in the affairs of men”. From ideas along the lines of, “God doesn’t change!”. And yet there are significant chunks of time before Christ in which in which God was not speaking or acting in a “non-cessationist” way, that kind of argument by itself strikes me as rather weak. Regardless of the relative size of 2000 years and 400 years. If you want to characterize the cessationist view as anything like “God changing the way he relates,” then it doesn’t matter if it’s for 400 years or for 2000 years. If the one is change, so is the other.

    2.) Arguments from Acts 2:17-21–the pouring out of the Spirit–are stronger. Though there’s a lot of already/not-yet tension to be figured out.

    It’s at least fair to ask, “Do we need to assume that the entirety of the Church Age will see the same level of signs & wonders & manifestations? Might we see more at the inauguration of the Church Age in apostolic times, and at the end times?”

    That question doesn’t compel me toward cessationism. But if it turns out that the Body of Christ doesn’t see much of the miraculous, and that it’s not because of lack of prayer, it wouldn’t shock me. (I guess we’ll have to wait till we can ask God face-to-face, to be sure.) That’s no reason to stop praying for mighty works, mind you.

    3.) Cessationists & non-cessationists have a lot to agree about. We can all agree about the work of regeneration, conviction, sanctification, granting of wisdom, intercession, empowering many gifts (if not all seen in the NT), illuminating the Scripture, transforming us to have the mind of Christ, growing the fellowship of the Body, etc.

    When you look at all that, don’t you see the outpouring of the Spirit? Frankly, in those areas of common ground between us all, I see the heart of the Spirit’s New Covenant ministry. It worries me greatly to see comments like,

    but no continuing acts of the Spirit as He used to establish and strengthen His church

    As though you don’t see any acts of the Spirit in what I listed! I doubt you really think that, but it’s the direction your rhetoric is going.

    I want to value signs & wonders with the value that Scripture places on them, and I want to emphasize them with the emphasis that Scripture places on them. I haven’t figure out precisely what that is. (I suspect that, in my natural inclinations, I undervalue them.) But my examination & study is leading me in this direction:

    If the ministry of the Spirit consisted only of charismatic distinctives–if it consisted only of the things that are not part of our common ground–then it would be weak, paltry, and disappointing, even in its external impressiveness.

    But combined with the rest of the Spirit’s ministry, it is God-given grace, pointing us to Christ. My point is to try to establish a sense of priority.

75. EricW on 27 Jan 2009 at 9:24 pm #

    No disagreement from me. I’m somewhat arguing for the sake of argument or discussion, not necessarily saying that this is what I firmly believe. My delivery would be better over a pint in a pub or a cup of coffee in a cafe than it is via keyboard and monitor.

76. Jugulum on 27 Jan 2009 at 11:07 pm #

    Er… OK… I’m glad you pretty much agree. (Though if the same things still strike you as odd, it’s not quite clear how much we do agree.)

77. EricW on 27 Jan 2009 at 11:51 pm #

    Jugulum:

    I’m in an in-between state re: charismaticism. It’s what I’ve known for most of my Christian life of 30+ years, but I’ve seen a lot of the bad and the mediocre and the mundane. I’m not cessationist, but I question and wonder and ask how much of what’s claimed to be by and from the Holy Spirit is flesh and emotion.

78. Jugulum on 28 Jan 2009 at 8:57 am #

    Eric,

    Interesting. I’m somewhere in your vicinity, but coming from the other direction. I was raised in a non-charismatic background (though not actively cessationist), and I’m in a somewhat charismatic church. I’m more charismatic than I used to be, but I’m trying hard to keep my foot on the brakes so that I don’t pendulum swing too far into the other camp. (Hah! I count three metaphors in that sentence.)

79. C. Barton on 28 Jan 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    Perhaps the confirmatory gifts are more or less exclusive to the vanguard of evangelism, i.e. the front lines where the gospel is not yet known; as we know from scriptures, one of the landmark prophecies is that of the gospel preached to every person in every tongue, etc., and apparently this is not yet fulfilled.
    There ought then to be news and testimony from the mission field, and this is in fact what we see.
    As for the operation of the Spirit in the Church overall- many OT prophecies speak of an indwelling and empowering of the Spirit in the New Covenant, whether observed externally or not, so I believe mere empirical evidence is not enough to confirm or deny the cessation of the particular gifts in debate.

80. Jugulum on 28 Jan 2009 at 1:33 pm #

    C Barton,

    I like that idea, but I have one nagging question about it. How do we classify a place like Europe? The gospel has been known there, but is it now? If the average person can grow to adulthood without ever having heard the gospel, isn’t that as much a mission field as China? Why should we see China as the “vanguard of evangelism,” but not Europe?

81. C. Barton on 28 Jan 2009 at 5:07 pm #

    Jugulum: (is that latin, like Nimirum?) Well, that’s a good question to explore, and I think that it will take more than a keyword search on Libronix to get good answers; however, I would liken it to the difference between:
    1) Not being able to read, but you know what the alphabet is, and
    2) Having no knowledge of written language and needing proof that such a thing exists.

    Also, Jesus was not able to do much in some areas during His earthly ministry “because of unbelief”, and I am sure He meant that the indifference or hardness of the people prevented signs or miracles because they simply had no faith. And we know that it is spiritual openness and ultimate faith that are required for such things to take place.
    I’ll keep digging, though!

82. Jugulum on 28 Jan 2009 at 7:21 pm #

    C. Barton,

    If a man grows up knowing that there’s a religion called Christianity, but has never heard the gospel, which category does he go in?

    And why should the answer change if the man lives in Europe, or lives in China?

    For that matter, why should a man need more proof if he lives in an area with no Christians, than a man who lives in Europe? If he hasn’t heard the gospel, what’s the difference?

    The idea of hard-heartedness, though… That’s interesting.

83. C. Barton on 29 Jan 2009 at 1:20 pm #

    That’s another great way of shedding light on this little issue; in the mission field, is the soul half-full or is it half-empty?
    On the one hand, Israel saw all kind of miracles of victory and deliverance, and God wanted them to know that it was HE who did it, not them. In fact there are many modern first-hand accounts of angelic appearances in the context of war and victory during the Seven-Day War, and probably others as well.
    On the other hand, we have the marvelous apostolic miracles recorded in Acts in order to draw the lost to Jesus and be added to the Church, and again God’s word admonishes us to consider it His work through faith and through grace; it does not come about through our own efforts alone.
    Also, we see in the scriptures that where there is more opposition, or where opposition to the Gospel is more violent, we also see God’s Spirit manifest in more power as well; this we see in the OT also, over and over again.
    So, perhaps a survey of the numbers added to the born-again churches in Europe and in China would be a good indicator? And then let the newly saved tell of any miraculous events which led them to faith.
    This is out of my scope of resources, but I hope that we can see newsreels someday of these very things.

84. Kara Kittle on 27 Feb 2009 at 9:33 am #

    It is wonderful that you present your argument beginning with the objection that it is your own opinion personal opinion, being de facto cessation. While Calvinists are very quick to object as many others are as well, let me add from my perspective as a believer who does believe in it. I am a Trinitarian Pentecostal.

    We assume it was only based in early church experience. But the OT very clearly states….with stammering lips and another tongues. What was this other tongue? Was it Greek already spoken in the world at that time? Was it the local various Roman languages already is use?

    The purpose of the stammering lips was in fact not for our ability to learn another language…otherwise Rosetta Stone would be holy. But it was promised as a means of direct communication from God to his people and they would receive rest. This is in Isaiah, and the pure language promised in Zephaniah. This was for a future ministry.

    Considering that among the gifts. it is the tongues that has brought the most attention while not addressing that fact there are 8 more gifts. Now while it would be easy to toss out the gift of tongues…should we then toss out the gift of faith? Or the gift of wisdom? Which are connected within the same verse and not at any time does Paul say they will cease to be in existence or use, until we are face to face with Jesus…as when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part will be done away with. Now I cannot think of one perfect church or people or person who has come, because the Holy Ghost is still working until that day Jesus returns in like manner.

    So if we say operation of tongues has ceased and only for those early believers, then has also wisdom, knowledge and faith? Those are bound together in one verse with the tongues. We know the difference in conventional wisdom and the wisdom which comes from above. The fact the Paul himself speaks in other tongues (and not the languages he was exposed to) he very clearly teaches that it is a divine language, spoken to God by the Spirit in us, and for the purpose of divine communication, to which God desires we communicate with him. It is a gift, not an enforcement or commandment. It is not stated it was only for the early church believers because Peter says “for you and your children and those that are afar off”.

    The fact that people have spoken in other tongues since then, the operation has never stopped, but simply suppressed by certain churches is indication that it is in continuation to this day.

    One other thing I would like to point out is this, because I have many points I could but not time to do it. Considering when Jesus was ascending into heaven, the angels who stood by spoke to the witnesses who were Galilean…”This same Jesus you see ascending, will return again in like manner” indicating the very Jesus who had just died and resurrected. And this Jesus baptizes with the Holy Ghost and with fire. The believers were baptized and the operation of tongues is classically explained at that moment in the upper room. So if Jesus went away and sent the Holy Ghost in his place, and it is by the power of the Holy Ghost the tongues are uttered…this will continue to be the ministry of the Holy Ghost until Jesus returns. Even the exhortation to build up our most holy faith in the Holy Ghost.

    Paul was not condemning the gift of tongues or it’s usage, he was making a point that our faith should not be centered on it, but that is a part of our own communication with God, who is a spirit and speaks through a spirit, to our spirit and we can speak back.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

3000 characters or less or your post will disappear!

Also, be sure to read the blog rules.