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.

But in gravitating towards popular name brands (because after all, with those kinds of crowds, how can the teaching be off in any way), it does seem like I missed something vitally important…discernment.   Don’t get me wrong, I would listen carefully and yes, there were times that things were said, including times in my own church, that I would question or not necessarily agree with.  But overall, I would dismiss these fleeting moments of doubt to embrace the larger and grander prize of being in the know, or so I thought.   But the ability to really dig in and compare what I was listening to with what Scripture was really communicating was lost on me until about 3 years ago.   That is when I became acquainted with a dear brother in Christ who would eventually become of my best friends and he challenged me on how I was reading Scripture.  This would usually occur after I would recite whatever latest musings I had grabbed hold of from one of these popular teachers.  It was at this time that I really began to study the Scriptures, contextually, comparatively, exegetically and expositionally.  Needless to say, since that time some of the positions that I dogmatically would espouse as truth, began to unravel under the microscope of Scriptural examination.

Since that time, I have noticed an alarming trend in my blogging travels, conversations with other Christians and general observations regarding church happenings.  People in general want something more, they know about Christ and maybe even profess Him as Lord.  They want to know God and to experience Him in their lives.  They are taught to read the Bible and do as it says.  There are many popular voices for them to listen to help them in their Christian journey.  Go into any bookstore and there will be a plethora of resources to utilize.  Naturally, I think the ones produced by the name brand will get the bill.  But I wonder how much these are carefully considered as being sufficiently accurate compared to what Scripture is saying or are the sermons, resources and teachings automatically received simply because it rings of Christian truth?

I could be wrong, but I do believe there is a concerning lack of discernment in the body of Christ today.  It is not obstinance, although with some that may be the case.  It is not ignorance, because I think there is just way to much information out there.  No, I think the problem is what I will call a theology of indifference. It is simply taking at face value a teacher or teaching as solidly Christian simply because they may teach about Christ, use the Bible and may even have large crowds and popular products and settling for a superficial knowledge of what constitutes our Christian faith.

I would not automatically dismiss folks as being too lazy to care.  But I do think there might be many factors contributing to this trend and here are  some I am considering:

Pastoral challenges: I do not envy the job of any pastor.  He has a responsibility before God to instruct the flock about Christianity and what that should mean for them and to care for the needs of the flock.  That is a tough balancing act, I think.  People are hurt and come with needs.   They want solutions to their problems, which are very real and imminent.  Biblical instruction, while very much the charge of any pastor, may not appear to be the instant remedy to that hurting member of the body.  How to meet those needs without forsaking the charge of solid Christian education?

And I do believe that the state of discernment rises and falls on the headship of the church.  To the degree that the leadership is serious about fostering discernment through solid Biblical education is to the degree that that will most likely filter down to the members.  I think there is nothing more grevious, and telling, of a church member who talks more about what their pastor said than what the Bible said.

I think too, there is always the temptation to confuse leadership with agenda promotion.  The pastor leads the congregation through serving them, not ruling over them.  In the hands of untrained, unstable, and maybe self-serving pastors, who do not themselves have a tight grip on what the Scripture really teaches about the purpose of their job, the way of pastoral care could easily produce spiritually anemic and Biblically illiterate saints who whole-heartedly support his vision that may be confused with Biblical doctrine.

Church challenges: The buildings and organizations we call churches, are in the business of being the church to the body.  There are clearly some basics outlined in Scripture, but there is a lot of leeway to conduct corporate gatherings and produce programs that will fulfill the Scriptural mandate of what the church is supposed to be.  The buildings called churches exist to foster a community of believers to grow up together in Christ.  But similar to the pastoral challenge, the corporate structure of the church could bend so far in accommodating needs that critical Christian education is forsaken as a necessary component of discipleship in response to the demands of the congregation for help with concerns and focus programs around those needs.  Please hear me, I am not saying these programs are not needed but it is about balance.

Status of Christian Education: for the first 2 reasons stated above, this is I think is in a dismal state.  Again, members of congregations will rise to the occasion of learning to the extent that it is being promoted.  A fish rots from the head, as one professional collegue told me years ago.  This too, is a challenge.  How to teach what every disciple should know in a way that engages them and adequately equips them not only for service but to be able to separate the real from the fake.  And if congregations become less concerned about critically learning about their faith, that could seep into the corporate mindset of how programs and education are designed.

My dad was telling me that at his church in Southern CA, which is an Evangelical Free church, that the Adult Bible Fellowship program was abandoned because the congregation was more interested in fellowshipping than sitting in a classroom learning for 45 minutes.  To be sure, fellowship and breaking bread together is a necessary component of doing life together.  But it cannot take the place of Christian education.  And this is the concern, that as desires of congregations are catered to and as churches are faced with dwindling numbers in Adult Bible Fellowship classes, there is a lessening or straight abandonment of teaching Christians about their faith so they will not buy hook, line and sinker anything that comes down the pike.

Disruption of Unity: I have heard this argument many times.   Because of the unity that we are to have as believers, pointing out doctrinal differences goes against the grain of the unity espoused in Scripture.   Ephesians 4 is usually the white horse that the unity trump card rests on.  Besides, didn’t Jesus say that the world will spot disciples by the love that we have for one another? It does seem likely to be dubbed a heresy hunter if you comment about teaching that you believe may not be consistent with a plain reading of Scripture.

I do believe in the unity of the body.  But the unity spoken about in Ephesians is solidified on the basis of who Christ is, what He accomplished and who we are in relation to Him.  It is not a license to follow blindly any type of teaching that may mention Christ but distorts His character, work or purpose.  But again, it is important to understand what the Christian business is all about in order to even make that assessment in the first place.

It is serious business to be a Christ follower and one that we should not take lightly, casually or apathetically.  It is not enough to learn a verse a day to keep the devil away or even to get so entrenched with a particular Christian tradition that we abandoned the charge of discipleship, to grow in grace and the true knowledge of Jesus Christ.  And we don’t know without a critical examination of our faith to do as the Bereans did in Acts 17:11 to examine the Scripture and see if these things are so.

This shows we care about our faith, about God, about the great salvation that has been given to us, that we are not willing to buy in to any product of Christianity without analyzing it against Scripture and sound doctrine.  It shows we care that we are willing to do as Jude commends to earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.   There is nothing wrong at all with pointing out distortions but there is everything wrong with not knowing what they are in the first place.

January 2000. I have just been hired as an intern at Stonebriar Community Church. I still have a year left at Dallas Theological Seminary, but my excitement is far beyond anything I could have ever imagined six years ago when I began to think about ministry. My life had not been one of a minister in preparation by any means. It was a  fun, selfish, sinfun, and “I’ll deal with you later Lord” type life . You can read about it here. However, now things were different. The constant adrenaline that the idea of full-time service for the Lord was enough to keep my mind off my past failures. Watching Braveheart in 1995 seventeen times at the theater fueled my motivation. I thought to myself If I could just give my life for something bigger than myself like William Wallace did then contentment would be found in sacrifice. This was the road I was on. Excited, motivated, hopeful, and ready to change lives, I was now working for Chuck Swindoll, my hero.

The internship at Stonebriar Community Church for small groups turned into an internship for missions and outreach. This was good. I was going to set the example of one who was passionate for God. I was going to catch the eye of those around me. They were going to look at me and say to themselves Now that is what a young minister should be like. Maybe even Chuck Swindoll would call me into his office and commend my passions and service. Maybe Chuck would become my mentor.

I graduated in 2001 with a Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary. That is a theological masters—yes masters. From their standpoint I was a jedi of theology. Would others take notice? They would have to. Not only this, but I won awards for service and teaching from the seminary and graduated at the top of my class. I was ordained into the ministry by the elders of Stonebriar Community Church in May of 2001. Chuck preached a sermon that was devoted just to me (well, there were three others who were ordained, but he was looking at me most of the time). Chuck and the elders laid their hands on me as I was on my knees whispering prayers, words of encouragement, and warnings in my ear.

Now, I was totally prepared and confirmed for ministry. I am on full-time pastoral staff at Stonebriar Community Church. My past was under my feet and I was turning my foot on it like a discarded cigarette.

Sitting in my office not long after this I was preparing a lesson while dreaming about what The Theology Program could become when I got a phone call that would put me in my place.

“David wants to meet with you.” These were the words of my administrative assistant Lynn.

“He says that you two should go to lunch to talk.”

David Chavanne was the senior associate pastor. He was just below Chuck on the totem pole. Now you would think from what I have said so far that I would pridefully strut to this lunch date expecting nothing but the best. But this was not the case. The only feeling I had that moment was one of overwhelming fear, shame, and sadness. The first thought that came to my mind was They have found me out. The thoughts went on. The gig is up; Time to pack my bags and move on; I should have known better than to think this was the Lord’s will. What was I thinking? Who did I think I was fooling? I am not fit for ministry. With these thoughts, that day I came to realize that I was not quite so sure of my calling as I led others and myself to believe. My subconscious insecurity was now part of my ministry and my life.

Now, what you must know is that there was not anything in particular that I thought they found out about. There was no secret sin that I was hiding about which I believed was the reason for the meeting. It was just me. They found out about me. They knew I was a fraud, and this phone call brought this fact to my own conscious. Whether they had seen my past or my present, they would realize that they had made a mistake in ordaining and hiring me.

Off I went to meet David with plans to accept the collective wisdom of the elders and begin to think more seriously about what God really wanted me to do. I imagined that the elders had a troublesome meeting and David was sent to dish out the bad news with as much sensitivity as he could.

I don’t even remember what the meeting was about, but it was not about their discovery of the real Michael Patton as I had supposed. It was either about some administrative issues or simply a “let’s get to know each other” type of meeting. I was “safe”—for now.

The feelings of secret anxiety that this surfaced that day have been with me ever since. Over the next few years, every time that one of my superiors in the ministry would call a meeting or invite me to lunch, the same thoughts would resurface. Have they found me out this time? Well, either way, it is just a matter of time.

Laying in my bed one night I began to think about what I will do when someone actually does find me out. As I thought about all the alternatives, I came to an important discovery about my passions—they were real. Even if I feel totally inadequate to serve and represent the Lord, this is what I would do. Whether I work at a bank, return to the fitness industry, or find a new career all-together, I would find a way to minister. Those were my thoughts. In my mind I was already planning how to continue in the ministry, spreading the magnificent message of the majesty of God and His mercy, no matter where I was at. I told the Lord that night that I don’t care what I do, I will serve and love You.

Over the next few years I began to talk to other ministers about my phobia and insecurity. To my surprise, most of those in ministry, whether they had just started or been there for years, expressed the exact same feelings. While I thought I was coming to them to confess my fears, I found this fear was common for all those who serve the Lord. We all have a deep sense of inadequacy. As I would talk about this with other ministers, I came to a deeper understanding of the grace of God. Is it that radical? Yes, I think it is. Radical enough to use you even though He has already found you out—even though you are inadequate and not fit for ministry.

Am I inadequate for ministry? Yes. So are you. We all are. If you have the “I’m not fit for ministry” syndrome, you are in good company. In fact, I have come to fear those who don’t have this syndrome. We know ourselves better than anyone. We know who we really are. We are intimately acquainted with our past failures and present struggles. These are not pretty. We are often selfish and many times prideful. We will let people down. We doubt and are scared, and we are not really as smart as we think. Laments are the norm rather than praise. In short, we are sinful.

If we are self-reflective, we will constantly be questioning our legitimacy. When we are at out best—when we are the most fit for ministry—we turn to God’s grace to supply us with confidence. He is our adequacy. Our commitment to Him is always mediated through our sinfulness. I am learning to live with “I’m not fit for ministry” syndrome. I think Paul did the same when he referred to himself in the present tense as the “chief of sinners.”

1 Timothy 1:15 15: “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.”

Paul learned to live with this syndrome relying on God’s grace. Chuck Swindoll once said during a sermon, “If you really knew the person sitting next to you, you would not sit next to them and if you really knew me, you would not listen to me.” I think this is true for all of us.

May God’s grace be our confidence as we grow in a body of sin and inadequacy.

Happy New Year

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries is supported by the financial partnership of those who believe in what we are doing. Consider partnering with us today.

On the first day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, the fallen nature of man.

On the second day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

On the third day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, John chapter six, called and chosen, and the fallen nature of man.

On the fourth day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, Synod of Dordt, John chapter six, called and chosen, and the fallen nature of man.

On the fifth day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me 5 GOLDEN POINTS! Synod of Dordt, John chapter six, called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

On the sixth day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, world isn’t world, 5 GOLDEN POINTS! Synod of Dordt; John chapter six; called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

On the seventh day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, predestination, world isn’t world, 5 GOLDEN POINTS! Synod of Dordt; John chapter six; called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

On the eighth day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me belief is a work, predestination, world isn’t world, 5 GOLDEN POINTS! Synod of Dordt; John chapter six; called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

On the ninth day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, errors of middle knowledge, belief is a work, predestination, world isn’t world, 5 GOLDEN POINTS! Synod of Dordt; John chapter six; called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

On the tenth day of Christmas my Calvie explained to, Arminian heresy, errors of middle knowledge, belief is a work, predestination, world isn’t world, 5 GOLDEN POINTS! Synod of Dordt; John chapter six; called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

On the eleventh day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me, Romans 8 & 9; Arminian heresy, errors of middle knowledge, belief is a work, predestination, world isn’t world, 5 GOLDEN POINTS! Synod of Dordt; John chapter six; called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

On the twelfth day of Christmas my Calvie explained to me that I’m really a Calvie, Romans 8&9; Arminian heresy, errors of middle knowledge, belief is a work, predestination, world isn’t world, 5 GOLDEN POINTS! Synod of Dordt; John chapter six; called and chosen and the fallen nature of man.

Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.

Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (1972). I became an evangelical Christian in 1974-75, and McDowell’s Evidence was one of the first apologetics books I read. Yes, it was a popular, unsophisticated book, but it got me interested in biblical apologetics. Thanks, Josh.

E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson, ed., Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, Library of Christian Classics (1969). Toward the end of my first year of college, another Christian college student challenged me to read Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will (1525). When I discovered that Luther’s book was a response to Desiderius Erasmus’s book On Free Will (1524), which was itself a critique of Luther’s theology, I decided to read Erasmus first and then Luther in order to get both sides of the debate. At the time, my own theological inclinations were very similar to those of Erasmus. However, I was forced to admit that Luther won the debate, hands down. Reading these two books completed my conversion to an evangelical Protestant faith. The Library of Christian Classics volume, which I read, includes both books and helpful introductions and footnotes.

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (1952) and Miracles: A Preliminary Study (2d ed., 1960). Like most evangelicals, I am unabashedly a fan of Lewis (even though he was not consistently evangelical in his theology). I limit myself to the two Lewis books that have meant the most to me. I still think Lewis’s Miracles is one of the very best books ever published on the subject.

F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (5th ed., 1960) and New Testament History (1969). Bruce’s NTD is a short, clear exposition of the evidence for the textual and historical reliability of the New Testament writings. I read this book in 1975 and its basic positions and arguments still hold up today. You can read the fifth edition of NTD online free; the later sixth edition (1981) is now available with a Foreword by N. T. Wright. NTH is a masterful textbook survey of the New Testament placing the events it records in their historical context. I used NTH as a textbook for an upper-division course on New Testament history that I taught in 1978 for my senior project at California State University, Dominguez Hills.

Read the rest here.

• Introduction to Theology with C. Michael Patton and Rhome Dyck
• Bibliology and Hermeneutics with C. Michael Patton and Rhome Dyck
• Trinitarianism with C. Michael Patton and Rhome Dyck
• Humanity and Sin with C. Michael Patton and Rhome Dyck
• Soteriology with C. Michael Patton and Rhome Dyck
• Ecclesiology and Eschatology with C. Michael Patton and Rhome Dyck

Here is a list of the electives.

• Introduction to Apologetics with Robert Bowman
• Apologetic Methods with Robert Bowman
• Christian Philosophy with Paul Copan

Be sure to subscribe to these on iTunes as we will be updating them with new courses soon.

Also, here are the COMING ELECTIVES:

• Church History through the Reformation with Sam Storms
• The General Epistles and Revelation with Mark Hitchcock
• Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons with Robert Bowman

Please give us a review on iTunes and tell us what you think.

God bless and Happy New Year.

Dei Gratia,

Michael Patton

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.”

I’m confused. Should we or should we not expect anything from God? The scriptures tells us that Jesus said (Mat 7:7-11)

“Ask, and you will receive. Search, and you will find. Knock, and the door will be opened for you. Everyone who asks will receive. Everyone who searches will find. And the door will be opened for everyone who knocks. Would any of you give your hungry child a stone, if the child asked for some bread? Would you give your child a snake if the child asked for a fish? As bad as you are, you still know how to give good gifts to your children. But your heavenly Father is even more ready to give good things to people who ask.”

So, will I receive or not? I have a wife and two kids. I got lay-off from the firm I was working from. I keep praying for a job, even if it’s not as an architect. I received nothing! Yet I keep praising God. I’m starting to believe that I should just be happy with receiving his forgiveness. Even if I do lose my home, my cars, my health; I already lost my job and these are probably next!

I really feel for him. I often meet people who are confused—even disillusioned—by this passage. You can include my wife in this list.

What does it mean? Is there a unspoken qualification to the asking? Or is the qualification in the context?

Can you join me in giving him some encouragement?

Of course, for us Christians it is supposed to be a time to reflect on the birth of Jesus.  Unfortunately, I think that we put that specific celebration into a banal box of pageants and programs.  For if the reflection is not maintained year round, then the one time shot could just be reduced to a program that we include on our list of Christmas stuff to do.  But I do make every effort, particularly at this time to really reflect on what it is we are supposed to be celebrating. It indeed is quite magnificent but unfortunately gets lost in the jumbled ball of holiday happenings.

I think our tendency is to reflect on Christmas and the birth of Christ through 21st century, gentile eyes.  We who have trusted in Christ consider the salvation that we have.  We may consider our former way of life before Christ and how unknowledgeable we were regarding the reality of our spiritual deadness.  The birth we celebrate represents spiritual reconciliation so desparately needed for hope and eternal life.   Yes, God did need to save us and sent His son in the likeness of flesh to do just that.

But recently,  I have been thinking about this from another perspective.  Perhaps it is because I am reading through the Pentateuch and am considering the status of things pre-Christ both from a Jewish and Gentile perspective.  I imagine it must have tough for the Jews.  They were God’s chosen people and rightful claimers of his promises.  But the catch was they had to follow all these rules.  There was no internal enablement to assist them other than the motivation of maintaining covenant with God.

I don’t know who had it worse, the priests or the people.  The law was so specific.  Every jot and tittle had to be performed to perfection.  There were so many requirements.  But if God was to be satisfied so the people could have atonement for sins and maintain favor in consideration of covenant promises, these requirements were necessary.    I have to imagine that was quite a bit of pressure for the priests.

Everything had to be perfect for meaningful worship.  Priests could not have deformities.  The requirements of perfection also extended to the people.  There was no brokenness allowed.   Persons with skin diseases, women hemorrhaging, men with abnormal discharges were banished from the presence of community life unless specific offerings and a proclamation by the priests were provided so these broken people could have some chance of normalcy within the context of covenant promises.

It is no wonder that time and time again, rebellion ensued as the people followed after the enticements around them that eventually led to captivity.  These were people in need of hope.

To the Jew, the birth of Christ meant that the perfection of the Law was no longer dependent upon external performance but upon the Law written on the heart.  The shekinah glory that represented God’s presence, would now reside internally.  The only perfection that existed was Christ himself and the sacrifice that He became, fulfilling every aspect of the Law.  It is no wonder that He addressed healing through his acts to show the wholeness that is found only in Him.

But the ones who were the big losers were the Gentiles.  They were not God’s people.  They were not chosen by Him to receive His covenant promises.  The Gentiles were the ones that God commanded His people to stay away from and not intermingle lest the purity of God’s holiness as reflected on His people, be marred.  I can imagine some Gentiles craving to be included in God’s community because of His care, concern and provision for His people.  Yes the Gentiles, were people in need of hope.

It reminds me that from pre-Christ eyes, we Gentiles would have no business in His business.  But it also reminds me of what Paul says to the church at Ephesus:

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by the so-called “Circumcision”, which is performed in the flesh by human hands - remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.  But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ…So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household.  (Ephesians 2:11-13, 19).

To the Gentile, Christ meant that the covenant promises could now be claimed based on faith and not by circumstances of birth.

So as Christmas draws near, I think of these 2 classes of hopeless people that without Christ, would remain struggling to keep laws or to achieve a denied status.  But then I think of this passage:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. (Titus 2:12-14)

And I praise God for the greatest gift ever.

Merry Christmas everyone!

HT: Carrie

Christians, on the other hand, often find it hard to understand what could possibly be offensive about celebrating the birth Jesus, the Prince of Peace. After all, he is the incarnation of a loving God who came into the world as a savior. What’s so offensive about that? The answer is: EVERYTHING!

The incarnation of the second member of the Trinity is an event so glorious, so mysterious and so wonderful we should celebrate it everyday. It should radically transform our lives and affect everything we do. But in addition to being glorious, mysterious, and wonderful, the incarnation is a powerful indictment of every person who has ever lived. Jesus’ birth is a judgment that says we are all guilty before a holy, righteous, and just God, and that we can do nothing to save ourselves from his wrath. Without Jesus we are lost, utterly without hope, condemned. We are in desperate need of a savior. And the idea of a defenseless infant being our savior sprinkles our indictment with a bit of humiliation.

Quite frankly, that is pretty offensive. Being told your are wrong, lost, helpless, hopeless, and condemned doesn’t exactly make you want to celebrate by running out to buy presents for your friends and family and trimming up the tree. At a time when Christianity in America has been so focused on seeker-sensitive services and has gone to great lengths not to offend anyone, Christians have forgotten a very important truth: the Gospel is offensive.

In fact, if the offensiveness of the Gospel is removed then there is no Gospel left. Without an understanding of what we need to be saved from we would never recognize or even look for a savior. For Jesus to come into the world as a savior without offending anyone makes no sense. Jesus didn’t come into the world as a good example, he came to do what we could not do for ourselves. A drowning man must understand his circumstance accurately to recognize the hand that will pull him to safety and give him a reason to grab it. The offensiveness of the Gospel is what makes it Good News since it reveals what we are saved from and why we need a savior, as well as who that savior is.

This is what makes Christmas merry – it is the arrival of the way that God has provided for his righteous judgment to be satisfied. Everything that makes us lost, wrong, hopeless, helpless, and condemned is what Jesus came to take from us – our sin. The coming of the savior in Bethlehem over 2000 years ago is only worth celebrating if we understand what he came to save us from. And that is the offense of Christmas.

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.

I will have to cut this off for now and continue next time.

God bless you all and Merry Christmas.

After reading Hoehner’s arguments on the death of Christ (Friday crucifixion, Nisan 14 or April 3, AD 33), I wrote to him and suggested that another argument that Jesus died on Nisan 14 and that he presented himself to the nation on Nisan 10 was that it fulfilled the typology of Exodus 12:1–6. To my surprise and delight, Hoehner wrote back! And he politely pointed out that my argument could only be brought in as tertiary evidence, for although Jesus did indeed fulfill the typology of the OT, as historians we must look at the evidence that is of a historical nature—that is, evidence that both Christians and non-Christians would embrace—and we must also recognize that typological fulfillment often went in various directions, preventing us from cherry-picking in support of a view. For example, Jesus was not a year old when he died; he was not killed by fire but by crucifixion, etc. In other words, typology can be used in a confirmatory manner for historical study, but not as primary or secondary evidence. It’s what one brings in when discussing the results of one’s investigation.

What struck me was that Hoehner was unwilling to use evangelical apologetic devices as part of his defense of historical research. I wasn intrigued.

A couple of years later, when I decided that I needed to go to seminary, I took several courses from Hoehner. In NT Intro, he discussed the pros and cons of higher criticism. To my surprise, he mentioned several pros to each of the standard criticisms. Yet, he was and is solidly evangelical.

As my time at seminary went on, I began to see in Hoehner a man who was as wise as he was intelligent. A good friend of mine, whose father had not been the best role model, essentially adopted Hoehner as his surrogate father during his days in seminary. Hoehner didn’t realize this, but he fulfilled the role admirably.

When I graduated, Hoehner asked me to join the NT department for a couple of years. As I saw him from the other side of the podium, my respect grew even more. He was and is a stickler for form, having memorized (or at least, so goes the rumor!) Kate Turabian’s handbook on style. And he insisted on students citing primary sources rather than those that quote others. I learned a great deal from him about how to do proper research.

Over the years of being on faculty with this man, I have come to admire him for his influence on my family, whether he realized it or not. He ingrained in me the importance of insulating rather than isolating our children.

He has a wicked sense of humor, cracking Aggie jokes in class and being an unashamed devotee to Montie Python.

Over my 23 years of being on the faculty at Dallas Seminary, I have seen Hoehner time and time again take on the role of advocate for those who have little or no voice. He has led the way to change policies about summer school salary, sabbatical length, curriculum revision, faculty workload, class sizes, etc. At all points, he is interested in the best possible education for students and fair treatment for faculty. I believe that Hoehner has been a naysayer in faculty votes more than all the rest of the faculty combined. That is to say, he has gone against the tide, often alone, because he is true to his convictions. He’s never backed down from a fight that needed to be fought, and he’s defended the oppressed as though their cause was his own. Most remarkably, he’s done this when the position he has taken would often have negative implications for him personally. But he did it because it was the right thing to do.

Besides what he has done for Dallas Seminary as a whole, Hoehner has also developed the New Testament department. Since he became chairman of the department in the mid-seventies, he has hand-picked his faculty members, sent many of them oveseas to earn their doctorates, and developed the consistency of curriculum that the NT department is known for. We have an incredibly strong department, in no small thanks to Harold Hoehner. One of his great accomplishments was the development of fourth semester Greek, a course originally on the exegesis of Ephesians. Under Hoehner’s supervision, it morphed from a content course to a methods course. It became a course on exegetical method, using Ephesians as the text on which the principles were applied. (The recent Festschrift for Hoehner, Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis, is an extension of what we do in that course; that book has, in turn, become a model for how to do exegesis.) When I taught for a couple of years at another seminary, I offered a similar course as an elective. Soon, I was teaching two sections of this elective each semester! A few years later, that seminary changed this elective to a required course.

After more than two decades, Hoehner finally published his commentary on Ephesians. Some have considered this to be the standard commentary on Ephesians against which all others must now be measured. It is brilliant, comprehensive, fair, and clear.

I see in Harold a godly man, whose great intellect is only matched by his wisdom, courage, and cheerful demeanor. He’s just about retired now from his long tenure at DTS. Dallas Seminary is an immeasurably better institute because of Harold Hoehner. I hope and pray that we will continue on the path on which this great man has helped to put us.

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries is supported by the financial partnership of those who believe in what we are doing. Consider partnering with us today.

[Doug Powell is a guest author and apologist.  His website can be found at www.dougpowell.com]

Just in time for the 2008 Christmas season, the American Humanist Association launched a new ad campaign with the message “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.” The ads feature a Christmas motif with their snowflakes and green and red lettering, and some even picture a guy in a Santa suit. But the campaign slogan reveals a confusion about the nature of morality.

According to Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, “Humanists have always understood that you don’t need a god to be good. Morality doesn’t come from religion. It’s a set of values embraced by individuals and society based on empathy, fairness, and experience.” The interesting thing about this statement is that Speckhardt characterizes empathy and fairness as good, but he doesn’t say why these things are good. And that is the real question: What makes good things good? What grounds morality?

There are only two possible sources for morality: God or human beings. If, as the American Humanist Association claims, morality is grounded in human beings and their experience, then some very serious problems arise. The first problem is that it justifies societies that are clearly morally wrong, such as Nazi Germany. If morality is “a set of values embraced by society based on empathy, fairness, and experience,” then Nazi Germany did nothing wrong. Being empathetic does not mean doing good to someone, only understanding their feelings. And the Nazis were fair – all Jews were sent to concentration camps. The morality of their society cannot be condemned by our society since their society simply embraced values that differ from ours.

This leads to the second problem, that morality can change or be something different than what it is. Thus, the grounds for morality become arbitrary and therefore loose their force. What is morally acceptable now may not be later. Or what is okay here may not be okay somewhere else. This system of morality is based on the will of the majority - might makes right.

And that leads to the third problem, that there can be no moral reform if morality is based on human beings. If morality is made of values embraced by society, as the American Humanist Association says, then to stand against those values is, by definition, immoral. This leaves no room for people like William Wilberforce, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, or Martin Luther King, Jr. to better society. In fact, they would be the most immoral people in the society. And this, of course, is wildly counter-intuitive.

So the relativistic approach to morality held by the American Humanist Association fails to account for morality. To be good for goodness’ sake is completely arbitrary on their view. To be clear, I am not saying that atheists cannot do good things. I have been blessed through the good works of many atheist friends. But they cannot answer the question asked earlier: What makes good things good? What must exist in order for morality to exist?

The first thing that has to be taken into account is that morality does not describe actions, it prescribes them. Moral laws say what ought to be, not necessarily what is. The Humanist position says morality is based on empathy and fairness, but it does not and cannot say why we ought to act on those things. The ought-ness we see in moral laws are commands that oblige us, they are commandments. And commandments have authority over our actions. Morality is also universal; it applies to all people in all places at all times. This means morality is objective, not relative. The existence of morality does not depend on our existence.

Prescriptions and commands are forms of communication, and communication happens only between minds. Also, because morals deal with purpose and will, the source of morality must also have purpose and a will. Because morals are universal and transcend individuals, societies, and time, the source must be universal and transcendent. Since morals are authoritative they must come from an authority, and authority can only be held by a person. Finally, this person must have the power to impose his moral will on us and provide us with an ability to know their moral will through intuition. Thus, morals come from a transcendent person who has the power and authority to impose a moral law on us. And we call this person God. Morality is a reflection an outworking of God’s character. It is not arbitrary and does not have an existence independent of God.

The slogan of the American Humanist Association ads means to convey that believing in God is nonsense, while being good for goodness’ sake makes perfect sense. Interestingly, they got it backwards. It is belief in God that is sensible, and being good for goodness sake that is arbitrary and meaningless.

Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.

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.

I started crying about 3am last night and have not been able to stop. I have been avoiding everyone because every time I begin to talk, nothing happens but crying.

The immediate question that you will have is Why? I don’t necessarily have an answer. I remember two times in the last twenty years that I have cried. Once when I was in the backyard with my mother and I just started crying. When she inquired as to why I was crying, I could not tell her. I did not know. The second time was after my sister died and I put together the picture show for the funeral. Set to the background of “I Can Only Imagine” and Sarah Mclaughlin’s “Angel,” me and my family previewed the show in the living room. Everyone, including my dad, whom I had only seen cry once before, began crying. I could not help but cry with them.

I have not cried over my mother’s condition yet. Maybe this has something to do with my present state. Since the aneurysm and stroke, for the last two years (or has it been three?) we have waited for things to turn, for good of for ill. I suppose it has been a time of morning delayed turned morning denied. We are not really sure what to morn for yet. My mother is still here, but not really. Did we lose her or not?

My father’s depression remains. It brands him with denial, navigates him to the bar, and has seemingly made 30 years worth of prayers fall into the same ditch as the rest of this . . .  this . . . unwanted  . . . stuff!

For five years, I have had dreams where I cry without ceasing. I don’t know what they are about and the reason for my crying is never stable. All I know is that I cry and I can’t stop. When I wake up, I want to go back to sleep because I feel as if there were still tears that needed my company.

Maybe it was yesterday. Friday’s are my day with my mom. I go early in the morning and stay with her all day. It is very hard as I see what she has become. She is sweet and tender, but not the same. While she can’t walk, speak (other than say “you consider” and a few other phrases), or enjoy anything other than watching the same movie over and over, she is always glad to give you a hug. I was taking her home from Old School Bagel after lunch (we go there every Friday at 1pm), and she saw that we were pulling in her neighborhood and began to panic. The panic involves crying and screaming because she does not want to go home and sit in her chair that she never moves from. Who can blame her? She sits there all day. The whole place smells like urine. Every-one’s back is too bad to move her often as she has gained about sixty or seventy pounds. Lindsey (my sister) quite watching her all-together and is now seeing a doctor about her neck and back. She cried yesterday and I did not have the heart to take her home. So we just drove around for another couple of hours.

As a side note, considering my theology of spiritual gifts, I will become a Charismatic if someone would come heal my mother. I promise.

Maybe it is the economy. Maybe it is a fear of not being able to pay bills. Maybe it is a combination (and here is where I should not be writing what I am writing) of the stress of always having to raise funds for Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, being behind on paychecks, and, at the same time, starting a new major project. Yesterday I got a notice that our car payment had been rejected by the bank. That is the first time that I have not been able to pay a bill that I can remember. That hurts…it hurts a lot. Supporter, protector, provider. That is what I am. When Kristie asks “What is wrong” I tell her not to worry about it, but I will take care of everything because that is what I do . . . take care of things. But how? The phone rings twice today from Ford Credit. I did not answer.

I have committed everything that I am and have to this ministry. I have not even thought about what I would do if I did not do this. What can I do? I am not qualified for anything else. I don’t have a church around that I would feel comfortable working for. I would feel like I am getting a ministry job simply to pay the bills. Not for me. Getting a job in ministry—a pastoral position—just to pay bills. No! Yeah right, I would probably buckle and compromise what I think is my integrity if push came to shove. What else would I do? I got a newspaper the other day and started looking at jobs. I am decent at a lot of things, but not qualified for anything in the secular world. I found nothing that I could do.

It is not that Reclaiming the Mind is not paying the bills (for the most part), it is that I never know whether or not the next paycheck is coming or if I will have to send out another “alarm message.” I hate “alarm messages.” (Is there a stronger word than “hate”?

June: “Please help! Our ministry is in dire need. We are $5,000 behind this month. Please, if you believe in this ministry, send and immediate donation . . .”

July: “Please help! Our ministry is in dire need. We are $10,000 behind this month. Please, if you believe in this ministry, send and immediate donation . . .”

August: “Please help! Our ministry is in dire need. We are $8,000 behind this month. Please, if you believe in this ministry, send and immediate donation . . .”

Sept: “Please help! Our ministry is in dire need. We are $20,000 behind this month. Please, if you believe in this ministry, send and immediate donation . . .”

Yes, they always come, but at what expense? Is this really how a ministry is supposed to be run? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind asking for money at all, but I HATE alarm messages (did I say that). I vow here and now that I won’t send them out anymore. (Yeah right, you will probably get one next month.)

Maybe it is just me. I am not depressed . . . I don’t think. I am just crying. I can’t tell you the exact reason. Maybe there is no reason. Maybe it is all of these things.

I pray. I pray a lot. I am not angry with the Lord for anything. I have no disillusionment, bitterness, or denial in his presence. I try to stay one step behind him, even when he leads through battle fields of pain. I know he knows what he is doing and I trust him. But, at the same time, I am hurt, sad, and confused. Don’t mistake hurt with “giving up.” Don’t mistake sad with “angry.” And don’t mistake confused with “lost.”

I am just crying and I don’t really know why. All defense mechanisms that used to be there are gone. I stayed at the park for an hour or so today to avoid seeing my wife and children.

Don’t worry about me though. I am just crying…maybe it is a good thing. But I hope it stops soon.

Do you ever cry for “no reason”?

(Warning, this message is set to self-destruct)

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?

If you can see this (!), 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.

Merry Christmas friends.

“Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then?”
A lecture at an apologetics conference in Providence, Rhode Island, 2008, about whether our printed New Testaments today acc