My friend Trevin Wax is helping us out as he “Live Blogs” through the Elephant Room. Beyond controversy (at least in the small circles I run in) is how I would describe the invitation of T.D. Jakes to the Elephant Room to discuss spirituality, truth, and theology. He has traditionally been defined as a Modalist theologically. Essentially what this means is that he denies the traditional definition of the Trinity by describing God as one God who shows himself in three different ways. The orthodox definition of the Trinity is that there is one God who eternally exists in three different persons: One what, three whos. Modalism, sometimes described as ”Jesus Only” and sometimes Oneness, to say the least, undermines our understanding of God as he has revealed himself and rapes the Trinity of the eternal relationship upon which so much of our theology is built, understood, and practically lived out.

So, is T.D. Jakes a Modalist? I don’t know. Maybe not (or at least not anymore). Here is some of the stuff that he said that caught my ear:

Jakes: I believe the latter one is where I stand today. One God – Three Persons. I am not crazy about the word persons though. You describe “manifestations” as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline. For God was manifest in the flesh. Paul is not a modalist, but he doesn’t think it’s robbery to say manifest in the flesh. Maybe it’s semantics, but Paul says this. Now, when we start talking about that sort of thing, I think it’s important to realize there are distinctives between the work of the Father and the work of the Son. I’m with you. I have been with you. There are many people within and outside denominations labeled Oneness that would be okay with this. We are taught in society that when we disagree with someone in a movement, we leave. But I still have associations with people in Onenness movements. We need to humble both sides and say, “We are trying to describe a God we love.” Why should I fall out and hate and throw names at you when it’s through a glass darkly? None of our books on the Godhead will be on sale in heaven.

Disclaimer: I have never read any of Jakes’ books. I barely even know his voice as I have not heard him speak much (I think he screams a lot?). I think he sweats almost as much as I do. And I think he wrote a book about losing weight. Oh, and I have heard that he is a modalist. I have even told others this. For this, I am saddened as I might have been spreading misinformation. (Theology teaching 101: if you don’t know for sure, keep your mouth shut.)

If this paragraph were put together by someone else that I have a tradition of following and know is orthodox, it is not too bad. It even has a ”tweetable moment” or two in it! Let me deal with a few things though.

“I am not crazy about the word person”: You know what? Neither am I. It is sufficient, yet in no way exhausting. Anyone who has studied the history of this word “person” in a trinitarian context understands that it never, even in the Latin or Greek (persona, hypostasis, prosopa), conveyed everything it could. It often creates misunderstandings since the English “person” carries some connotations that we would not apply to God. Nevertheless, we work with what we got. Barth did not like the word “person”. I agree with Calvin who said this about our articulations with respect to the Trinity:

“Where names have not been invented rashly, we must beware lest we become chargeable with arrogance and rashness in rejecting them. I wish, indeed, that such names were buried, provided all would concur in the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God, and yet that the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that each has his particular subsistence. I am not so minutely precise as to fight furiously for mere words. For I observe, that the writers of the ancient Church, while they uniformly spoke with great reverence on these matters, neither agreed with each other, nor were always consistent with themselves.” (John Calvin, Institutes, 1.13.5)

 It is not about the words we use, but the concepts we believe. I use the word “person” and I raise and eyebrow when others don’t. But if they have trouble with it the way Calvin speaks of, I understand. Jakes comment seems to be in this vein, but I don’t know.

“Paul is not a modalist, but he doesn’t think it’s robbery to say manifest in the flesh.”

Obviously I don’t mind the use of the word “manifestations” either. However, I think we need to be very careful about the context we use this in. The way that Paul uses this to Timothy was an early Christian creed (1 Tim. 3:16) and was not speaking about the Trinity in the way that we speak about the nature and distinctions in the Trinity. As well, the KJV supplies the word “God” to “manifest in the flesh” giving some misconceptions. It is not best translated “God was manifest in the flesh” but “Christ (or simply “he” – the context being Christ) was manifest in the flesh.” And the word manifestation simply means “to reveal” or “make known”. Christ was made known to us in a body. Therefore, I don’t really like the way Jakes defended the Oneness use of “manifestation” by using Paul.

“None of our books on the Godhead will be on sale in heaven.”

Can I just be honest with you and say that were it not somewhat undignified to quote T.D. Jakes in my world (to say the least), this would definitely be a keeper? Love it.

Another paragraph from Jakes:

“The Bible made me rethink my ideas and I got quiet about it for a while. There are things that you can say about the Father you cannot say about the Son or the Spirit. There are distinctives. I’m very comfortable with that. There is very little difference between what I believe and what you believe. But I don’t think anything that any of us believes fully describes what God is. We in our finite minds cannot fully describe what God is.”

“The Bible made me rethink”

The Bible makes me rethink every day. Good stuff. The context here is encouraging as it essentially says “The Bible made me rethink my view of the Trinity that I was taught in my Oneness (modalist) background.” Right?

“There are things that you can say about the Father you cannot say about the Son or the Spirit. There are distinctives.”

I appreciate this as well. I am not sure if it says quite enough. It certainly could be evidence that Jakes is no longer a modalist as this is the type of language orthodox Christianity uses concerning the Trinity. There are things that the Father and the Spirit did not do that the Son did (i.e. become incarnate and die on the cross). I think that this is what he is saying. I hope that this is what he is saying. I suppose that this could be also seen in a Modalist concept as well. For example, a Modalist could say this: “There are things that you can say about the role of the Father you cannot say about the role of the Son or the Spirit. There are distinctives in their roles.” So, I am not quit sure I am committing to Jakes Trinitarian orthodoxy through this paragraph. But it is hopeful.

“There is very little difference between what I believe and what you believe.”

This makes me somewhat nervous. In fact, it give me more pause than any of the other statements. What is this “very little” difference? I really want to know. Mormons say the same thing. What I consider very little and what he considers very little might be very different.

“But I don’t think anything that any of us believes fully describes what God is. We in our finite minds cannot fully describe what God is.”

I can certainly agree with this. I don’t think we can describe God fully. However, I do think we can understand God truly. The “mirror dimly” may not give us a full understanding of things, but what we do see can be accurate. “Let him who rejoice, rejoice in this: that he understands and knows me” (Jer. 9:24). God seeks to be understood. Though our minds are finite, they are made by an infinite God. He is pretty good at making things. Therefore, if he has revealed himself to us, even in a limited way, that which he has revealed can be truly understood. The mysterious (i.e. unrevealed) things belong to the Lord, but those things that have been revealed belong to us (Deut 29:29). I say this because I want to be careful that we don’t go down the there-is-no-way-to-understand-the-trinity-so-there-is-no-”orthodox”-view-that-God-cares-about path. Our view of God is that he is one God who eternally exists in three persons, all of whom are fully God, all of whom are equal. While this statement is insufficient in scope, it is sufficient in accuracy (properly understood).

Is T.D. Jakes an orthodox Trinitarian? I don’t know, but I am more hopeful than I was before. I really just want to know what that “little difference” is.

UPDTE: here is the video of what Jakes said. It has some more red flags, but he did explicitly say that the Father did not die on the cross. Of course this could mean that the manifestation of the Father did not die, but I think he meant it rightly.Similar Posts:

• Heresies: Subordinationalism – A Lesser Christ
• The Doctrine of the Trinity in a Nutshell
• In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part III: One in Purpose? B: The Father Is Greater than All
• "The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements
• In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part III: One in Purpose? Calvin's View

Thanks for your careful approach to this question. I appreciate your desire to properly honor our common heroes of the faith throughout these past 2,000 years of church history. But I have to say that I remain utterly unmoved and altogether unconvinced by your appeal to this argument from the life of the church these past two millennia. I can’t address all your points, and on several occasions I will simply encourage the reader to go back and examine my article and the evidence I cited one more time. But I do have a few important points to make.

(1) First, I don’t think you honestly believe what I’m about to say (at least I hope you don’t), but much of what you wrote in your article, together with several comments in previous entries, suggests that it may be hiding just beneath the surface and I want our readers to reckon with it.

In all your talk of how experience or the lack thereof shapes your beliefs and practices, you’ve made several good points. But a danger lurks when one question is pressed: “What should I do when my experience does not line up with Scripture?” I put it this way because you have conceded on several occasions that the NT does not teach hard cessationism. You have even conceded that the exegetical case for continuationism is stronger than the one for cessationism. Your response has been to rely on the argument of what you call de facto cessation (“How do we know the gifts ceased? We know they have ceased because they in fact ceased”).

You do not argue that they have ceased because Scripture teaches they have. You concede that Scripture appears to teach otherwise. So, in my opinion, we have one of two available responses: either (1) marginalize Scripture on the subject of our responsibility with regard to spiritual gifts, or (2) do what we can, with God’s help, to alter our experience and repent of what we have believed or done that has led us to fall short of what Scripture truly says and commands. It strikes me that the only legitimate response to the alleged de facto cessation of gifts (which I’m only conceding for the sake of argument; as you can see from my article, I don’t believe they ever altogether ceased) is to admit that this must mean the problem is with us, the people of God, and not the Word of God.

I guess what I’m getting at is this: I struggle to understand how your view can be made consistent with a high view of biblical authority. If you concede that the NT makes a stronger case for continuationism than cessationism, then embrace the former and do everything within your power (as empowered by God) to pursue and facilitate and practice the gifts, regardless of what anyone else in any age of church history may believe or do. Otherwise, I don’t know how the Bible functions authoritatively in your life. Now, as I said above, I don’t believe you deny the functional authority of Scripture (I know you too well for that), but I fear that your arguments betray the subtle and perhaps unconscious influence of a tendency to invest more authority in your and others’ experience than in that of Paul and his precepts.

(2) Second, you write that “the cumulative experience of the historic body of Christ, at this point, is one of the things that keeps me from being charismatic.” In keeping with the previous point, I’m very sad to hear you say that. I would have hoped you had said, “the cumulative evidence from God’s inspired Word, at this point, is the primary thing that prompts me to be a charismatic, the experience or lack thereof in other believers notwithstanding.”

(3) Third, you insist that, subsequent to the first two centuries of church life, spiritual gifts were in decline and were at best infrequent and on the fringe for the next 1,800 years or so. I’m not going to continue to argue that point, but would ask only one question: “Why were they purportedly in decline and infrequent?” I would simply ask that you and our readers consider the several possible explanations for this found in my article. One explanation that you will not find, because Scripture won’t allow it, is that it was God’s design that the gifts only operate during the initial stages of the church’s existence. The Bible simply nowhere says that.

(4) Fourth, I will not respond to your quotations from church history but choose to stand by the evidence cited in my article. I would simply encourage the reader to go back and carefully read the statements from prominent figures and ask if what they believed and saw and experienced is consistent with de facto cessationism. In my opinion, it most certainly isn’t.

(5) Fifth, you argue that “the loss of the [truth] of the Gospel was a loss of an understanding of a doctrine (sola fide), not a loss of the effectiveness of this doctrine,” and thus can’t be compared with the decline or relative loss of the exercise of spiritual gifts in the church. You go on to say with regard to tongues that “you never have as a prerequisite a belief in the truthfulness of a doctrine of continuationism before Christians experience their effectiveness.”

I honestly can’t believe you believe this. Are you actually saying that one’s theological convictions about the validity or cessation of tongues and other gifts has no effect on whether or not a person eventually experiences them? I would insist that our beliefs control and shape our zeal, our expectations, our prayer life, and especially how we respond to and interpret claims people make regarding their experience of supernatural phenomena. Let me develop this point at greater length, because I think it is of crucial importance.

I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but your understanding of when and why spiritual gifts either are or are not present in the life of the church appears to be influenced by what strikes me as hyper-Calvinism, or at least a somewhat fatalistic approach to the Christian life that undermines both prayer and human responsibility. Can you believe that a committed 5-point Calvinist just wrote that? Well, yes, he (I) did.

You point to the gift of tongues in Acts and argue that in all three instances where it appears it came “sovereignly,” so to speak, without regard to the prayer or spiritual posture of those who received it. I think this is misleading for a couple of reasons.

For one, those present on the Day of Pentecost were there in obedience to the command of Jesus: “But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49: cf. Acts 1:5,8). The reason all received the gift of tongues on that Day is due to at least two factors. First, they were obedient in responding to Jesus’ command. There is no reason to believe, at least in my opinion, that if some had disbelieved Jesus’ promise, disobeyed his command, and had refused to wait with the others in Jerusalem for the outpouring of the Spirit that they would have received tongues anyway, irrespective of their response to him.

Whether or not they were praying for this to occur we can’t know, for the simple fact that the text says nothing to this effect. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. It’s difficult for me to believe, however, that given John’s and Jesus’ prophecies of the impending Spirit baptism and the coming on them of divine power that they sat silently and passively and refused or at least failed to pray for the coming of what Christ had promised. In any case, no one knows what they were doing in preparation for the coming of the Spirit. For you to say that God gave tongues to all of them irrespective of their obedience or belief or prayer is simply not substantiated by the text. The text is silent.

My second reason for finding your argument misleading is that Acts 10 concerns the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles. I think most everyone acknowledges that we are dealing here with an unusual geo-ethnic expansion of the gospel that called for the same phenomenon that occurred at Pentecost in order to attest to the reality of their acceptance by faith. Peter and the others are clear that the experience of Cornelius and the other Gentiles in receiving the Spirit and speaking in tongues served uniquely in this case to corroborate the fact that “the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out EVEN on the Gentiles” (10:45). This leads Peter to conclude that they were fit subjects for water baptism, just as were those among the Jews who believed and received the Spirit. I hardly think this example from Acts 10 is sufficient warrant for drawing the conclusion you do that if God wants his people to speak in tongues they will do so irrespective of their own beliefs, prayers, desires, or state of mind and heart.

As for Acts 19, they spoke in tongues only “when Paul laid his hands on them” (19:6). In the course of Paul’s explanation of the gospel and the reality of Pentecost, did these “disciples” of John express their desire to experience what those did in Acts 2? We don’t know. The text is silent. What we do know is that Paul was dealing with a situation that is altogether unrepeatable today. These “disciples” were men who had embraced the baptism of John but had lived in the overlap of the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. They evidently lived at a distance from Jerusalem and had no access to the news of what had happened on Pentecost (no TV, no Internet, no Twitter, etc.). This is hardly a situation that we can use as paradigmatic for us today, as no one today lives in what might be called a “redemptive-historical time warp”.

My point is simply that I believe you are building far too much on these incidents in Acts. The only other place where the gift of tongues is explicitly mentioned (outside the dubious long ending of Mark) is in 1 Corinthians. And it is important to remember that not everyone in Corinth spoke in tongues (indicating that in a time when the gift of tongues was clearly God’s will for his church some [most] Christians did not receive the gift). If they did, Paul would not have had to say in 14:5, “I wish that all of you spoke in tongues.” Clearly not everyone did.

Your argument seems to be as follows: If spiritual gifts are designed and intended by God to function in the church throughout its existence, into the present day, then such gifts will consistently appear by divine fiat irrespective of how people live, what they believe (especially regarding the continuation or cessation of said gifts), and whether or not they pray for and pursue such gifts and are committed to practicing them in accordance with Scripture.

Don’t take offense, but I find this approach to the Christian life to be presumptuous, irresponsible, and negligent of God’s ordained means to achieve his ordained ends. If your view were true, it would empty prayer of its value. Why pray (as our Arminian friends would say) if God is going to do what God is going to do regardless? Is it not the case that God suspends the bestowal of countless blessings on our asking for them? If the principle you are defending is correct, why would Jesus have rebuked his disciples for their failure to pray (Mark 9:28-29) in attempting to cast the demon out of a young boy? On your belief, why wouldn’t we conclude that if God wanted the boy to be delivered he would sovereignly do it without calling for or waiting upon the prayers of others on the boy’s behalf? And why should we obey Jesus who commanded us to persevere in prayer (keep on asking, keep on seeking, keep on knocking; Luke 11) to receive the gifts and blessings of the Spirit that we so desperately need (Luke 11:13)? And why would James tell us that “we have not because we ask not” (Js. 4:2) if God typically grants gifts and blessings as sovereignly and irrespectively of our desires and prayers as you suggest?

Neither you or I have any idea what the Corinthians did or did not do when it came to the reception of spiritual gifts. You seem to suggest that these Christians received their gifts by divine fiat apart from their desire or prayer. I would like for you to give me a text that says this. The text is again silent, well, almost silent. You still have not answered the question I asked quite some time ago about the prayer of 1 Cor. 14:13. There a Christian man/woman who already has the gift of tongues is commanded to “pray for the power to interpret.” But why, if what you say is correct? Why bother, if God’s will is to grant the gift of interpretation? Clearly, at least it is clear to me, Paul believed that the reception of a spiritual gift is often based on one’s prayer for it. Ask and you shall receive. Don’t ask, and you shouldn’t expect to receive.

It appears to me that perhaps your position on this point is again related to your denial that a Christian, after his/her conversion, can still receive additional spiritual gifts. Your attempt to evade this point as it is stated in 1 Corinthians 14:1 and 14:39 simply doesn’t ring true to me. And I don’t know how you can get around 1 Timothy 4:14 where Paul speaks of a “gift” (charismatos) that was given by God to Timothy through the exercise of another’s spiritual gift of prophecy when hands were laid upon him. Timothy was a Christian, yet here the Elders lay hands on him and God imparts to him a spiritual gift. It seems to me the only reason you might have to doubt this is the recognition that if you concede the point your position is undermined. If Timothy could receive a spiritual gift in response to the prayers of others and through the instrumentality of prophecy, and all this subsequent to his conversion, why can’t we?

My point here is that you appear to say, contrary to these texts, that a Christian receives from God as a sovereign impartation, irrespective of their own beliefs, prayers, and desires, all the gifts that he/she will ever receive at conversion. These texts clearly say otherwise.

Now, how does all this relate to the issue of gifts in history? Isn’t it obvious? One of the reasons I cited why gifts are less frequent in certain seasons of church history than in others is simply due to the fact that based on their hard cessationism (together with other factors, such as fear) they don’t seek and pursue and above all else fail (refuse?) to pray for these gifts.

They have not because they asked not, and they asked not because they believed not! Not believing in the validity of those gifts, not believing that God would grant them, they didn’t ask for them. Not asking for them, they didn’t receive them. You seem to think that their asking is irrelevant. If God wants them to have the gift, then, by golly, they’ll get it one way or the other. This strikes me as an illegitimate extension of our commonly held Calvinist convictions. God works through means, prayer being one of the more important of them.

I’m not suggesting that this accounts sufficiently for why certain spiritual gifts were not present in certain seasons of church life, but I am saying that it simply isn’t biblical or God’s way (at least as I read the Scriptures, even as a “good Calvinist”) to impart gifts and blessings irrespective of our obedience to pray and ask for them. The hungry are those who are filled. The thirsty are those who are given drink. Those who ask and seek and knock are those to whom the door is opened.

Can God set aside this principle and grant gifts anyway, irrespective of our theological beliefs about their validity and irrespective of our disobedience to pray for them? Yes, of course he can. I think that is precisely what happened in the case of Spurgeon. And I would venture to say (while acknowledging that I can’t prove it) that this happened countless times throughout the course of church history. But that doesn’t cancel out the basic principle that we cannot expect God to do things for us if we ignore the command to fulfill those conditions on which he suspends their impartation.

The principle is simply this: We should never expect God to do for us apart from prayer what he has promised in his Word to do for us only through prayer.

(6) Now for my sixth and concluding point. I want to take a minute or two and address this distinction that you continually (see, you are a “continuationist” of sorts!) make between “miraculous” gifts of the Spirit, which you contend have ceased (so much for your “continuationism”!), and “miracles”. This is typical among cessationists of all stripes. They deny that the “gifts” are valid but are “open” to the possibility that God “can” perform miracles if he so chooses throughout the course of church history. Let me say two things by way of response to this.

First, this distinction carries weight with people only (or at least to a large degree) because of an entirely fallacious understanding of how miraculous gifts of the Spirit operate. I made this point at some length in an earlier post, but it bears repeating. My sense is that cessationists want to deny the validity of “miraculous” gifts but affirm “miracles” because they don’t like (or believe in) the idea of any one person today claiming to operate in healing or prophecy or word of knowledge. They don’t like it because they don’t see it. That is to say, no one always heals at will or prophecies at will or is the recipient of revelatory words at will. Cessationists have a notion of spiritual gifts that if one ever, on any occasion, might heal or prophesy, they should be able always on every occasion to do so. And since everyone (me included) acknowledges that no one ministers in any miraculous gifting at this level of consistency and accuracy, cessationists can only conclude that such gifts ceased.

This, I insist, is an entirely wrong-headed and misleading understanding of these gifts. Not even Paul operated in his gifting in this manner. The more overtly supernatural or miraculous gifts, and especially the ones dependent on divine revelation (word of knowledge, word of wisdom, prophecy, discerning of spirits) are not permanent and residential, as if they are always present in a person and can be used at the will of the believer. They are, as I earlier argued, occasional and circumstantial. They are given by the sovereign good will of God according to his timing and purpose. They can only be exercised when he wills, not when we will.

So, the fact that no one who ever healed can always heal, or the fact that no one who ever prophesied can always prophesy, or the fact that no one who ever worked a miracle can always work a miracle, proves absolutely nothing about the cessation or perpetuity of such gifts. There is no need for a cessationist to deny the validity of miraculous gifts while affirming the validity of the miraculous since all instances of miracles, whether healing or revelatory words or the like, are subject to the sovereign will and providential oversight of God.

My first point, then, is this. Cessationists are drawing the wrong conclusion from the relative absence or alleged infrequency today (or in church history at large) of miraculous gifts. They were never under the control of the individual and were never designed by God to operate whenever we will or whenever we pray. Their relative absence or alleged infrequency is due to the intrinsic nature of the miraculous itself, not to any supposed purpose of God concerning the on-going validity or, conversely, cessation of the gifts Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10. If cessationists would only acknowledge the distinction between gifts that are residential and permanent (such as teaching or mercy or evangelism or leadership or exhortation) and those that are occasional and circumstantial (such as healing, word of knowledge, wisdom, miracles, faith, discerning of spirits), much of this debate would, I believe, simply go away.

Second, cessationists must be able to differentiate between what Paul calls the gift of “miracles” (literally, the “working of powers”) in 1 Corinthians 12:10 and the occurrence of a “miracle” which they seem happy to acknowledge can still occur in our day (and throughout church history). But what is the difference? You can’t respond or answer by saying, “The difference is between a gifted ‘person’ who always operates at will in this sort of supernatural power and the isolated occurrence of a ‘miracle’ that comes merely by the sovereign hand of God.” Why doesn’t this response work? There are two reasons.

The first reason is what I said above: there never was and never will be, as far as I can tell from Scripture, any person (aside from Jesus) who “always operates at will in this sort of supernatural power.”

The second reason concerns how the miracles that even cessationists admit do occur, actually occur. Here’s what I mean. Most cessationists would acknowledge that on occasion God heals the sick or perhaps performs a so-called “nature” miracle. But how does God do it? Or better still, through what means or instrumentality does he do it? Is it not in most instances through or in response to the prayers of God’s people? Is it not after and because the Elders have anointed a person with oil and prayed the prayer of faith (James 5)? Is it not typically, by some manner or other, through a human being who is seeking God, looking to God, and praying to God for precisely such a supernatural intervention?

I’m not suggesting that God never performs a miracle by fiat or in some unmediated way. Of course he does. But when it comes to healing or revelatory experiences in particular, it is most often through the impartation to a particular person or persons of a “gift” for a healing or a word of revelatory insight or some other expression of power.

I would simply ask you and other cessationists who say you believe in miracles (or that God can surely perform them beyond the time of the NT) to describe for me one that you’ve seen or heard of that occurred independently of Christians who were praying and seeking God for his supernatural power or were in some other way directly involved in the facilitation of that miracle. For every example you might cite, I’ve got ten where God did it through a human instrumentality. That, I believe, is what the “gift of miracles” (1 Cor. 12:10) is all about. It is about God, at his time and according to his purpose, imparting a gift or enablement to a particular person on a particular occasion to accomplish a particular purpose.

Perhaps the best illustration of what I’m getting at is found in Galatians 3:5. There Paul asks, “Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?” Note two things in this text that apply to our discussion. First, it appears that God sovereignly, according to his will and timing, was performing miracles among the Galatians. Some might think that this is what even cessationists concede can and on occasion happens throughout the course of church history. No special spiritual “gift” is required for God to do this.

But I’m persuaded that this is, in fact, yet another reference to the “gift” of miracles. Observe what Paul says concerning how or by what means such miracles are performed: “by hearing with faith”! The Galatians (and we, too, I believe) hear the Word of God, the Spirit whom God gives to us awakens belief in its truths and deepens faith in who God is and what he can do, to which God then responds by imparting or bestowing a “gift” to work a miracle or display his supernatural presence.

Second, that Paul has in view here precisely the same phenomenon (the “gift of miracles”) that he describes in 1 Corinthians 12:10 and again in 12:28-29 is evident from the language he employs. In Galatians 3:5, the phrase “works miracles” is a translation of the Greek energon dunameis, which is virtually the same terminology Paul uses in 1 Cor. 12:10 to describe the spiritual “gift” of miracles (energemata dunameon; in 12:28-29, where his description of the gifts is abbreviated, he uses dunameis alone). Does God “work miracles” among us, or do gifted individuals “work miracles” among us? Yes! God “works miracles” among us by awakening faith in his Word, in conjunction with or as a result of which he imparts a gracious divine enabling (i.e., a charisma, a gift) so that the believer can “work miracles” among us.

So, if you are willing to recognize that this is the nature of the “gift of miracles” as well as the nature of gifts of healings and revelatory experiences, etc., then what’s the point or value in denying that such “gifts” continue in the life of the church all the while you concede that miracles still occur? I also believe this is why it is indeed legitimate for continuationists to appeal to examples such as we find in the ministry of Augustine to support their view.

The bottom line is that I think you and other cessationists continue to draw this distinction because you don’t want to be forced into a theological corner where you are found doubting or, worse still, denying that the omnipotent God of the universe “can” do something. You want to be able to justify praying for a miracle when someone is sick, and to be able to account for what happened to Spurgeon, for example, and other similar instances without conceding this debate to the continuationist.

Thus, I simply don’t see this as a helpful or biblical distinction. I believe that God continues to bestow the “gift of miracles” much in the same way he most likely did in the early church: rarely, occasionally, and most often (but not always) through a particular Christian person who was seeking God, believing God, and praying for a particular supernatural breakthrough. I believe God continues to bestow “gifts of healings” much in the same way he most likely did in the early church: rarely, occasionally, etc., etc.

And so, this oft-heard insistence by cessationists that miracles can certainly occur but not through the “gift of miracles” or that healings can occur but not through the “gifts of healings,” is a distinction without a difference that serves only to cloud and confuse people in this debate. May it forever cease (see, I too am a “cessationist” of sorts!).

Well, that’s enough. I’ve enjoyed the dialogue. I hope our readers have been encouraged and edified by this series of blog posts. Blessings to all,

SamSimilar Posts:

• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 6): Excursus: It's Not About Miracles!
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: What Does it Mean to Be Charismatic? Response – C Michael Patton
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: My Story Response – Sam Storms
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: What Are Spiritual Gifts? Response – Sam Storms
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 5): An Argument from History

“It can forthrightly be admitted that the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend, as Wedderburn notes.”

“We may also be reading poetic language or legend at certain points, such as Matthew’s report of the raising of some dead saints at Jesus’ death.”

(Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 185-186).

Sound bites are very dangerous as they can be used to misrepresent and, sometimes, destroy someone else’s standing within a particular community. In this case, Mike Licona’s standing is in jeopardy with many people in conservative Christian theology who like what he has done, but don’t know how to process the statements above. Sound bites? You know what I am talking about. Take someone’s words out of context and we lose all ability to communicate. People have done this to you and you say in response, “You don’t understand the context in which I said that.” “You have to know some more background before you can make a judgement.” I am going to try to give you some of what I suppose to be the theological and methodological context in which Mike’s sound bites occurred.

Pop quiz (circle one): As Christians we are to . . .

a) follow the evidence no matter where it leads

b) follow the Bible no matter where it leads

c) follow rationality no matter where it leads

d) follow our faith no matter where it leads

What did you circle? Tuck your answer away; we will revisit this in a bit.

Not long ago, I started a Christian theology class this way: ”Carl Sagan could be right. It could be that we are all alone in this universe. It could be the silence that we get from God is natural to the way things really are. It could be that the reason Jesus has yet to return is because he is not coming. It could be that the teachings of the Bible are a crutch we use to support our otherwise hopeless life. But it could be that we are right, and Christianity holds the meta-narrative to all existence. We have to consider and examine all possibilities if we are to have integrity, even those possibilities that make us the most uncomfortable.”

Many of you do not like the language I just used. Sound bites could be pulled from that introduction and placed on billboards and they would hurt my influence among other Christians. Many would say, “It could be? How could you, as a Christian, say that our faith could be true? You are making our beliefs contingent on the reasoning of man. How long will you waver between two opinions? It either is or it isn’t; there is no could be.” Anyone reading or hearing these sound bites would misunderstand my method, my approach, and my audience. Just because I say something could be does not mean I believe that it is likely, much less probable.

The language I used may not preach. But it will teach.

There is a difference in teaching and preaching. Preaching seeks to encourage people with the truth. Teaching seeks to instruct people in the truth. Preaching exhorts. Teaching educates. Preaching is more deductive. Teaching is more inductive. Preaching is decisive. Teaching is inquisitive. Preaching builds a creedal faith. Teaching builds a credible faith. Both are needed. Both are important. Both are biblical. The method used depends on the speaker’s audience and purpose.

Let me switch gears for a moment and head one more (last?) time to the Mike Licona issue.

Rob Bowman, in the wonderfully helpful work he co-authored with Ken Boa entitled Faith Has Its Reasons (highly suggested), tells us about the different methods Christian apologists (those who defend the faith) will use to defend the faith. There are four:

1. Presuppositional: presuppose the truthfulness and authority of the Scripture as a properly basic belief.

2. Classical: rationally present a case for the Christian faith.

3. Fideist: faith transcends evidence and reason; just believe.

4. Evidential: evidentially build a case for the faith.

While these descriptions may be somewhat oversimplified, they nevertheless capture the essence of the four systems. It is important to note that the first three are top-down approaches, which are more deductive. The last is more bottom up; it is inductive.

Without getting too much into the right or wrong and strengths or weaknesses of these four, let me say this: the first three will preach! The last won’t preach too well, but it will teach.

When writing a book about the historicity of the resurrection, each one of these approaches is going to produce a different type of book that is tailored for different audiences. The presuppositional, fideist, and to some degree the classical, will produce language of assurance and conviction to a larger degree than the evidential approach. This book will be more directed toward those who already generally believe in the truths of the Bible. The evidentialist will appeal more to those who are seekers and skeptics.

Question: Why do we believe the resurrection?

Presupposition: Because the Bible, God’s word and thus our ultimate authority, says it happened; therefore, we believe it.

Classical: Because we can deduce through rational inquiry that the Bible is God’s word.  The Bible says it happened, therefore, we believe it. (Though, to be fair, most classical apologists use evidence as well).

Fideist: Because our faith in the resurrection transcends all else; no matter what the evidence and reason say, we believe it.

Evidentialist: Because the resurrection is the most probable explanation for all the historical data; therefore, we believe it.

Notice that the evidentialist approach is the most contingent in its rhetoric. It says that the resurrection is the “most probable.” That is language of contingency. Why does it use such language? Because the proposed truth is dependent on the strength of the evidences. Therefore, it is going to be open to more sound bite critique. People can take individual arguments out of context and misunderstand what is going on by failing to look at the big picture. “Probable?” they will say. “You mean to tell me that the resurrection is only probable in your thinking? No thanks. I want the blessed absolute assurance, not this method that caves to human understanding.”

Mike Licona’s work on the historicity of the resurrection utilizes an evidendential approach to defending the faith. Agree or not, it is the same bottom-up methodology used by many Christian scholars both today and throughout the history of the church. It is the same method Thomas used when he doubted the resurrection. “Show me the evidence!” was Thomas’ cry. It is the same methodology Luke used in producing his books (Luke and Acts; Luke 1:1).

Why does Mike Licona use this method? Because of the audience Licona is trying to reach. Agree or not, the evidentialist approach has a broader appeal than the other three approaches, due to the fact that this is the world people function in every day – the world of evidences and decisions based on probability. We make decisions to purchase a new car, to marry a certain person, or to take a job, not because we have absolute and infallible presupposed or rationalized assurance that these decisions are correct, but because we base our decisions on which outcome is most probable, according to the evidence. Due to the history of the car maker, the reviews we have read, and our multiple test drives, we make a decision to invest $20,000 into a car and drive it down the highway at 60+ mph. Could we have chosen poorly? Yes. Does that mean we did? No. Why? Because the evidentialist is working under this assumption: the possibility of error does not equal the probability of error.

Licona makes some statements in his work The Resurrection of Jesus that are being used right now as sound bites of indictment. He says things such as, “It can forthrightly be admitted that the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend, as Wedderburn notes.” Once we hear that, we fall apart. What does this mean? Is he conceding that the Bible could be wrong? I think there are two things happening here: 1) He is merely suggesting another interpretive option; and 2) he is speaking with the language of an evidentialist in order to build his case. However, neither of these mean that the contingencies of the language and rhetoric used suggest he is actually denying the truthfulness of the event (rightly interpreted) or the probability of its legendary status.

When you approach things evidentially, though your theology may say otherwise, though you may be emotionally tied to certain conclusions, your methodology cannot be prejudiced in such a way. In other words, you cannot assume a conclusion, as an evidentialist, then interpret the data only in a way that supports your presupposition. You must follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Concerning the historicity of the resurrection, one cannot write a book like Mike Licona has written and use his presupposed inerrant theology to dictate his method or conclusions. Ironically, from the standpoint of the evidentialist, this would dishonor God more than anything, as it is not Truth you are really in search of, but truth as you have presupposed it.

As an evidentialist, Mike must use the language of contingency to make his points stronger. If there is stronger evidence for one historical event than for another, then he must present it as such. If one event, from this bottom-up approach, has less historic credibility than another, then his conclusions will follow suit. When we are trying to build our case for Christianity inductively, from the ground up, there are going to be some things that are more historically credible than others. This does not mean we are denying the things that are less credible from a historic standpoint, it just means that they don’t form the bedrock of our case and will be spoken of more contingently. Mike says, “We may also be reading poetic language or legend at certain points, such as Matthew’s report of the raising of some dead saints at Jesus’ death (Mt 27:51-54) and the angel(s) at the tomb (Mk 15:5-7; Mt 28:2-7; Lk 24:4-7; Jn 20:11-13” (emphasis mine). This is just the language of the evidentialist. It is the language that he has to use to have intellectual honesty, integrity, and (the word everyone hates) credibility when inductively building his case.

I remember hearing this rhetoric for the first time from Darrel Bock at seminary. It killed me for a few days. “How could he say this or that probably happened? How could he say such-and-such unbeliever may be right?” It was not until I took into account the method he was using and the audience he was trying to reach that I understood. I realized he was using evidentialist rhetoric that did not necessarily express his own personal theological stands. I realized he was giving more honor to God by speaking contingently –  according to the evidence – rather than according to his presuppositions.

When you read Mike Licona’s statements in his book, please take into account who he is writing to and the method he necessarily must take in order to honor God and reach people’s minds with the truth of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Pop quiz: As Christians we are to . . .

a) follow the evidence no matter where it leads (evidentialist)

b) follow the Bible no matter where it leads (presuppositionalist)

c) follow rationality no matter where it leads (classicalist)

d) follow our faith no matter where it leads (fideist)

All have their place. But not all have their place in the type of work Mike Licona produced. Mike Licona is teaching us about the resurrection of Jesus so that our preaching can have more true conviction.

Having said all this, I am not completely certain this would accurately describe how Mike sees this issue. Though I have written on this quite a bit in the last week, I am certainly not the official Licona spokesperson. Either way, this should be some good advice to seminaries and religious education organizations: if you don’t want your employees to phrase their work with such contengencies, hire only presuppositionalists, fideists, and classical apologists. Stay away from evidentialists!Similar Posts:

• Mike Licona and RisenJesus.com
• Mike Licona on Christian Doubt
• Mike Licona and His Struggle with His Faith
• The Little Lights aren’t Twinkling, Mike Licona
• Mike Licona, Norman Geisler, Albert Mohler, and the Evangelical Circus

But these people are not really my “friends”. They are simply fault-finders. And it is not just me they attack, they have a track record of fault-finding in everyone. Whether or not their critique is correct, I, personally, don’t listen to them because they have not gained my ear. And neither should you. Well, neither should you if you want to keep your sanity and be productive. The sad fact is that we live in a world where the fault-finders out number the encouragers.

The Proverb, “the wounds of a friend are better than the kisses of an enemy” (Proverbs 27:6) is true. But don’t fail to notice something: I find nowhere in this verse that the wounds are what establishes the friendship. It is encouragement, belief in, and true knowledge of the individual that comes from long fraternity. I often tell people that we need to live by the 10/1 rule. You have to have ten words of encouragement before you are qualified to give one word of correction.

One of my favorite movies this time of year is Christmas Vacation. At the risk of getting one of those emails from my “friends” who will not like me speaking about a secular movie such as this, I think the illustration is appropriate to what is happening in the Mike Licona situation. Watch the following video. The first part represents the publication of Mike’s Resurrection of Jesus. The last part represents the reaction of a fault-finder.

“I dedicate this house to the Griswald family Christmas: 25,000 lights!!!”

“The little lights aren’t twinkling, Clark.”

“I know Art and thanks for noticing.”

Mike Licona:

“I dedicate this book to the defense of the Christian faith!: 718 pages!!!”

“The little lights are not twinkling, Mike.”

“Thanks for noticing.”

I am not saying that Mike Licona’s little lights are not twinkling in this case. But one thing is for sure: theologically speaking, we all have lots of little lights that don’t twinkle. We will get them fixed in heaven. However, let us notice first all the 25,000 other lights that are shining bright to the glory of the Lord. If some of the”big” lights are out, we do need to draw attention to them most certainly. But we must face the fact that all our lights don’t twinkle as they should. And how rare is it for people’s lights to be on at all?

Destroying people is easy. It is building them up that takes time, patience, tact, serious thought, and the ability to draw attention to the good 10/1 over the not so good.Similar Posts:

• Christians Playing Santa: Responding to the Objections
• Mike Licona, Sound Bite Misunderstandings, and Apologetic Methodology
• Mike Licona, Norman Geisler, Albert Mohler, and the Evangelical Circus
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 1)
• Inerrancy is Too Much: An Alternate Proposal to Amend ETS Doctrinal Statement

I was listening to a discussion between two gentleman at the Credo House this afternoon. The conversation started as one man introduced another man to a guest scholar we have invited to the Credo House for our “Coffee and Scholars” in two weeks: Mike Licona. He will be here speaking about the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. His recent work The Resurrection of Jesus hit the stands last year and I was glad to get this resource in my hands and glad to have Licona get it into the public stream of scholarship. Proud. Maybe that is not a good word for someone like me to use of someone like Mike Licona. But ever since I was introduced to Mike a few years back, he has made me proud. Proud to be an evangelical. Proud to be a Christian. But most of all, today, proud to have such a resource that defends the resurrection of my savior with such persuasiveness.

My ears perked up to the conversation between the two gentlemen at the Credo House. Hoping against hope that I would not hear what I thought I might hear, longing for the conversation to dignify truth, justice, and the evangelical way, I tuned in to see how this invite to hear Mike tell his testimony might play out. From behind the bar, this peaceful coffee barista’s countenance turned red-nosed in anger as I heard how Licona was introduced. “You know Mike Licona,” the one man told the other, “the guy who Norman Geisler called on to repent because of his view of the dead saints that rose in Matthew. He believes . . .” I told the guy to stop. I took over and told about the Mike Licona who just produced what might be the best historic defense of the resurrection that an evangelical has ever had his thumb print on. I told about the Mike Licona who is traveling all over the world in the power of the Spirit persuading people that the Christ is alive right now. I told about the Mike Licona who is out on the front lines debating atheists with grace, kindness, and resolve. I told about the Mike Licona who reaches out to those who are doubting their faith with mercy, gently giving hope back to them one gentle spoonful at a time. The Mike Licona that Norman Geisler has created should be nothing more than a parenthetical afterthought.

(Warning: Anger laden satire forthcoming with multiple mixed metaphors. Cover your ears and allow me to vent.)

Unfortunately, the Mike Licona that Norm Geisler has created is in the spotlight. With gloves on and mouthpiece in, Mike’s image and priorities have been changed. He is on the defense as his own blood relatives with Jesus DNA and tiger’s blood are tag-teaming with one purpose: to bring Mike to repentance. “In this corner,” the announcer screams, “‘Team Inerrancy’: Norman Geisler and Alber Mohler.” The stands behind them, filled with life-long followers, scream and cheer. “In the other corner, ‘Team Resurrection’: Mike Licona.” The stands behind him have just a few brave souls. The empty seats have personal letters to Mike expressing their support and sorrow that they could not attend to give public support. Mike came to this ring expecting discussion, dialogue, or maybe (God forbid) a pat on the back and invitation to join the team. But as he arrived he found only a tribunal. His new book was laid on the table. The men point to the book and say, “Did you write this?” Mike says, “That’s my name on the cov . . .” They responded before he was finished, ”Are you ready to recant!” Taken aback, Mike said “Of what am I to recant? My belief in resurrection of Jesus?” “No,” they responded, “Of your denial of inerrancy.” “But I don’t deny inerrancy,” Mike said. “Yes, you do,” Geisler’s voice become distinct, “I wrote the book on inerrancy. I say who denies it and who does not. And you, sir, deny inerrancy due to your faulty interpretation of Matthew 27:52-53.” “No, I don’t. I just said that it might be apocalyptic, the same as many others evangelicals have said.” “Well, I don’t accept your interpretation as being a valid option. If you will turn to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, page 4, you will see . . .”

“Let’s just hold him until he recants.”

“Wait, wait . . . the prisoner wishes to say a word . . .”

“Freeeeeeeedooooooooommmmm”

(Satire over…I hope)

For those of you who don’t know, Christian apologist and New Testament scholar, Mike Licona, has been publicly called to repentance by theologian and author Norman Geisler and the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler. The accusation is that he has denied inerrancy (the doctrine that the Bible contains no errors, historic or scientific) because he suggested in his book The Resurrection of Jesus that the account of the dead saints rising in Matthew 27:52-53 might be apocalyptic. One statement in this 718 page book that Craig Keener says is “the most thorough treatment on the resurrection and historiography to date [building] a coherent case showing that the best explanation for our evidence involves Jesus’ historical resurrection” has caused Geisler to issue a personal call to repentance followed by three open letters and five public reprimands for Licona’s interpretation. So prominent is this issue that Norman Geisler’s website has a section on the front page devoted to this issue called the “Licona Letters” (source). Albert Mohler followed Geisler’s call to repentance with one of his own making a shocking statement that “Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon” (source).

First, let me say this: I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Geisler and Mohler. Geisler’s A General Introduction to the Bible was instrumental for me early in my studies. I have just about everything he has ever written and have loved and benefited greatly from most of it. Mohler deserves no less a commendation as he has contributed greatly to the cause of Christ. Both will forever be heroes of mine. However, I can’t think of anything else in the last ten years that has disturbed me as much as this controversy. A few months ago, I avoided interaction at all costs. While Licona’s first response to Norm Geisler was placed on our blog, I did so reluctantly for two reasons: 1) I did not and do not want Credo House Ministries to be involved in controversial issues involving specific personalities if at all possible. 2) I did not like to give “air time” to an issue creating dirty laundry where none really exists. After all, I thought (hoped), Norm Geisler’s open letters are not very accessible as his website gets very little traffic. And he is only one person involved and most “insiders” already call him ”Stormin’ Norman” due to his slight theological temper. I just thought (hoped) that it would die.

However, I think I have stood by and watched my friend Mike Licona take enough shots. Not that there is anything personally I can do or that my voice is that loud or deep. And it is not as if I am the only one coming to his defense. But when Albert Mohler joined the tribunal, I knew that this controversy would go viral and have terrible effects on many levels. Now that this controversy makes up the first point of contact on Mike’s Wikipedia legacy (sigh . . . can someone please edit that out?) and Google’s search engine produces the suggested query “Mike Licona Norm Geisler” when “Mike Licona” is all I am searching for, it is time to realize that the cat is out of the bag and making a spectacle of evangelical theology. But most importantly, as I reluctantly caught up on all that has been written about last Saturday, I came to morn greatly when I found out that Mike’s recent job transitions out of the North American Mission Board and Southern Evangelical Seminary were not coincidental. This great apologist’s life and family is being deeply affected by the unrelenting crusade of very few, but powerful, evangelical brothers. It is a spectacle and a travesty.

Three points of concern:

1. I don’t agree with Mike Licona about the possibility that Matthew 27:52-53 is apocalyptic imagery rather than describing historical events. Let me make that clear. I have read his defense and dug into it just enough to say that I think that the raising of the dead saints, while odd, is meant to be understood as historical. However, this is an issue of interpretation, not inerrancy. I believe in inerrancy, but I also believe that we have to separate inerrancy from particular interpretations. Just about anything could be tied to inerrancy when disagreement about interpretation is at issue. I have seen people say that those who deny that Revelation 20 is speaking of a literal thousand year future millennium are denying inerrancy. While I believe it is a literal thousand years, I don’t say that inerrancy says you can’t interpret it any other way than literal. There is symbolism in the Scripture, even in historic narrative. However, even if one completely thinks someone else has lost their interpretive marbles when they spiritualize some passage through appeals to apocalyptic, symbolic, or, even, allegorical interpretation, the issue is one of hermeneutics, not inerrancy. In other words, you cannot tie inerrancy to a particular interpretation.

As well, Geisler believes in an old earth. In other words, he does not take the narrative of Genesis 1 and 2 literally. Even though it is embedded in a historical genre, he gives himself liberty to see symbolism in the creation account (probably due to the testimony of modern science). Why does his view of inerrancy allow him this freedom, but when Licona suggests something similar, he is called to public reprimand and repentance? When someone professes inerrancy, our interpretation and hermeneutic cannot be the judge as to whether they really believe in it or not. There has to be academic freedom, even in tighter circles of Protestant theology such as evangelicalism, especially when the discovery of truth is the issue.

2. Norm Geisler and Albert Mohler both call on Mike to reaffirm biblical inerrancy by changing his interpretive position. Their banner flag is inerrancy and they fly it high. But it is not just inerrancy that is written on their banner, it is inerrancy as defined by the International Council for Biblical Inerrancy codified in the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) of 1978. In fact, as I read through both of their critiques of Licona, I believe they quote from the CSBI more than any other source, even Scripture. The issue, for them, seems to be not whether Mike’s interpretation was valid or even the need to counter his interpretation with their own, but whether or not Licona had violated this 1978 creedal statement. How did the CSBI become the premier standard to orthodoxy? Don’t get me wrong, the last time I read it, I agreed with it all (except for one statement). But as much as I respect the history and personalities behind the CSBI, it is neither infallible nor the norma normans sed non normata norm (Lat. “norm which norms which is not normed”—a statement of faith about the supreme authority of Scripture, not about “Norm” Geisler!). In the end, Geisler and Mohler are not calling on Licona to repent and return to the orthodoxy of this historic Christian faith, but to repent and return to their interpretation of the CSBI.

Now, last time I checked, the doctrine of sola Scriptura is much more a distinctive of Protestant orthodoxy than is inerrancy. Sola Scriptura is one of the two primary battle cries of the Great Reformation (the other is sola fide “justification by faith alone”). As a matter of fact, a few years ago, after the Francis Beckwith issue I suggested an amendment to change the defining characteristic of Evangelical Theological Society from inerrancy to sola Scriptura. The doctrine of sola Scriptura says that the Scripture is our final and only infallible source of revelation. The Scripture, not any council (much less a 1978 Evangelical council), is the norm that norms which is not normed. I think that Geisler (and possibly Mohler) are in more danger of violating the more central doctrine of sola Scriptura than Licona is of violating inerrancy.

3. But there is something that looms much larger than both of these concerns in my opinion. It is the blatant violation of evangelical theological propriety that this issue has raised. Grace is absent. Mike Licona has just written what both men recognize is a (if not the) premiere defense of the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection of the God-man, Jesus Christ. Licona is not only an evangelical in every sense of the word, he is a rising apologetic leader whose central focus of his life is the risen Jesus. His work on the subject is surpassed by none, even the great N.T. Wright’s Resurrection of the Son of God. It is fine that these two men had concerns with Licona’s interpretation of Matthew 27. It might even be fine that they felt that these concerns could have some significant “slippery slope” repercussions. But their concerns should have been drowned out by the commendation that they gave Licona for his monumental work. Geisler, an apologist of the “old school,” should have written twenty open letters of commendation and praise before he ever even thought of writing his first open letter of criticism which eventually left Mike out of a job. Though I have talked to Mike briefly about this over the phone and he did not seem too discouraged, what a deflation of purpose, drive, and ambition this must be for him. To contribute so significantly to the defense of the core of Christianity only to find his greatest battle coming not from unbelievers, but from his very own kin whose commendations serve only as a prelude to calls to repentance, recantation, and reform must be more than difficult.

Geisler and Mohler should have thrown Mike Licona a parade but instead they have paraded a spectacle of shame and dishonor, elevating a non-essential issue of interpretation to the very test of orthodoxy. Mohler said that “Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon.” I am beginning to think that just the opposite is true. Mohler and Geisler (and anyone else who has defined Licona  accordingly) are presently giving the enemies of Christ a powerful weapon. Illegitimate weapon, yes. But powerful nonetheless. (Not to mention embarrassing.)

“We have met the enemy and it is us.” This comic strip phrase captures the essence of how evangelicals often eat their young. I have met the enemy and it is not Mike Licona.

Mike, for what it is worth, I stand behind you even understanding that my ministry could suffer indirectly due to my support. I commend you as I did on your Facebook page right after I got your book on the resurrection. I commend you as I did after I handed out your Evidences for God book on the airplane to a grateful gentleman. I commend you as you, four years ago, patiently came on our “Converse with Scholars” program and settled people’s fears about the Talpiot tomb. I commend you as you are open and brave to express your understanding, doubts, and struggles yet glorify God in defending the faith. I pray that the stands are full in your corner during this battle. There are so many of us who appreciate what you are doing and are praying for you.

I think that Max Andrews said it best when he brought Wormwood into the mix:

“My Dearest Wormwood,

Whenever you find an expert defense of the enemy’s resurrection marshall the forces of the fundamentalists to marginalize it by ceaseless debates over ‘inerrancy’ in minor, inconsequential details.”

There are moments when I am proud to be an Evangelical. This is not one of them.

Mike’s site: http://risenjesus.com/, Support him.Similar Posts:

• Mike Licona and RisenJesus.com
• Top Fifteen Must Have Books on Apologetics
• The Little Lights aren’t Twinkling, Mike Licona
• Mike Licona and His Struggle with His Faith
• Mike Licona on Christian Doubt

Here at the Credo House in Edmond Oklahoma, Tim Kimberley (@pastortimk) and I are teaching a series on the top theologians of church history on Tuesday nights. I have insisted that C.S. Lewis be part of the mix due to his abiding theological influence on so many people today. Though he is called a “lay” theologian by many, in my mind, he is nothing less than a theological giant due to his contributions to apologetics at the academic and popular levels. (After all, apologetics is a subset of theology and C.S. Lewis, though a professor of literature, did teach philosophy for two years at Oxford!) We taught to a packed house with people sitting on the floor. Why? Because they all love C.S. Lewis. When asked how many had read C.S. Lewis, just about every hand in Credo went up. He is an evangelical hero who, theologically speaking, may not make the cut of evangelicalism today. Truthfully, I don’t think he ever liked the label himself. But he is loved by evangelicals nonetheless. In fact, he is loved across denominational and traditional lines. Christianity Today named Lewis’ Mere Christianity as the most influential book of the 20th century. Another evangelical magazine, Christian History, named him among the top ten most influential Christians of the 20th century. Whether you are an emerger or an evangelical, Baptist or Presbyterian, a cessationist or continuationist, a Calvinist or an Arminian (not that all of these are mutually exclusive), C.S. Lewis is not only kosher, but staple. In fact, even Pope John Paul II said that Lewis’ The Four Loves was one of his favorite books!

However, C.S. Lewis was not without “issues” that cause many to scratch their heads. Practically, he liked to smoke a pipe and cigarettes, and frequently enjoyed a beer at his bi-weekly “Inklings” meetings (and you know how bent out of shape people can get over those things!). Theologically, there is some stuff people try to sweep under the rug as well. In fact, though I say C.S. Lewis is loved by all, I do remember walking into church one day years ago. They were giving away a bunch of the “overstock” books from the library. I saw a church elder throwing away a lot of books as well. They were all C.S. Lewis! When I inquired about his odd blasphemous actions, he said that C.S. Lewis was a heretic because he did not believe in inerrancy. While this is something of an extreme example, I think it is important to realize that not everyone likes C.S. Lewis. Almost everyone, but not all. Why? Because he had some “non-evangelical” leanings. Besides not believing in inerrancy, he also believed in the theory of evolution, denied substitutionary atonement in favor of a “ransom to Satan,” bordered on a Pelagian idea of human freedom, seemed to advocate baptismal regeneration, and regularly prayed for the dead. To top it all off, he held out hope for the destiny of the unevangelized, believing that Christ might save them outside of direct knowledge of him (inclusivism). With all of these foibles, I seriously doubt any evangelical church would take a second look at his resume were he to apply for a pastorate at their church today. In fact, this list alone would be enough for many to call him a heretic. However, we still love him. We still read him. We still defend him. We still hand out his books by the dozens to friends and family who are struggling with their faith. This man who had his Christianity affirmed by Dr. Bob Jones but questioned by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones is beloved by just about everyone, making him off-limits for serious criticism. Why?

Consider another man: Rob Bell. From what I have read and seen, he seems to have far fewer theological problems than C.S. Lewis. In fact, on paper, he is probably more evangelical than C.S. Lewis. He might even make it through the interview process at most evangelical churches. He, like Lewis, has written many works about the Christian faith. His latest book, Love Wins, is a runaway bestseller. However, evangelicals don’t like Rob Bell. He is not beloved. His writings are not handed out like tracts, except for in niche groups. He does not have broad Christian appeal. In fact, he may be the most hated Christian author alive (at least in some circles). Why? Well, on the tip of your tongue is this: because he believes in universalism (the idea that all will be saved). Well, maybe not “believes,” but he does hold out hope for such. Rob Bell supporters often appeal to C.S. Lewis, stating that he believed similar stuff as Rob Bell (in as far as holding out hope for unbelievers relates to inclusivism). In fact, Rob Bell seems to love and be inspired by C.S. Lewis in his thoughts and ideas.

Here comes the question I got Tuesday night a the Credo House “Coffee and Theology” study: “So why do we love C.S. Lewis but hate Rob Bell?”

This is the great question I hope to answer briefly.

First of all, no one hates Rob Bell (or at least, no one should). But, speaking for myself, I am very comfortable handing out C.S. Lewis books by the dozens, while I don’t keep a stock of Bell’s books on hand. There is not a book that Lewis wrote that I don’t encourage people to read and grow from. Even A Grief Observed, where Lewis attempts to retain his faith in God while questioning everything in the middle of a crucible of doubt and pain, is one of my favorite books to give to people who are hurting. But I doubt I would ever recommend one of Bell’s works to establish someone in the faith. In fact, I might only recommend them for people to see “the other side.” Let me put it this way (and I must be very careful here): While I fully embrace and endorse the ministry of C.S. Lewis, I do not endorse or embrace the ministry of Rob Bell.

You see, while C.S. Lewis has a great deal of theological foibles, his ministry is defined by a defense of the essence of the Gospel. The essence of who Christ is and what he did are ardently upheld by Lewis, saturating every page of his books. His purpose was clear: to make a compelling case the reality of God and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. All other things set aside, this is what you leave with every time you read Lewis. The problematic areas are peripheral, not central. One has to look hard to find the departures from traditional Protestant Christianity. They are not the subjects of his works and do not form the titles of his books.

However, with Rob Bell, the essence of who Christ is and what he did seems to be secondary. One has to look for those things as they weed through his defenses of non-traditional Christianity. Whereas Lewis’ ultimate purpose is to define and defend “mere” Christianity, Bell’s “mere” Christianity is but a footnote to a redefined Christianity. Bell’s focus is to challenge, question, change, reform, and emerge from traditions that bind us. Traditional apologetics, orthodoxy, and foundations are brought into question from beginning to end. Christ’s reality, deity, exclusivity, and the hope of the Gospel proclaimed receive an occasional footnote (if at all) from Bell.

Another way to put this is to say that in the ministry of C.S. Lewis, the central truths of the Christian faith are the chorus of his songs, with the occasional problem in the stanzas. However, with Bell, the chorus of his song is filled with challenges to traditional Christianity and if you listen really closely to the stanza, you might get an occasional line of orthodoxy.

Now, let me be straight. I have no problem with challenging traditions. I have no problem with questions, doubts, and reforms. I think we all need this. It is the essence of what we call semper reformanda (at least in a modified form). However, when your ministry is characterized and defined by this type of emerging reform and unsettled skepticism of traditional Christianity, you have stepped over the line and lost yourself and your right to have godly influence. As the old saying goes, “think out loud, but don’t think out loud from a platform.” Just because you are unsettled and questioning your faith does not mean you need to unsettle others.

And it is not just Rob Bell that is at issue. There are dozens of popular writers, pastors, bloggers, and authors who are singing the same chorus. They give lip service to the essence of Christianity, but from their platform it is only peppered in here and there. I think this is the core problem with what is/was known as the “emerging church.” It is not that we are against rethinking, reimagining, reforming, or any other “re,” it is that this became the central focus of the movement. Christ, the cross, sin, righteousness, and all other elements that create the essence of who we are became the subjects of challenges – mere lines in the song. This is why I distinguish between, say, Brian Mclaren and Dan Kimball.  Both men, early on, were considered part of the “emerging church.” However, though he challenges some ideas here and there, Dan Kimball (like C.S. Lewis) is committed to the essence of the historic Christian faith. Truth, doctrine, love, and righteousness are found in everything he writes and says. They are the chorus. With Mclaren, on the other hand, traditional Christian beliefs and practices form more of (what seems to be) an embarrassing afterthought that he proclaims only under duress.

This is why I don’t like comparing C.S. Lewis to Rob Bell. There is no comparison. Neither is it fair to team Rob Bell up with many of the great saints of the past, such as the Cappidocians or Origen (as is often done). Yes, they all have problems, but the question is, Do these problems define the essence of their ministry and passion? With Rob Bell (and many like him), they do. With most of the other historic figures that some try to put on Bell’s team, they don’t.

What can Bell do about this? I seriously doubt he is looking for advice from me, but here is what I would do if I were his campaign manager. I would tell him to take his cue from Lewis. Focus most of your works on defending the foundational issues of historic Christian truth. Those things that have been believed “always, everywhere, and by all.” Whether it is the existence of God, the exclusivity of Christ, the inspiration of Scripture, or the sinfulness of man, these are all good points that give street cred. If you are going to claim the legacy of Origen, the Cappidocians, or Lewis, embrace the essence of their ministry, not the periphery of their thought. And, just to be fair, if Lewis would have moved his foibles from his back pocket to his front pocket, he would not be accepted much either.Similar Posts:

• Ben Witherington, Justin Taylor, John Piper, and the Rob Bell Circus
• Evangelical Manifesto – Part 2
• Top Fifteen Must Have Books on Apologetics
• Loopholes for Hell: A Response to Jeff Cook’s Response to Francis Chan
• Are You Orthodox or Heretic?

1)         They were most decidedly not absent. They were at times less prevalent, but the same could be said about the presence of signs, wonders, and miracles in biblical history as well. In any case, to argue that all such gifts were utterly non-existent is to ignore a significant body of evidence. After studying the documentation for claims to the presence of these gifts, D. A. Carson’s conclusion is that “there is enough evidence that some form of ‘charismatic’ gifts continued sporadically across the centuries of church history that it is futile to insist on doctrinaire grounds that every report is spurious or the fruit of demonic activity or psychological aberration” (Showing the Spirit, p. 166).

For a listing of those who either wrote about, described, or personally operated in the miraculous gifts of the Spirit beyond the time of the first century, see below.

2)         It may surprise some to discover that we have extensive knowledge of but a small fraction of what happened in the history of the church. It is terribly presumptuous to conclude that the gifts of the Spirit were absent from the lives of people about whom we know virtually nothing. In other words, the absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence!

We simply don’t know what was happening in the thousands upon thousands of churches and home meetings of Christians in centuries past. I cannot say with confidence that believers regularly prayed for the sick and saw them healed any more than you can say they didn’t. You cannot say they never prophesied to the comfort, exhortation, and consolation (1 Cor. 14:3) of the church any more than I can say they did. Neither of us can say with any confidence whether countless thousands of Christians throughout the inhabited earth prayed in tongues in their private devotions. That is hardly the sort of things for which we could expect extensive documentation. We must remember that printing with movable type did not exist until the work of Johann Gutenberg (1390-1468). The absence of documented evidence for spiritual gifts in a time when documented evidence for most of church life was, at best, sparse is hardly good grounds for concluding that such gifts did not exist.

3)         If the gifts were sporadic, there may be an explanation other than the theory that they were restricted to the first century. We must remember that prior to the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century the average Christian did not have access to the Bible in his own language. Biblical ignorance was rampant. That is hardly the sort of atmosphere in which people would be aware of spiritual gifts (their name, nature, function, and the believer’s responsibility to pursue them) and thus hardly the sort of atmosphere in which we would expect them to seek and pray for such phenomena or to recognize them were they to be manifest. If the gifts were sparse, and this again is highly debatable, it was as likely due as much to ignorance and the spiritual lethargy it breeds as to any theological principle that limits the gifts to the lifetime of the apostles.

Especially important in this regard is the concentration of spiritual authority and ministry in the office of bishop and priest in the emerging Church of Rome. By the early 4^th century a.d. (much earlier, according to some), there was already a move to limit the opportunity to speak, serve, and minister in the life of the church to the ordained clergy. Lay folk were silenced and marginalized and left almost entirely dependent on the contribution of the local priest or monarchical bishop.

Although Cyprian (bishop of Carthage, 248-258 a.d.), spoke and wrote often of the gift of prophecy and the receiving of visions from the Spirit (The Epistles of Cyprian, vii.3-6, ANF, 5:286-87; vii.7, ANF, 5:287; lxviii.9-10, ANF, 5:375; iv.4, ANF, 5:290), he was also responsible for the gradual disappearance of such charismata from the life of the church. He, among others, insisted that only the bishop and priest of the church should be permitted to exercise these revelatory gifts. In the words of James Ash, “The charisma of prophecy was captured by the monarchical episcopate, used in its defense, and left to die an unnoticed death when true episcopate stability rendered it a superfluous tool” (“The Decline of Ecstatic Prophecy in the Early Church,” Theological Studies 36 [June 1976]:252).

If we concede, for the sake of argument, that certain spiritual gifts were less prevalent than others in certain seasons of the church, their absence may well be due to unbelief, apostasy, and other sins that serve only to quench and grieve the Holy Spirit. If Israel experienced the loss of power because of repeated rebellion, if Jesus himself “could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands upon a few sick people and healed them” (Mark 6:5), all because of their “unbelief” (Mark 6:6), we should hardly be surprised at the infrequency of the miraculous in periods of church history marked by theological ignorance and both personal and clerical immorality.

4)         We must also remember that God mercifully blesses us both with what we don’t deserve and what we refuse or are unable to recognize. I am persuaded that numerous churches today who advocate cessationism experience these gifts but dismiss them as something less than the miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

For example, someone with the gift of discerning spirits may be described as “possessing remarkable sensitivity and insight.” Someone with the gift of word of knowledge is rather said to have “deep understanding of spiritual truths.” Someone who prophesies is said to have “spoken with timely encouragement to the needs of the congregation.” Someone who lays hands on the sick and prays successfully for healing is told that God still answers prayer but that “gifts of healing” are no longer operative. These churches wouldn’t be caught dead labeling such phenomena by the names given them in 1 Corinthians 12:7-10 because they are committed to the theory that such phenomena don’t exist.

If this occurs today (and it does, as it did in a church in which I ministered for several years), there is every reason to think it has occurred repeatedly throughout the course of history subsequent to the first century.

Consider this hypothetical example. Let us suppose that a man had been assigned to write a descriptive history of church life in what is now southern France in, say, 845 a.d. How might he label what he saw and heard? If he were ignorant of spiritual gifts, being untaught, or perhaps a well-educated cessationist, his record would make no reference to prophecy, healing, miracles, word of knowledge, etc. Such phenomena might well exist, perhaps even flourish, but would be identified and explained in other terms by our hypothetical historian.

Centuries later we discover his manuscript. Would it be fair to conclude from his observations that certain spiritual gifts had ceased subsequent to the apostolic age? Of course not! My point in this is simply that in both the distant past and present the Holy Spirit can empower God’s people with gifts for ministry which they either do not recognize or, for whatever reason, explain in terms other than those of 1 Corinthians 12:7-10. The absence of explicit reference to certain charismata is therefore a weak basis on which to argue for their permanent withdrawal from church life.

5)         The question we are considering is this: If the Holy Spirit wanted the church to experience the miraculous charismata, would they not have been more visible and prevalent in church history (and I’m only conceding, for the sake of argument, that they were not)? Let’s take the principle underlying that argument and apply it to several other issues.

We all believe that the Holy Spirit is the teacher of the church. We all believe that the NT describes his ministry of enlightening our hearts and illuminating our minds to understand the truths of Scripture (see 1 John 2:20,27; 2 Tim. 2:7; etc.).

Yet within the first generation after the death of the apostles the doctrine of justification by faith was compromised. Salvation by faith plus works soon became standard doctrine and was not successfully challenged (with a few notable exceptions) until Martin Luther’s courageous stand in the sixteenth century. My question, then, is this: If God intended for the Holy Spirit to continue to teach and enlighten Christians concerning vital biblical truths beyond the death of the apostles, why did the church languish in ignorance of this most fundamental truth for more than 1,300 years? Why did Christians suffer from the absence of those experiential blessings this vital truth might otherwise have brought to their church life?

Undoubtedly your response will be that none of this proves the Holy Spirit ceased his ministry of teaching and illumination. None of this proves that God ceased to want his people to understand such vital doctrinal principles. Precisely! And the relative infrequency or absence of certain spiritual gifts during the same period of church history does not prove that God was opposed to their use or had negated their validity for the remainder of the present age.

Both theological ignorance of certain biblical truths and a loss of experiential blessings provided by spiritual gifts can be, and should be, attributed to factors other than the suggestion that God intended such knowledge and power only for believers in the early church.

6)         Finally, and most important of all, is the fact that what has or has not occurred in church history is ultimately irrelevant to what we should pursue, pray for, and expect in the life of our churches today. The final criterion for deciding whether God wants to bestow certain spiritual gifts on his people today is the Word of God. I’m disappointed to often hear people cite the alleged absence of a particular experience in the life of an admired saint from the church’s past as reason for doubting its present validity. As much as I respect the giants of the Reformation and of other periods in church history, I intend to emulate the giants of the NT who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I admire John Calvin, but I obey the apostle Paul.

In sum, neither the failure nor success of Christians in days past is the ultimate standard by which we determine what God wants for us today. We can learn from their mistakes as well as their achievements. But the only question of ultimate relevance for us and for this issue is: “What saith the Scripture?”

I now want to turn to a brief survey of church history. The representative examples cited will demonstrate that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were, and are, still very much in operation. Indeed, before Chrysostom in the east (347-407 a.d.) and Augustine in the west (354-430 a.d.) no church father ever suggested that any or all of the charismata had ceased in the first century. And even Augustine later retracted his earlier cessationism (see below). So let’s conduct a quick overview. [For helpful documentation, see Stanley M. Burgess, The Spirit & the Church: Antiquity (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984).]

The Epistle of Barnabas (written sometime between 70 and 132 a.d.), says this of the Holy Spirit: “He personally prophesies in us and personally dwells in us” (xvi, 9, Ancient Christian Writers, 6:61).

The author of The Shepherd of Hermas claims to have received numerous revelatory insights through visions and dreams. This document has been dated as early as 90 a.d. and as late as 140-155 a.d.

Justin Martyr (approx. AD 100-165), perhaps the most important 2^nd century apologist, is especially clear about the operation of gifs in his day:

“Therefore, just as God did not inflict His anger on account of those seven thousand men, even so He has now neither yet inflicted judgment, nor does inflict it, knowing that daily some [of you] are becoming disciples in the name of Christ, and quitting the path of error; who are also receiving gifts, each as he is worthy, illumined through the name of this Christ. For one receives the spirit of understanding, another of counsel, another of strength, another of healing, another of foreknowledge, another of teaching, and another of the fear of God” (Dialogue with Trypho, ch.39).

“For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time. And hence you ought to understand that [the gifts] formerly among your nation have been transferred to us. And just as there were false prophets contemporaneous with your holy prophets, so are there now many false teachers amongst us, of whom our Lord forewarned us to beware; so that in no respect are we deficient, since we know that He foreknew all that would happen to us after His resurrection from the dead and ascension to heaven” (Dialogue with Trypho, ch.39).

“For numberless demoniacs throughout the whole world and in your city, many of our Christian men, exorcising them in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, have healed and do heal, rendering helpless and driving the possessing devils out of the men, though they could not be cured by all the other exorcists, and those used incantations and drugs” (Second Apology, vi; Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:190).

Irenaeus (approx. AD 120-202), certainly the most important and influential theologian of the late century writes:

“Wherefore, also, those who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform [miracles], so as to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from Him. For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe [in Christ], and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. And what shall I more say? It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church, [scattered] throughout the whole world, has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and which she exerts day by day for the benefit of the Gentiles, neither practicing deception upon any, nor taking any reward from them [on account of such miraculous interpositions]. For as she has received freely from God, freely also does she minister [to others]” (Against Heresies, Book 2, ch.32, 4).

“Nor does she [the church] perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she has been accustomed to work miracles for the advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error” (Against Heresies, Book 2, ch.32, 5).

“In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms ‘spiritual,’ they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit” (Against Heresies, Book 5, ch.6, 1).

Tertullian (d. 225; he first coined the term Trinity) spoke and wrote on countless occasions of the operation of the gifts of the Spirit, particularly those of a revelatory nature such as prophecy and word of knowledge.

“But from God – who has promised, indeed, ‘to pour out the grace of the Holy Spirit upon all flesh, and has ordained that His servants and His handmaids should see visions as well as utter prophecies’ – must all those visions be regarded as emanating . . .” (A Treatise on the Soul, xlvii, ANF, 3:225-26).

He described the ministry of one particular lady as follows:

“For, seeing that we acknowledge spiritual charismata, or gifts, we too have merited the attainment of the prophetic gift, although coming after John (the Baptist).” This lady has been “favoured with sundry gifts of revelation” and “both sees and hears mysterious communications; some men’s hearts she understands, and to them who are in need she distributes remedies. . . . After the people are dismissed at the conclusion of the sacred services, she is in the regular habit of reporting to us whatever things she may have seen in vision (for her communications are examined with the most scrupulous care, in order that their truth may be probed). . . . Now can you refuse to believe this, even if indubitable evidence on every point is forthcoming for your conviction?” (A Treatise on the Soul, ix, ANF, 3:188).

Tertullian contrasts what he has witnessed with the claims of the heretic Marcion:

“Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart; . . . Now all these signs (of spiritual gifts) are forthcoming from my side without any difficulty, and they agree, too, with the rules, and the dispensations, and the instructions of the Creator” (Against Marcion, v.8, ANF, 3:446-47).

We also have extensive evidence of revelatory visions in operation in the life of the martyrs Perpetua and her handmaiden Felicitas (202 a.d.). I encourage everyone to read the moving account of Perpetua’s perseverance in faith despite the most horrific of deaths.

It’s also important that we briefly take note of the movement known as Montanism (of which Tertullian was a part in his later years). Montanism arose in Phrygia in about a.d. 155, although Eusebius and Jerome both date the movement to a.d. 173.

What did the Montanists believe and teach that had such a significant impact on the ancient church and its view of spiritual gifts? Several items are worthy of mention.

First, Montanism at its heart was an effort to shape the entire life of the church in keeping with the expectation of the immediate return of Christ. Thus they opposed any developments in church life that appeared institutional or would contribute to a settled pattern of worship. Needless to say, those who held official positions of authority within the organized church would be suspect of the movement.

Second, Montanus himself allegedly spoke in terms that asserted his identity with the Paraclete of John 14:16. The prophetic utterance in question is as follows:

“For Montanus spoke, saying, ‘I am the father, and the son and the paraclete.’” (Found in the writings of Didymus On the Trinity, 3:41).

However, many have questioned whether Montanus is claiming what his critics suggest. More likely he, as well as others in the movement who prophesied, is saying that one or another or perhaps all of the members of the Trinity are speaking through them. For example, in yet another of his prophetic utterances, Montanus said,

“You shall not hear from me, but you have heard from Christ” (Quoted in Epiphanius, Panarion, 48:12; col. 873).

Third, Montanus and his followers (principally, two women, Prisca and Maximilla) held to a view of the prophetic gift that was a departure from the apostle Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 14, insofar as they practiced what can only be called “ecstatic” prophecy in which the speaker either lost consciousness or fell into a trance-like state, or perhaps was but a passive instrument through which the Spirit might speak. One of the prophetic utterances that survived (there are only 16), found in Epiphanius, confirms this view:

“Behold, a man is like a lyre and I pluck his strings like a pick; the man sleeps, but I am awake. Behold, it is the Lord, who is changing the hearts of men and giving new hearts to them.”

If this is what Montanus taught, he would be asserting that, when a prophet prophesied, God was in complete control. Man is little more than an instrument, such as the strings of a lyre, on which God plucks his song or message. Man is asleep, in a manner of speaking, and thus passive during the prophetic utterance.

This concept of prophecy is contrary to what we read of in 1 Corinthians 14:29-31 where Paul asserts that “the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophet”. The Montanists cannot be charged with having originated this view, for it is found among the Greek Apologists of this period. Justin Martyr and Theophilus both claimed that the Spirit spoke through the OT prophets in such a way as to possess them. Athenagoras says of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah and other OT prophets that they were

“lifted in ecstasy above the natural operations of their minds by the impulses of the Divine Spirit, [and that they] uttered the things with which they were inspired, the Spirit making use of them as a flute player breathes into a flute” (A Plea for the Christians, 9).

The point is that, at least on this one point, the Montanists were not espousing a view of prophecy that was significantly different from what others in the mainstream of the church of that day were saying.

Fourth, the gift of tongues was also prominent among the Montanists, as was the experience of receiving revelatory visions. Eusebius preserved a refutation of Montanism written by Apolinarius in which the latter accused these “prophets” of speaking in unusual ways. For example, “He [Montanus] began to be ecstatic and to speak and to talk strangely” (quoted in Kydd, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church, 35). Again, Maximilla and Prisca are said to have spoken “madly and improperly and strangely, like Montanus” (ibid.). Finally, he refers to the Montanists as “chattering prophets“. We cannot be certain, but the word translated chattering, found nowhere else in all of Greek literature, may refer to speaking at great length in what sound like languages, i.e., speaking in tongues.

Fifth, Montanus did assert that this outpouring of the Spirit, of which he and his followers were the principal recipients, was a sign of the end of the age. The heavenly Jerusalem, said Montanus, will soon descend near Pepuza in Phrygia. They also stressed monogamy and insisted on chastity between husband and wife. They were quite ascetic in their approach to the Christian life (which is what attracted Tertullian into their ranks). They strongly emphasized self-discipline and repentance.

Finally, although Montanism was often treated as heresy, numerous authors in the early church insisted on the overall orthodoxy of the movement. Hippolytus spoke of their affirmation of the doctrines of Christ and creation and the “heresy hunter” Epiphanius (a.d. 315-403) conceded that the Montanists agreed with the church at large on the issues of orthodoxy, especially the doctrine of the Trinity.

Epiphanius wrote that the Montanists were still found in Cappadocia, Galatia, Phyrgia, Cilicia, and Constantinople in the late 4^th century. This assessment was confirmed by Eusebius who devoted four chapters of his monumental Ecclesiastical History to the Montanists. Didymus the Blind (a.d. 313-98) wrote of them, and the great church father Jerome (a.d. 342-420) personally encountered Montanist communities in Ancyra when he was travelling through Galatia in 373. The point being that Montanism was alive and influential as late as the close of the 4th century.

Ironically, and tragically, one of the principal reasons why the church became suspect of the gifts of the Spirit and eventually excluded them from the life of the church is because of their association with Montanism. The Montanist view of prophecy, in which the prophet entered a state of passive ecstasy in order that God might speak directly, was perceived as a threat to the church’s belief in the finality of the canon of Scripture. Other unappealing aspects of the Montanist lifestyle, as noted above, provoked opposition to the movement and hence to the charismata as well. In sum, it was largely the Montanist view of the prophetic gift, in which a virtual “Thus saith the Lord” perspective was adopted, that contributed to the increasing absence in church life of the charismata.

We now return to other important figures in the life of the early church.

The work of Theodotus (late 2^nd century) is preserved for us in Clement of Alexandria’s Excerpta ex Theodoto. In 24:1 we read: “The Valentinians say that the excellent Spirit which each of the prophets had for his ministry was poured out upon all those of the church. Therefore the signs of the Spirit, healings and prophecies, are being performed by the church.”

Clement of Alexandria (d. 215 a.d.; The Instructor, iv.21, ANF, 2:434) spoke explicitly of the operation in his day of those spiritual gifts listed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:7-10.

Origen (d. 254 a.d.) acknowledges that the operation of the gifts in his day is not as extensive as was true in the NT, but they are still present and powerful: “And there are still preserved among Christians traces of that Holy Spirit which appeared in the form of a dove. They expel evil spirits, and perform many cures, and foresee certain events, according to the will of the Logos” (Against Celsus, i.46, ANF, 4:415).

The pagan Celsus sought to discredit the gifts of the Spirit exercised in churches in Origen’s day, yet the latter pointed to the “demonstration” of the validity of the Gospel, “more divine than any established by Grecian dialectics,” namely that which is called by the apostle the “manifestations of the Spirit and of power.” Not only were signs and wonders performed in the days of Jesus, but “traces of them are still preserved among those who regulate their lives by the precepts of the Gospel” (Against Celsus, i.2, ANF 4:397-98).

Hippolytus (d. 236 a.d.) sets forth guidelines for the exercise of healing gifts, insisting that “if anyone says, ‘I have received the gift of healing,’ hands shall not be laid upon him: the deed shall make manifest if he speaks the truth” (Apostolic Tradition, xv, Easton, 41).

Novatian writes in Treatise Concerning the Trinity (@245 a.d.):

“Indeed this is he who appoints prophets in the church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, brings into being powers and conditions of health, carries on extraordinary works, furnishes discernment of spirits, incorporates administrations in the church, establishes plans, brings together and arranges all other gifts there are of the charismata and by reason of this makes the Church of God everywhere perfect in everything and complete” (29, 10).

I earlier mentioned Cyprian (bishop of Carthage, 248-258 a.d.), who spoke and wrote often of the gift or prophecy and the receiving of visions from the Spirit (The Epistles of Cyprian, vii.3-6, ANF, 5:286-87; vii.7, ANF, 5:287; lxviii.9-10, ANF, 5:375; iv.4, ANF, 5:290).

Gregory Thaumaturgus (213-270 a.d.) is reported by many to have ministered in the power of numerous miraculous gifts and to have performed signs and wonders.

Eusebius of Caesarea (260-339 a.d.), theologian and church historian in the court of Constantine, opposed the Montanists’ abuse of the gift of prophecy, but not its reality. He affirmed repeatedly the legitimacy of spiritual gifts but resisted the Montanists who operated outside the mainstream church and thus contributed, said Eusebius, to its disunity.

Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) wrote often of the gifts in his day: “For He [the Holy Spirit] employs the tongue of one man for wisdom; the soul of another He enlightens by Prophecy, to another He gives power to drive away devils, to another he gives to interpret the divine Scriptures” (Catechetical Lectures, xvi.12, NPF 2^nd Series, 7:118).

Although Athanasius nowhere explicitly addressed the issue of charismatic gifts, many believe he is the anonymous author of Vita S. Antoni or “The Life of St. Anthony.” Anthony was a monk who embraced an ascetic lifestyle in 285 a.d. and remained in the desert for some 20 years. The author (Athanasius?) of his life describes numerous supernatural healings, visions, prophetic utterances, and other signs and wonders. Even if one rejects Athanasius as its author, the document does portray an approach to the charismatic gifts that many, evidently, embraced in the church of the late 3^rd and early 4^th centuries.

The influential and highly regarded Cappadocian Fathers (mid to late 4^th century) must also be considered.

Basil of Caesarea (born 330 a.d.) spoke often of the operation in his day of prophecy and healing. He appeals to Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 12 of “word of wisdom” and “gifts of healing” as representative of those gifts that are necessary for the common good of the church (The Longer Rules, vii).

“Is it not plain and incontestable that the ordering of the Church is effected through the Spirit? For He gave, it is said, ‘in the church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues,’ for this order is ordained in accordance with the division of the gifts that are of the Spirit” (On the Holy Spirit, xvi.39, NPF 2^nd Series 8:25).

Spiritual leaders in the church, such as bishops or presbyters, says Basil, possess the gift of discernment of spirits, healing, and foreseeing the future (one expression of prophecy) (The Longer Rule, xxiv, xxxv, xlii, lv).

Gregory of Nyssa (born 336; Basil’s younger brother) speaks on Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 13:

“Even if someone receives the other gifts which the Spirit furnishes (I mean the tongues of angels and prophecy and knowledge and the grace of healing), but has never been entirely cleansed of the troubling passions within him through the charity of the Spirit,” he is in danger of failing (The Life of St. Macrina, FC 58:175).

The final Cappadocian, Gregory of Nazianzen (born 330 ad.), provides extensive descriptions of the physical healing that both his father and mother experienced as well as several visions that accompanied them (On the Death of His Father, xxviii-xxix, NPF 2^nd Series 7:263-64; xxxi, NPF 2^nd Series 7:264).

Hilary of Poitiers (356 a.d.) speaks of “the gift of healings” and “the working of miracles” that “what we do may be understood to be the power of God” as well as “prophecy” and the “discerning of spirits.” He also refers to the importance of “speaking in tongues” as a “sign of the gift of the Holy Spirit” together with “the interpretation of tongues”, so “that the faith of those that hear may not be imperiled through ignorance, since the interpreter of a tongue explains the tongue to those who are ignorant of it” (On the Trinity, viii.30, NPF 2^nd Series 9:146).

By the late fourth century the gifts of the Spirit were increasingly found among ascetics and those involved in the monastic movements. The various compromises and accommodations to the wider culture that infiltrated the church subsequent to the formal legalization of Christianity under Constantine drove many of the more spiritually-minded leaders into the desert.

Something must be said about Augustine (354-430 a.d.), who early in his ministry espoused cessationism, especially with regard to the gift of tongues. However, in his later writings he retracted his denial of the ongoing reality of the miraculous and carefully documented no fewer than 70 instances of divine healing in his own diocese during a two-year span (see his City of God, Book XXII, chps. 8-10). After describing numerous miracles of healing and even resurrections from the dead, Augustine writes:

“What am I to do? I am so pressed by the promise of finishing this work, that I cannot record all the miracles I know; and doubtless several of our adherents, when they read what I have narrated, will regret that I have omitted so many which they, as well as I, certainly know. Even now I beg, these persons to excuse me, and to consider how long it would take me to relate all those miracles, which the necessity of finishing the work I have undertaken forces me to omit” (City of God, Book XXII, chapter 8, p. 489).

Again, writing his Retractions at the close of life and ministry (@426-27 a.d.), he concedes that tongues and the more spectacular miracles such as people being healed “by the mere shadow of Christ’s preachers as they pass by” have ceased. He then says, “But what I said should not be understood as though no miracles should be believed to be performed nowadays in Christ’s name. For I myself, when I was writing this very book, knew a blind man who had been given his sight in the same city near the bodies of the martyrs of Milan. I knew of some other miracles as well; so many of them occur even in these times that we would be unable either to be aware of all of them or to number those of which we are aware.”

Although there is less evidence as we enter the period of the Middle Ages (the reasons for which I’ve already noted), at no time did the gifts disappear altogether. Due to limitations of space I will only be able to list the names of those in whose ministries are numerous documented instances of the revelatory gifts of prophecy, healing, discerning of spirits, miracles, together with vivid accounts of dreams and visions. For extensive documentation, see Stanley M. Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Medieval Roman Catholic and Reformation Traditions (Sixth-Sixteenth Centuries) (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997, 252 pp.). Among those cited and described by Burgess as well as other authors (see Paul Thigpen, “Did the Power of the Spirit ever leave the Church?” in Charisma, September, 1992, 20-29; and Richard M. Riss, “Tongues and Other Miraculous Gifts in the Second through Nineteenth Centuries,” Basileia, 1985; and Ronald Kydd, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1984]), include:

John of Egypt (d. 394) and Pachomius (287-346 a.d.); Leo the Great (400-461 a.d.; he served as bishop of Rome from 440 until 461); Genevieve of Paris (422-500 a.d.); Gregory the Great (540-604); Gregory of Tours (538-594); the Venerable Bede (673-735; his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, written in 731, contains numerous accounts of miraculous gifts in operation); Aidan, bishop of Lindisfarne (d. 651) and his successor Cuthbert (d. 687; both of whom served as missionaries in Britain); Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153); Bernard’s treatise on the Life and Death of Saint Malachy the Irishman (1094-1148); Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173); Anthony of Padua (1195-1231); Bonaventure (1217-1274); Francis of Assisi (1182-1226; documented in Bonaventure’s Life of St. Francis); Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274); together with virtually all of the medieval mystics, among whom are several women: Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), Gertrude of Helfta (1256-1301), Bergitta of Sweden (1302-1373), St. Clare of Montefalco (d. 1308), Catherine of Siena (1347-1380), Julian of Norwich (1342-1416), Margery Kempe (1373-1433); Dominican preacher Vincent Ferrer (1350-1419); and Theresa of Avila (1515-1582).

If one should object that these are exclusively Roman Catholics, we must not forget that during this period in history there was hardly anyone else. Aside from a few splinter sects, there was little to no expression of Christianity outside the Church of Rome (the formal split with what became known as Eastern Orthodoxy did not occur until 1054 a.d.).

One should also not forget Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), founder of the Jesuits and author of the Spiritual Exercises. Spiritual gifts, especially tongues, are reported to have been common among the Moravians, especially under the leadership of Count von Zinzendorf (1700-1760), as well among the French Huguenots in the late 17^th century and the Jansenists of the first half of the eighteenth century. John Wesley (1703-1791) defended the on-going operation of tongues beyond the time of the apostles. One could also cite George Fox (1624-1691) who founded the Quaker church.

Those who insist that revelatory spiritual gifts such as prophecy, discerning of spirits, and word of knowledge ceased to function beyond the first century also have a difficult time accounting for the operation of these gifts in the lives of many who were involved in the Scottish Reformation, as well several who ministered in its aftermath. Jack Deere, in his book Surprised by the Voice of God (Zondervan, 1996, pp. 64-93), has provided extensive documentation of the gift of prophecy at work in and through such men as George Wishart (1513-1546; mentor of John Knox), John Knox himself (1514-1572), John Welsh (1570-1622), Robert Bruce (1554-1631), and Alexander Peden (1626-1686). I strongly encourage you to obtain Deere’s book and read the account of their supernatural ministries, not only in prophecy but often in gifts of healings. Deere also draws our attention to one of the historians of the seventeenth century, Robert Fleming (1630-1694), as well as one of the major architects of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661), both of whom acknowledged the operation of the gifts in their day.

As noted earlier, I don’t think it at all unlikely that numerous churches which advocated cessationism experienced these gifts but dismissed them as something less than the miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

One illustration of this comes from the ministry of Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892), who tells of an incident in the middle of his sermon where he paused and pointed at a man whom he accused of taking an unjust profit on Sunday, of all days! The culprit later described the event to a friend:

“Mr. Spurgeon looked at me as if he knew me, and in his sermon he pointed to me, and told the congregation that I was a shoemaker, and that I kept my shop open on Sundays; and I did, sir. I should not have minded that; but he also said that I took ninepence the Sunday before, and that there was fourpence profit out of it. I did take ninepence that day, and fourpence was just the profit; but how he should know that, I could not tell. Then it struck me that it was God who had spoken to my soul through him, so I shut up my shop the next Sunday. At first, I was afraid to go again to hear him, lest he should tell the people more about me; but afterwards I went, and the Lord met with me, and saved my soul’” (The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon [Curts & Jennings, 1899], II:226-27).

Spurgeon then adds this comment:

“I could tell as many as a dozen similar cases in which I pointed at somebody in the hall without having the slightest knowledge of the person, or any idea that what I said was right, except that I believed I was moved by the Spirit to say it; and so striking has been my description, that the persons have gone away, and said to their friends, ‘Come, see a man that told me all things that ever I did; beyond a doubt, he must have been sent of God to my soul, or else he could not have described me so exactly.’ And not only so, but I have known many instances in which the thoughts of men have been revealed from the pulpit. I have sometimes seen persons nudge their neighbours with their elbow, because they had got a smart hit, and they have been heard to say, when they were going out, ‘The preacher told us just what we said to one another when we went in at the door’” (ibid.).

On another occasion, Spurgeon broke off his sermon and pointed at a young man, declaring: “Young man, those gloves you are wearing have not been paid for: you have stolen them from your employer” (Autobiography: The Full Harvest, 2:60). After the service the man brought the gloves to Spurgeon and asked that he not tell his mother, who would be heartbroken to discover that her son was a thief!

My opinion is that this is a not uncommon example of what the Apostle Paul described in 1 Cor. 14:24-25. Spurgeon exercised the gift of prophecy (or some might say the word of knowledge, 1 Cor. 12:8). He did not label it as such, but that does not alter the reality of what the Holy Spirit accomplished through him. If one were to examine Spurgeon’s theology and ministry, as well as recorded accounts of it by his contemporaries as well as subsequent biographers, most would conclude from the absence of explicit reference to miraculous charismata such as prophecy and the word of knowledge that such gifts had been withdrawn from church life. But Spurgeon’s own testimony inadvertently says otherwise!

Finally, of course, one would have to point to the last 100 or more years of contemporary church history and the emergence of the Pentecostal / Charismatic / Third Wave movements, together with the more than 600,000,000 adherents worldwide, many (most?) of whom personally testify to having experienced or witnessed in others the miraculous charismata.

I can only hope and pray that many will now see that it is both unwarranted and unwise to argue for cessationism based on the testimony of God’s people in the last 2,000 years of church history.

SamSimilar Posts:

• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: What Does it Mean to Be Charismatic? Response – C Michael Patton
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 5): An Argument from History
• 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: Why I Believe the Gifts Have Continued – Sam Storms

There is so much in your arguments that I agree with. In fact, I think I would be safe saying that I believe, when taken by themselves, the biblical arguments for the continuation of the gifts in question are slightly stronger than the arguments for their cessation. Now, don’t take that too far; as I have said before, I don’t think either case is that strong. I can see how one can argue for cessationism from a purely biblical standpoint, and I can see how one can argue for continuationism, also from a purely biblical standpoint. Therefore, I don’t think it can ever come down to saying that one side or the other is denying what the Bible clearly teaches.

Nevertheless, I am at a point where I think the continuationist can make the stronger case for a few reasons that you have brought up in your essay.

Does the New Testament Teach that the Gifts in Question Would Continue Until the Return of Christ?

Primarily (if not exclusively), I do very much see your point that in Acts 2, 1 Cor. 13:8-12, and Eph. 4:8-12, it seems that the gifts spoken of would continue until the return of Christ. I think this is the best argument for continuationism. In each of these passages, the Apostle suggests that all of the gifts are for the church age, not merely the inauguration of the church age. In fact, it seems that Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 13 both explicitly say that some of the gifts in question will not cease until the end of this age. So how could one remain a cessationist when such clear biblical evidence is being presented?  Well, since there are many cessationists who are committed to the inerrancy of Scripture, there must be a way! Let me give three options:

1. One can be a preterist (partial or full) and believe that the second coming of Christ (at least in judgement of Israel, according to partial preterists) already occurred, in A.D. 70. Therefore, the gifts would have ceased at this time. After all, Peter associates these last days not only with the “democratization of prophecy” (as you would put it) but with wonders in the sky, including the sun turning black and the moon red, “blood, fire, vapor and smoke.” The language here is very apocalyptic. But do modern-day Charismatics actually see or claim these type of signs and wonders mentioned in Acts 2:19-20? None that belong to your more sensible group of “third-wavers.” If they do, they certainly don’t label them as “normative.” A Preterist can simply claim that all the events which describe the second coming of Christ in judgment have already taken place. Hence, the gifts ceased with the “coming” of the Lord in A.D. 70.

If I am not mistaken, you are a partial preterist, believing that the apocalyptic events described in Acts 2 (at least) have been fulfilled, so you should not be able to definitively use these verses in support of your position! I am not a preterist (partial or full), so this would not be the avenue I would take.

2. One can believe that the Apostles did not have a full understanding of the “church age”. Even the Council of Biblical Inerrancy cautions us about believing the writers of Scripture were omniscient. When they spoke, the spoke with accuracy. However, this does not mean that they had exhaustive understanding, individually or collectively. It would not be hard to argue that the Apostles believed the Lord was coming back in their lifetime (at the very least, they held out a great deal of hope). I think this can be evidenced by looking at Acts 1:6 and Acts 3:19-20. It is hard to understand Paul’s admonishment to the Thessolonians (esp. 2 Thess. 2:1-5) unless he had taught them that Christ was (possibly) coming in their life. I suppose one could be a cessationist and believe that the Apostles did not see the “valley of silence” between the inauguration of the church age and Christ’s second coming. After all, would this not be typical? Did not the Old Testament prophets themselves fail to see the “valley” of the church age, as they often equated Christ’s first coming with his second?

3. One can believe that the presences of the power of the Spirit are “bookends” to the church age. In other words, God’s miraculous intervention does characterize the beginning and the end of the church age, but not necessarily the middle. I know many hard cessationists who are not really cessationists, as they believe the events described in the book of Revelation are yet to come. This includes the two prophets (Rev. 11:3). Therefore, if you are a futurist with regard to these prophecies, you do believe that prophecy will continue until the end, albeit intermittently. This, combined with #2, is a fairly easy way for a cessationist to remain a cessationist and be faithful to the full counsel of Scripture.

Again, while I agree that the New Testament does seem to teach that the gifts in question would continue until Christ’s return, I don’t think it is necessary.

Do We Have the Same Spirit or Don’t We?

The biggest weakness that I found in your contribution is this idea of continuity and discontinuity. You seem to want to have it both ways. Much of your argument rests on the idea that we have the same Spirit as they did and that we have the same needs they did. I agree with both of these. We have the same Spirit, so why not the same power? We all need – indeed, long for – the encouragement these types of gifts bring. So why wouldn’t God evidence himself in the same way?

However, while you give some lip service to this argument, you don’t really hold to it yourself.

In favor of continuity, you say, “Nothing that I read in the NT nor see in the condition of the church in any age, past or present, leads me to believe we have progressed beyond the need for edification and therefore beyond the need for the contribution of the charismata.” You go on, “The fifth good reason for being a Continuationist is the fundamental continuity or spiritually organic relationship between the church in Acts and the church in subsequent centuries. . . . The universal church or body of Christ that was established and gifted through the ministry of the apostles is the same universal church and body of Christ that exists today.”

However, you then also turn to an argument that stresses discontinuity.  In point number eight of “bad reasons for being a cessationist” you say, “An eighth bad reason for being a cessationist is the argument that since we typically don’t see today the miracles or gifts in quality or intensity to those in the ministries of Jesus or the apostles, God doesn’t intend for any miraculous gifts of a lesser quality or intensity to operate in the church among ordinary Christians” (emphasis yours).

Here you are basically arguing that we should expect the same gifts to be given to the church, but not in the same intensity? Do we just need the same gifts, but we don’t need them to be that powerful anymore? Do we need the same encouragement that the gifts bring, but we cannot expect it to be that encouraging? It is hard for me to understand why you take this seemingly contradictory position.

As well, by implication, you suggest that the Apostles could do greater works due to some inherent power that they possess outside of the Spirit. Why would the Apostles be able to perform these gifts at a greater level than us today? If they have the same Spirit, wouldn’t it be the same power, both in kind and intensity? Do you believe that the Apostles were somehow inherently greater than us? Do you believe that the Spirit’s power is somehow governed by the sinfulness of the modern church while there were no holds barred in the Apostles, due to their inherent dignity? If you asked the Apostles, do you think they would say that they were able to perform greater feats due to their own abilities added to the Spirit’s, or do you think they would credit all of their power to the Spirit? My assumption is that they would say the same thing Peter did in Acts 3:

But when Peter saw this, he replied to the people, “Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this, or why do you gaze at us, as if by our own power or piety we had made him walk? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him.” (Act 3:12-13 NAU)

But I say that we must keep the continuity. If it is the same Spirit working in the church today as was in the early church, then we have access to not only the same type of power, but the same intensity of power. If this same power is not being displayed, then it is not due to the vessel’s lack of righteousness or integrity, but due to the Spirit’s lack of the same. In other words, if the Spirit is the one who sovereignly accomplishes these miracles as Peter said above, it is the Spirit that sovereignly stops accomplishing them. Again, I find your inconsistency here confusing.

Odds and Ends

A few things here that I want to respond to that don’t require much space:

You say, “If signs and wonders were designed exclusively to authenticate apostles, we have no explanation why non-apostolic believers (such as Philip and Stephen) were empowered to perform them.” First, maybe I am missing someone who argues for such, but I don’t know of even the most ardent hard cessationist who would argue that signs and wonders were designed exclusively to authenticate apostles. After all, signs and wonders include all the miraculous gifts in question. There was obviously a benevolent purpose to healing in Christ’s ministry. The question is not whether or not there was a benevolent purpose to healing and the like, but whether this was their primary purpose. It could very well be that their primary purpose was to establish the testimony of the Gospel as the inaugural footprint was being made. After all, God did not part the Red Sea over and over again, but he continually calls on the Israelites to remember what he had done in the past (see 1 Sam. 10:18-19; Ps. 78:12-13; Ps. 136:13-15; Neh. 9:9-10; et al). The parting of the Red Sea had a benevolent purpose, but it was also used as evidence for subsequent generations of God’s love for and presence in and with the nation of Israel. The events establishing the Gospel could very well be a “footprint” that we are to look back on, not unlike the footprint of the deliverance of Israel. When God makes his moves in history, they are rather dramatic. But does he have to continue to do it over and over again for us to be encouraged?

As well, it is true that Philip and Stephen were able to perform signs and wonders. But were not Mark and Luke able to write Scripture?The presence of others who were able to do the miraculous during the time of the apostles does not necessarily evidence that they were not under the authority of living apostles any more than non-apostolic Scriptures were free from apostolic oversight. After all, isn’t this how you and other continuationists would argue for Mark’s and Luke’s ability to write Scripture? They were under the “apostolic umbrella”? How come these gifts could not have been more broadly spread due to them being under the same apostolic umbrella?

I don’t understand what you mean by 2 Cor. 12:12: “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.” I don’t see how reading this in the New American Standard changes Paul’s argument. It is true that the dative is being used, but does that not make the case stronger? The instrumental evidence of a true apostle comes “by means of” signs and wonders. If these types of things were so widespread (outside the apostolic umbrella), Paul’s argument is moot. How does the instrument of signs, wonders, and miracles distinguish Paul at all from the other so-called apostles (much less from the rest of the Corinthian congregation!) if these gifts are not at least somewhat unique (if not exclusive) to the Apostles?

As well, many of your arguments are very pragmatic. In other words, they express a need in the church with the solution to that need. “Why wouldn’t we need these same gifts today?” “Why would they have ceased? Are not they still useful?” Of course, I don’t know of any, especially myself, who would not long for the continuation of these gifts for such pragmatic purposes. However, need does not equate to reality. Just because something can be shown to be useful does not mean that it has continued. I often hear the same pragmatic arguments from my Roman Catholic friends who say that we still need infallible authority in the church. I agree with them that an infallible authority would be great, but this does not give us any right to read these things definitely into the text of Scripture or the halls of history. Would the church benefit from someone with the gift of healing, prophecy, or infallibility (i.e. a Pope)? Most definitely. Does this contribute to any sort of an argument that they exist? No.

You say, “Why wouldn’t God continue to testify to the message [with signs and wonders] when it is preached by others in subsequent generations?” My answer: I don’t know. Why wouldn’t he speak to me face to face as he did with Moses? I don’t know. Why doesn’t he lift me up to the “third heaven” as he did with Paul? I don’t know. Why doesn’t he continue to write encouraging words and add them to the Scriptures? I don’t know. Why don’t people fall dead in church when they lie about money being given? I don’t know.  Why doesn’t he heal my mother of her paralysis? I don’t know. There are a lot of things that I don’t know. But just because I don’t have a sufficient answer for this does not invalidate the facts, if they are indeed facts. There are a lot of mysteries that we don’t understand. In such cases we do not always have to explain them, but we embrace them.

Again, I don’t think there are conclusive arguments that can be made from Scripture for either continuationism or cessationism. In the end, we have to ask, “What happened? Did they cease or did they continue after the Apostles?” This is why we now turn to the testimony of history and ask, “What say you?”Similar Posts:

• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: Why I Believe the Gifts Have Continued – Sam Storms
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 2)
• Why I Am/Not Charistmatic: Biblical Arguments for Cessationism – C Michael Patton
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 5): An Argument from History

What a presumptuous question, right? The presumption is in the fact that I would even pose such a question. The question itself presumes that I might answer in the negative. Chill. It is just a question. But your are right. The presumption behind the question does evidence my uncertainty as to its answer.

I was listening to Osteen the other night. He was very pleasant and had a lot of nice things to say. For the most part, except for his interjections of the word ”God” here and there, his speech was a typical motivational speech. He did not use the Bible, but he attempted to give the impression that he was. He held it in his hand the entire time.

Why he bothered interjecting “God” into his motivational speech, I can only suppose. Maybe because his speaking venue is called a “church”? Isn’t that what you are supposed to do at church? Mention God? Maybe its because they sang hymns and if you sing hymns, God needs to be talked about afterward. Or maybe it’s because he thought attributing his thoughts to God would give his propositions and stories more authority? It would seem that his placements of the word “God” were very strategic. It would come at pivotal points in his message. “God does not want you to be sick. You can have the best life now. God does not want you to be behind on your bills. You can have the best life now. God wants to make your dreams come true! The best life is here and now. God wants you to take a hold of it.”

In the end, I thought to myself This is not a church. This is not preaching. This is not Christianity. And, I wonder . . . is his God my God? Same name, yes some of the same characteristics, but that could be said of any god. However, if Osteen’s God and my God are the same, God may have a case of bi-polar disorder.

Now, this is not as far-fetched as you might think. People DO worship other gods just like people marry other people and have other kids. They always have. Since the beginning of time, people have found replacements for the true God by filling in the “gaps” that God does not fill to their liking. Whether it be a rain god, fertility god, sun god, or god of war, people have a desire to have their perceived needs met. In the old days, people would create a new god and give it an appropriate name. Marduk, Apollo, Diana, Sol, and Cupid are all names of popular Romans gods who filled in the gaps. The Japanese even have a god for weavers named Am-No-Tanabata-Hime. For weavers!! Each of these gods had a particular function and role. The Japanese god Daikoku is the god of wealth. If you desire money, this is the god to go to. Binzuru-Sonja is the god of health. Are you sick? Do you have cancer? Binzuru-Sonja is your man . . . I mean god.

I am going to do something radical here (warning: satire forth-coming). I propose a new god. Let us combine the last two Japanese gods: Daikoku and Binzuru-Sonja. “Daikoku-Sonja” will be the initial designation of this new god. Now lets do something to make this more palatable to a monotheistic western Christianized world. Let’s call Daikoku-Sonja “Jesus.” Let’s even say that he died on a cross and rose from a grave. Let’s give him all the characteristics that would not detract from his ultimate power and will for us to be happy, healthy, and wealthy. These other characteristics can come from the Bible. Americans seem to be fond of that book. This god will have a Father, he will be gracious and kind. He will die for our sins and offer forgiveness. Then, he will reveal his ultimate plan—to make us happy. To fill our bellies and pockets with comfort and joy. Yes, that is nice. We will talk about how nice he wants to be to us. How much he wants us to be nice to others. Yes, other gods have done the same, but this one rose from the grave and has therefore proved that he wants us to be rich and healthy. This sounds nice.

Now, we must stay away from the Bible for the most part because it does not present much in favor of our god other than the basic details, names, and historical facts. We can draw from the Old Testament here and there, emphasizing the “heal all your diseases” and “shoes never wearing out” parts. But we cannot put those in context or that would narrow the application. As well, we must leave out all the parts where God’s wrath is spoken of. (The Gnostics did it, so can we!) Troublesome passages such as these cannot be mentioned:

1 Peter 4:12-13 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation.

1 Peter 5:9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.

1 Thessalonians 3:2-4 And we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith, that no one be moved by these afflictions. For you yourselves know that we are destined for this. For when we were with you, we kept telling you beforehand that we were to suffer affliction, just as it has come to pass, and just as you know.

2 Timothy 3:12 Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

James 1:2-3 2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.

Those passages are downers. Daikoku-Sonja . . . umm . . . I mean Jesus is not about bringing people down in such a way. He wants you to have “The Best Life NOW!” The best life does not involve suffering and pain or heart-ache and loss.

We can call this movement “Christianity.” Why not? People are comfortable with the name. And, more importantly, people don’t really know what it means. Essentially they think it is about this nice guy named Jesus, who is “God’s son”, who wants us to do what is right and be nice to each other. We can capitalize on this. In the end, what we are doing is just rewarding people with positive thinking. No one should dwell on their problems. No one should think Daikoku-Sonja really wills for people to suffer.

(Okay, satire complete.)

Let me be serious. I don’t know if Osteen’s God is different than mine. What I do know is that there are characteristics and motivations in his God that are completely opposite of mine. My God allows suffering and pain for His own purpose. My God is a potter, who has sovereign right over His creation. My God does what He will, not what I will. My God is loving, but He is also one of great indignation. My God does love everyone, but He also created a terrible place called Hell for his enemies. My God does not have it high on His agenda for me to be rich, or even pay the bills and be “happy”.

I also know that this health and prosperity theology, while motivational for a time, destroys lives. It builds false expectation. It makes people put their trust in characteristics of God that just do not exist. When these characteristics fail (and they will fail —ever heard of “death”? It is hard to escape no matter how positive your thinking is!), then, in these people’s minds, God has failed. I have seen too many people doubt or walk away from the “Jesus” that they created when he failed to heal them of their cancer or when he could not seem to get them a job. But the question is Did they walk away from Jesus or from Daikoku-Sonja (aka Jesus)?

Here is the question: Where does one draw the line? When has ones description of God become so foreign to the biblical God that it should thought of as a different god with the same name? After all, a name does not mean much if that which the name represents does not mirror its true characteristics.

Where do you draw the line? What do you think? Do Joel Osteen and I worship the same God?Similar Posts:

• Do Joel Osteen and I Worship the Same God?
• Do Roger Olson and I Worship the Same God?
• Do Roger Olson and I Worship the Same God?
• How bad can a Christian’s theology be?
• Do Clark Pinnock and I Worship the Same God?

First, you argue that a cessationist can be justified in believing that supernatural gifts have ceased even though the Bible does not say that they would. You appeal to the analogy of why we believe the canon is closed even though the Bible never says anything to that effect. But let’s be clear about this. The fact that the canon is indeed closed is not itself an argument for cessationism. I don’t hear you making such an argument, but your readers might. I think what you are saying is that the way we know the canon is closed is analogous to the way we know gifts have ceased. In other words, you aren’t making an argument for cessationism but rather citing what may be a possible explanation for why we don’t need an explicit NT text telling us supernatural gifts would cease. That’s all well and good, unless, of course, there are NT texts telling us that such gifts in fact will continue. I believe I cited several such texts in my post. But on to other matters.

Second, you say once again that “the gifts exhausted their purpose and ceased due to this exhaustion. These gifts were used for the establishing of the Gospel message in history. . . . Once the church was established and the historic verification of Christ accomplished, there was no longer any need to continue with such ‘sign’ gifts.”

I have to say that I’m a little surprised by this argument. I’ve pointed out on several occasions the danger of reductionism, that is to say, reducing such gifts to a singular purpose while failing to recognize the multiple other functions and goals they served in the life of the church.

As I wrote in my post, yours would be “a good reason for being a cessationist only if you can demonstrate that authentication or attestation of the apostolic message was the sole and exclusive purpose of such displays of divine power. However, nowhere in the NT is the purpose or function of the miraculous or the charismata reduced to that of attestation. The miraculous, in whatever form in which it appeared, served several other distinct purposes: doxological (to glorify God – John 11:4; 11:40; John 2:11; 9:3; and Matt. 15:29-31); evangelistic (to prepare the way for the gospel to be made known – see Acts 9:32-43); pastoral (as an expression of compassion and love and care for the sheep – Matt. 14:14; Mark 1:40-41); and edification (that is, to build up and strengthen believers – 1 Cor. 12:7 and “common good”; 1 Cor. 14:3, 4, 5, 26). My point is this: all the gifts of the Spirit, whether tongues or teaching, whether prophecy or mercy, whether healing or helps, were given, among other reasons, for the edification and building up and encouraging and instructing and consoling and sanctifying of the body of Christ. Therefore, even if the ministry of the miraculous gifts to attest and authenticate has ceased, a point I concede only for the sake of argument, such gifts would continue to function in the church for the other reasons cited.”

Third, I obviously disagree with the interpretation you give of 2 Corinthians 12:12 and the conclusion you draw from it. I won’t repeat myself here but simply refer the reader to my exegesis of the text in my earlier blog post.

Fourth, your appeal to Ephesians 2:19-20 is also, in my humble opinion, inadequate. Let me explain.

On your view, all NT prophets functioned foundationally. But there is nothing to suggest that “the prophets” in Eph. 2:20 is an exhaustive reference to all possible prophets in the church. Why should we conclude that the only kind of prophetic activity is “foundational” in nature, especially in light of what the NT says about the extent and effect of prophetic ministry? It simply isn’t possible to believe that all prophetic utterances were part of the once-for-all foundation of the church. For one thing, the NT nowhere says they were. For another, it portrays prophetic ministry in an entirely different light from the one you deduce from Eph. 2:20. Surely not everyone who ministered prophetically was apostolic. Therefore, the cessation of the latter is no argument for the cessation of the former.

To suggest that Eph. 2:20 has in view all possible prophets active in the early church does not measure up to what we read about the gift of prophecy in the rest of the NT. Are we to believe that all those who prophesied on the day of Pentecost, “sons and daughters, young men, old men, bondslaves, both men and women,” were laying the foundation of the church? Are we to believe that “all mankind” (Acts 2:17) in the early church were contributors to its once-for-all foundation?

You are asking us to believe that the long-awaited promise in Joel 2 of the unprecedented outpouring of the Holy Spirit on “all mankind”, with its resultant revelatory activity of dreams, visions, and prophecy, was exhaustively fulfilled in only a handful of individuals whose gifting functioned in an exclusively foundational, initiatory, and therefore temporary fashion! Does this theory adequately explain the text? Is the revelatory and charismatic experience of the Spirit, foretold by Joel and cited by Peter, exhaustively fulfilled in a small minority of believers in a mere sixty-year span in only the first century of the church? It seems rather that Joel 2 and Acts 2 are describing normative Christian experience for the entire Christian community in the whole of the New Covenant age, called the “latter days”.

Your view would require us to believe that a group of anonymous disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7) who prophesied upon their conversion (none of which, be it noted, was ever recorded or mentioned again) did so with a view to laying the foundation of the church. It is no less a strain to think that the four daughters of Philip were a part of the once-for-all foundation of the church (Acts 21:9).

On your thesis, all prophetic activity is foundation-laying activity. But if it were, it seems unlikely that Paul would have spoken of prophecy as a gift bestowed to common people for the “common good” of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:7-10). Are we to believe that Paul exhorted all believers in every church to earnestly desire that they exercise foundational significance for the universal church? On the contrary, prophecy is to be desired because its purpose is to communicate revelation from God that will “encourage” those who are discouraged, “console” those who are disconsolate, and “edify” those who are weak and untaught (1 Cor. 14:3).

Again, I must ask, how does the exposure of an unbeliever’s secret sins in the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica and Rome and Laodicea and throughout the inhabited earth, sins such as greed, lust, anger, selfishness, etc., function in laying the once-for-all foundation of the universal church of Jesus Christ? Yet, this is one of the primary purposes for the prophetic gift (1 Cor. 14:24-25).

Paul anticipated that every time Christians gathered for worship that, at least potentially, “each” believer would come with or contribute, among other things, a “revelation” (1 Cor. 14:26). He anticipated that a normal part of Christian experience was receiving revelatory data or insight from God. It is difficult to read his instruction for corporate worship and conclude that he viewed all revelatory, and thus prophetic, ministry as foundational for the universal church. There must have been thousands upon thousands of revelations and prophetic utterances throughout the hundreds of churches over the course of the years between Pentecost and the close of the NT canon. Are we to believe that this multitude of people and their even greater multitude of prophetic words constituted the once-for-all foundation of the church?

You seem to believe that once apostles and prophets ceased to function foundationally, they ceased to function altogether, as if the only purpose for apostles and prophets was to lay the foundation of the church. Nowhere does the NT say this, least of all in Eph. 2:20. This text need say no more than that apostles and prophets laid the foundation once and for all and then ceased to function in that capacity. But nothing suggests that they ceased to function in other capacities, much less that they ceased to exist altogether. Certainly it is true that only apostles and prophets lay the foundation of the church, but it is anything but certain that such is the only thing they do.

In a word, the portrayal in Acts and 1 Corinthians of who could prophesy and how it was to be done in the life of the church simply does not fit with the cessationist’s assertion that Eph. 2:20 describes all possible prophets, every one of whom functioned as part of the once-for-all foundation of the church. Rather, Paul is there describing a limited group of prophets who were closely connected to the apostles, both of which groups spoke Scripture-quality words essential to the foundation of the church universal. [Much of what you just read was adapted from my contribution to the book, “Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views,” where I was responding to a similar argument by Richard Gaffin.]

Fifth, rather than re-engage with Hebrews 2:3-4, I will refer the reader to look again at my explanation of this text.

Sixth, and finally, in your article you appear to say that there simply are no biblical texts that explicitly assert that the supernatural gifts will continue in the life of the church until the return of Christ. But then you cite 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 which both of us agree declares that such gifts continue until “the perfect comes,” i.e., the eternal state. And what will you do with Ephesians 4:11-13 where Paul declares that spiritual gifts (or spiritually gifted persons) such as apostleship, prophecy, evangelism, and pastor-teacher are designed “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ UNTIL [emphasis mine] we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”? Surely no one would suggest that these gifts have “exhausted their purpose” and that we have already attained to the lofty spiritual and moral goals articulated by Paul!

And as I wrote in the earlier post, “Beginning with Pentecost, and continuing throughout the book of Acts, whenever the Spirit is poured out on new believers they experience the manifestation of his charismata. There is nothing to indicate this phenomenon was restricted to them and then. Such appears to be both widespread and common in the NT church. Christians in Rome (Romans 12), Corinth (1 Corinthians 12-14), Samaria (Acts 8), Caesarea (Acts 10), Antioch (Acts 13), Ephesus (Acts 19; 1 Timothy 1), Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 5), and Galatia (Galatians 3) experience the miraculous and revelatory gifts. It is difficult to imagine how the NT authors could have said any more clearly than this what New Covenant Christianity is supposed to look like. In other words, the burden of proof rests with the cessationist. If certain gifts of a special class have ceased, the responsibility is his to prove it.”

For these reasons, together with the others I cited in my article, I remain a continuationist.

SamSimilar Posts:

• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts
• Why I Am/Not Charistmatic: Biblical Arguments for Cessationism – C Michael Patton
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 1)
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: Why I Believe the Gifts Have Continued – Sam Storms
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: Why I Believe the Gifts Have Continued Response – C Michael Patton