(1) Was tongues-speech at Pentecost (Acts 2) the supernatural ability to utter real human languages not previously known or studied by the speaker? Those who say “yes” point to the fact that the visitors in Jerusalem (for Passover) heard these uneducated Galileans speaking in their own native language (vv. 5-8). They also appeal to the terms used: glossa (either the physical organ of the “tongue” or “language”) and dialekto (vv. 6, 8; cf. Acts 1:19; 21:40; 22:2; 26:14).

Others insist that this was “not the hearing of one’s own language but the hearing in one’s own language. Such being the case, at the same moment that ‘other tongues’ were spoken through the Holy Spirit, they were immediately translated by the same Holy Spirit into the many languages of the multitude” (J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology, 2:215). Thus, Williams argues that there is both a miracle of “speech”—other, different, spiritual tongues—and a miracle of “understanding,” each facilitated by the Holy Spirit.

If this view is correct, a miraculous charisma of the Holy Spirit (namely, the gift of interpretation) was given to every unbeliever present on the day of Pentecost. But as D.A. Carson points out, it is Luke’s purpose “to associate the descent of the Spirit with the Spirit’s activity among the believers, not to postulate a miracle of the Spirit among those who were still unbelievers” (Showing the Spirit, 138). Or, as Max Turner puts it, surely Luke “would not wish to suggest that the apostolic band merely prattled incomprehensibly, while God worked the yet greater miracle of interpretation of tongues in the unbelievers” (The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: Then and Now, 223).

(2) Are tongues evangelistic? Contrary to what many suggest, there is no evidence that tongues-speech in Acts 2 (or elsewhere) served an evangelistic purpose. According to Acts 2:11, the content of tongues-speech was “the mighty deeds of God” (observe the same phrase in Acts 10:46 and 19:17). The people don’t hear an evangelistic message but doxology. It is only Peter’s preaching that brings salvation. Thus, here as elsewhere, we see that the primary purpose of tongues-speech is address to God (whether it be in praise or prayer; cf. 1 Cor. 14:2, 14).

Some argue that tongues-speech was present in Acts 8 because Simon was able to “see” (8:18) their reception of the Holy Spirit. But it could just as easily have been their boldness or their joy or their praise or any number of other manifestations of the Spirit’s presence. We are better off not trying to prove anything from what Luke does not explicitly record. Tongues-speech in Acts 10 (see also 11:15-17 and Acts 19), notes D. A. Carson, serves “not to communicate God’s wonderful works to unbelievers [indeed, only believers were present], but primarily to attest to the Jerusalem church (and thus to Jewish believers) that Gentiles may be admitted to the messianic community without first coming under pledged commitment to the law of Moses (Showing, 148). We also should note again that speaking in tongues here is a form of praise (v. 46), exalting and magnifying God. Far from questioning the sanity or stability of these believing Gentiles, Peter concludes from what happened that they are saved and thus eligible to be baptized in water no less than had it been a Jew who accepted Jesus (v. 47).

In summary of the evidence in Acts, some but not all who receive Christ as savior speak in tongues immediately upon their conversion. There are several instances of conversion in Acts where no mention is made of speaking in tongues (see Acts 2:37-42; 8:26-40; 9:1-19; 13:44-52; 16:11-15; 16:25-34; 17:1-33; 18:1-11). This doesn’t prove they didn’t. But neither should one conclude that they did.

Moreover, only in Acts 2 are tongues explicitly said to be human languages not previously learned by the speaker (more on this below). Furthermore, nowhere in Acts did speaking in tongues function directly as an evangelistic tool, nor do we ever find an apostolic exhortation that it be used for that purpose. At most, tongues may be viewed as a form of pre-evangelism. It is not tongues, however, but preaching that brings the gospel to those who are saved. Significantly, in the three explicit references to tongues in Acts, only once (Acts 2) are unbelievers present. If, as the cessationist argues, tongues were primarily an evangelistic sign-gift for unbelieving Jews, why is it that in two of its three occurrences in Acts only believers are present? I’ll return to this point below.

We now turn to 1 Corinthians 12-14.

(3) What is the purpose of tongues? Paul’s description of tongues-speech in 1 Corinthians identifies it primarily as a form of prayer (1 Cor. 14:2, 14-15, 28). It is a means of communicating with God in supplication, petition, and intercession. According to 14:16, prayer in tongues is a perfectly legitimate way in which to express heartfelt gratitude to God. There is no suggestion here that people who speak in tongues lose self-control or become oblivious to their surroundings or lapse into a frenzied condition in which self-consciousness and the power for rational thinking are eclipsed. Paul assumes that the person speaking in tongues can start and stop at will (1 Cor. 14:15-19, 27-28; cf. 14:32).

Speaking in tongues is also a means for edifying oneself (1 Cor. 14:4), which contrary to what some say, is not a bad thing. We study the Bible and pray to edify ourselves. Countless Christian activities are an effective means of self-edification. My guess is that you are reading this blog to edify yourself. Should I rebuke you for being self-centered? And in Jude 20 we are commanded to edify ourselves by praying in the Spirit!

Every gift of the Spirit either directly or indirectly edifies its user. This is not evil unless self-edification becomes an end in itself. If I am strengthened by my gift in such a way that I increase in moral purity, sensitivity, understanding, zeal, and love for God, and thus am better equipped to minister to others (1 Cor. 12:7), this is hardly grounds for complaint. The fact that the ultimate purpose of gifts is the common good does not preclude other, secondary effects, of each manifestation. Furthermore, self-edification from tongues-speech can’t be wrong, or Paul would not have encouraged its use in 1 Cor. 14:5a. And it is uninterpreted tongues that he has in mind, for he contrasts it with prophecy, insisting that the latter is better suited to edify others (unless, of course, the tongues-speech is interpreted, v. 5b).

Some struggle to grasp how something not understood even by the speaker can edify. The answer in part lies in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 (so, too, in Rom. 8:26). Notwithstanding an inability to comprehend his own tongues-speech, Paul is determined both to pray and sing “with/in the spirit” (v. 15). As Gordon Fee has said, “contrary to the opinion of many, spiritual edification can take place in ways other than through the cortex of the brain. Paul believed in an immediate communing with God by means of the S/spirit that sometimes bypassed the mind; and in verses 14-15 he argues that for his own edification he will have both” (1 Corinthians, 657).

Some cessationists refuse to concede that someone can be edified apart from rational understanding. They therefore insist that God not only enables a person to speak in a language not previously learned, but also enables him to understand what he is speaking (contrary to 1 Cor. 14:14). But why, then, would there be a need for the distinct gift of interpretation? Each person speaking in tongues would already know what he is saying and, in turn, could communicate such to the congregation. Why forbid a person to speak in tongues in the absence of an interpreter (vv. 27-28) if every tongues-speaker is his own interpreter? And if the tongues-speaker can understand what he is saying, why encourage him to pray that he might interpret (v. 13)? It will not do for the cessationist to say that the one gifted with interpretation has an exactness which goes beyond the understanding of the sense of the revelation possessed by the tongues-speaker, because he believes that anytime God reveals truth to the human mind there is an a priori guarantee that both the reception of what is revealed and its transmission are perfectly accurate. In other words, for the cessationist, all revelation comes with a guarantee of perfection and divine exactness in both comprehension and communication.

(4) Are tongues revelatory? The cessationist argument noted above is clearly based on the assumption that tongues are revelatory, a view for which I find little, if any, biblical support. Most cessationists contend that tongues are revelatory and appeal to Paul’s use of “mysteries” in 1 Corinthians 14:2, a term, they argue, that refers to the redemptive-historical content of revelation. But if this were true, why would Paul proceed to define the content of tongues as simple human prayer, blessing, and gratitude (14:14-17), terms that have little if any relation to the divine communication of redemptive-historical verities? And why would Paul differentiate between tongues and revelation as he does in 14:6, asserting his preference for the latter above the former (see also v. 26)? And why, in his description of the exercise of gifts in the local assembly, would he restrict the impartation of revelation to those who prophesy and not extend it also to those who minister in tongues (14:27-30)? There is no indication here that Paul believed speaking in tongues depends upon a spontaneous divine revelation, as is clearly the case with prophecy.

Neither will it do to argue that the Spirit’s activity in tongues-speech proves the latter’s revelatory status. To suggest that this verse proves the Spirit’s direct, verbal inspiration in tongues is forced, to say the least. The fact that the “mind” does not understand what the “spirit” prays hardly proves the latter’s inerrancy! It only demonstrates Paul’s point of the need for interpretation in a public setting.

The cessationist wants to argue that because the human mind does not function in the production of what is said in tongues, what is said must be infallibly inspired. But glossolalia is not an experience in which the Spirit seizes the speech organ, thereby reducing the believer to a passive and robotic instrument, through which, in an unmediated way, the Spirit himself prays. Rather, the Spirit sovereignly imparts to the believer an ability by which he, the believer, prays or praises in a language he cannot of himself interpret. Tongues is a power or capacity imparted by the Spirit that ever remains within the volitional control of the believer. The fact that the Holy Spirit energizes the human spirit to utter words of supplication and thanksgiving in no way implies, far less requires, a revelatory act of God that renders such speech infallible. All prayer, according to Ephesians 6:18, should be en pneumati (“in” or “by the Spirit). Must we conclude by this that all prayer is inspired and without error?

Some cessationists argue that “spirit” (pneuma) in 1 Cor. 14:14 can’t be Paul’s but refers, instead, to the Holy “Spirit” or to the gift of tongues as given by the Spirit. They base this on the assertion that in Paul “spirit” and “mind” are interchangeable or largely overlap in meaning. For the sake of argument, I’ll concede the latter point, except when the Christian is the recipient of a capacity by which he petitions and praises in an unintelligible language, i.e., in tongues! By his own admission, the cessationist believes that tongues are unintelligible, something that transcend or bypass the mind. In other words, the gift of tongues is precisely the Pauline exception to what may be an otherwise valid rule. This is nowhere better seen than in 1 Cor. 14:14-19, where Paul sustains an unmistakable contrast between, on the one hand, what his (“my”; mou) “spirit” speaks (or sings) and does not understand and, on the other, what his (“my”) “mind” speaks (or sings) and does understand.

Let us not forget that all so-called “word” gifts (whether teaching, exhortation, or tongues, for example), indeed, all spiritual gifts of whatever nature, are the work of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7-11). In this latter text tongues is in no way differentiated from other gifts in terms of how and to what extent the Spirit is involved in their production and exercise. It is the “same Spirit” and the “same God” who works all these gifts in all persons. Are cessationists prepared to argue on that basis for the infallibility of all the charismata? If not, then it seems inconsistent to do so for tongues.

(5) Are tongues to be used in one’s private devotional prayer life? Cessationists typically answer “No”. It makes sense why they would embrace this view, for if all tongues are revelatory, as most contend, one must explain why God would reveal sacred truths in an unintelligible way to someone who, in turn, proceeds to speak them back to God in private. But, as noted above, tongues are not revelatory.

Furthermore, the fact that praying in tongues was a staple experience in Paul’s private devotional life is evident from at least two texts. First, in 1 Cor. 14:18-19, he declares: “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.” This latter statement is Paul’s somewhat exaggerated way of saying he almost never speaks in tongues in a corporate church gathering. In the absence of interpretation, he most definitely won’t. Now, if in church Paul virtually never exercises this gift, yet speaks in tongues more frequently and fluently and fervently than anyone, even more so than the tongue-happy Corinthians, where does he do it (indeed, if tongues are revelatory, why would he do it)? Surely it must be in private.

Second, this is confirmed by verse 28 where he gives instruction on what to do in the absence of interpretation: let him (the tongues-speaker) “speak to himself and to God.” Where? Given the explicit prohibition of uninterpreted tongues-speech “in the church,” it seems likely Paul had in mind prayer in tongues in private—in a context other than the corporate gathering.

Some cessationists again disagree and argue that Paul is instructing the tongues-speaker to pray silently to himself and to God while yet in the church gathering. But even if this were true (which I doubt), we then would have apostolic endorsement of private tongues-speech. If, as most cessationists contend, all tongues-speech is revelatory and is designed only for rational communication, Paul’s counsel makes no sense. Why would God impart infallible and unintelligible revelatory knowledge (the latter, in itself, strikes me as bizarre) only for the recipient to speak it to himself and back to God?

I’ve heard one cessationist argue that the tongues-speaker was to wait patiently until an interpreter arrives, at which time he can then speak audibly. But this is reading into the text a scenario conspicuous by its absence. Paul’s instruction is for a situation in which there is no interpreter. He says nothing about the tongues-speaker waiting until one is present.

Furthermore, it is inconsistent with Paul’s emphasis in 1 Corinthians 14 on all working together for mutual edification that he should recommend that some (perhaps many) focus their spiritual energy inwardly (praying in tongues) while someone else is speaking outwardly, ostensibly to edify the very people who, on Paul’s advice, aren’t even paying attention.

Some cessationists have insisted that Paul’s advice to the tongues-speaker in 1 Corinthians 14:28 to “speak to himself and God” cannot refer to private exercise of the gift because the context pertains to the church assembly. But if this were the case, it would seem to put them in the position of endorsing the legitimacy of personal, uninterpreted, non-evangelistic, non-sign tongues-speech in the corporate meeting of the church, a view that I am quite certain they would not want to embrace. It is better to understand the apostle Paul as commending the use of personal, uninterpreted prayer in tongues outside the church assembly, in the privacy of one’s devotional life. As Fee notes, “Speaking ‘by himself’ (= privately) stands in contrast to ‘in the assembly’ in verse 28, meaning he or she should pray ‘to God’ in this way in private.” (God’s Empowering Presence, 251.)

Finally, tongues-speech is also a form of praise (especially “singing in the Spirit”), insofar as Paul envisions using this gift to bless the person and works of God (1 Cor. 14:16). Praying in tongues may also be a way of engaging in spiritual conflict with demonic forces. As noted above, Paul describes tongues in 1 Cor. 14:16 as praying or blessing “in (the) spirit” (en pneumati). In Eph. 6:18 he encourages us to pray “in (the) spirit” (en pneumati), using the same terminology. Thus, Paul’s exhortation in this passage addressing our struggle with principalities and powers, although not limited to praying in tongues, most likely includes it. Finally, speaking in tongues is a way of compensating for our weakness and ignorance in praying for ourselves and others (cf. Rom. 8:26-27; this would be true even if this text is determined not to refer to glossolalia).

(6) Are tongues a “sign”? According to 1 Cor. 14:22, the answer would appear to be “Yes.” This follows Paul’s quotation of Isaiah 28:11, the meaning of which is found in a prior warning of God to Israel in Deuteronomy 28:49. If Israel violates the covenant, God will chastise them by sending a foreign enemy, speaking a foreign tongue. Thus, confusing and confounding speech was a sign of God’s judgment against a rebellious people. This is the judgment that Isaiah says has come upon Israel in the 8th century BC when the Assyrians invaded and conquered the Jews (cf. also what happened in the 6th c. BC, Jer. 5:15).

Many cessationists argue that God is judging unbelieving Jews in the first century, the sign of which is language they can’t understand (i.e., tongues). The purpose of tongues, therefore, is to signify God’s judgment against Israel for rejecting the Messiah and thereby to shock them into repentance and faith. Tongues, so goes the argument, are an evangelistic sign gift. Since tongues ceased to function in this capacity when Israel was dispersed in 70 AD, the gift was valid only for the first century.

But there are numerous problems with this view. First, even if tongues served as an evangelistic sign gift, nowhere does the NT restrict or reduce that gift to this one purpose. Simply because tongues is said to function in one capacity does not mean it cannot function in others. Tongues also serve the “common good” of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12). In 1 Corinthians 14:4, the gift of tongues edifies the individual in private prayer. We must avoid the error of reductionism (this is the error of identifying one valid use of a gift and then reducing it to that alone, to the exclusion of all other possible uses).

Second, if tongues-speech were not a spiritual gift for the church at all, why did Paul ever allow it to be exercised and used in the church? If interpreted, tongues-speech was entirely permissible. But this seems difficult to explain if its only or primary purpose was to declare judgment against unbelieving Jews.

Third, if uninterpreted tongues were designed to stir unbelievers to repentance, God would not need to provide the accompanying gift of interpretation. This latter gift makes sense only if tongues-speech is profitable and beneficial to Christians in the assembly.

Fourth, if God intended tongues-speech to serve as a sign for unbelieving Jews, Paul would not have counseled against its use when unbelievers are present (v. 23).

Finally, the contrasts in this context are between believer and nonbeliever, not Jew and Gentile. Indeed, most commentators concur that the non-believer (vv. 23-24) is probably a Gentile, not a Jew.

For all these reasons, I conclude that the view that tongues is only (or merely primarily) a sign of judgment on first-century unbelieving Jews is unconvincing. What, then, is the principle that Paul finds in Isaiah 28:11 that applies to Corinth (and to us)? It is this: when God speaks to people in a language they cannot understand, it is a form of punishment for unbelief. It signifies his anger. Incomprehensible speech will not guide or instruct or lead to faith and repentance, but only confuse and destroy. Thus, if outsiders or unbelievers come in and you speak in a language they cannot understand, you will simply drive them away. You will be giving a “sign” to unbelievers that is entirely wrong, because their hardness of heart has not reached the point where they deserve that severe sign of judgment. So when you come together (1 Cor. 14:26), if anyone speaks in a tongue, be sure there is an interpretation (v. 27). Otherwise the tongue-speaker should be quiet in the church (v. 29). Prophecy, on the other hand, is a sign of God’s presence with believers (v. 22b), and so Paul encourages its use when unbelievers are present in order that they may see this sign and thereby come to Christian faith (vv. 24-25).

Therefore, Paul is not talking about the function of the gift of tongues in general, but only about the negative result of one particular abuse of tongues-speech (namely, its use without interpretation in the public assembly). So, do not permit uninterpreted tongues-speech in church, for in doing so, you run the risk of communicating a negative sign to people that will only drive them away (for a more extensive explanation, see Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 145-54).

(7) Are tongues always human languages? As noted above, Acts 2 is the only text in the NT where tongues-speech consists of foreign languages not previously known by the speaker. But there is no reason to think Acts 2, rather than, say, 1 Corinthians 14, is the standard by which all occurrences of tongues-speech must be judged. Other factors suggest that tongues could also be heavenly or angelic speech.

To begin, if tongues-speech is always in a foreign language intended as a sign for unbelievers, why are the tongues in Acts 10 and Acts 19 spoken in the presence of only believers? Note also that Paul describes various “kinds [or “species”] of tongues” (gene glosson) in 1 Cor. 12:10. It is unlikely that he means a variety of different human languages, for who would have argued that all tongues were only one human language, such as Greek or Hebrew or German? His words suggest that there are differing categories of tongues-speech, perhaps human languages and heavenly languages.

In 1 Cor. 14:2, Paul asserts that whoever speaks in a tongue speaks “not to men but to God.” But if tongues are always human languages, Paul is in error, for “speaking to men” is precisely what human language does! Again, in 1 Cor. 14:2, he says that when one speaks in a tongue “no one understands him.” But if tongues-speech is invariably a human language, many would understand, as they did on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:8-11). This would especially be true in Corinth, a multi-lingual cosmopolitan port city that was frequented by people of numerous dialects.

Moreover, if tongues-speech is always a human language, then the gift of interpretation would be one for which no special work or enablement or manifestation of the Spirit would be required. Anyone who was multi-lingual, such as Paul, could interpret tongues-speech simply by virtue of his educational talent.

Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 13:2, Paul refers to “the tongues of men and of angels.” While he may be using hyperbole, he just as likely may be referring to heavenly or angelic dialects for which the Holy Spirit gives utterance. Gordon Fee cites evidence in certain ancient Jewish sources that the angels were believed to have their own heavenly languages or dialects and that by means of the Spirit one could speak them (1 Corinthians, 30-31; Richard Hays, First Corinthians, 223). See especially the Testament of Job 48-50, where Job’s three daughters put on heavenly sashes given to them as an inheritance from their father, by which they are transformed and enabled to praise God with hymns in angelic languages. Some have questioned this account, however, pointing out that this section of the Testament may have been the work of a later Christian author. Yet, as Forbes points out, “what the Testament does provide . . . is clear evidence that the concept of angelic languages as a mode of praise to God was an acceptable one within certain circles. As such it is our nearest parallel to glossolalia” (Prophecy and Inspired Speech, 185-86).

The fact that tongues are said to cease at the parousia (1 Cor. 13:8) leads Thiselton to conclude that it cannot be angelic speech, for why would a heavenly language terminate in the eschaton (see his First Corinthians, pp. 973, 1061-62)? But it would not be heavenly speech per se that ends, but heavenly speech on the part of humans designed to compensate now for the limitations endemic to our fallen, pre-consummate condition.

Some say the reference in 1 Cor. 14:10-11 to earthly, foreign languages proves that all tongues-speech is also human languages. But the point of the analogy is that tongues function like foreign languages, not that tongues are foreign languages. Paul’s point is that the hearer cannot understand uninterpreted tongues any more than he can understand the one speaking a foreign language. If tongues were a foreign language, there would be no need for an analogy.

Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 14:18 that he “speaks in tongues more than you all” is evidence that tongues are not foreign languages. As Grudem notes, “If they were known foreign languages that foreigners could understand, as at Pentecost, why would Paul speak more than all the Corinthians in private, where no one would understand, rather than in church where foreign visitors could understand?” (Systematic Theology, 1072). Finally, if tongues-speech is always human language, Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 14:23 wouldn’t necessarily hold true. Any unbeliever who would know the language being spoken would more likely conclude the person speaking was highly educated rather than “mad.”

Therefore, given the fact that Paul envisioned “various kinds” of tongues (1 Cor. 12:10), together with the other evidence cited, I conclude that tongues may be human languages never before learned by the speaker, but need not be. They may also be angelic dialects or unique linguistic utterances shaped specially by the Spirit and distributed to believers according to the will of God.

In conclusion, nothing that we’ve seen in the NT description of tongues indicates that it was a spiritual gift designed uniquely or exclusively for the early church (contrary to the way in which some cessationists have interpreted 1 Cor. 13:8). The Spirit distributed this charisma among first-century Christians according to his will (1 Cor. 12:11), as was the case with all other spiritual gifts, for the edification and encouragement of the body of Christ, or to use Paul’s terms, for the “common good” (1 Cor. 12:7). I have no reason to think that what the Spirit did then he would not, could not, or does not do now.Similar Posts:

• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: The Gift of Tongues Response – C Michael Patton
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: The Gift of Tongues – C Michael Patton
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: The Gift of Tongues Response – Sam Storms
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: My Story Response – Sam Storms
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 1)

Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged: Why I Am/Am Not Charismatic, Part 2
• Theology Unplugged: Why I Am/Am Not a Charismatic, Part 1
• Theology Unplugged: Why I Am/Not Charismatic, Part 4
• Theology Unplugged: Why I Am/Not Charismatic, Part 5
• Theology Unplugged: Why I Am/Not Charismatic, Part 6

Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged: Why I Am/Am Not Charismatic, Part 2
• Theology Unplugged: Why I Am/Not Charismatic, Part 4
• Theology Unplugged: Why I Am/Not Charismatic, Part 3
• Theology Unplugged: Why I Am/Not Charismatic, Part 5
• Theology Unplugged: Why I Am/Not Charismatic, Part 6

It is not long before this this topic comes when engaged in a conversation about continuationism vs. cessationism.   Some will insist that we still need miracles today.   One of the common misunderstandings that I have observed continuationists have concerning cessationists is the charge that cessationists believe that miracles are no longer needed.  While I do believe there are cessationists who don’t believe in the existence of miracles, most would deny this charge and be open to the possibility that God can do whatever he wants to win people to Himself.

I think the challenge with the perspective that miracles are needed and the fact that some don’t believe they are, is how a miracle is defined.  When some of my Pentacostal and Charismatic brothers and sisters utilize the term is compatible with the belief that the demonstration of signs and wonders as seen in Acts are to be expected such that they are needed to 1) believe the gospel and 2) demonstrate empowerment by the Holy Spirit.  But a miracle can be defined more broadly as something out of the ordinary.

Now the cessationist would say that the miracles demonstrated in Acts were done to demonstrate that the validity of the apostles testimony concerning Christ.  After all, the record of the Old Testament shows that when God did something new, previously unrevealed, He did so with miraculous events.  And God was doing a new thing by bringing both Jew and Gentile together as one body through the sacrificial death of His Son (Ephesians 2:13-16; 3:1-7) marked by the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9).  Jews considered themselves the privilege group and Greeks were accustomed to pagan worship and sought after knowledge.  Both groups needed to experience something out of the ordinary to know that what was being proclaimed through the apostles witness was real.  But once the New Testament church was implemented, the body of Christ grew and the message spread, there was less reliance on these types of miracles for validation.  This is especially true with a completed canon of scripture that indeed validates the testimony of Christ.

On the other hand, the non-cessationist would say there is no prescription for the miraculous ceasing and therefore we cannot “put God in a box”.  Another common support for expectation of the miraculous is Jesus declaration to the apostles that they will do “greater works” (John 14:12). Since Jesus performed extraordinary events, the apostles should do that also and by implication any disciple of Christ since that time.  God moved that way then and he should move that way now. To not do so might indicate an anemic church.

But I do believe this misses the point of what Jesus was saying.  The entirety of John’s gospel was to demonstrate who Jesus was – the Son of God, the Word made flesh who dwelt among men.  The miracles he did were to show why he was to be believed, which is supported by John 20:30-31 “these things were written so that you would believe”.  Therefore, everything he did was for the purpose of belief.   And that was the point all along – to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ.   The greater works were not necessarily the miracles that Jesus performed but that the message concerning him would spread in ways he could not do during His earthly ministry, especially after his resurrection and ascension to heaven.

So that leads back to the question of needing miracles today.  I say yes but not necessarily in the manner it occurred in the New Testament.  The church of the New Testament did not have access to what we have today nor was the message so prolific as it is.  If we insist on out of the ordinary occurrences to happen, then it implies what we have, what God has given us already is insufficient.  Moreover, it sets believers up to always expect something out of the ordinary to happen and conditions them for excitement.  It negates the quiet working of the Holy Spirit who moves on hardened hearts to motivate a response to the gospel and dismisses any lack of physical expressions as failure of the Holy Spirit’s work.  An over-reliance on physical expressions will possibly make faith rest with the occurrences rather than the Holy Spirit’s work in the life of people both to accept the gospel and to live it out.  And that was never the intention of the miraculous.

Now, I am not saying that miracles don’t happen or that God will not use them to reach someone.  But I do believe the out of ordinary events are not necessarily the events themselves but the impact of God’s work to bring somebody to Himself and sanctify them.  Sometimes that will take extraordinary events but more likely, it will not.  The incarnation of God the Son, his death, burial and resurrection, the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the intricately woven testimony of the prophets and apostles WAS the event that sets precedent for God’s working throughout salvation history.   That IS the miracle that is needed to believe and live out faith, as 2 Peter 1:3 indicates…”His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness.”  Everything else is just gravy.

 Similar Posts:

• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts
• Does the Holy Spirit Interpret the Bible?
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 6): Excursus: It's Not About Miracles!
• The Gospel is Not Just for Beginners
• If God Has Stopped Speaking Then Why Do I Still Hear Him?

It has been five years since my ‘conversion’ from being a somewhat radical charismatic to embrace a soft-cessationist position…I think.  The reason I say put that qualifier on there is because I have had to wrestle through not only some doctrinal dilemmas concerning the cessation of gifts, but also some more pragmatic concerns – that of experience.  That is not to say experience is the qualifier to determine what is or is not a legitimate spiritual expression, but it does challenge some cessationist positions or rather some allegations concerning cessationism.

Most notably, it is the idea that cessationism means that God has stopped speaking.  This has been a common statement I have heard, most often in the form of a question, as noted by the title of this post. The statement presumes that cessationism means God has stopped speaking, except through scripture.  This is a position that hard cessationists take, but not all.

However,  I have come to conclude that this question misses what cessationism espouses vs. how God communicates today.  Let me explain.  The premise of cessationism is that revelation is complete.  We see that God has revealed himself progressively through scripture and ultimately through his Son.

“God after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.  And He is the radiance of His glory and exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of his power.  When He made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high…” (Hebrews 1:1-3).

Here, God speaking and his revelation are inextricably  linked, so that his final expression is found in Christ, who reveals God.  The significance of the apostolic witness is related to the testimony of Christ as the ultimate revelation of God.  Since the testimony of Christ is transmitted through the apostolic witness, the apostles teaching provide the same authority as the word of the Lord, which would ultimately become scripture.  Thus, since God has already spoken in His Son, and Christ’s work is complete, this presumes that God has nothing further to say.  While the continuation of all spiritual gifts is not the topic of this post, I do believe that certain gifts were to authenticate the apostolic message during the apostolic age.  This is why scripture does not indicate that certain gifts have ceased because the apostles were still alive when the letters were penned. But let’s not go there.

So does this mean that God has stopped speaking? Yes…and no.  If his speaking is related to His revelation, then yes, He has stopped speaking.  He has already revealed Himself, Christ has accomplished the Father’s will and has established the faith once for all (Jude 3).  The authoritative witness of scripture is the final authority concerning what God has wished to reveal concerning Himself, including apostolic instruction for the body of Christ.  So cessationism negates schools of thought that proclaim new revelations from God concerning Himself.

However, I don’t think it means there is nothing further to say related to what that means for us.  This is where I believe the ministry of the Holy Spirit plays a vital role, submitted to the complete canon of scripture as the final authority of faith and practice.  Now while I do believe that John 14:25-26 is directed exclusively to the apostles as eyewitnesses, the fact that the same Spirit indwells every believer suggests that the Holy Spirit informs our consciousness concerning the completed revelation and what the Father wishes concerning specifics in our lives that scripture does not speak to.   In other words, God still speaks through his Spirit concerning His desires, both individually and corporately.

In fact, I have heard a number of preachers, who I know hold to a cessationist position, indicate that in prayer we should listen to God.  Now, I have become increasingly persuaded that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit bears upon our conscience that affects the immaterial part of us that comprises our volitional will, thoughts, and emotions.   So a conscience that is influenced by the Holy Spirit will produce thoughts that speak to the will of God.  Is it any wonder why Paul says in Romans 12:2 that we are transformed by the renewing of our mind to prove what the will of God is?  Or in Romans 8:26 that the Spirit plays a role in identifying what we should prayer for when we don’t have a clue?  So listening involves hearing, but the “small still voice” most likely it is our own voice that is being directed by the Holy Spirit.  But that means God is still speaking.

Of course, this raises the question of words, thoughts or impressions that we get concerning others.  Is this prophecy?  I would say that it depends on how you define prophecy.  The “word of the Lord” as described in the Bible is related to revelation.  So if someone indicates they have a word from God, it can easily be confused with a presumed revelation.   For this reason, I cringe when I hear someone say they have a word from God.  It is the same with identifying one as a prophet.  Ephesians 2:20 indicate that apostles and prophets provide the foundation for the church with Christ being the chief cornerstone.  There are a few different interpretations, but the one I stick with is that these are New Testament prophets who are authenticating the apostolic message.  There is more I can say about prophecy and might do a follow up post specifically addressing that issue.

But on the other hand, the ministry of the Holy Spirit can direct our thoughts to vocalize what the Spirit is bearing witness to related to others or a particular situation.  I think it would be quite dishonest of me to suggest this means that God has stopped speaking, when in fact He is through the Holy Spirit. A show of hands of all who have expressed something through discernment concerning people or a situation OR who have been the recipient of such words.  How can anyone deny that God is communicating in this instance?

So that is where I am 5 years later and obviously still wrestling with some finer points of cessationism vs. continuationism.   In fact, I have said on many occasions that I went from being a crazy charismatic to a crusty cessationist and now live in a place called Tension Similar Posts:

• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 5): An Argument from History
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: What Does it Mean to Be Charismatic? Response – C Michael Patton
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic – What to Expect
• Full Gospel Christianity?: A Theology of More II

A while ago, I addressed in A Theology of More a mentality that has a continual quest for greater external manifestations that demonstrates that God is active in the lives of his people, both individually and corporately.  The quest is usually part and parcel of alignment with  Charismatic/Pentecostal theology and the belief that people today should experience the full continuation of gifts, miracles, signs and wonders, etc. similar to what was experienced when the church was first implemented.  I myself,  spent a number of years as a Charismatic.  That means I was a full blown adherent of the continuation of spiritual gifts, believed in the 2nd work of grace known as the baptism in the Spirit and was fully committed to the language used to express what I believed the Charismatic movement offered in terms of reasonable expectation for Christian life, worship and service.

Since that time, I have reverted my position, not because of experience or personal reasons.  But because I began to consider how the book of Acts was read in context of God’s redemptive program outlined in scripture.  It was also because I began to consider the purpose of the gifts in relation to the exaltation of Christ and the edification of the church.  Most significantly, it was because I began to consider how certain gifts were endemic to the foundation that was being laid with the implementation of the church (Ephesians 2:20; 1 Corinthians 3:10), specifically through the apostolic witness to the revelation of Christ (John 14:26; John 16:13-15; Acts 1:2-8; Hebrews 1:1-3)

Hopefully, I will be writing more about this in a separate post, specifically with respect to the foundation and authority of the apostles.  But for the purposes of this post, I would like my Charismatic friends to understand that there are good and valid reasons that cessationists hold to the position that some gifts were revelatory in nature and foundational to the establishment of the church.  But cessationists believe they are not needed today since the revelation of Christ is complete and transmitted through the apostolic witness which is inscribed with the completed canon.   The signs and wonders as described in Acts are associated with this apostolic witness.  Some believe that the gifts that were revelatory in nature are permanently extinguished while others, including myself,  believe that such gifts are not needed with the completed canon but can be continued in places where Bibles are absent. Cessationists are not putting God in a box, only recognizing the box that is believed God himself created.  Cessationists do not negate the living and active role of the Holy Spirit who indwells every believer and who commands to fill every believer such that His control and influence is experienced.  Nor do most negate the existence of miracles and healing.  I know I certainly don’t and can’t given contemporary evidence, especially in remote parts of the world.

However, the point of this post is not to discuss distinctions in cessationism vs. continuationism, nor to argue about which position is right.  Much ink has been spilled in Michael’s comprehensive series here. My friends over at To Be Continued write extensively on this topic and have addressed some of there concerns with his position.   While I am no longer aligned with the Charismatic/Pentecostal theology I once embraced, I do seek to find common ground and focus on things shared in common.    In fact, I have backed away from challenging the continuatist position by recognizing that if one is edified and experiences Christian growth through the use of some things I do not consider essential for the church today, then who am I to quibble.

However, I would like to address an attitude that comes with the belief that Charismatic expressions must be part of the fabric of the church and that anything less is not sufficient.  It is the idea that  the ones who are aligned with this movement somehow have something more than those who do not.  Those who don’t are missing it out on something. Now, I don’t think it is intentional nor can I make a general accusation of uncharitable or prideful motives or actions in relation to adherence to full blown Charismatic expressions.  I don’t think that my Charismatic and Pentecostal brothers and sisters seek to create a two-tiered system in which they have something more than what non-Charismatics have.

But the by-product of this theology can create such a mentality.  I have not only witnessed the attitude, but once embraced it myself.  I also think that certain language that is used only fosters this divide.  I have noticed both while I was involved and having stepped away, is that beliefs are ensconced in language that I believe creates an air of division and a tiered system of Christianity that can elevate those aligned with Charismatic/Pentecostal belief and practices over non-Charismatics.

One such term that I increasingly find problematic and fosters the two-tiered Christianity is “full-gospel”. The term has come to be used of as an adjective for alignment with Charismatic/Pentecostal beliefs.  The implications of the term is that those who don’t embrace the full continuation of gifts today have only part of the gospel.  Again, I am not saying that is the accusation but it certainly is the inference.  I recall when I was seriously considering seminary and initially was looking into Gordon-Conwell in Boston and Fuller in CA.  I had run into a couple who were at one time mentors to my former pastor from the last Charismatic church I was involved in.  They discouraged Gordon-Conwell and indicated Fuller was the better way to go since it was “full gospel” and Gordon-Conwell was not.  The implications were that Gordon-Conwell was insufficient.  I can only imagine what must be thought of me being at DTS.  Perhaps it might be considered woefully inadequate, and yet it was the only program I found that provided a solid instruction in all 66 books of the Bible, which are required for every student.

Another term that I have found gets tossed around a bit is “spirit-filled church”.  Similar to “full gospel” it references a church that embraces the Charismatic expression of gifts.  So in other words, the spirit-filled church is one where there might be a demonstration of tongues and interpretation or prophecies given or other Charismatic expressions.  The implication of this terminology, is that corporate gatherings are spirit-filled if they embrace these expressions.  Otherwise, the inference is that congregations where this does not occur is not spirit-filled and again casts a divide between those that have more and those that are insufficient.

Unfortunately, I think the terminology does a disservice to the Biblical evidence of what constitutes a spirit-filled congregation.  All believers are indwelt by the Spirit, given spiritual gifts and if walking according to the Spirit, should yield the fruit of the Spirit.  The point of corporate gatherings is for members to worship, to learn, to grow and to serve.  If believers are gathered together, serving this function and building each other up in love, then I would suggest that is what constitutes a spirit-filled church.  Michael Svigel, DTS professor and author, did an excellent piece on this topic here. The bottom line is just because a congregation embraces the continued use of all gifts, does not necessarily make a spirit-filled church nor does not embracing the continued use of all gifts make a congregation any less spirit-filled.

A common rebuttal that I have heard in reference to the more of Charismatic beliefs is that if the church is meant to have full use of gifts today, and if some of the gifts are not practiced, then doesn’t that mean a congregation is experiencing less than what they should?  By inference that means the ones who do embrace all gifts, experience more.  Again, I hope to address some specifics of cessationism in a separate post.  But I do not believe that is the case, especially since what is sufficient has been provided, as noted in the previous Theology of More post – the sufficiency of Christ, the sufficiency of the Spirit and the sufficiency of the Word.  It is up to the leadership to foster growth and discipleship and every believer in the Christian community based on what has already been provided.

Moreover, I don’t think that the full exercise of gifts necessarily provides something more.  Based on personal experience as one who has spent much time within the Charismatic movement, I have witnessed countless so-called tongues and interpretations and numerous prophecies.  In general, these were not bad experiences.  In fact they were good and most were delivered in a very orderly fashion. But to be honest, what was delivered could have been easily addressed through a powerful sermon or individual exhortation.  In fact, I have been more edified through good expository preaching of scripture than through my previous experience.  Moreover, I believe these expressions can create confusion since the validity of truthfulness must be discerned as to what is legitimately from the Lord.  Whereas, there is no question regarding the preaching of scripture, interpreted appropriate to God’s revelation.  Now I am not saying there is no edification to be found if one gives a tongue and interpretation or a prophecy in a corporate gathering.  But what I am saying is that based on what has been provided to the church, the ones who don’t embrace Charismatic expression of gifts are no less instructed, no less edified and no less spiritual than those who do.

I recognize that the tensions of cessationism vs. continuationism will probably be around until Christ returns.  There are those who believe that all gifts are for today.  There are those who believe they aren’t.  And there are a number in between.  But my plea with this post is for all who trust in Christ as savior to recognize that everyone has been given what is necessary for growth and service (2 Peter 1:3; 2 Timothy 3:17).  Continuationists do not have something more nor are cessationists missing out on what they need.Similar Posts:

• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: What Does it Mean to Be Charismatic? Response – C Michael Patton
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 6): Excursus: It's Not About Miracles!
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 5): An Argument from History
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 1)
• If God Has Stopped Speaking Then Why Do I Still Hear Him?

Download PDF E-Book

I used to walk through Christian book stores and choose my books based on whether or not the author was a charismatic. I would pick up a commentary and turn immediately to 1 Cor. 12 (the section on spiritual gifts). If the author believed that the spiritual gifts were for today, I would put it back on the shelf in disbelief that the store would carry such misleading material. If they did not believe that the gifts were for today—if the author was a “cessationist”—I would consider purchasing the book.

Such was the time when I believed that all those who believed that all charismatics were practicing a different Christianity, at best, or demon possessed, at worst.

I am not a charismatic, and I have my reasons, but I do not feel the same way today as I used to. Let me first define the terms and set up the field of play.

The word “charismatic” can be used in many ways. It is taken from the word “charisma.” Websters Dictionary defines it as “a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (as a political leader).” Many would say that Barack Obama has charisma in such a way. Charisma is taken from the Greek charisma which means “gift.” Its root, charis, means “grace.”

In Christianity, “charismatic” refers to those who believe that certain “spiritual gifts” such as tongues, prophecy, and gifts of healings, are normative for the church. In the Scriptures, we are told that God gives certain gifts to everyone in the body of Christ. Representative gift lists are mentioned in 1 Cor. 12, Rom. 12, 1 Pet. 4, and Eph. 4. Some of these gifts seem to be natural extensions of the recipients personality (leadership, teaching, encouragement) while others distinguish themselves by their extra-ordinary nature. A charismatic is one who believes that God still gifts people in the church with the extra-ordinary or supernatural gifts and that these gifts are normative in the body of Christ for the extension of God’s message, glory, and grace.

Charismatic is not a denomination, but a trans-denominational theological stance or tradition which can find representation in any denomination or tradition, including Evangelicalism. In fact, I think that the charismatic position (or some variation thereof) is the fastest growing tradition within Evangelicalism. 

A cessationist (taken from “cease”), one the other hand, is one who believes that the extra-ordinary gifts ceased in the first century, either at the completion of the New Testament or at the death of the last Apostle. Cessationists believe that the supernatural gifts such as tongues, prophecy, and healings were “sign gifts” that were given for the establishment of the church and then passed away due to a fulfillment of their purpose. They served as a supernatural “sign” from God that the Gospel message being proclaimed was unique and authoritative. Since the Gospel message has been proclaimed and established in the New Testament, cessationists believe that these type of gifts ceased due to an exhaustion of purpose. Therefore, with regards to the “gifts of the Spirit,” there are “permanent gifts” and there are “temporary gifts.”

What would a post be without a chart?

Click to enlarge

You will notice that certain “sign gifts” are revelatory while others are confirmatory. The revelatory gifts are those that reveal God’s message in some way. They are prophetic in nature. Not everyone would agree which gifts belong in this category. Some would not place “word of wisdom” or “word of knowledge” here and one’s placement of tongues will depend on how it is defined (prayer language? prophetic revelation in another language? Gospel proclamation in another language?). Either way, the catergory describes those gifts which involve a supernatural revelation from God. The “confirmatory gifts” are those which confirm or provide evidence for the revelatory gifts. In other words, someone cannot just claim to be speaking prophetically on behalf of God. Their message must be confirmed by some undeniable act of extraordinary power. Otherwise, anyone could claim to speak on behalf of God.

Of course the gift of healings have a benevolent purpose as the benefits of such gifts effect people in a wonderful way, but, according to most cessationists (and even some charismatics), the result that a person is healed is the secondary purpose. The primary purpose is the legitimize the message of the healer.

A very important points need to be made. (If you don’t get this, don’t ever bother engaging in this conversation.) Whether one is a charismatic or a cessationist, all Christians believe in God’s supernatural intervention. Only a deist would claim that God has a “hand-off” approach to history and our lives. It is not that the cessationist does not believe in healings or miracles, it is that they don’t believe in the gifts of healing, miracles, etc. being given to a certain people. Both charismatics and cessationists (should) pray for God’s supernatural intervention, can believe in stories of healings, and can expect God to direct their lives through some sort of divine guidance. In other words, just because someone prayed for healing and believes it happended, this does not make one a charismatic (properly speaking).

However, there does seem to be a higher level of expectation for divine intervention among charismatics than from cessationists. I am not saying whether this is good or bad. Expectation of the power of God can both motivate a Christian’s life or be a cause for great disillusionment. More on that later.

I will continue by giving some arguments for the Charismatic position and then we will see where this series goes.

Part 2

In the last post I breifly described what it means to be Charismatic in the theological sense of the word. In essence, it does not necessarily have to do with a belief in God’s intervention in history or his willingness or power to perform modern day miracles, but, properly speaking, it has to do with a particular belief often called “continuationism.” As apposed to “cessationism” the “continuationist” believes that the so-called supernatural sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, and healings (among others) are still active gifts of the Spirit given to people today. The church, according to continuationists should seek, expect, and promote the use of such gifts. All Charismatics are continuationists and all continuationists, properly speaking, are charismatics (even if you must use a small “c”).

Now I want to give a short defense of the Charismatic/continuationist position. Please understand these represent what I personally believe to be the strongest arguments, biblically, theologically, and practically, for the position, but this does not represent an exhaustive list of the arguments.

1. Acts chapter 2 seems to suggest that the gifts of the Spirit (particularly prophecy) would be normative for the church.

Notice especially 14-21 where Peter is explaining to the many Jews gathered to see why these people were speaking in tongues.

“Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. 15 For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: 17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 20 the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. 21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’”

Peter is obviously arguing that the events that they are witnessing are evidence of the “last days” prophesied by Joel. Peter believes that the powers being displayed are evidence that the “last days” had begun. Including in these last days events are great miracles. But most importantly, Peter believes that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit during these days results in specific events: “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” These last days events do not indicate a certain duration or cessation. In fact, it would seem that they will last until the “day of the Lord.” Therefore, it would seem that Peter believes that the giving of such gifts is a perpetual norm of the last days.

2. The entire book of Acts seems to show that the supernatural gifts are common within the Church.

While I don’t believe that this is as strong as the last (for it is very difficult to build too much theology from narrative), it would seem that the entire book of Acts—a book devoted to the birth and growth of the Church—illustrates that these type of gifts are normative for the life of the church.

3. All of Scripture supports the idea that it is God’s nature to work in supernatural ways.

If one were to examine all of Scripture, it would seem that, generally speaking, with exceptions here and there, God speaks to his people in supernatural ways. Therefore, the supernatural gifts of the Spirit are evidence of a continuation of God’s presence within the Church serving as a means of comfort, power, and extension (foreshadowing?) of the Kingdom.

As Jack Deere says,

“If you were to lock a brand-new Christian in a room with a Bible and tell him to study what Scripture has to say about healings and miracles, he would never come out of the room a cessationist” (Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit [Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan, 1997], 54).

4.  The New Testament never explicitly states that the supernatural sign gifts would cease.

While this is an argument from silence, it is important to note that the New Testament does not explicitly say that any of the gifts would ever come to an end. In fact, it would seem that the assumption of many New Testament leaders, including Paul, that the “sign gifts” would continue until Christ comes. We have already noted Peter’s testimony above, but also notice what Paul has to say in 1 Cor. 13:

“Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

Ironically, many cessationists (including myself at one time), have used this passage to defend a belief in the cessation of the gifts. But, in reality, it speaks better for the continuationist’s position.

Yes it does say that “tongues will cease” and that prophecy would “pass away,” but notice when Paul believes in the cessation of such will commence: “When the perfect comes.” The question becomes What is “the perfect.” Some cessationists have argued that the “perfect” is the completion of the Scriptures—the perfect revelation. The idea is that once the Scriptures have been completed, there is no longer a need for gifts such as prophecy, tongues, or any other prophetic gift. Hence, there is no longer a need for confirmatory gifts such as healings and miracles since their purpose was to authenticate the message of the speaker.

But contextually it is highly unlikely that “the perfect” is the completion of the Scripture. The context suggests that “the perfect” is the second coming of Christ—the day of the Lord. If this is the case, this passage advocates at least some form of continuationism. Notice the parallelism:

“Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.

Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

I have highlighted here using formatted text to illustrate how the text seems to function.  Notice that the passing away of tongues and prophecy parallels seeing “face to face” and being “fully known.” It would seem that the best understanding of being “fully known” and seeing “face to face” is not the completion of the New Testament, but the second coming of Christ, for when else will we see “face to face” in Paul’s theology? Paul is looking to the eschaton, believing that all gifts are temporary, but their cessation does not come until Christ comes.

5. Personal Experience

Finally, probably the most powerful testimony to the continuation of the so-called supernatural sign gifts is that of personal experience. If someone has seen or experienced such gifts in their lives, it is very difficult to argue against them. While experience should not be determinative, it would seem that with the lack of conclusive biblical evidence that such gifts have ceased, the believer has a legitimate argument that if they have experienced the gifts they, de facto, have not ceased.

What arguments to you find to be the most persuasive?

Charismatics/continuationists: do you have anything to add?

I know that this blog is titled “Why I am Not Charismatic.” I will soon get to this, but I want to do the best I can to give you a balanced understanding of the issue so that we can all work through this important (and often divisive) issue with great integrity.

Part 3

Having discussed some of the strengths of the continuationist/charismatic position, I would now like to explain why, at this point in my life, I am not a charismatic. I am going to put these in order, but I want to stress the tentativeness of my conclusion. In this, I am not necessarily offering what I believe to be strong arguments against continuationism, but only those arguments that are subjectively persuasive to me. I hope that these arguments genuinely express my position without the normal combative tone communicating “This is what I think everyone should be!”

1. I have never had a genuine charismatic experience.

Considering the relative weakness of any biblical defense against a strong cessationist position, I am very open, biblically and theologically, to continuationism. I used to have an emotional bias against all things charismatic, but I have not had such in years. In fact, I have come to respect and be intrigued with the position due to the scholarship and balance that I find in many contemporary charismatic leaders. However, I have never witnessed anything that I believe to be persuasive evidence that the supernatural sign gifts are normative or even active in the church today. This does not mean that I have not witnessed what I believe to be are miracles (I have seen one or two) or God’s intervention and guidance, but I have never witnessed anything that would lead me to believe that someone has, as their gift to the body of Christ, any of the particular gifts—workers of miracles, healings, prophecy, or the like—that I mentioned in my first installment in this series.

Of course I have heard people give prophecies. During my undergraduate, a little over ten years ago, we had a “prophet” come to our school (it was a third wave school) and lay their hands on everyone during the chapel service giving them personal words of prophecy. But it was hard to tell the difference in this and a session of palm reading. The words were so general, a sort of “catch-all”, that they could have been applied to anyone. “You have been through much pain lately . . . God knows.” “You are confused about a decision you are up against . . . God says, ‘go with your heart.’” “Be kind to her.”  Yes, people were listening with tears running down their face, but I could not adjust my skepticism and allow for such a breach of conscious. I though—and still think today—anyone can do this.

If a person is a prophet, they much show some type of undeniable sign. Would God really expect less for the surrendering of my mind? I would say and still will say to anyone who says that they are a prophet or have the gift of prophecy, “Why should I listen to you? What evidence do you bring that you are from the Lord?” Look at the examples of those who carried the Lord’s message in the past. Look at Moses, Elijah, Peter, and Paul. The dead were raised, lame walked, and shadows healed. I have never witnessed anyone who spoke on behalf of the Lord—the definition of prophecy—and accompanied such with these type of miracles.

Why would God withhold such attesting signs? Don’t say that people are just supposed to believe if they are of the faith. That is completely irresponsible and will lead to a path of destruction, filled with bitterness and disillusionment. When Moses said that the people will not believe him when he says that he comes with a message from the Lord, he was right. Not only this, but the people were right not to believe him. God did not rebuke such a statement saying “If the people have faith—true faith—they will just believe without any evidence at all. Notice the account (my comments are in brackets):

Exodus 4:1-9
“Then Moses said, “What if they will not believe me or listen to what I say? [A great and understandable question] For they may say, ‘The LORD has not appeared to you.’” [That is what I would say to anyone who speaks vainly (with empty proclamation) on behalf of the Lord] 2 The LORD said to him, “What is that in your hand?” [Notice the lack of rebuke from the Lord. God does not want use to blindly believe others when they say they speak on His behalf] And he said, “A staff.”  3 Then He said, “Throw it on the ground.” So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it.  4 But the LORD said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand and grasp it by its tail “– so he stretched out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand–  5 “that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.” [Can anyone perform such a miracle without having access to the divine?]  6 The LORD furthermore said to him, [God give yet another sign without solicitation] “Now put your hand into your bosom.” So he put his hand into his bosom, and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous like snow.  7 Then He said, “Put your hand into your bosom again.” So he put his hand into his bosom again, and when he took it out of his bosom, behold, it was restored like the rest of his flesh. [Now we have a healing miracle that was used, not for the benefit of Moses (for God had to give him the disease first) but as an attestation to the prophetic message of Moses. This would further serve to establish Moses' prophetic gift.]   8 “If they will not believe you or heed the witness of the first sign, they may believe the witness of the last sign. [Yet a third sign, unsolicited by Moses but provided by God due to the seriousness of Moses' bold prophetic proclamation and the protection of the minds' of the people]  9 “But if they will not believe even these two signs or heed what you say, then you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground; and the water which you take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground.”

Moral of this story: If someone claims to speak on behalf of God—if someone claims to have a prophetic gift—you have every right and obligation to demand an attesting sign. As well, if you think you are a prophet—if you sincerely believe that God has called you to such a ministry—you need to tell God that you cannot do so without such a sign. If one is not granted to you, then I would be highly suspicious that you are speaking of your own imagination. I would suggest that you adjust your theology to take God’s word more seriously otherwise your supposed prophetic gift may be causing you to perpetually take the Lord’s name in vain. No small matter.

Least you think I am being overly skeptical, listen to the rebuke of the prophets in Jeremiah’s day:

Jeremiah 23:14-18

“Also among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing: The committing of adultery and walking in falsehood; And they strengthen the hands of evildoers, So that no one has turned back from his wickedness. All of them have become to Me like Sodom, And her inhabitants like Gomorrah.  15 “Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts concerning the prophets, ‘Behold, I am going to feed them wormwood And make them drink poisonous water, For from the prophets of Jerusalem Pollution has gone forth into all the land.’”  16 Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the LORD.  17 “They keep saying to those who despise Me, ‘The LORD has said, “You will have peace “‘; And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart, They say, ‘Calamity will not come upon you.’  18 “But who has stood in the council of the LORD, That he should see and hear His word? Who has given heed to His word and listened?

Prophets of today: Have your really stood in the council of the Lord? Live in fear of such a question.

I have never seen a modern day prophet whose words were backed up by anything substantial. I have never heard of one. All I have seen are multiple vain (empty) proclamations. I am sorry to come across so harsh in this matter, but its seriousness is far beyond comparison. Any misapplication, misunderstanding, or misassociation can destroy people’s lives and their faith (from a human perspective). I have seen it too many times to number.

I am not saying that there are not those out there who are different—who really speak on behalf of the Lord and back it up. I am just saying that in my experience this has never happened. I am perfectly open to it, but I have never seen it. Therefore, I am a practical cessationist when it comes to prophecy.

The same can be said about the gift of healings. While I believe that God can and does heal people today, I have never, in my experience, come across someone with the spiritual gift of healing. I am beyond open to it. I call for it. I cry for it. I plead with God to send someone to my mother. But it does not happen. If a group of people pray and God heals someone, this is not evidence for continuationism. Evidence for continuationism would come if someone—some individual—has this gift. If you have this gift, please call me.

If you say, “Its not like that. God simply uses me sometimes to heal. I never know when he is going to and when he will deny such a request.” I would say that we are simply talking past each other. In my estimation, you do not have the gift of healing. You, like everyone else, simply have the ability to pray for healing, leaving the answer in the hands of God.

Part 4
Excursus

This is a sort excursus or interlude to my series that I think is a valuable part of the discussion. It comes from a friend who responded to my post on prophecy. Please read carefully as I believe his testimony, while you may or may not agree with it, is representative of many disillusioned continuationists/charismatics. Nathan was very passionate yet respectful in this post. I pray that you would show the same maturity in your responses.

Thanks Nathan for letting me post this.

“I’ve held back from posting my comments thus far. But Michael has provoked me to say something. I will try to focus on the current context of this post. At this point in the series, Michael is focused on healing and prophecy, so I will focus on prophecy for now.

My experience with the gift of prophecy, healing and tongues is 20 years in the making. Grew up around the gifts. Prophecy was a dime a dozen. It was everywhere.

Now, as I look back like a PI and investigate my experiences, I consider all the prophecies that are burned into my head. And, lo and behold, not one came true. Really? Yes, really. And its not like I didn’t like prophecy, for many years I hoped against hope that it was really God speaking through these folks. But, if evidence means anything, these folks were not prophesying on behalf of God. They couldn’t have been. Most of the prophecies were tethered to real events or something coming soon. Later on the prophecies became very generic and more praise than anything. I imagine the people could have just as well given the praise without the prophecy, since that was all that really happened.

So, what to make of this? I am convinced that prophecy is absolutely not the norm. I’ve got at least 100 people I can think of right now who gave prophecies that never happened. Some of these people were good brothers and sisters in the faith, some were suspect of even being born-again.
If there is any hard evidence that prophecy is normative, or even somewhat happening, I would say it ain’t happening.

So, did some other church get it right? Just not the 10-15 different church’s I attended growing up and into adulthood?

There is so much I struggled through to get to this point. Sometimes I wonder why God let me go through all this. Was it pointless? Was there any meaning? Could God use those people? Yes, and he probably did use them despite their ignorance. But then again, I believe God works through everything that happens, even our sin. But that is for another time.

Now, if you think I said this out of disgust or that I have some bias because someone wronged me, then you are mistaken. I held to the gift of prophecy as long as the Lord allowed me to. Then I was left with no other choice but to abandon this gift. I have seen so many people’s lives poisoned with false hope, including mine, because we wanted to trust God. But God didn’t come through. At least that is what I could have believed.

No, I knew God was good, but something was wrong. The people. They were wrong. I believe they were sincere, but they were still sincerely wrong. God help them. The gift of prophecy wrecked my life many times with false hopes and dreams. God can do whatever he wants, he is awesome. People unforntunately suck. And we have to be able to use our head and discern any and everything. Else, bad stuff will happen. As if it doesn’t happen enough already. No need to try and complicate our lives with lies.

If you have the gift of prophecy and it is working for you and you have evidence to back it up, please contact me. I would love to be proven wrong. I am serious as a heart attack. I’d rather prophecy be happening rather than not. But please, I can’t tolerate false prophecies since they are dangerously toxic to our lives. By the way, God is still awesome and he is my closest friend and he has become a father to me. I trust him with all my soul and mind. He has proven to me that I can always trust him. But he has also allowed me to see our depravity and our tendency to fall into error.

I’m done. I went overboard, it think. I love everyone of brothers and sisters in Christ. Lord, sanctify us in truth, your word is truth.”

Part 5
An Argument from History

I have thus far discussed what it means to be charismatic equating a charismatic with one who adheres to a continuationist view of the “supernatural sign gifts.” In other words, a charismatic is one who believes that gifts such as prophecy (speaking on behalf of God), working of miracles, healing, tongues, and, if you so define them, word of wisdom and word of knowledge are normative for the church today and that we should expect people in the church to possess and practice them.

I have said that I don’t believe that there is any compelling biblical evidence to say that the gifts have ceased in any dogmatic way. I have also said that one of the primary reasons why I am not charismatic is because I have never experienced such gifts in a way that would compel me to believe that these gifts, as they are expressed today, are legitimate. I am not saying that I know that there are not legitimate expressions of these gifts out there, I am just saying that I have not experienced such. I have to be responsible and discerning with my mind before God. Therefore, my life is experiencially wanting in this area. I have every desire to believe that God is working through people in such a way, giving these gifts, but I am charismatically dry.

I now have to turn to the evidence of history. Our faith is nothing new. It is one which finds its roots in two thousand years of a legacy of saints that have gone before us. The expressions of our faith should find analogous representation in body of Christ, both living and dead. If those who have gone before us do not share our faith, then we have a responsibility to question the legitimacy of our beliefs.

From my studies, I do not find the practice of the supernatural sign gifts being in any way normative before the twentieth century. In other words, it does not seem that the historic church was charismatic in the way I have described above. In fact, I would describe them as de facto cessationists. What I mean by this is that they were cessationists out of necessity, not out of theological compulsion. They, like me, had simply not experienced the supernatural sign gifts. Again, this is not the same thing as saying that they had not experienced the miraculous or God’s hand of intervention (beliefs that all Christians share), but that they did not believe that individuals possessed the supernatural sign gifts.

Notice what John Chrysostom (347-407), the great Antiochean exegete, says when he comes to 1 Cor. 12 about spiritual gifts.

“This whole place is very obscure . . . but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur, but now no longer take place.” (ECF 2.12.1.1.29.0)

Chrysostom is “ignorant” of the facts because of his experience of their “cessation.” He is not living in the time of a charismatic controversy, he is just stating the way things were in his day, just a few centuries after the last Apostle died. He is a de facto cessationist. If the gifts were still being practiced in his day, the implication is that he would have been able to explain to his listeners what these gifts were. But since they had ceased, he does not know how to explain this passage.

The same can be said of the great St. Augustine (354-430). Notice what he says when it comes to the gift of tongues.

“In the earliest time the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spoke with tongues which they had not learned ‘as the Spirit gave them utterance.’ These were signs adapted to the time. For it was proper for the Holy Spirit to evidence Himself in all tongues, and to show that the Gospel of God had come to all tongues [languages] over the whole earth. The thing was done for an authentication and it passed away.” (Ten Homilies on the first Epistle of John VI, 10).

Augustine limits the practice of the charismaton (particularly tongues) to the “earliest time.” Augustine believed that these were “signs adapted to the time.” The adaptation has to do with the necessity of authenticating the Gospel message. While Augustine gives more of a theological explanation for their supposed passing, he still seems to be a de facto cessationist. If you were to ask Augustine “How do you know these gifts ‘passed away,’” my guess is that he would simply say “Because they passed away. Because no one has them anymore!”

This early church de facto cessationism is not unlike the canon of Scripture. Why has the canon “closed”? Because God stopped inspiring writers to add to it. It is that simple. It is a de facto closing. Sure, some could provide a theological explanation as to why the canon closed (i.e. the fullness of time, the finality of Christ’s revelation, the completion of soteriological history, etc.), but the fact is the reason why people believe that the canon had closed was because it had closed. No inspired verified prophet or apostle was adding to it.

This de facto cessationism continues through the middle ages and the Reformation. Outside of fringe groups and cults, cessationism was the orthodox position of the historic Christian church.

Again (and I have to repeat this because someone is going to misapply what I am saying), this is not to say that people believed that God was silent during this period or that he did not intervene or work in miraculous ways. This was the biggest and most glaring weakness in Jack Deere’s Suprised by the Power of the Spirit when he deals with this historic argument. He equates evidence that the historic church believed in the miraculous with evidence that they were continuationists. You can’t equate the two without misrepresenting what is at stake. The historic Christian church has believed in the miraculous, they have not believed in the continuation of the supernatural sign gifts, by and large.

Having said this, the historic argument must be tempered according to its relative strengths. What I mean by this is that just because the historic Christian church did not believe in the continuation of the supernatural sign gifts, this does not prove their cessation in our current day. Again, it is a de facto argument. It is very possible that God simply did not give these gifts during this time (or at least he gave them sparingly) and in our present day has poured out this power once again. This would be a de facto argument that the gifts have continued or been revived for God’s purposes today. I am certainly open to this. I am a futurist with regard to most of the book of Revelation, therefore, I believe that there will be at least two people with the gift of prophecy in the future! Does that make me a continuationist? I guess to some degree it does.

In the end, the de facto cessationism of the historic Christian church is something that must be brought to the table of this discussion and something that we must be extremely considerate of.

Part 6
Excursus: It’s Not About Miracles

Regrettably, I must pause and submit another excursus. While it might seem to some to be a frustrated reaction having to reiterate an important issue, I am actually glad to have to do so since the issue of this post is so central to my argument. (So scratch my initial “regrettably”!)

Just about every objection that I have seen so far has been something I have belabored with blood, sweat, and tears to say is not the issue. Many have objected to my arguments about why I am not charismatic, especially those arguments from church history, citing all the miracles that have taken place. Their argument is that if there are truly so many miracles throughout church history, the one who says that the supernatural sign gifts have ceased—the cessationist—are in error.

This is really misunderstanding both my argument and, I believe, the issue at stake. It is not about whether miracles take place! It is not about whether you believe in miracles. It is not about whether you have experienced a miracle or heard of someone who has! We all believe in miracles! Continuationists and cessationists do. Quoting the church fathers who say that there were miracles in their day is something both charismatics and non-charismatics can accept. It does not add to the discussion.

Again, let’s be clear. According to how I am defining the issues (which I believe are correct) . . .

A continuationist/charismatic is one who believes that the so-called supernatural sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, worker of miracles, etc. are normative for the church and that we should commonly expect people to be gifted with them.

A cessationist is one who believes that the supernatural sign gifts ceased after the death of the last Apostle or shortly thereafter due to an exhaustion in their purpose. Therefore, we should not expect such gifts in the church today.

My contention in the previous post was that the history of the Church has not been charismatic in the way defined above. If the modern charismatic movement is legitimate, I believe the charismatic must make the argument that it is a modern day phenomenon.

Folks, we all believe in miracles to varying degrees. If you don’t then you have departed from the historic Christian worldview and slipped into some variation thereof (something of the deist sort).

Even most cessationists believe that God <i>could</i> gift anyone with the gift of tongues or prophecy at his will.

A charismatic, however, believes that these are normative and that we should expect them. Did you get those two important words? Normative. Expect.

If you say, “But I am a charismatic and I don’t think we should expect the gifts and I don’t think they are normative,” then you are not really a charismatic. The expectation is key. The normative is essential.

Now, one more thing that I believe is important about miracles. I will concede that while both camps believe in miracles, charismatics have a much higher lever of expectation for such due to their theology of the gifts. Cessationists can often be heard saying “That is why they are called ‘miracles’. If they happened all the time, they would be called ‘regulars’!” With this I agree.

However, there may be times in history when miracles do happen much more regularly. God moves in time at his leisure and has complete freedom. We dare not attempt to bind his freedom with an artificial theological position of our own systematic comfort. I believe that there are times in history and places where miracles do seem to become regulars. But, generally speaking, they are extremely rare. Too much expectation can set us up for disillusionment. Most people don’t get healed. Everyone stays dead. Christians’ bills sometimes don’t get paid.

Again, it is not about miracles. If you believe in miracles, you are not necessarily a charismatic.

Got it?

Part 7
Building a Theology of Sign Gifts

I have said that there is no compelling reason to say that the Bible teaches the so-called supernatural sign gifts have ceased. I have also said and demonstrated that the history of the church evidences a de facto cessation of the sign gifts. As well, I have said that, despite being open to the gifts, my personal experience is lacking with regard to any of these gifts, either through direct or indirect experience.

Because of this, I would say that the only responsible position for me to hold right now is that of a de facto cessationist. In sum, this is why I am not a charismatic.

Some have objected to my beliefs citing what they suppose to be an inconsistency.  While admitting that the Bible does not present any compelling evidence that the supernatural sign gifts have ceased, I am still not a  charismatic. Why is this? Isn’t the Bible, not personal or ecclesiatical experience, my ultimate guide?

The answer is yes, the Bible is my ultimate guide. It is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice. If church history or “Michael history” says one thing and the Bible says another, then I (in theory) go with the Scriptures.

However…

While I did say that the Scriptures do not present any compelling evidence that the gifts have ceased, I don’t believe that they present any compelling evidence that they have continued either. In fact, I would say that the Bible does not necessarily speak to the issue any more than it does the closing of the canon. Remember, the Bible does not present any compelling evidence that the canon is closed, yet I believe based on the same de facto arguments that Scripture is no longer being added to. I would argue that the Scriptures have been (for lack of a better word) “closed” due to an exhaustion of purpose. Interestingly, charismatics would make the same argument, believing that the while Scriptures never explicitly say that that the canon is closed, they believe it has nonetheless. Why do we all believe that the canon of Scripture is closed even though the Bible itself does not say that it has closed? If we were theologically honest, our answer would be very simple: Because it, as a matter of fact, closed! It is a de facto argument. The canon of Scripture is closed because God has not sent a verified Apostle or prophet who added to it in the last 2000 years.

After we consider the de facto closing of the Scriptures (“canonical cessationism”), we then build a theology as to why the Scriptures have closed. This is a legitimate attempt to explain what is a matter of fact. It does not create the fact, it just explains it.

The same can be said with regard to supernatural sign gifts such as prophecy, tongues, and healings. Because they, de facto, seem to have ceased, we then attempt to offer an explanation. Here is a brief post de facto explanation as to why I believe the supernatural sign gifts might have ceased.

Exhaustion of purpose: The gifts were used for the establishing of the Gospel message in history. It seems reasonable for God to introduce himself uniquely every time he intends to provide further revelation of himself to mankind. In the history of redemption, the Christ advent and the Gospel message needed signs that accompanied it or belief would be unwarranted. Once the church was established and the historic verification of Christ accomplished, there was no longer any need to continue with such “sign” gifts.

Paul seems to indicate that this was the case as he implicitly argued that the reason for his ability to do extrordinary miracles was due to the Apostolic message he proclaimed. As others were claiming to be so-called “super apostles” (those who have an authoritative message from God), he argues that true Apostles will have these gifts to authentic their message.

“The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.” (2 Cor. 12:12).

As well, there are certian events and happenings in redemptive history that don’t need to be repeated. Notice what Paul says to the Ephesians:

“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household,  20 having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,  21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord;  22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” (Ephesians 2:19 – 3:1)

The “foundation” is the key. If the foundation represents a part of the structure (i.e. the Church) that is not a repeated necessity, then so does that which comprises the foundation. Everyone would agree that the work of Christ is not repeated over and over. So also, it seems to be, that the work of the Apostles and the prophets, which established the work of Christ, does not repeat itself. It is forever a part of the foundation.

There also may be a de facto ceasing of the gifts even in New Testament times. Notice what the writer of Hebrews says:

“How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard,  4 God also bearing wit

ness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will” (Hebrews 2:3-4).

Notice that the message of salvation was first spoken by the Lord (subject #1—first generation). It was then confirmed by those who heard (subject #2—the Apostles and prophets—second generation). The “to us” is the key. The writer of Hebrews indicates that the Gospel was confirmed to them (subject #3—third generation), not by them. This seems to indiate once again that the supernatural gifts primarily served a confirmatory purpose, not simply a benevolent purpose. It also (and most importantly here) seems to suggest that these confirmatory gifts were already beginning to exhuast their purpose. The writer of Hebrews and his audience (the “us who heard”), it would seem, did not possess these gifts themselves, but relied upon the witness and testimony of those who did possess these gifts.

These are meant to offer biblical reasonings why the gifts ceased, if indeed this is the case. Again, they are not arguments for cessationism, they simply present reasons why they might have ceased.

I am not a charismatic, but I am not a necessarily a cessationist either. I will speak to this next.

Part 8
I am a “De Facto Cessationist”

Ok, after the first seven parts of this series it should be almost clear where I stand on this issue. But I ended the last post by saying that I am neither a continuationist or cessationist. Let me clarify just what I am . . .

I define a Charismatic as one who thinks that the supernatural sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, healings, etc. are normative for the church today. Therefore, believers should expect them. A cessationist is one who believes that these gifts ceased due to an exhaustion in purpose around the first century (some would say with the death of the last Apostle).

I don’t think that one can make a solid case for the ceasing of the gifts from Scripture. However, I don’t think that one can make a solid case from Scripture for the closing of the canon. I believe that both of these issues are very similar. Could God add books to the Bible if it were his purpose? Of course. Could we cry “foul” and say “You cannot do that because our traditions and councils have said you cannot? No. We (Protestants) believe in the de facto closing of the canon. What does that mean? We believe in the closing of the canon because it, indeed, closed. It is a historical and experiential reality. God just quit adding books to the canon. Only after this does our theology step in and attempt to explain this by saying it closed because soteriological history was completed.

I believe the same about the gift of prophecy, tongues, and other supernatural sign gifts. I believe they have ceased because they ceased in church history (as I argued) and I, personally, have never experienced them. Therefore, I am a “De Facto Cessationist.” Some may call it “Soft cessationist” and that is fine, but I like the term de facto since it describes the reasoning behind my position.

To those of you who are Charismatics out there:

I think that you have to understand my reasoning and the reasoning of those like me. It is not as if we are putting God in a box. We are just being responsible with our beliefs (which are precious to God) by attempting to explain the way we see things. I don’t judge all claims with the same standard. I don’t have a “guilt by association” default drive with this issue, tagging the back of the shirts of all Charismatics with a Benny Hinn label. I respect many who are Charismatic and think they are very bright and have something going on that persuades them to believe as they do. But I have been in the church all my life, traveled the world on missions trips, and partaken in many Charismatic services and never seen anything that would make me change my positions. Were I to see something that compels me to change, I would change.

With prophecy, for instance, if I were to see someone who claimed to be a prophet, speaking on behalf of God, and he, for example, raised someone from the dead, so long as he spoke in accordance with sound doctrine, I would most certainly listen (at least I hope I would). If someone claimed to have the gift of healing and came and healed my mother, I would believe and change my stance. If someone would have healed my sister before she died, again, things would be different. But the fact is that I have not ever witnessed such. I don’t even have any good first hand testimony of such happenings. Sure, I believe that God heals, so coming to me with a story of healing is already in line with my theology. But what I lack—the essential component—is God gifting an individual with the particular gift of healing. Most healings and miracles I have seen come through prayer, not through a divine conduit with this particular gift.

Therefore, I remain a de facto Cessationist.

Two Important Points:

1. Am I Putting God in a “Box”?

I often hear it said that people like me put God in a box due to my unbelief. You need to be very careful with this line of thought. It could very well be that you are the one putting him in a box. Let me explain.

I remember studying the great prayer revivals in American history with John Hannah. While discussing these movements, we, the students, inquired about why God moved so much during this time in our history. His answer was rather odd. He said there was no reason he knew of. He went on to describe similar events where revival did not occur though the actions of men were the same. The moral of Hannah’s lesson was that God moves when and where he will and we just don’t know why.You cannot map Him. You cannot put him in a box one way or the other.

If God chooses to send a prophet or a man with the gift of healing, it is his own accord, purpose, and will which sanctions such. To have a “theology of expectation” not only sets many up for disillusionment, but can also be putting God in the box that you accuse others of. God’s movements are mysterious. It could very well be that a revival breaks out. It could very well be that he decides to gift people with supernatural gifts. It is possible that he could send a prophet to your door. But this does not make it normative. It just says he did it. Praise God.

Remember the passage from the early life of Samuel where Samuel was hearing God’s voice calling him but he did not know it was God? The preface to this narrative is very interesting: 1 Samuel 3:1: “Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the LORD before Eli. And word from the LORD was rare in those days, visions were infrequent.” Why were visions infrequent? We have no idea. They just were. De facto.

2. Is God waiting on me to believe?

Also, you must remember that God’s movements in his people’s lives are not characteristically coy. When he is going to move in your life or mine, he is not waiting for us to believe in certain gifts or movements before we are qualified to receive such. He did not wait for Paul to be a believe before he hit him with a ton of bricks on the road to kill Christians. He blinded him and spoke. De facto, God was speaking. He did not wait for the Apostles to believe in tongues before they received them on the day of Pentecost. De facto, they were speaking in tongues.

If God wanted me to be a Charismatic, I would be one. He is not waiting for me to become one so that he can finally do his work.

The Spirit moves in mysterious ways. Outside of his general promises, it is very hard for us to hold his feet to the fire of the details. We wait, watch, pray, and follow his guidance. We can all put him in a box, but he won’t stay there, believe me.

I am not Charismatic. I am not necessarily cessationist either. I am, right now, a de facto cessationist who lives with a high expectation that God is going to move in the way he will. I hope that I am always ready to follow.

Thus we conclude, de facto.Similar Posts:

• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 6): Excursus: It's Not About Miracles!
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 5): An Argument from History
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 8): I am a De Facto Cessationist
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 1)
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts

Have you also noticed New Age music cropping up here and there, not to mention the infiltration of Eastern Mysticism into the West, and increased UFO sightings (not to mention TV programs about them)? How about the rise of “what’s in it for me” attitudes, a morality of convenience, and a market-driven society (i.e., making a living as an end in itself)? While we’re at it, we could add the increasing denial of absolute truth by most Americans–even though a large proportion claim to be evangelical Christians, the prioritizing of relevance over truth, of pragmatics over knowledge, of feelings over beliefs. Al Franken, of Saturday Night Live fame, some years ago epitomized what we are seeing with his self-serving commentary (he humorously suggested that this decade should be labeled the “Al Franken” decade).

A New Kind of Charismatic

Part and parcel of this phenomenon is the rising popularity of charismatic Christianity–especially among those who had never been attracted to the charismatic movement before. Specifically, the Pentecostal/charismatic movement historically has roots in Wesleyan theology and practice. In other words, it has historically been associated with Arminian theology. The reason for this is not immediately obvious, but can be seen through a variety of connections. Arminianism teaches, among other things, that a person once saved can lose his salvation. Hence, Arminians put a strong emphasis on moral duty, as well as spiritual experiences, as the continued confirmation that one is still saved. It is a natural extension from this stance that the test by which a person knows he is saved is various manifestations of the Spirit. Thus the craving for supernatural experiences is both endemic to the charismatic mindset and necessary as continued confirmation of salvation.

But this craving for confirmation is not the motivation of many who have become charismatics in the last few years. Indeed, what is unusual about the current popularity of the charismatic movement, principally the Vineyard form, is that has attracted many Calvinists as well as many well-trained scholars. Every year at the Evangelical Theological Society meetings¹ I learn of a few more professors of theology who have joined the ranks of the Vineyard movement. Often, the response of colleagues when they find out about one these theologians is one of astonishment: “No! Not him! I never would have expected him to become a charismatic!”

Cognitive Christianity and the Impoverished Soul

Why are scholars suddenly becoming charismatics? What has happened in the last few years to attract the intelligentsia to this group?

We can give both a short answer and a long one. The short answer is that many Christian scholars have for a long time embraced a Christianity that is almost exclusively “from the neck up.” That is, theirs is a cognitive faith, one where reason reigns supreme. They are usually fine exegetes and theologians, able to defend the faith and articulate their views in a coherent, biblical, profound, and logical way. But (without naming names) many of these savants have lost their love for Christ. They love the Bible and know it inside and out. But their soul has become impoverished. They love God with their mind only; that is the extent of their spiritual obligation as they see it. In fact, for them, personal experience–especially of a charismatic sort–is anathema. It has no place in the Christian life. Study of the Bible so that they can control the text is what the Christian life is all about.

But when crisis comes–such as the death of a loved one, a teenage daughter’s pregnancy, or some major upheaval in their church ministries–their answers appear shallow and contrived, both to others and themselves. They have the inability to hurt with the hurting, though they know all the right verses on suffering! They begin to search for answers themselves, answers of an entirely different sort. Often, in the crucible of the crisis, they attend a charismatic meeting. And there, a “prophet” reveals something about their life. They are both amazed at the prophecy and deeply touched at the perception into their own condition. (Of course, cognitive types almost always marvel when other, more sensitive people, intuitively recognize traits and characteristics, internal workings and struggles in others.) Their souls get drenched with an emotional infusion that had been quenched for too long. It doesn’t take long before they hold hands with those whom they used to oppose, even to the point of now leading charismatic groups. They in fact become the theologians of a new breed of charismatic, giving a rather sophisticated rationale for charismata. In the process, they have gone through a paradigm shift: their final authority is no longer reasoning about the Scriptures; now it is personal experience.

Because of a crisis, personal, spiritual experience has replaced reason as the authority that guides their lives. They have exchanged, in some measure, their heart for their mind.² That’s the short answer.

The Age of Epistemological Narcissism

The long answer is this. The history of the Church and indeed of western civilization, in terms of authority, can be traced out rather simply.³ Before the Reformation, tradition was the final authority. This included the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and all its trappings. When that pesky little German monk, Martin Luther, nailed his ninety-five theses to the door of the Wittenberg church, a new authority was boldly announced: revelation. Actually, it was an old authority, but one which Luther and later Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and a host of others, argued had been subverted to tradition by the Church in Rome. The Reformation’s battle cry was sola scriptura–that is, Scripture alone is our authority. The Roman Church argued that we needed tradition, especially the interpretations offered by church fathers, in order to understand Scripture. This was so, they argued, because the Bible could not be easily grasped. The Reformers argued for the perspicuity of Scripture–that it was sufficiently clear to be a good guide in essential matters, such as the person of Christ, the Trinity, salvation. In order to prove the point they needed to exercise reason. New hermeneutical methods were developed, translations were made, commentaries were written. All of this was consistent with the view that the Bible should be clearly understood. The Reformers knew it to be so in their study; they wanted to make it so for the person in the pew.

As long as reason was the handmaid of revelation, there was no problem. But once reason became master, revelation was increasingly viewed as unnecessary and, in fact, untrue. With the birth of the Enlightenment came the promise of a new king. He would soon reign over virtually all human thought in the western world.

By the end of the nineteenth century, the Enlightenment had so captured the evangelical community that the Bible became more an object of study than a guide to life. Seminaries in this century followed largely the Princeton model (a strongly Calvinist school) of reasoning about the Scriptures. Pastors were trained to expound the text of Scripture–and this came to mean explain the text, but not apply the text. Too many seminaries viewed one’s exegetical and theological skills as the lone spiritual barometer. There was no accountability of one’s life. Whether one believed the Bible and consequently tried to shape his life by its precepts was often not in view.

The problem with this model was that non-evangelical scholars could also do first-rate exegesis. Many of these non-evangelical savants would be considered nonbelievers: besides rejecting the Bible as the Word of God, they did not embrace the bodily resurrection of Christ or, sometimes, even the existence of God. Hence, if quality exegesis was an indicator of spirituality, then an atheist might be considered spiritual! The barometer of mere knowledge obviously has its defects, for without belief there is no life. Cognition is important for true biblical scholarship; but without conversion as a first step, such is certainly not evangelical biblical scholarship. Further, this approach trickled down to the pew: for many churches, even today, mere Bible knowledge, regardless of its application to one’s life, is equated with true spirituality. Reason has come to reign over revelation even for evangelicals.

With the advent of postmodernism, reason has increasingly become passé. It’s not necessarily that reason is rejected as untrue; rather, it is judged to be irrelevant. So what authority is left? What authority remains after tradition, revelation, and reason have all been abandoned? Personal experience. Ours is the age of epistemological narcissism. This is no longer the age of cogito ergo sum (“I think; therefore, I am”—the hallmark of Cartesian logic); it has become the age of sentio ergo sum (“I feel; therefore, I am”). And since there are no external standards by which to judge personal experience (since other authorities are rejected), anything goes–whether it be sensuality or hallucinogenic existence, full-blown mysticism or an uncritical embracing of supernatural phenomena from any and all corners.

So, how does the current charismatic movement fit into this? Why are so many intellectuals embracing the charismata? It seems that the vacuum left in their souls by a rationalistic faith has made them ripe for a different kind of authority. As sons of the Enlightenment, these cognitive scholars have embraced reason as the supreme authority in their lives. But the rationalism of the Enlightenment is, when unbridled, antithetical to revelation. These scholars viewed personal experience as the enemy of the gospel, while embracing reason as its friend. But when some crisis invades their lives, and their purely cognitive faith cannot supply the deepest answers (for it does not address the whole man), they have to find the answers some place. And they look to an entirely different authority. They are ripe for excess in one area, just as they had lived in excess in another. Ironically, they end up mirroring the present age of postmodernism, just as they had mirrored the past one of rationalism.

In reality, both personal experience and reason are part of proper human existence. Like fire, they can be used for good or evil. When they take on the role of supreme authority, consciously or not, they destroy.⁴ “I know” and “I feel” must bow to “I believe.” (When either one is elevated above revelation it produces arrogance.) The cognitive content of that belief is the revealed Word of God. It requires diligent study to grasp its meaning as fully as mere humans can grasp it. But it will not be believed unless there is a personal experience with the Risen One. Thus, the trilogy of authority can be seen this way: both personal experience and reason are vital means to accessing revelation. We are to embrace Christ, as revealed in the Word, with mind and heart.⁵ When either reason or experience attempts to escape the supreme sovereignty of the revealed Christ, the individual believer starts down a path of imbalance. Tragically, his service to the Lord Christ is thereby increasingly curtailed.⁶

2 This does not mean that these scholars no longer use their brains! But it does mean, for many of them, that reason is subordinated to personal experience in an epistemological hierarchy.

3 I owe the framework of the “long answer” to Dr. Bob Pyne, professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Seminary. He is not to be blamed for the details, however!

4 Most charismatics today would argue that their personal experiences are fully subordinate to revelation. But most cognitive Christians would also argue that reason for them is subordinate to revelation.

5 Thus far I have left tradition out of the equation. This is, however, something of an overstatement. In reality, most of us employ tradition as a conduit to another authority. Often we are unaware of the tradition’s influence. Those in Bible churches worship in a way quite different from those in more liturgical settings; Koreans worship in a way that is markedly different from African-Americans. And a given group may tacitly assume that somehow its worship style is the right one, or that others are wrong because they are different. The difference between evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics with reference to tradition is that evangelical Protestants generally feel more at liberty (and more responsible) to question their tradition, and to change it in line with what they perceive is the biblical norm. In other words, they are able, when it is brought to the conscious level, to subordinate tradition to revelation.

6 You will notice that I have not in this blog given any arguments against the charismatic movement. This blog is instead intended to set the stage, giving a rationale for why so many are flocking toward this kind of Christianity.Similar Posts:

• The Rise of the Intellectual Charismatics
• Full Gospel Christianity?: A Theology of More II
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 1)
• If God Has Stopped Speaking Then Why Do I Still Hear Him?
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts

Concerning the gift of prophecy (the idea that one can speak on behalf of God in a “thus-says-the-Lord” type way), I have never seen this either. I would love to have God speak to me, or better, through me, in such a way, but he never has. I have never heard the voice of God and have never been his spokesperson other than through my interpretation of Scripture. Although, I must admit, I had a strange occurence twenty years ago. I had a drunk I gave a ride to in downtown Oklahoma City tell me that God told him I was going to be a preacher. At that time in my life, it was a joke to think such. It was not enough for me to think much of, and the guy was drunk!

I could not make a very strong argument that God has stopped sending prophets or stopped speaking directy to people. My theology does not demand such. I have simply just never seen one. However, there is an argument out there that more traditional cessationist’s (those who’s theology argues that the supernatural sign gifts have ceased in the first century, usually with the death of the last Apostle or the completion of Scripture) make to argue their case. It is an argument that I think is very weak and fails to understand the nature of prophecy and the nature of what constitutes Scripture. It goes like this:

If the gift of prophecy is still being given and there are people out there who speak directly on behalf of God, then the canon is still open.

What this means is that if God is still speaking in any way, whatever is spoken, by virtue of it being God’s words, needs to be added to Scripture. Maybe a new book, letter, Psalm, or just a page added to the end of the Bible, this argument insists that a belief in modern day prophecy demands an open canon.

I disagree.

Here is the basic problem I see with such an argument: It misunderstands the nature of prophecy and the nature of the canon.

1. Nature of prophecy: There is no reason to think that prophecy always has corporate or salvific implications. To think that everything that God has ever said is relevant to all people simply cannot be defended. Prophecy can be individualistic. While it is true that the nation of Israel had their prophets that spoke concerning the nation as a whole and the future of the nation and the church has had its Apostles and prophets who spoke on behalf of God concerning the Gospel, the nature of the church, and the consummation of all things, this does not mean this is all prophets speak about. In fact, there are plenty of indications that many of prophets spoke to individuals about rather mundane things such as the location of lost donkeys (1 Sam 9:6, 20), an adulterous affair (2 Sam 12:7), and corporately about issues with no transcendent purpose at all such as acts of God in nature (Acts 11:28). One could argue that these “non-transcendent” prophecies were setting the stage for the prophet so he could qualify to speak about more transcendent issues, but this does not seem to be the case. What transcendent issue did Nathan speak about? What about Abigail?

In the end, while prophets were given by God to speak about issues of paramount importance, they were also given to speak about rather non-consequential stuff as well. Therefore, the drunk who told me I was going to be a pastor could certainly qualify even though his “prophecy” was of no ground breaking importance.

2. Nature of the canon: This is related to the first, but involves a slightly different assumption. The supposition here is that the canon of Scripture is made up of everything that has ever been inspired. Here inspiration equals canon. If it is inspired, it should be added to the Scripture.

But why would we ever assume such a proposition. Scripture is not made up of everything that has ever been inspired. There is very good reason to believe that there were a lot of inspired words from God that never made the canon cut. A great example of this is the early years of the prophet Saul. While were are given some background to his story on how he was called to be a prophet, we don’t know anything about how he was established among the people as a legitimate spokesperson for God. Yet as we follow the narrative in 1 Samuel, we see that Saul considers him an already established prophet due to many prophecies that we don’t have recorded in Scripture. Notice what Saul says in 1 Sam 9:6: “Behold now, there is a man of God in this city, and the man is held in honor; all that he says surely comes true. Now let us go there, perhaps he can tell us about our journey on which we have set out” (emphasis mine). We don’t know all that he said that came true since it is not part of the canon. This is a definite occurrence of God speaking through someone that was not recorded in Scripture. Therefore, the principle “if it is inspired, it belongs in Scripture” fails here. We could do the same with many of the Prophets. Look at Nathan. We barely have anything from him. His most famous encounter is when he indicts David for his affair and murder, but are we to suppose that this was his only prophecy? He was already a respected prophet, yet Scripture does not record his prophecies. What about Christ? Everything he said was, by definition, inspired. Yet we obviously don’t have an exhaustive account of all that he said. In fact, even John says that there were many other miraculous signs that Christ performed which were not written down, letting us know that even signs, wonders, and miracles were not always recorded because of their non-transcendent purpose.

John 20:30-31
“Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

Therefore, I think that it is evident that not everything that God says belongs in Scripture. The canon of Scripture is made up of everything that God has said that is relevant to all people and, normally, pertains to salvation history.

Again, I am not a charismatic. I have never heard the voice of God. Nor have I seen what I believe to be modern-day prophets. However, I don’t think that it is wise to attempt to argue for a theology that demands the cessation of God speaking today, especially if the argument’s main thrust is that if God is still speaking, then the canon is still open. This argument simply does not work and is contrary to the biblical evidence.Similar Posts:

• Why I Believe the Canon of Scripture is Theoretically Open . . . And Am Fine With It!
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 5): An Argument from History
• If God Has Stopped Speaking Then Why Do I Still Hear Him?
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 3): Prophecy and Healings

I define a Charismatic as one who thinks that the supernatural sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, healings, etc. are normative for the church today. Therefore, believers should expect them. A cessationist is one who believes that these gifts ceased due to an exhaustion in purpose around the first century (some would say with the death of the last Apostle).

I don’t think that one can make a solid case for the ceasing of the gifts from Scripture. However, I don’t think that one can make a solid case from Scripture for the closing of the canon. I believe that both of these issues are very similar. Could God add books to the Bible if it were his purpose? Of course. Could we cry “foul” and say “You cannot do that because our traditions and councils have said you cannot? No. We (Protestants) believe in the de facto closing of the canon. What does that mean? We believe in the closing of the canon because it, indeed, closed. It is a historical and experiential reality. God just quit adding books to the canon. Only after this does our theology step in and attempt to explain this by saying it closed because soteriological history was completed.

I believe the same about the gift of prophecy, tongues, and other supernatural sign gifts. I believe they have ceased because they ceased in church history (as I argued) and I, personally, have never experienced them. Therefore, I am a “De Facto Cessationist.” Some may call it “Soft cessationist” and that is fine, but I like the term de facto since it describes the reasoning behind my position.

To those of you who are Charismatics out there:

I think that you have to understand my reasoning and the reasoning of those like me. It is not as if we are putting God in a box. We are just being responsible with our beliefs (which are precious to God) by attempting to explain the way we see things. I don’t judge all claims with the same standard. I don’t have a “guilt by association” default drive with this issue, tagging the back of the shirts of all Charismatics with a Benny Hinn label. I respect many who are Charismatic and think they are very bright and have something going on that persuades them to believe as they do. But I have been in the church all my life, traveled the world on missions trips, and partaken in many Charismatic services and never seen anything that would make me change my positions. Were I to see something that compels me to change, I would change.

With prophecy, for instance, if I were to see someone who claimed to be a prophet, speaking on behalf of God, and he, for example, raised someone from the dead, so long as he spoke in accordance with sound doctrine, I would most certainly listen (at least I hope I would). If someone claimed to have the gift of healing and came and healed my mother, I would believe and change my stance. If someone would have healed my sister before she died, again, things would be different. But the fact is that I have not ever witnessed such. I don’t even have any good first hand testimony of such happenings. Sure, I believe that God heals, so coming to me with a story of healing is already in line with my theology. But what I lack—the essential component—is God gifting an individual with the particular gift of healing. Most healings and miracles I have seen come through prayer, not through a divine conduit with this particular gift.

Therefore, I remain a de facto Cessationist.

Two Important Points:

1. Am I Putting God in a “Box”?

I often hear it said that people like me put God in a box due to my unbelief. You need to be very careful with this line of thought. It could very well be that you are the one putting him in a box. Let me explain.

I remember studying the great prayer revivals in American history with John Hannah. While discussing these movements, we, the students, inquired about why God moved so much during this time in our history. His answer was rather odd. He said there was no reason he knew of. He went on to describe similar events where revival did not occur though the actions of men were the same. The moral of Hannah’s lesson was that God moves when and where he will and we just don’t know why.You cannot map Him. You cannot put him in a box one way or the other.

If God chooses to send a prophet or a man with the gift of healing, it is his own accord, purpose, and will which sanctions such. To have a “theology of expectation” not only sets many up for disillusionment, but can also be putting God in the box that you accuse others of. God’s movements are mysterious. It could very well be that a revival breaks out. It could very well be that he decides to gift people with supernatural gifts. It is possible that he could send a prophet to your door. But this does not make it normative. It just says he did it. Praise God.

Remember the passage from the early life of Samuel where Samuel was hearing God’s voice calling him but he did not know it was God? The preface to this narrative is very interesting: 1 Samuel 3:1: “Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the LORD before Eli. And word from the LORD was rare in those days, visions were infrequent.” Why were visions infrequent? We have no idea. They just were. De facto.

2. Is God waiting on me to believe?

Also, you must remember that God’s movements in his people’s lives are not characteristically coy. When he is going to move in your life or mine, he is not waiting for us to believe in certain gifts or movements before we are qualified to receive such. He did not wait for Paul to be a believe before he hit him with a ton of bricks on the road to kill Christians. He blinded him and spoke. De facto, God was speaking. He did not wait for the Apostles to believe in tongues before they received them on the day of Pentecost. De facto, they were speaking in tongues.

If God wanted me to be a Charismatic, I would be one. He is not waiting for me to become one so that he can finally do his work.

The Spirit moves in mysterious ways. Outside of his general promises, it is very hard for us to hold his feet to the fire of the details. We wait, watch, pray, and follow his guidance. We can all put him in a box, but he won’t stay there, believe me.

I am not Charismatic. I am not necessarily cessationist either. I am, right now, a de facto cessationist who lives with a high expectation that God is going to move in the way he will. I hope that I am always ready to follow.

Thus ends the series, de facto.

When commenting, please try to make sure you have read the previous posts. I am sure that they will answer many of your questions.Similar Posts:

• 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 7): Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 1)
• Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 3): Prophecy and Healings