Re-Gifting: Why I’m Revisiting the Charismatic Question
January 8th, 2007
(By Nathan Busenitz)
The Charismatic Debate (or maybe more precisely … the Continuationist/Cessationist Debate) has already gone a few rounds in the blogosphere.
Only a few months ago, Dan Philips discussed the issue (specifically the “tongues of angels”) with Adrian Warnock over on the Pyromaniacs blog. Back in late 2005, Mark Lauterbach had a very interesting series on why he ceased to be a cessationist, and became a Reformed charismatic. He and I corresponded briefly, when I posted on the subject various times at Faith & Practice. David Wayne, Tim Challies, Justin Taylor, and others (for example, here and here) have also highlighted the topic at various times.
Well, my primary reason is admittedly selfish. I’m scheduled to do a new seminar on the topic of charismatic gifts at the upcoming Shepherds’ Conference. My thought was that starting a series on the gifts here at Pulpit would serve as a great catalyst for thinking through the issues. It is also a wonderful way to get feedback from those of a different perspective—even allowing me to ask questions for the sake of clarification, before I presume something that’s inaccurate.
Hopefully, the whole discussion will be beneficial for everyone who participates. The series will begin tomorrow… and I am inviting any continuationists who would like to join the discussion to please do so.
For now, I’ll close with the words of Dr. Wayne Grudem, as to why having a discussion like this is a profitable endeavor (beyond my own seminar-building selfishness):
I think with regards to cessationists and non-cessationists the controversy has been very healthy in a number of ways: there has been a greater appreciation of the importance of spiritual gifts and ministry by every Christian to one another; there’s been remarkable change in worship styles that I think has been very valuable and we have, in large measure, the charismatic movement to thank for that; there has been a great appreciation for the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives and the empowering of the Holy Spirit and the validity of prayer and prayer for miracles today. On the other hand some of the abuses and mistakes of the charismatic/Pentecostal movement have been highlighted and people are trying to restrain those and refrain from making some mistakes like that. And there has been a new emphasis on the unique authority of the Bible and I’m thankful for that. So I think there’s good on both sides.
Yeah but Wayne Grudem, like his other self-affirmed Third Wave friends (Sovereign Grace, Vineyard, etc), are talking about very different things when discussing the same terms.
One recommendation, Nate, would be to start again with definition of terms.
When we say the gift of “tongues” we know that means real human languages, spoken by an evangelist in the time of the early church who had never learned the language, gifted by the Holy Spirit in order to build the fledgling church. This is why they could be interpretted (they were real languages), and of course regarding Paul’s hyperbolic comment “tongues of angels” we also know that even angels whenever communicating with humans spoke understandable human languages.
Thus the entire concept of charismatic “tongues” as a “prayer language” that is not only supposedly still active today but also not a normal human language, is a complete farce perpetrated by folks who seek the experiential (always a dangerous practice for Christians).
Prophecy is again defined very differently (by Grudem himself for example) than prophecy as known and understood in Biblical times and which logically would not somehow then later change, specifically not via a relaxation of the standards a prophet must measure up to (were we to allow the hypothetical situation that prophecy were still active today). This is again only done in order for these folks to perform extrabiblical, unChristian practices. This can ONLY lead to error, NEVER new truth. Since the Bible reveals the complete truth, there is no need for anything else today to supplement it since there is no new truth.
I believe you covered these very issues rather well in the 2006 conference seminar entitled “Now That’s the Spirit”.
I’m uncertain why there would be more to say, considering the points you listed then haven’t changed, as the Word of God hasn’t changed either.
Also, one note: I rarely hear folks mention in critiques of demonic events like the Toronto Blessing how the manifestations weren’t simply laughter, but also outright, unquestionably demonic possession with manifestations such as making animal noises and simulating birthing. These are well recorded by former attendees and observers at locations where the manifestations occurred during those years. Scripture shows that these are very unGodly manifestations, and researching subjects like Kundalini Yoga will show that the same manifestations occur there, plausibly demonstrating that the demonic forces behind that type of yoga are related to those in these supposed Charismatic “spiritual outpourings”. They were receiving a spirit alright, but it was positively not the Holy Spirit, and the ‘fruit’ demonstrated made that exceptionally clear.
For folks like Grudem to even leave open the possibility those events were from God is to be theologically liberal enough to be dangerous, and to be unworthy of heeding by the Church on other matters, imho. The Bible tells us quite clearly we can know falsehood by its fruit, and we - particularly those supposed learn-ed and in leadership - are called to be discerning and to take a stand and defend the truth, not to be liberal (or postmodern) wishy-washy anything-goes type of folks who by their refusal to condemn evil are actually passively fulfilling Romans 1:32 and can only be expected to fall further and further into error as God gives them over to the consequences of their refusal to abide by and strive for the truth.
This, imho, is why many of those folks are also into supersessionism, dominionism, and other deviant practices. Once they walk away from the truth in favor of practicing error simply because it makes them FEEL closer to God, God will allow them to be deceived in other areas as well.
Charismaticism, like Emergent/Post-Modernism, is just another branch of liberalism trying to infiltrate and corrupt the Church.
I apologize for the length of this comment.
Fantastic to see good healthy discussion on this from both sides - not in the hope that one camp converts the other, but that we all go back to the Scriptures together and find room for each others views in the economy of God.
I wonder what contribution the blogosphere/internet has made towards allowing these conversations to happen?
I look forward to reading your posts and have subscribed to this blog for that purpose. I look forward to learning from you, that Christ would be honored, and that the detractors would be few.
I am not a cessationist, because I cannot find biblical warant for it. (I Corinthians does not say WHEN these things will cease.) However, after being to dozens, if not hundreds, of charismatic services, I have never been in one that did not seem faky and contrived.
And I have never heard a “tongues” exhibition that was anything more than the sounds of English rearranged into jibberish. (This is a dead give away to anyone who knows linguistics.)
I even believe that God may bring prophesies and visions. But again, I have never seen the charismatics insist that one of their “prophets” be tested according to the Scriptures. In fact, many of their “prophets” have been wrong, but are still accepted as brothers and leaders.
My point: you don’t have to be a cessationist to make sure there is no spiritual hanky-panky. Just make sure that the gifts are used and tested biblically and the fakes will go away. For instance, insist that the tongues are interpretted and no more than one or two occurances are allowed during a service. And test every prophet, prophesy, and vision. If a “prophet” is wrong, excommunicate him. The fakes will leave and go where they can continue in their sin. Your church will have God’s blessing because you will not be quenching the Spirit. You will be biblical and balanced in practice and attitude.
Now that I’ve made both sides angry I’ll just slink away.
In hiding,
Phil Perkins.
I like Wayne Grudem. He’s a man of God’s Word. He brings out things that are different than my mind can take in on spiritual gifts and such, but I do weigh his thoughts against mine. His theology on other biblical subjects is quite edifying, and he is a fine source for me to go to when debating theology within the church, and with unbeleivers; and in personal study.
Looking forward to this study.
Phil,
Well said. My wife and I were both charismatic as new Christians. She attended a “third wave” church in Atlanta, Georgia and was a full blown “tongue talker.” I, myself, used to tape Kenneth Copeland to augment my local church discipleship.
As we read our Bibles and grew and watched, we saw the subjectivism, the cultivated emotionalism, and charlatanism of the movement and the heart break it brought to those coming in and out of the movement (like a revolving door). The dashed expectations created by notions like bogus prophecies, money minded antics and a subordinating of Scripture in favor of experience are a tragedy.
While I am convinced these sign gifts have ceased (I see the “perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13 as a reference that includes the maturation and establishment of the infant church and the close of the canon of Scriptures), even for those who are not cessationists would find it hard, if not impossible, to find a practicing charismatic, or charismatic church, that adheres to the New Testament requirements given by the Holy Spirit through Paul in 1 Corinthians 14.
(Often when one lovingly confronts a charismatic brother one has to say something like ” God, the Holy Spirit, said 1 Corinthians 14…” because they tend to forget that the same Holy Spirit that they are “following in their heart” is the Author of Scripture.)
There is indeed a hesitancy among charismatics who are “biblically based” that is akin to that of the “Muslim Moderates” to address the specific excesses of the extremist groups among them (i.e. Kansas City prophets, or the Toronto “blessing”).
“Excess” is spoken of “theoretically” but few, if any, practical examples are cited, or pointed out.
I think this blog will offer up on opportunity for healthy dialog. I’ll enjoy spectating.
In His Grace,
Keith Crosby
Keith C.,
Can you say more to convince me of the “perfect” definition you have taken? I really want to get this right. Not debating–seeking to learn more.
Thanks for the tip on talking to Charismatics. Makes sense. Will remember that, my Bro.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Yes, donsands, a lot of people (mostly charismatics, naturally) -like- Wayne Grudem, however, I’m unaware of the instruction in the Bible that says we should go by what tickles our ears (i.e. appeals to us) and not explicitly by sound doctrine that lines up with Scripture.
Grudem may indeed be correct on a majority of subjects, but on items related to charismaticism (the essence of what this blogpost is discussing) one can find error in entire lines of thought he uses as a basis for lengthy sections of those chapters in his Systematic Theology. Where the interpretation of a passage is in error, everything based on that interpretation will logically be deviant. This in addition to his defense/apologetic of the Toronto Blessing, and his being an admitted Third Wave charismatic, should provide plenty of reason for caution.
Not to take a point too far, but it is important to remember that the best way to infiltrate a lie on one subject is to wrap it with truth regarding other subjects. One can find an immense amount of resources from non-charismatics that cover the other areas of doctrine he covers in his book, and thus not ‘lose’ anything (were such a concern to be raised) by using other works instead of his.
This is why his Systematic Theology, in its own right possibly a useful resource on many subjects for personal edification, is not the Bible, and groups that seem to hold it in nearly as high esteem as Scripture (SovGrace being one example) are to be approached cautiously.
In ‘debating’ matters of theology within the Church, I would highly recommend using Scripture alone as your primary resource, let alone when it comes to discussions with unbelievers. To think you would contend for the truth while referencing the words of a fallible man instead of the Word of God is rather questionable. For matters being discussed amongst the church leadership, generally the eldership of the church has drafted its own statement of faith (based on Scripture, and historic creeds perhaps) that can be referred to, as would perhaps other resources, but for matters of ‘debate’, we must be basing our positions on a proper contextual exposition of Scripture. Anything else is an open doorway to error.
This is why there is so much danger in rushing to apply Scripture in ‘relevant’ messages without first laying out clearly for the body (and first in one’s personal study while developing the sermon) the proper contextual interpretation of the passage. If the application one wants to make does not line up with the contextual intent of the passage, no matter how ‘great’ you might think it is, it should be a reason for caution that perhaps the application is errant. Incongruity between the application and the original context is not a reason to ignore the passage’s context and push ahead with an application for the Church today that may not even be valid to begin with. This is why expository preaching is so important. This is also where much of the charismatic approach to the Bible fails.
Wake,
Thanks for your thoughts. Absolutely, I go to the Holy Scriptures above all. I would say Sovereign Grace would say the same.
I do not esteem teachers and pastors above God’s Word, however, I appreciate these gifted men, that Christ Himself has given to the Church. Eph. 4:11
I agree that there are false teachers, but I do not agree that Wayne Grudem is one of these. Nor C. J. Mahaney.
Keith,
Chuck Smith condemned the Toronto Blessing. He called it “strange fire”, according to Num. 3:4. I am almost certain he did.
Grudem endorsing it is a shock to me, and I’ll have to check that out. I appreciate the information on that.
As one just recently introduced to this online magazine by being referred to the series on Brian Mclaren, and then having read a few of the most recent articles and comments I am intrigued by one thing. MacArthur (at the beggining of his series on Mclaren)states “The doctrine of the clarity (or perspicuity) of Scripture [is] that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable, and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense .
But then why all this lack of clarity and understanding that is so evident in so many of these
comments? For example what is the central message that is so clear and understandable about the continuation or cessation of the gifts? What is the truth that God decreed (as MacArthur states in his Jan 5th article)about this issue?
If there is so much certainty about the gifts (or lack of them), in the words of Busenitz, “So why bring it up again?”
donsands: “I agree that there are false teachers, but I do not agree that Wayne Grudem is one of these. Nor C. J. Mahaney.”
Come now, I wouldn’t agree with that statement either. However, if someone were to say they were misguided, possibly even decieved, on certain areas of doctrine, that would more accurately resemble my sentiments.
“I would say Sovereign Grace would say the same.”
The question there would be whether or not what they say lines up with their practice. There are areas where actual practice (and thus actual belief) differed (in some cases simply in level of emphasis or deference given to certain people or their works) from how they might claim to be.
It would be difficult for any discerning church leadership to promote such things as the Alpha course, for example. That’s just one example that’s rather blatant. As I don’t want to deviate from the discussion topic, I’ll leave it at that.
Regards.
Nate,
One of the aspects regarding the gifts that I would like to see discussed is God’s sovereignty. In every “discussion” I have seen on gifts this aspect has never been fully expounded, but has been ignored by the charismatics and only give tepid mention by the cessasionists. It is plain from the 4 main passages on gifts that the Lord is the giver of the gifts, but then in I Corinthians we see that He is also “in charge” of the effects. I think it would be good to see discussion from both camps how they view the gifts within this context.
Rowan,
Thanks for your comment. It’s a good question, and one worth thinking through. A couple quick thoughts in response…
1. The charismatic issue is an important one. It affects one’s pneumatology, ecclesiology, and bibliology. But we would not regard it as a primary issue. It is not the central message of the Bible. The gospel is. When John MacArthur says that the “central message of the Bible is clear and understandable” he is speaking about the gospel.
John readily admits that there are some parts of Scripture that are difficult to understand. He explains all of this in his most recent TMSJ article regarding the clarity of Scripture. While I cannot cite the entire section here (due to length), here is a small part of it:
****
In Scripture, the person of God and the Word of God are everywhere interrelated, so much so that whatever is true about the character of God is true about the nature of God’s Word. Thus, to deny the clarity of Scripture is to call into question God’s ability to communicate clearly. But by affirming the fact that the Bible’s message is inherently understandable, the doctrine of perspicuity rightly acknowledges that the Spirit of God has revealed divine truth in a comprehendible form.
It is because, “the words of Scripture are objectively God’s revelation, [that] one person can point to the content of the Bible in seeking to demonstrate to another what the correct understanding is” (Erickson, Christian Theology, 279).
Moreover, because God’s revelation is clear: “Scripture can be and is read with profit, with appreciation and with transformative results. It is open and transparent to earnest readers; it is intelligible and comprehensible to attentive readers. Scripture itself is coherent and obvious. It is direct and unambiguous as written; what is written is sufficient. Scripture’s concern or focal point is readily presented as the redemptive story of God. It displays a progressively more specific identification of that story, culminating in the gospel of Jesus Christ. All this is to say: Scripture is clear about what it is about” (Callahan, The Clarity of Scripture, 9).
This does not mean that the Bible is without “some things hard to understand” (2 Pet. 3:16). The doctrine of perspicuity does not demand that every Bible passage be equally straightforward or equally simple as to its precise meaning. Sometimes correct understanding requires comparing one passage with another.
As Augustine wrote: “Thus the Holy Spirit has magnificently and wholesomely modulated the Holy Scriptures so that the more open places present themselves to hunger and the more obscure places may deter a disdainful attitude. Hardly anything may be found in these obscure places which is not found plainly said elsewhere” (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 38).
****
John goes on to explain, with eight subpoints, what he specifically means by the doctrine of biblical clarity. Maybe we will post his entire article here at some point in the future.
2. I believe that it is because (not in spite of the fact that) we believe that “the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense” that we would have a discussion like this.
If the Bible cannot be properly interpreted, then there is no point in having a discussion about which interpretation is the right one.
But, because we believe that the Bible can be properly interpreted, using the normal rules of language, we go to the text to sharpen one another — recognizing that the inerrant, inspired Word of God “is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
Anyway, I hope that helps. Thanks again for your comments.
- NB
@ Rowan
Dr. MacArthur said the “central message of the Bible” is clear (look at your own quote), which Dr. Grudem, Mahaney, and us here would agree with is super clear, NOT the “central message” of each and every topic that people can think of.
Remember, Peter even says that Paul’s letters are hard to understand.
Wake,
That statement may have been too strong. I didn’t truly think you thought that. I sometimes don’t share my thoughts as well as I should.
I agree with you that the way one practices his beliefs verifies his beliefs. Good point.
If I say I believe the Bible is the final authority, then I am calling all and anyone to surely call me on this at any time, and would welcome it really.
I truly believe these other ministries and teachers in the Reformed/Charasmatic camp would agree with that. I know Grudem holds to Scripture as the final authroity.
“We can rest our confidence in this fact in the faithfulness of God our Father, who would not lead His people for nearly two thousand years to trust as His Word something that is not. … God’s faithfulness to His people convinces us that there is nothing missing from Scripture that God thinks we need to know for obeying Him and trusting Him fully. The canon of Scripture today is exactly what God wanted it to be, and it will stay that way until Christ returns.” -Wayne Grudem
That’s all I was saying.
In addition to Nate’s session from last year’s ShepConf “Now That’s the Spirit”, I would also recommend Rick Holland’s entitled “How to Preach A Bad Sermon”. Around the 36 minute mark he makes the very point I raised earlier regarding ensuring application lines up with the passage’s original contextual interpretation - i.e. the authorial intent.
To quote directly:
“The key to all faithful study is finding and portraying the authorial intent.
…
The author’s intent. What did the author mean by what he said. And what the text meant is what the text means. To move from the past to the present, from the particular to the universal, from the historical to the contemporary - without losing the meaning. That’s preaching.”
Few preachers take care to do that today, let alone individuals in their private study of the Word. We should all be careful to ensure our interpretation of Scripture (and any derived applications) matches the context - the authorial intent.
I’ve really enjoyed reading this and find it thought provoking. I would, however, like to throw my thoughts in on the continuationist/cessationist debate. Let me first of all state my position in this discussion: I am a Reformed Baptist Charismatic (it’s a mouthful I know) and I see valid points on both ends of the arguement. As a matter of fact, by the time I’m done saying what I think, I’m sure both sides with thoroughly thrash me. But, anyway, here goes.
As much as cessationist like to use the passages in 1 Co. 13 to say that tongues has ceased I find no valid proof in those verses to support such a claim. At the same time, the cessationist will say that the “gifts of healings” and the “effecting of miracles” has ceased but those “sign” gifts aren’t even mentioned in this text. Likewise, there is no hint whatsoever in the New Testament that these spiritual gifts were ever to cease UNTIL the perfect comes (which I believe to be the New Heavens and the New Earth)and we know EVEN as we are known. This is why I believe that all the gifts listed in 1 Co. 12 are still functioning today by the sovereign will of the Spirit.
On the other hand, there is no scriptural proof to support the claim that Christians can pray in a “private prayer tongue”. For five years I was a false convert and heavily involved in the pentecostal/Charismatic movement. I went to a WordFaith ministry school for two years and studied much of the teachings of prominent men within the charismatic circles. Having seen all the scriptures that these teachers use to support this “experience” I can assure you that it is a result of poor interpretation methods. Not to mention the fact that I had received the pentecostal version of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (w/ evidence of tongues) and I was still living in sin. How can this be if indeed this is a biblical experience? No offense to my charismatic brothers, but I sincerely don’t believe it’s scriptural and I don’t know of any scriptures that support such a claim when exegeted correctly. I think, for the most part, that what we see today in modern charismatic circles is nothing more than phsycological hype and uncontrolled mayhem. The true fruit of the Spirit’s indwelling presence is a changed life of ever growing holiness, not supernatural manifestations.
Thanks for sharing that CBX.
One note: Cessationists (if I could speak for such a group as a whole) make no claim against miracles and wouldn’t lump them in with spiritual gifts as having ceased. Miracles are God’s activity outside of the Church body (though often on behalf of/for a member of the body), and as such they are clearly unrelated to sign gifts which were the work of the Holy Spirit to empower the early church directly, to prove its authenticity and take root quickly.
Don,
I just checked and re-checked my post above and I could find no reference to Wayne Grudem in it.
I love Wayne Grudem. I’ve enjoyed sermons by Chuck Smith. Dr. Grudem was (and may still be) a part of the Vineyard Movement (he attended a Vineyard Church).
Having said this, I think the point of the post is (if I’m exegeting myself correctly) is that while leaders in the movement will speak of the excesses of charismatic extremists, they seldom name any. Good for Chuck Smith pointing one out. I would add, however, that “the exception proves the rule.”
In His Grace,
Keith Crosby
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Phil,
I’m not sure that this is the place to stake out how I came to my conclusion. I’d be happy to respond off-line by email: keith@bethelgb.org. We can interact at length offline there and I can email you directly without taking up excessive space here.
However, two succinct articles on the subject, which take the same exegetical approach (but do a much more capable job) may be found in BibSac, the Journal Published by Dallas Theological Seminary, 153:611 (Jul 96) pp 345-357, and there is another article in the Master’s Seminary Journal,9:1 (Spring 1998) pp. 45ff.
There is also a fine work entitled “Understanding Spiritual Gifts, by Robert Thomas (Kregel Publications), ISBN 0-8254-3829-2. In appendix A there is a lengthy discussion that is nearly identical to the one found in the Master’s Seminary Journal.
In His Grace,
Keith Crosby
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Nate, thanks for the response, especially its humility.
by “authorial intent” I sure hope he meant God.
Keith,
That was Wake who mentioned Grudem. Sorry.
Phil P.,
Just to throw in my understanding of the “perfect” which I agree as far as I understand what Keith is saying. The idea of “maturity” from that Greek word is consistent with the meaning used in Eph. 4:13 under the same type of context of church gifts, and growth of the individual for the building up of the body. 1 Cor. 12-14 is a rebuke by Paul to this church which was for all intents and purposes very immature and carnal as he called them. Thus their strong focus on tongues over and above the more primary gifts was indicative of their spiritual weakness (i.e. Eph. 4:14), and lack of understanding of the gifts. Dr. Thomas explains it very well in his book and articles on this subject (especially in the understanding of 1 Cor. 13:11). Ephesians 2:20-22 has to be brought into this discussion as well.
Wake,
(in case you missed my miss-post erroneously addressed to donsands),
I just checked and re-checked my post above and I could find no reference to Wayne Grudem in it.
I love Wayne Grudem. I’ve enjoyed sermons by Chuck Smith. Dr. Grudem was (and may still be) a part of the Vineyard Movement (he attended a Vineyard Church).
Having said this, I think the point of the post is (if I’m exegeting myself correctly) is that while leaders in the movement will speak of the excesses of charismatic extremists, they seldom name any. Good for Chuck Smith pointing one out. I would add, however, that “the exception proves the rule.”
In His Grace,
Keith Crosby
Green Bay, Wisconsin
PS: Donsands: Sorry for the oversight.
Hey Folks,
I stumbled across this post via a link from Tim Challies blog. Just my fleeting and flawed $0.02, for what it’s worth.
I’ve been attending CLC, an SGM church, since early 2000. Yes, Grudem’s Systematic Theology is used and recommended. No, I have never seen it equated to, let alone given precedence above or beyond, the word of God. Please bear with me and allow me to emphasize the ‘never’ part of that last statement: never.
In fact, if anything, I’ve personally struggled over the years with striving to arrive at the most biblically sound and supported perspective on charismatic gifts as I could. Not once have I been dogmatically directed to Grudem or, for that matter, even pressured one way or the other. It’s truly secondary matter in the body of beleivers I tend to hang with (CLC folks, et al).
Again, this has been my experience; other’s may have a different take …though I be hard pressed to imagine it would vary by much.
Cheers and best to all.
If you’re scheduled to be giving a talk at talk about this topic from a cessationist perspective, can you try to get some MP3s of the talk posted?
This is a topic that I’ve been thinking about recently - and I’ve grabbed some audio series from a Sovereign Grace church on the topic and read through Grudem’s book on prophecy. I’m looking from some good cessationist resources with which to compare, but there doesn’t seem to be as much posted. I don’t think that I have time at the moment to follow another blog or do more reading with my current time commitments, but I could probably find some time with my iPod to listen.
Suggestion: If you are interesting in studying issues in the area of cessationism/continuationism then make sure you read “Counterfeit Miracles” by B.B. Warfield. Without a doubt - read it.
This is “off-subject” but I need your help in finding a strong, biblically sound church in Oregon and also if you are aware of any in the Monterey, Carmel, Big Sur, Northern Cal area… if you are not, please let me know where I can get this info… any Masters graduates in these areas? We need a church that isn’t “lukewarm”… thanks,
Debbie
Debbie,
The Masters Seminary has an alumni search feature at their website:
http://www.tms.edu/alumnimap.asp
9marks is another good site:
http://churchsearch2.9marks.org/
john
Debbie,
Hollister has an excellent church. Jim Achilles is the pastor there, but I forgot the name of the church. You should be able to find him on The Master’s Seminary alumni page.
I am excited to join this debate as it gets going. I know I’m a small-time blogger, but I have written a great deal about the charismatic gifts of the Spirit in response to Dan Philips, whom you mentioned at the beginning of your post.
I am a Reformed continuationist, and judging by the comments that have come in so far, I’ve got my work cut out for me!
May God get the glory, and may we get the joy!
To Debbie:
To find out about a strong church in Oregon, you could contact First Baptist Church of Eugene and ask for their recommendations or if they know of biblical churches in certain cities. John MacArthur’s father is one of the past pastors of First Baptist Eugene. I don’t want to leave their phone number here on the meta, so use a search engine and you’ll find their website and contact information.
Steve
Thank you for requesting participation by those of the continuationist persuasion
I was going to respond directly to some of the claims of the first commenter, but honestly that writer tries to frame the question as though his interpretations of what tongues are is the only reasonable option. That just isn’t the case.
A few questions I have never received an adequate answer to from cessationists:
If the languages were exclusively human, why is there a “gift” of interpretation? I mean, if the tongues were meant only and exclusively for evangelism to those who spoke different languages, why do you need an interpreter at all?
If tongues were never meant for personal edification, how come Paul states he speaks in tongues more than all of them, but in the church he prefers to speak language which can be understood? (1 Cor. 14:18-19)
How can you claim to see perfectly now because of the completion of the canon, and how could Paul have possibly expected anyone he was originally writing to to understand he meant the completion of the New Testament?
A few things to consider. The miracle on the day of Pentecost may not have been a miracle of speaking as much as a miracle of hearing. A careful reading of Acts 2:4-9 shows it very well could be that one person speaking in tongues could have been understood by those who speak several different languages. This, of course, would mean that the actual tongues being spoken would not necessarily be (and perhaps even very unlikely to be) a human language.
In Acts 10, the purpose of the tongues does not seem to be evangelistic, but to confirm the reception of the Holy Spirit by the Gentiles hearing Peter’s words. (I should note I am not Pentecostal in the sense that I do not believe the “initial physical evidence” of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues. I do however note that speaking in tongues is what confirmed the reception of the Holy Spirit in this instance.)
In Acts 19, the tongues also were not intended for some evangelistic purpose, as there were 12 men present and all of them appear to have been baptized and filled with the Holy Spirit.
Dismissing Paul’s comment in 1 Corinthians 13:1 of speaking “with the tongues of men and of angels” without a closer inspection is inadvisable. While I do not believe you can prove from Scripture that there were tongues which were not human language, neither can you disprove it. There’s more evidence, however, supporting Paul’s “of angels” to be more than just poetic language (and what would be the point of adding it, any way, were it not a fact that angels had tongues which were not human languages?). I refer again to the miracle of hearing in Acts 2, as it is quite possible they were not speaking human languages since the miracle seems to be one of hearing rather than speaking. Paul encourages those who pray in tongues in private to also pray that they may interpret so they understand what they say, for understanding is better. Note that Paul does say one who prays even without understanding has his spirit edified, but that it is even better to have your spirit and your mind edified by understanding.
This is also evidence of a speaking in tongues which does not fit the purpose of the “gift” in 1 Corinthians 12. The gifts were given for the edification of the body of Christ, yet there seems to be a tongues which Paul himself practiced which was for self-edification.
Which raises another question. If praying in tongues was edifying to the spirit, without understanding, how would “the perfect” (if we accept the cessationist’s definition for “the perfect” as the completion of the canon) negate the need for this type of edification? For that matter, how does “the perfect” negate the need for a timely word of wisdom or prophecy? Or how does the completion of the New Testament negate the need for healings? Miracles?
The entire cessationist argument is built around circular logic and falls apart if they are wrong at any point. The cornerstone of the circular logic is that the tongues will cease when “the perfect” comes. If this is not a valid interpretation for the passage, the cessationist argument fails to hold even a little bit of water. To claim the original recipients of the letter would understand “the perfect” in the way the cessationist’s would have you believe is ridiculous at best and manipulative at worst. Simply put, it is what they have to believe otherwise the clear biblical position on the gifts is a continuationist position.
The fact of the gifts continuing does not give the right for abuse. The Corinthians were extremely abusive in their handling of the gifts, and Paul certainly wrote to them as a corrective. Please consider, however, that Paul did not say these gifts were not legitimate because they were being abused. Cessationists want to call out those today who are abusing gifts as demonic specifically because of abuses. These abuses are wrong, but there is clear biblical evidence that God allows their wrongful use. The evidence is the church at Corinth. We must be careful to condemn those who are misusing the gifts as demonic and unchristian. It’s a judgment Paul does not pass upon a group of Christians as abusive as most of the horrendous abuses which can be seen today.
And also remember Paul said to not forbid the speaking of tongues. Cessationists are on shaky ground when they hold their position in spite of the wealth of biblical evidence which points to the gifts being normative for the church. Continuationists who ignore the guidelines Paul gives for the healthy manifestations of the gifts are on no less shaky ground. Disobedience is a terrible thing on both sides of the issue.
The key to understanding this topic contains several factors. One is not to make the error of conflation. That is, not to compress all the gifts of the Holy Spirit into the same category. For example, I do not know of a single cessationist who will argue that the gift of teaching has ceased, yet, they do say that tongues have. So the first thing to realize is that not all gifts are the same in kind. A sign gift like tongues is very different.
Now, that being said, what does a sign gift do? Well, a sign gift points to something, it is an announcement of sorts unlike say the gift of knowledge or mercy.
So this leads to another key which is the answering of this question, “What exactly was the purpose of the sign gift of tongues?” When you answer that, you have answered when they will end because until what it is that they announce has been completed or fulfilled or realized they will not end.
That’s all for now, but your entire tongues doctrine rests in Isaiah if one is actually developing their argument from the text and not leaving it behind.
Proverbs 7:18-21
So she caught, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him,
I have peace offerings with me; this day have I paid
my vows.
Therefore came I forth to meet thee, dilligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee.
I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with
carved works, with fine linen of Egypt.
NOTE:… all perverted bibles Rome creates are rooted
in “Hesychian”aka “Alexandrian” manuscripts. Alexandria
is in EGYPT, EGYPT is in Africa. Africa is the DARK
continent.
I have perfumed my bed myrr, aloes and cinnamon.
(watch out here comes the LOVE)
Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning:
let us solace ourselves with loves.
For the goodman of the house is not at home, he is gone
on a long journey:
He hath taken a bag of money with him, and will come
home at the day appointed.
(Acts 1:18 6X3=18) Judas took a long journey too and coincidently before he did he was connected to a BAG of MONEY was he not? He went to his
own special place. His bowels burst out. Bowels are in
the BELLY.(2nd Corinthians 2:12)
With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him.
(LIKE the words in the previous post)
2nd Corinthians 11:11,12
Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth.
But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherin they glory, they may be found even as we.
Galatians 5:12
I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
No doubt God is love, but God HATES false doctrine.
And calls his children to BE YE SEPERATE
(2nd Corinthians 6:11-17).
DON’T BE STUPID(Proverbs 7:22-27)
I see the whole discussion of continuationism vs. cessationism as rather silly when I take into consideration the following food for thought:
1) The miracle of tongues on that particular day of Pentecost was INDEED as much a miracle of hearing as it was of speaking (to augment my brother in Christ’s comment earlier). For 120 people to speak in the native tongues of three thousand different people, you either have to imagine the Holy Spirit neatly dividing the hearers into little groups of 25 listeners per speaker, OR you have to imagine the supernatural tongues being spoken as they were, but TRANSLATED TO THE EARS of the hearers, much like the overdubs in English of a foreign film (my general opinion). For the event on Pentecost to have taken place in that manner, we must admit that the languages spoken by the 120 did not NECESSARILY have to be known languages; I never pay attention to the original language in a foreign film; I am always carried along by what is translated for me to hear.
2) The idea of the “perfect” in 1 Cor. meaning the completed canon of Scripture is, to me, almost laughable. The canon was decided by an ecumenical council and ratified and approved by, so help us, a Pope. The canon would NOT have been promulgated as authoritative without his stamp. Never mind that people were using the same generally-agreed-upon books for years before; the fact is that we have a specific date and specific council to which we must point in order to make the argument that the canon is closed. Why didn’t the Reformers throw out the baby of canonicity with the bathwater of Romish sacramentalism and Papism? Because the Reformers and everyone else who defend the inclusion of these particular books in the Bible’s canon are relying on the WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT, a rather experientialist excercise by nature, because you cannot, simply CANNOT, use Scripture to prove the canon is closed or what constitutes the canon. Everyone who is taking this canon as authoritative is either following the dogmatic pronouncement of a Pope and a council under his rule, OR they are relying on an extraBiblical supernatural leading and witness of the Holy Spirit.
Just some fuel for the fire. May the Spirit rain down upon us in both blazingly bright AND consumingly hot power, for His Kingdom and His glory. Amen.
BTW, when I say the discussion is almost silly, I mean no disrespect or denigration of the intellect or the accomplishments of any of the contributors on any level. I am, in fact, a former student at a very well known Bible college/seminary where the president is a cessationist, but have certificates in ministry from an organization that is decidedly continuationist. I respect and love in Christ all of these and all of you as well.
What I mean by silly is that we must understand that God, Spirit and limitless and sovereign as He is, super-rules not only space and time, but our understanding of His revelation. He presides over and does among His people what He will, and no amount of systematization will ever fully and adequately define His doings; if it could, then someone could be His counselor, a thing which He says no one can do. We would have license to sit next to God and remind Him that our theological discoveries have bound Him to certain criteria. Because we are to tremble at his august holiness and might, we had better be careful that we only label ourselves continuationist or cessationist; God is not to be analyzed and categorized like men are.
Thanks for taking up this issue once again Nathan. It was great to talk with you a year ago. I appreciate your link to my thoughts on this.
As I read through the various comments I decided to give a summary of how I got here. I do that because of the tendency to some pretty sweeping generalizations in these comments.
I am a pastor of twenty five years and I have preached through almost the entire NT expositionally, some books multiple times. I do this from the original languages as well. I have read widely and extensively in the best of history. And it was the combination of these that led me to cease being a cessationist.
It was being controlled by the text that first began to break through as I encountered passages where it seemed my cessationism could not stand. It was an exegetical study of 1 Corinthians 14 that drove me to change my views on tongues. I may err certainly, but I stand on the principle that if I am ruled by the text of Scripture and approach it freshly each time I study it, I am on the safest ground I can find under the keeping grace of God.
I have been corrected and changed so many times by the Word and I am grateful for God’s grace in this.
But there was help. It was the works of history that helped me break out of my late 20th century anti-pentecostalism — most significant were Lloyd-Jones thoughts on the Holy Spirit and Revival in various places of his works, and Edwards on Religious Affections. I also read widely on the Holy Spirit in pre-20th century works and found a very different emphasis and understanding than what I considered mainstream.
What I found was that men like Edwards, seeing very similar extravagances of behavior, did not dismiss them out of hand, but sought for the marks of the Spirit’s work.
CS Lewis was correct — old books pointed out my own blind spots.
I am convinced that there is not a ceasing of any gifts just as surely as I am convinced that there is not a first and second stage in the Spirit’s activity in this last era of history and this beginning of the new day. I am convinced that the NT church was as submissive to Scripture as we are called to be — and that Scripture was given by the 12, men whose credentials can never be duplicated. I am convinced as well that this does not mean we see more of the Spirit’s work than someone else, for God is not waiting for us to get things right before he works. I am grateful for that!
I have also seen just as many abuses of authority and sin among leaders in one camp as in the other. It is all of grace that we are useful at all for God’s glory.
As I have time I may post again on this, but most of what I would say would be found in the posts you cited above.
Grateful for the work you are doing.
Mark
Nathan, years ago John MacArthur came out with Charismatic Chaos wherein he put forth a position on several scriptures dealing with his “cessationist” position. On my blog, under the Baptism of the Holy Ghost group, I deal with MacArthur’s treatment of scriptures such as John 20:22 and Acts 1:9. Hope it may be a help to you.
THE MANFIFISATION OF TOUNGES OR ALSO KNOW AS THE UNKNOWN TOUNGE AMOUNGST CHARASMATICS. TOUNGES A RYTHMATIC VIBRATION OR SENSATION OF THE ROOF OF MOUTH IS PROVEN TO BRING A SENSE OF SOME FORM OF RELAXATION. ANY TOUNGE NOT KNOW TO MAN OUGHT TO BE CAREFUL FOR THOSE WHO HAVE LOOK INTO… THESE ARE FORMER PRACTICES OF PAGAN WORSHIP.