the presence of the future

George Eldon Ladd in The Presence of the Future:

God is the Lord of history; but there are hostile elements, opposing forces that seek to frustrate God's rule. It is not the biblical view that ... all of history moves toward the Kingdom of God. There are demonic forces manifest in history and in human experience which move against the Kingdom of God. Evil is not merely absence of good, nor is it a stage in man's upward development; it is a terrible enemy of human well-being and will never be outgrown or abandoned until God has mightily intervened to purge evil from the earth.

Christians can enjoy fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and blessings in this present age while at the same time look forward to a final and glorious fulfillment. Because of the First Coming of Jesus Christ, we now possess the complete fulfillment and blessings of the promises concerning the messianic age. At the same time this age brings a new series of promises to be fulfilled at the end of the age. The fulfilled promises give us greater hope and anticipation of the glory yet to come.

With his first advent, the Kingdom of God and the "last days" arrived indicating that Old Testament expectation had turned to New Testament fulfillment. 

Kim Riddlebarger describes three basic elements of New Testament eschatology in A Case for Amillennialism.

The first of these is that the Old Testament promise of a coming Redeemer was realized in Jesus Christ. ... With his first advent, the kingdom of God and the "last days" arrived, indicating that Old Testament expectations had turned to New Testament fulfillment. 

The second basic element of New Testament eschatology is that what was understood as one glorious messianic age predicted in the Old Testament unfolded in two different ages: "this age" and "the age to come." ... The coming of Jesus Christ marked the beginning of a glorious new redemptive age with a corresponding set of blessings. Yet this new age is not fully consummated and will be fulfilled in the future. This already/not yet structure gives the New Testament a strong forward-looking focus. The New Testament contains a distinct and pronounced tension between what God has already done in fulfilling the promises of the Old Testament and what God will do yet in the future. 

The third element of New Testament eschatology is that the present blessings of the coming Redeemer are the pledge of greater blessings to come. Christ's first advent guarantee his second coming.

the age to come

George Eldon Ladd in The Gospel of the Kingdom:

The Age to Come is still future, but we may taste the powers of that Age. Something has happened by virtue of which that witch belongs to the future has become present. The powers of The Age to Come have penetrated This Age. While we still live in the present evil Age and while Satan is still the god of This Age, we may taste the powers of The Coming Age. Now a taste is not a seven-course banquet. We still look forward to the glorious consummation and fulfillment of that which we have only tasted. Yet a taste is real. It is more than promise; it is realization; it is experience.

bookends

At the beginning of Jesus' earthly ministry we have Lk 4.38-44 and at the end we have Acts 1.1-3. I think that's meaningful.

jesus' kingdom

John Wimber in Kingdom Come:

For the first twelve years of my Christian life I gave little thought to the kingdom of God. My pastors and bible teachers had taught us that the kingdom would come at the second coming of Christ and, therefore, had little significance on our lives today….. I find my neglect of the Kingdom remarkable because it is so clearly the center of Jesus teaching… I [now realize] that at the very heart of the gospel lies the Kingdom of God and that power for effective evangelism and discipleship relates directly to our understanding and experiencing the kingdom today.

John Bright in The Kingdom of God:

The gospel according to Mark begins the story of Jesus' ministry with these significant words: "Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the gospel" (1:14-15). Mark thus makes it plain that the burden of Jesus' preaching was to announce the Kingdom of God; that was the central thing with which he was concerned. A reading of the teachings of Jesus as they are found in the gospels only serves to bear this statement out. Everywhere the Kingdom of God was on his lips, and it is always a matter of desperate importance.

hope of glory

John Owen in The Glory of Christ:

To those to whom Christ is the hope of future glory, he is also the life of present grace. 

(via)

preaching

John Bright in The Kingdom of God:

The gospel according to Mark begins the story of Jesus' ministry with these significant words: "Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the gospel" (1:14-15). Mark thus makes it plain that the burden of Jesus' preaching was to announce the Kingdom of God; that was the central thing with which he was concerned. A reading of the teachings of Jesus as they are found in the gospels only serves to bear this statement out. Everywhere the Kingdom of God was on his lips, and it is always a matter of desperate importance.

Preaching - it is foundational. My only addition to the excellent words of Timothy George (below) is to remember not only was Jesus sent to proclaim the Kingdom of God (as George mentions in Lk 4.43-44a) but that's also what He spoke of during His 40 days here after the resurrection (Acts 1.3).

At the heart of the Christian faith is a Savior who was a preacher. “And Jesus came preaching” (Mark 1:14). This stands in contrast to the gods of Olympus or the deities of the Roman pantheon whose interaction with mortals, when it happened at all, was transient, ephemeral, detached, like a circle touching a tangent. Zeus thundered, but he did not preach. Nor did the dying and rising savior gods of the mystery religions. There were ablutions and incantations and the babbling utterances of the Sibylline Oracles but nothing that could rightly be called a sermon.

But when the divine Logos was made flesh (egeneto sarx, John 1:14), he embraced the full range of human pathos and human discourse: Jesus wept, and Jesus preached. Jesus declared that the very purpose of his mission on earth was to preach: “‘I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.’ And he kept on preaching. . . .” (Luke 4:43-44a).

The old liberal construal of this text was to say that Jesus came preaching the kingdom and what we got was the church. But that way of putting it is to deny the coinherence of the kingdom and the King, a title ascribed to Jesus Christ at several places in the New Testament (see John 12:15, 18:37; 1 Tim. 6:13-16; Rev. 17:14, 19:16).

In the Gospels, Jesus not only proclaimed the kingdom—he was the bearer and the inaugurator of it. This was seen both in what he said—his claim of a unique filial relationship with the heavenly Father (Matt. 11:25-30; John 10:30, 14:11)—and in what he did. He despoiled the reign of Satan through the exorcising of demons, he offered forgiveness to sinners and celebrated the eschatological banquet with them, and he asserted divine moral authority in many ways including the striking “but I say unto you” sayings of the Sermon on the Mount. Thus from the beginning, the content of early Christian preaching was neither a new philosophical worldview nor a code of ethics to improve human behavior, but rather Jesus Christ himself: Jesus remembered in his words and deeds, Jesus crucified, buried, and risen from the dead, and Jesus yet to come again in glory—all of which is included in that earliest of Christian confessions, “Jesus is Lord!”

Next to Jesus, the two greatest exemplars of preaching in the New Testament are John the Baptist and St. Paul. John the Baptist is a liminal prophet who stands at the threshold of the two testaments. In the imagination of the church, John is the one who is always pointing toward Jesus Christ: “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

This is how Matthias Grünewald presented John in his famous painting of the Isenheim Altarpiece (a copy of which hung above the desk of Karl Barth in his study in Basel). John is standing on one side of the cross with an open book in one hand while he points with the long, bony finger of his other hand at the torturous visage of Jesus on the cross. Of course, we know that John the Baptist had long been dead by the time of Jesus’s crucifixion, beheaded by Herod Antipas. But in the sanctified imagination of Grünewald, he is called back from the dead to make one last appearance in salvation history with the same message he had once delivered during his life on earth. It was a message of negation.

Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”

He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.”

And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?”

He said, “I am not.”

“Are you the Prophet?”

And he answered, “No.” (John 1:19-21)

In Grünewald’s painting, in faded red letters in the background, are these words from John 3:30, “He must become greater; I must become less.” From first to last, John the Baptist has a referential ministry and thus serves as a controlling model for Christian proclamation in the early church.

Though Paul became an apostle through his encounter with the risen Christ, we might well reach into the future and drag him back to stand with John the Baptist under the cross, for his own preaching is no less Christologically ordered than that of John. To the Corinthians he wrote, “For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord” (2 Cor. 5:5). Although we know Paul primarily from his letters in the New Testament, he was not called to be a letter writer but rather a preacher of the Gospel, especially to the Gentiles.

I recall Krister Stendahl, one of my former New Testament professors, saying to us that the apostle Paul would have been quite surprised to discover that a few postcards he had dashed off during his missionary travels had made it into the New Testament! Well, Romans is hardly a postcard, and we should not forget that the reading aloud of Paul’s letters in the early Christian communities was itself a form of preaching. But Stendahl’s point still stands: Paul was not a litterateur. He was a preacher who proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ with what the New Testament calls parrhesia, unusual boldness, fearlessness. Paul knew that God had chosen to use the “folly” of preaching to save those who believed, and so, as he wrote to the Corinthians, he was determined “to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2).

With Paul’s words ringing in their ears, early Christian proclaimers fanned out across the Roman Empire to engage in what Ephrem the Syrian called “the sweet preaching of the cross.” In doing so, preachers of the early church were not merely expressing their personal opinions or providing entertainment to their listeners. No, they were in the vanguard of the militia Christi, the army of Jesus that sheds no blood. Their preaching propelled redemptive history forward toward the consummation of all things. This is certainly how Matthew 24:14 has been understood, from the age of the apostles right through the dawn of the modern ecumenical movement: “And this Gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”

The promise still stands and the task yet remains, for God ever renews his church through new forms of preaching—the martyrs, the monks, the mendicants, the missionaries, the reformers, the awakeners, the pastors and the teachers. Where such proclamation is faithful to the living and written Word of God and enlivened by the Spirit, it is an effective means of grace and a sure sign of the true church.

continuing as a continuationist

Great post by Sam Storms on the cessationist v. continuationist debate.

[Last week (May 14, 2014), Andrew Wilson posted an article in which he responded to Tom Pennington’s response to him on the subject of spiritual gifts. I thought you might find it helpful. Andrew is an Elder at King’s Church in Eastbourne, U.K. and is pursuing a Ph.D. at King’s College, London.]

Remember “Strange Fire”? Well, during the conference, I wrote an article responding to the case for cessationism presented by Tom Pennington, which you can read here (www.thinktheology.co.uk). Recently, Tom Pennington responded, with great kindness and care, on the Grace to You blog. His response was an excellent example of patient and faithful engagement, and I am grateful to him, and to the GTY ministry as a whole, for making it available. In response, and in the hope of further future dialogue, here’s a summary of the concessions I want to make (where he is right and I am wrong), some corrections (where I think he is wrong), some encouraging areas of convergence (where we agree), and then finally, the crux of the matter. Let’s hope it brings more light than heat.

Concessions

On two points, I misrepresented Tom Pennington, and I apologise unreservedly. The first is that he referred to miracles being done in the age of “Moses and Joshua”, and I missed the reference to Joshua, before making that omission a basis for part of my response. This was clumsy. The second is that I carelessly missed the distinction he makes, in talking about the end of the apostolate, between eyewitness apostles (which no longer exist) and other apostles (which many Charismatics believe do). He says that this confusion was disappointing to him personally, and I agree; it is both unrepresentative of what he said, and embarrassing. My only defence is that I wrote the piece in the first 24 hours after the talk was given, in more of a rush than I should have, while the conference was still taking place – and since I had no idea that a transcript was available online at the time, if indeed it was, I used Tim Challies’ summary instead of his exact text. My sincere apologies to him for both errors.

Corrections

Tom Pennington does, however, make some clear errors of his own. Firstly, Pennington accuses me of “overstatement and misdirection” in referring to an overwhelming scholarly consensus in the commentaries that the “perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10 refers to the eschaton; his evidence for this is that there are “ten possible interpretations” of what the “perfect” means here. What Pennington does not mention, however, is that most of those ten – including the highly tendentious, and common cessationist, view that the “perfect” refers to the closure of the canon – are summarily debunked by those same commentaries, rather than presented as viable alternatives. Since my PhD studies are in 1 Corinthians, I have a fair line-up of commentaries to hand, and every single one of them agrees that Paul is referring to the eschaton: Robertson and Plummer, Lietzmann, Barrett, Morris, Conzelmann, Fee (Warfield’s classic cessationist view is “impossible”), Blomberg (“there can be only one possible interpretation”), Witherington, Schrage, Thiselton (“all that is clear is that the gifts cease at the eschaton”), Garland, Wright, Fitzmyer (“it has undoubtedly something to do with the eschaton”), and Ciampa and Rosner (“the context makes it abundantly clear”). Of course there is the occasional dissenting voice, but this “overwhelming scholarly consensus” is simply a fact, as I said. Not only that, but Pennington’s claim that “for most of church history this text was used primarily to argue against the continuation of the miraculous gifts” is also inaccurate (see the study of Jon Ruthven, On the Cessation of the Charismata, and the summary statement of Thiselton: “few or none of the serious ‘cessationist’ arguments depends on a specific exegesis of 1 Cor 13:8-11”). Surely it is Pennington who is guilty of overstatement and misdirection here, at least when it comes to scholarship on 1 Corinthians.

Secondly, he argues that when Charismatics agree that the eyewitness apostles have died out, we “tacitly accept one of the key tenets of cessationism” and become “de facto cessationists, at least in part”. But neither do we believe this tacitly – I stated it explicitly in my article – nor is it a specifically cessationist tenet, since both charismatics and cessationists agree on it. The question is not whether eyewitness apostles have ceased, since we all agree that they have, but whether gifts like prophecy, languages, interpretation, healing and miracles have ceased. All Christians believe there was something unique about the apostolic period (eyewitnesses of the resurrection, and canonical scriptures being written); all Christians believe many of the gifts have continued (teaching, administrating, helping, leading, and so on). Tom Pennington introduces himself in his article as a “Pastor-Teacher”. Does this mean that he has become “a de facto charismatic, at least in part”, because he believes in the continuation of that gift? Of course not.

Thirdly, it is frankly absurd to say that accusing a billion Roman Catholics of fraud, deceit and delusion is what “the church has always done”, and to suggest that it is what I myself do. Much of the church hasn’t, and doesn’t (unless you limit “the church” to “cessationist Protestants”). I don’t. (I suspect that, as with any miraculous claims, some are true and some are false). Cessationist Protestants do, of course. But let’s not get carried away with historical exaggerations about what the church has always done.

Fourthly, Pennington claims that the following statement I make, in response to his claim that miracles have ceased because the eyewitness apostles have ceased, “isn’t clear”:

“This argument takes us nowhere: all agree that the eyewitness apostles have ceased, and all agree that (say) pastors and teachers have not ceased. Only if we can show that all New Testament miracles, prophecies, tongues and healings came via apostles—which is patently not the case—would this hold any water at all.”

I don’t see why this is unclear, but let me try and make it clearer. Pennington’s argument here is that the miraculous gifts have ceased because the unique gift of apostleship has ceased. And my argument is, simply, that this doesn’t follow, unless we can show that all NT miracles, prophecies, languages and healings came via apostles (which we can’t, because it isn’t true). We all agree that some gifts continue. We all agree that one gift doesn’t. But this in no way supports the claim that “miraculous” (?) gifts across the board have ceased. Is that clearer?

Fifthly, Pennington is simply wrong to say that there are “rarely firsthand accounts” of miracles (see, recently, Keener’s Miracles). I would be happy to introduce him to many firsthand witnesses of my acquaintance, but I suspect I will not be taken up on that ...

Sixthly, his claim that “the consistent testimony of the church’s key leaders is that the miraculous and revelatory spiritual gifts ended with the Apostolic Age” is overstated. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Novatian and, famously, even Augustine himself (City of God 22:8) spoke of miracles taking place in their own days. (Pennington might well respond that examples of miracles are not the same as examples of miraculous gifts, but such a sharp distinction is nowhere found in the New Testament). Wesley’s attitude to prophecy was far from cessationist. Of course there are others, like Chrysostom and the earlier Augustine (before he apparently changed his mind), who say the opposite. But it is not a “consistent testimony”.

Seventhly, he reiterates John MacArthur’s point that Charismatics who are either Roman Catholic, or adhering to a prosperity gospel, form such a large part of the whole that “the movement as a whole can claim neither the Scripture nor the Spirit.” This is the saddest sentence of the review to read, from my perspective; it seems like a blanket write-off of millions and millions of charismatic Christians today who are preaching the gospel, defending the truth, standing firm in the face of suffering, and glorifying God in their marriages and lives and deaths, because a speculative statistical appraisal tells Pennington (or MacArthur) that they have been swamped by the loony fringe. But the best response to it is not emotional but logical: surely, if we applied that logic to cessationists, we could say the same, since most professing Christians who deny miraculous gifts today are either nominal believers or liberals. Come to that, we could say it of the global church: since many people in the Church are Roman Catholic, Orthodox, flaky, loopy or weird, we would have to say that “the Church as a whole can claim neither the Scripture nor the Spirit.” Assuming Pennington would not say that – and I sincerely hope he wouldn’t! – he probably shouldn’t say it of Charismatics either.

Convergence

It’s always edifying to point out the areas where you agree with an interlocutor, as well as the areas where you disagree. To that end, I am encouraged by the many points of common ground between us. We agree on the final authority, inspiration, sufficiency, clarity and infallibility of the scriptures. We agree that the biblical canon is closed. We agree that Paul was the last eyewitness of the resurrection, and that there was a type of apostle in the New Testament period who does not continue. As such, we agree that one type of spiritual gift has ceased (the unique eyewitness apostles), but also that many spiritual gifts continue (teaching, leading, helping, administrating, giving, encouraging). We agree that a lot of what goes on in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements is deplorable. We agree that all spiritual gifts should be practiced in submission to the authority of God in Scripture. We agree that God can heal today. We agree that differing from one another on miraculous gifts does not mean we are saying those who disagree with us are not Christians. That is not an insignificant list!

Crux

Yet the disagreement is still important, and it ultimately comes down to questions of exegesis. Is “the perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13 the eschaton, or the closure of the New Testament canon, or something else? Is any distinction between miraculous gifts (languages, prophecy, healing, miracles) and non-miraculous gifts (teaching, helping, administrating, encouraging, leading) evident in Paul’s letters? Were the prophets and prophecies spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12-14 regarded by Paul as infallible divine revelation? Does Ephesians 2:20 indicate that no further prophecies of any kind will happen in the life of the church? Did Agabus get the details of his Acts 21 prophecy wrong, even as he got the thrust of it right? Are miraculous gifts, in Scripture, exclusively for the purpose of authenticating a messenger, or do they have other purposes as well?

On many of these points, I would argue, the case for cessationism is extremely weak, and rightly regarded as an obscure (and, in one case, risible) minority view in scholarly works on the relevant texts. This does not prove that Pennington, MacArthur and their fellow cessationists are wrong, of course; scholars form mistaken consensuses (consensi?) all the time. It does, however, indicate that Charismatics are on somewhat stronger ground than either Pennington or MacArthur are prepared to admit, and that some of the sweeping statements they have made about Charismatic theology are unjustified. Nevertheless, as long as conversations like this are happening, we can hope that God will bring us closer together in Christ until he returns. We know in part, and we prophesy in part, but then we shall know fully, even as we are fully known.

kingdom theology matters

Here's a great little teaser posted by Luke Geraty on why Kingdom theology matters:

Here are a couple great explanations of the Kingdom of God and its accompanying theology:

“The [kingdom of God] is the abstract or dynamic idea of reign, rule, or dominion…” – George Eldon Ladd 

“… the kingdom of God is the central theological motif that gives definition to all that we believe.” – Phil Strout 

“… the Vineyard is a movement distinctively centered in a renewed understanding of the centrality of the kingdom of God in biblical thought… [we understand] the kingdom of God as the overarching and integrating theme of the Bible.” – Vineyard Core Values 

So a basic summary of Kingdom Theology might be:

• Inaugurated, not consummated.

• Both now and not yet.

• The kingdom has come, comes, and is coming (breaking in).

• The reign and rule of God (cf. Matt. 6:10).

But why does kingdom theology matter? Why is having a solid kingdom of God framework vitally important? Here are four simple answers to that question:

1. Kingdom theology is the same message that Jesus and the apostles preached (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; Acts 8:12; 14:22; 20:25; 28:23-31).
2. Kingdom theology centers our theology and praxis on King Jesus and his kingdom versus our own kingdom (Matt. 26:39; Col. 13).
3. Kingdom theology is the only way to explain why miracles happen and why we continue to pray for God to break in, for heaven to come to earth. (Matt. 12:28).
4. Kingdom theology is the only way to somewhat explain why miracles don’t happen and why everyone isn’t healed (Rev. 21:4).

Those are four quick ways in which I think kingdom theology matters.

Please drop by Luke's place and tell him "What would you add?"

the church and the kingdom

David Platt briefly delineates the Church and the Kingdom of God.



Church and Kingdom from David Platt on Vimeo.

amillenialism - get it

Sam Storms simple post reinforcing why I'm an amillennialist:

I Am An Amillennialist "Because of" Revelation 20

I often hear people say that they have embraced the Amillennial view of biblical eschatology “in spite of” what they read in Revelation 20. I want to go on record in saying that I have embraced Amillennialism precisely “because of” Revelation 20. I find the evidence from this passage to be altogether persuasive in telling me that the “millennial” reign of the saints is a reference to the experience of co-regency on the part of those believers who are now in the intermediate state with Christ. Thus, the millennium is a current phenomenon, in heaven, spanning the age between the two advents of Jesus Christ. Here are ten reasons why.

(1) Amillennialism is better suited to explain the restriction placed on Satan in Revelation 20:1-3. Contrary to the claims of premillennialism, Satan’s binding is not universal, as if during the span of the “1,000 years” he is prevented from doing everything. Rather, he is prevented from perpetuating the spiritual blindness of the nations and keeping them in gospel darkness. He is also prevented from provoking a premature global assault on the church which we know to be the battle of Armageddon.

(2) Amillennialism alone can account for why Satan must be bound in the first place. According to premillennialism, Satan is allegedly prevented from deceiving the very nations who at the close of Revelation 19 have already been defeated and destroyed at Christ’s return. In other words, it makes no sense to speak of protecting the nations from deception by Satan in 20:1-3 after they have just been both deceived by Satan (16:13-16; cf. 19:19-20) and destroyed by Christ at his return (19:11-21; cf. 16:15a, 19).

(3) The amillennial reading of Revelation alone makes sense of the obvious parallel between the war of Revelation 16, 19, and 20. This parallel is reinforced when we note that the imagery in Ezekiel 39 related to Gog and Magog is used to describe both the battle in Revelation 19:17-21 and the battle in Revelation 20:7-10. Clearly, these are one and the same battle, known as Armageddon, that consummates the defeat of God’s enemies at the time of Christ’s Second Coming. They are just as clearly not two different battles separated by 1,000 years of millennial history. This is all confirmed by reference to “the war” (19:19; already noted in 16:14, 16; cf. 20:8). The same Greek phrase “the war” (ton polemon) is used in all three texts (Rev. 16:14; 19:19; 20:8). In fact, in 16:14 and 20:8 the same extended phrase “to gather them unto the war” (sunagagein autous eis ton polemon) is used.

(4) Amillennialism makes more sense of the symbolic nature of the number “1,000” in Revelation 20. In other texts “one thousand” rarely if ever is meant to be taken with arithmetical precision. This is true whether the context is non-temporal (Ps. 50:10; Song of Solomon 4:4; Josh. 23:10; Isa. 60:22; Deut. 1:11; Job 9:3; Eccles. 7:28), in which case the usage is always figurative, indeed hyperbolical, or temporal (Deut. 7:9; 1 Chron. 16:15; Pss. 84:10; 90:4; 105:8; 2 Pet. 3:8).

(5) Amillennialism recognizes the obvious parallel between Revelation 20:1-6 and Revelation 6:9-11. The latter text unmistakably describes the experience of the martyrs who have been beheaded because of the word of their testimony on behalf of Christ. So, too, Revelation 20 portrays the experience of “souls” beheaded for the sake of their testimony concerning Christ. Simply put, the cogency of amillennialism is seen in its recognition that in both texts the intermediate state is being clearly portrayed.

(6) Amillennialism alone does justice to the obvious parallel between Revelation 20:1-6 and Revelation 2:10-11. The latter is an encouragement given to prospective martyrs. They are to be faithful unto death and Christ will give them the “crown of life.” Likewise, in Revelation 20 those who die for the sake of their witness are granted “life” with their Lord in the intermediate state. Reinforcement of this parallel is found in the fact that only here in Revelation 2 and again in Revelation 20 is reference made to “the second death,” from which the faithful martyrs are promised deliverance.

(7) Related to the above is the fact that in Revelation 3:21 those who persevere under persecution and “conquer” or “overcome” are said to sit and reign with Christ on this throne. This is precisely what is said of the martyrs in Revelation 20. They come to life and reign with Christ for a thousand years.

(8) Amillennialism alone accounts for the use of the word “thrones” in Revelation 20:4. This word, both inside Revelation and elsewhere in the NT, consistently refers to heavenly thrones, not earthly ones. These are the thrones in the intermediate state on which the faithful martyrs sit and rule together with their Lord and Savior, King Jesus.

(9) Amillennialism alone explains the significance of the ordinal “first” as a modifier of “resurrection.” Closer study reveals that whatever is first or old pertains to the present world, that is to say, to the world that is transient, temporary, and incomplete. Conversely, whatever is second or new pertains to the future world, to the world that is permanent, complete, and is associated with the eternal consummation of all things. The term first is therefore not an ordinal in a process of counting objects that are identical in kind. Rather, whenever first is used in conjunction with second or new the idea is of a qualitative contrast (not a mere numerical sequence). To be first is to be associated with this present, temporary, transient world. Whatever is first does not participate in the quality of finality and permanence which is distinctive of the age to come. Thus the “first resurrection” is descriptive of life prior to the consummation, which is to say, life in the intermediate state.

(10) Finally, the hermeneutical principle known as the Analogy of Faith is best honored within an amillennial system. When asked for an explicit and unmistakable biblical affirmation of a post-parousia millennial kingdom, premillennialists typically point to Revelation 20, and only Revelation 20. But as we have seen, Revelation 20 is neither explicit nor unmistakable in teaching an earthly millennial kingdom. Furthermore, no single passage in an admittedly symbolic and comparatively difficult context should be allowed to overturn (or trump) the witness of a multiplicity of passages in admittedly didactic and comparatively straightforward contexts. To put this same point in the form of a question: Do the statements in other New Testament books concerning end-time chronology necessarily and logically preclude the notion of a post-parousia millennial age in Revelation 20? I am convinced that this must be answered affirmatively.

My contention is not that the passages in the Pauline, Johannine, and Petrine corpus simply omit reference to a post-Parousia millennial age. If that were the case it is conceivable that we might harmonize Revelation 20 with them, making room, as it were, for the former in the latter. But those texts (see Kingdom Come for an exposition of each one) are not such as may be conflated with the notion of a future millennial kingdom. These passages clearly appear logically to preclude the existence of such a kingdom. My argument is that a premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 actually contradicts the clear and unequivocal assertions in such texts as John 5, 1 Corinthians 15, Romans 8, 2 Thessalonians 1, Hebrews 11, and 2 Peter 3.

Rather than reading these texts through the grid of Revelation 20, the latter should be read in the clear light of the former. Sound hermeneutical procedure would call on us to interpret the singular and obscure in the light of the plural and explicit. To make the rest of the New Testament (not to mention the Old Testament) bend to the standard of one text in the most controversial, symbolic, and by scholarly consensus most difficult book in the Bible, is hardly commendable hermeneutical method. We simply must not allow a singular apocalyptic tail to wag the entire epistolary dog! We must not force the whole of Scripture to dance to the tune of Revelation 20.

Those, then, are at least some of the reasons why Revelation 20 itself persuades me that amillennialism is true.

kingdom characteristics

Luke Geraty posted Characteristics of the Come & Coming Kingdom:

Craig Blaising writes:

The theology of Luke-Acts teaches that when Jesus ascended into heaven, he was enthroned with kingdom authority. Paul teaches that Jesus is presently seated at the right hand of God with all things in subjection under his feet (Eph. 1:19-23; Col. 1:13-18; cf. 1 Peter 3:22). New covenant blessings have been inaugurated through the cross and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:2-6). These blessings institute features of the promised eschatological kingdom. Jews and Gentiles who have been reconciled in Christ have received the Holy Spirit as a down payment on their future redemption and form a body of peoples united in peace by the Holy Spirit, demonstrating the new humanity of the eschatological kingdom (Eph. 1:13-14; 2:12-22). They have been transferred into the kingdom of God’s Son (Col. 1:13) and have been made a kingdom and priests to serve the God and Father of Jesus Christ (Rev. 1:6). But these are only inaugural aspects. The fullness of the eschatological kingdom is yet to come. (Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond)

Blaising, a progressive dispensationalist, sounds a lot like Ladd here. Times sure have changed since the days of Walvoord!

continuing as a continuationist

When will cessationists cease? Well, I suppose they will continue as long as continuationists continue. As a continuationist, I appreciate Luke Geraty's post here:

I already wrote a long post on Strange Fire, so this will be a little shorter. Tim Challies has posted Tom Pennington’s case for Cessationism. It probably has the most substance for Continuationists to consider out of all that has been shared thus far at MacArthur’s anti-charismatic rally. Pennington suggests there are four chief arguments for the charismatic position and then offers seven arguments for the cessationist position. Let’s “briefly” analyze these…

Alleged “chief” arguments for the Charismatic position:

1. The New Testament doesn’t say they have ceased. But then again, it doesn’t say that they won’t either.
2. 1 Corinthians 13:10 – they say this means that only when Christ returns will the partial gifts of tongues and prophecies cease. This implies that the gifts continue. But this is an uncertain interpretation.
3. The New Testament speaks only of the church age, and so, they argue, the gifts that began the church age should continue throughout it. They say we artificially divide it between apostolic and post-apostolic eras. But they do this, too, by not believing that the apostolic office still continues.
4. 500 million professing Christians who claim charismatic experiences can’t all be wrong. But if we accept this, then logically we should accept the miracles attested to by one billion Catholics in the world. The truth is that 500 million + people can be wrong.

Regarding #1, I’m surprised. I thought both Cessationists and Continuationists agreed that the Bible does say that the charismata will cease. Paul explicitly stated that “as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease” (1 Cor. 13:8). And in reality, I think a serious exegesis of 1 Cor. 1:4-7 leads me to conclude that the Bible teaches that the spiritual gifts will continue until the “revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ (v.7). This seems similar to what Paul writes in 1 Cor. 13, which we’ll address next.

Regarding #2, I’ll let that slide. I find it questionable that what is most likely in the text is reduced to being “uncertain,” but I’ll grant that the text has some ambiguity with in. 1 Cor. 1:4-7, of course, doesn’t but we’ll let that slide. Interestingly, I’ve never heard a Charismatic use 1 Cor. 13:10 as a “chief” argument for their position which leads me to conclude that those who are participating in this Strange Fire conference probably haven’t interacted with any serious Charismatics.

Regarding #3, it’s even more clear that these folks don’t know much about Charismatics because you’ll find quite a bit of difference on the issue of apostolic ministry. Wayne Grudem makes a case against the office of Apostle in his widely used Systematic Theology and yet both New Frontiers and Sovereign Grace believe in modern day apostles. In fact, one of these alleged apostles spoke at at conference put on by MacArthur!

Regarding #4, I am unaware of Wayne Grudem, Sam Storms, John Piper, John Wimber, Craig Keener, Gordon Fee, or any of the other number of scholars who hold to Continuationist theology that would argue that since there are a lot of charismatics they must be correct.

Therefore, I conclude that these alleged “chief” arguments have an agenda behind them and that agenda is simply to make a case against Charismatic theology. Or, to be forthright, Pennington is simply building a case against a straw man.

Pennington’s 7 arguments for Cessationism

Finally we have something that we can interact with that is from a Cessationist. Thus far we’ve heard a lot about what Charismatics allegedly believe but we haven’t heard a lot about what Cessationists believe. So I’m thankful for Pennington’s attempt to make an actual argument for something!

Let’s consider his arguments:

(1) The unique role of miracles. Pennington takes this right out of MacArthur’s playbook (cf. Charismatic Chaos, pp. 112-14). Jack Deere dismantled this argument so thoroughly in his Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Appendix C, “Were There Only Three Periods of Miracles?”). 

Pennington’s case is:

“There were only 3 primary periods in which God worked miracles through unique men. The first was with Moses; the second was during the ministries of Elijah and Elisha; the third was with Christ and his apostles.”

Well, we’ll just consider the miracles connected with the prophet Daniel and we undermine the entire argument. No one would ever read the Old Testament, without having a theological agenda, and come to the conclusion that there were only three periods of time where God worked miracles through men. That’s absurd and I’m actually surprised that this is number one.

(2) The end of the gift of apostleship. I fail to see how either the end or the continuation of the office of Apostle demands that that the gifts of healings, prophecy, tongues, and interpretation of tongues has ceased. Pennington previously argued that “the primary purpose of Jesus’ miracles was to confirm his credentials as God’s final and ultimate messenger” and that “Jesus gave this same power to the apostles, and their miracles served exactly the same purpose.” These purposes do not demand anything of apostles. Furthermore, I think Eph. 4:11 provides a serious challenge to our systematic categories regarding the office of apostle, as well as the fact that the NT provides clear evidence that there were different types of apostles (cf. the difference of the apostle Paul or Peter with the apostle Epaphroditus of Phil. 2:25).

(3) The foundational nature of the New Testament apostles and prophets. If Pennington expects us to grant that there is some ambiguity in 1 Cor. 13:10, surely he’ll acknowledge that there are differences in how exegetes understand Eph. 2:20-21. Grudem and Wallace have both taken different perspectives on this and there is diversity within the scholarly literature.

Interestingly, appeal was made during Steve Lawson’s talk at Strange Fire to John Calvin (which probably caused the Reformer who strongly held to Sola Scriptura to roll over in his grave). In Calvin’s commentary on Ephesians, he clearly believed that the “prophets” mentioned in Ephesians 2:20 were the Old Testament prophets, so if we’re going to allow Calvin to guide us, maybe we should consider his exegesis and not selectively choose sources that only support our theological agenda.

At any rate, I’ll grant that apostles and prophets served a foundational nature in the early church while also believing that the charismata in question still continue.

(4) The nature of the New Testament miraculous gifts. Pennington attempts to discredit the work of Grudem on NT prophecy. He states that there is no difference between OT and NT prophecy. He also says that “New Testament prophecy is direct, infallible revelation.” I’m curious as to why the early church didn’t write down all of these infallible revelations and include them in our Bibles! Philip the evangelist had four unmarried daughters who prophesied and yet we don’t have any of their prophecies in our Bibles? Weren’t they infallible revelations? What about the curious case of Agabus in Acts 21? Or how are we to then understand the church in Corinth? Was Paul really telling them all to give direct, infallible revelation? If so, why don’t we have any of these prophet words that are infallible?

The fact of the matter is that Grudem (The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today) and Carson (Showing the Spirit) offer a better understanding of the nature of the NT prophecy. It was not infallible words but needed to be tested (1 Thess. 5:20-21).

Furthermore, I have seen examples of tongues and their interpretation fitting exactly what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14. I’ve also seen healings that were exactly like that of the 1st century. Are we to understand Pennington as saying that he has investigated every modern claim of a “sign and wonder” and determined they are nothing like the biblical examples? Hmmmm. I think not.

(5) The testimony of church history. Pennington asks, “How do they explain the ceasing of miraculous gifts throughout such long periods of church history?” He cites John Chrysostom, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, and B. B. Warfield as evidence for this concern.

D.A. Carson wisely states that,

“there is enough evidence that some form of ‘charismatic’ gifts continued sporadically across the centuries of church history that it is futile to insist on doctrinaire grounds that every report is spurious or the fruit of demonic activity or psychological aberration” (Showing the Spirit, 166).

These examples are documented in Kydd’s Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church and Kelsey’s Healing and Christianity. By the way, Augustine retracted his cessationist views and actually provided evidence that the gift of healings was still in operation (cf. City of God, Book XXII, chps. 8-10). Oh, and Grudem provides evidence that Spurgeon actually operated in the gift of prophecy in his The Gift of Prophecy. By the way, did I mention that there’s evidence that suggests that John Calvin might have spoken in tongues? Uh oh…

At any rate, this argument for Cessationism should be abandoned because it is simply not true.

(6) The sufficiency of Scripture. Pennington suggests that “the Spirit speaks only in and through the inspired Word.” What’s fascinating about this statement is that it actually undermines the very Scripture that it’s attempting to protect. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that God only speaks to us through the Bible. This is a presupposition that controls Cessationist epistemology.

Furthermore, I think Grudem has amply demonstrated in his The Gift of Prophecy that the sufficiency of Scripture and continuing charismata are not mutually exclusive. Oh, and did I mention that I don’t think most Cessationists, especially of the MacArthur kind, even have a good understanding of what the gift of tongues was? No? Okay, I’ll save that for later. I just reject the entire scope of MacArthur’s understanding of the nature of tongues.

(7) The New Testament governed the miraculous gifts. Okay, you are about to witness a modern day miracle. I, as a practicing charismatic, totally agree with Pennington here. Maybe it’s because I’m a Third Wave charismatic, but I agree that charismatics have been known to abuse spiritual gifts, especially the gift of tongues. What passes for the expression of tongues in some churches would leave the apostle Paul shaking his head.

So I totally agree that the NT governed the miraculous gifts. Paul lays out guidelines in 1 Corinthians 12-14. I agree with Pennington’s reasoning here. However, I wonder if Pennington would agree with Paul’s governance of the spiritual gifts when he wrote, “earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy” (1 Cor. 14:1) and “do not forbid speaking in tongues” (1 Cor. 14:39).

If we’re going to express concern that charismatics do not follow the NT pattern for the expression of tongues, let’s express concern that Cessationists reject an apostolic command.

homosexuality

It's not about homosexuality, it's about authority. Those propagating the homosexual agenda are bowing to a false god. And they continue to believe the lie ...

What about Christians and "hatred" of "gays"? What follows is an unpublished portion of a new Salvo Magazine interview by Marcia Segelstein of Robert George of Princeton University, who is also a Touchstonesenior editor.

SALVO: One conservative Christian recently wrote that in the battle for traditional marriage, "Christians too often chose intolerance over charity when it came to how they treated gays." Have we, as Christians, demonstrated a lack of love for gay people?

Robert George: No, we've been falsely accused of showing a lack of charity and a lack of love because that was very convenient to the arguments of the other side, a very effective tool. In fact, the overwhelming majority of people of all faiths who've been involved in the protection of marriage have gone out of their way, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church goes out of its way, to proclaim the truth that all men and woman are precious. Human beings have a profound and inherent dignity, an equal dignity, as creatures made in the very image and likeness of the Divine Creator and Ruler of the Universe. 

This has never been something hidden. It has been frequently affirmed and re-affirmed, yet there are those who wish to refuse to hear it because it's politically useful to their cause to depict Christians as mean-spirited or bigoted or hostile to people just because they don't like something about them. It's a slander. And for us to pretend that the slander is true is itself a sin against the truth. I'm all for confessing error and wrongdoing where error and wrongdoing have been committed. But I see no point in confessing sins that one has not committed, especially when doing so is the precise objective of those who wish unfairly to tar people or a movement as bigoted or hostile.

And here is Amy Hall on Why Do Christians Care:

At Stand to Reason, we usually focus on the publicly accessible, non-religious reasons to oppose changing the definition of marriage, as there’s no need to appeal to the Bible in order to make a good case. But the question “Why do Christians care how an organization that self-identifies as Christian views marriage?” and “Is this something worth dividing over?” requires an answer from within Christian doctrine.

In a post titled “Why Is This Issue Different?” Kevin DeYoung gives four reasons why a disagreement between self-professed Christians on this issue is different from a disagreement on a theological issue such as the mode of baptism. Here’s one of those reasons:

Homosexual behavior is so repeatedly and clearly forbidden in Scripture that to encourage homosexuality calls into question the role of Scripture in the life of the denomination that accepts such blatantly unbiblical teaching. The order of creation informs us that God’s plan for sexuality is one woman and one man (Genesis 2). This order is reaffirmed by Jesus (Matthew 19) and Paul (Ephesians 5). The Old Testament law forbade homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18, 20). Paul reiterates this prohibition by using the same Greek construction in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1. Paul condemns same sex behavior (among many other sins) in Romans 1. Jude in his epistle links sexual immorality and the “unnatural desire” present in Sodom and Gomorrah.

The evidence is so overwhelming that Luke Timothy Johnson, New Testament scholar and advocate of legitimizing homosexual behavior, argues rather candidly: “I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us.” At its root, support for homosexual behavior is not simply a different interpretation of Scripture; it is a rejection of Scripture itself.

There are certainly some today who argue that the Bible does not prohibit homosexual activity between committed partners. For a response to their arguments, I recommend a refutation from James White, which can be found here (along with more links you may find helpful).

DeYoung concludes:

Of course, homosexuality isn’t the only sin in the world. But I know of no Christian leader or Christian community promoting theft or championing idolatry as a special blessing from God. It is not an overstatement to say solemnizing same-sex intercourse is in danger of leading people to hell. The same is not true when it comes to sorting out the millennium. In tolerating the doctrine which affirms homosexual behavior, we are tolerating a doctrine which leads people farther from God, not closer. This is not the mission Jesus gave us when he told us to teach the nations all that he has commanded.

Read his other three points and more about World Vision's policy change and reversal. And I don’t like to discuss this topic without also mentioning Wesley Hill’s book, Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality. If you don’t have compassion for our Christian brothers and sisters who have same-sex attractions and have chosen to follow Christ rather than fulfill this desire, then I recommend reading this book.

Step 5

And finally, Step 5 of the 5-Step Prayer Model - JRW on Post-prayer Direction.

This was the shortest segment of the 5 (Other steps 1, 2, 3, & 4)

The following are some simple notes from each:

One may move through these steps fast or slow, may even skip some. This is not a set of rules but is designed to help you help the person you are ministering to meet God. Your role is to bless what the Father is doing and help the person being prayed for aware of what God is doing. God's intent is not to minister to the symptoms, but rather the heart issues. He wants each of us to have a concept of the Cross of Christ not in our heads, but through revelation, in our hearts.

Interview - Where does it hurt? or What would you like me to pray for?

In Mark 10, when Jesus prayed for Blind Bartimaeus he asked what seemed like an obvious question, “What do you want me to do for you?”

Mark 9, a boy possessed is thrown to the ground by an evil spirit. After seeing his condition Jesus asks how long the boy was like this. Then with the answer to that question, Jesus builds and confirms the faith of the father before addressing the evil spirit.

• listen on two planes (horizontal and vertical)
• this is NOT a medical interview - we are not physicians, we don’t need all of the gory details
• use active listening skills - we are not problem solving at this point
• it’s more important to know what kind of person has the bug than what kind of bug has the person, i.e., focus on the person more than the technical medical details
• let the person talk but not ramble or reinforce sin!
• this step is often skipped in situations like alter ministry

Diagnostic Decision - Why does it hurt?

In John 9 Jesus is questioned by the disciples regarding the blind man. Who sinned, him or his parents?

There are no formulas. We need to train ourselves in the Word so that we understand sin and it's effect but in every situation, we need to respond with what the Father is showing us. We need to listen in the:

• natural – disease, accident, organic (psychiatric/chemical)
• sin – committed by them or to them
• emotional hurts
• relational problems – lack of forgiveness
• spiritual realm – demonic, curse, family ties (note about generational curse)

Prayer Selection - What kind of prayer is needed?

In Luke 5 Jesus heals the paralytic that was lowered through the roof of the home he was speaking in. When he saw the man and his friends he proclaimed, "friend, your sins are forgiven" and "take up your mat an go home".

• prayer toward God (petition, intercession, etc.)
• prayer from God (command – Acts 3.6 ‘rise up and walk’, pronouncement – John 4.50 ‘go, your son will live’, forgiveness – speak to the person’s heart, etc.)
• logistics (sit or stand, touch or not touch, knock down or prop up, group or 1:1, tongues, loud or soft, mints, blowing, tissues, music, being quite, etc.)
• do not preach or gossip
• Bible prayers v. prophecy

Engagement - How are we doing?

In Mark 8, Jesus, after put spittle on the blind man's eye's, asked him, "do you see anything?" When the man responded that he saw people that looked like trees, Jesus put His hands on the man's eyes again.

In Mark 5, after commanding the evil spirit to come out of the demoniac, He asked, "what is your name." The reply was "my name is Legion," and begged Jesus to send them into some nearby pigs rather than out of the area.

• watch for effects of the Holy Spirit (warmth, tingling, heat, muscle spasms, shaking, breathing, laughing, crying, etc.)
• make the person aware of what you see/sense - some are not tuned into their own bodies
• when in doubt, ask. Some expect failure - in Mt 9:28, Jesus asked the two blind men if they believed before he prayed.
• stop when the person says to stop, when the Holy Spirit says to stop, or when you cannot think of anything else

Post Prayer Direction - How to keep your healing

In John 8 Jesus gives some good advice to the woman caught in adultry, “go and sin no more.”

• spiritual leading for a specific situation, e.g., prophecy
• general counsel such as read scripture, pray, listen to scripture music, get in a small group, etc.

ministry to the poor

A repost from years ago:

"The church is not an organization, but a company of people who lay down their lives for others. And as we catch God's heart and understand His compassion, He will lead us in ministry to the poor." - John Wimber

I am very aware of how great God is and how fortunate I am that He has chosen to allow me to part of the outworking of His Kingdom.

I get encouraged when I think of the following words by Basil of Caesarea in the 4th century:

A man who has two coats or two pairs of shoes when his neighbor has none has his neighbor’s coat and shoes. It evidences a lack of grace in his life. The redistribution of wealth is in no wise to the point. The revealing of faith is the point.

We do not simply redistribute wealth. Anyone can do that. Socialism does that. We do much more. When we understand the Kingdom of God, when we trust our Father completely as our provider, when we know His heart of compassion, etc., then we can do nothing other than to give freely and to give abundantly.

Later in the same century, John Chrysostom said:

The essence of the Gospel is not concern for the poor but it certainly provokes that concern. In fact, without that concern, the essence of the Gospel surely has not been grasped.

Do you grasp the Gospel? If so, how is that manifesting itself in your life?

When John’s disciples came to Jesus to ask if he was the one who is to come, Jesus replied, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.” (Lk 7.22) The poor have good news preached to them!

In Lk 4.43, Jesus said, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God … for I was sent for this purpose.” And later in that same chapter Luke writes that Jesus said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”

The same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead, that same Spirit that was upon Him to demonstrate and proclaim the Kingdom of God, is upon His disciples today. This is why James is able to write in chapter 2, verse 16, “one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” The Kingdom is more than words. It is compassion and power.

I look forward to God's manifest presence among the poor and I pray His Spirit would increase my faith to proclaim Him with boldness and authority.

acts

For some, the Church in Acts is unique and a closed and completed history, for others, it's the pattern. Here is Sam Storms on his take:

In the book, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views (Zondervan), I engaged with cessationist Richard Gaffin on the significance of the book of Acts for the debate over the perpetuity of spiritual gifts. Here is the substance of that exchange.

Gaffin argues that "Acts intends to document a completed history, a unique epoch in the history of redemption -- the once-for-all, apostolic spread of the gospel 'to the ends of the earth'" (37-38). But Luke nowhere says this. Even if it were true, where does Luke assert that what the Holy Spirit did in that "history" is not to be done in subsequent "histories"? Again, Luke nowhere asserts that Acts was "unique". Were we to concede that in certain respects it was, why conclude that the uniqueness and therefore unrepeatable characteristics of Acts is principally in its portrayal of the charismatic work of the Spirit? Luke never suggests, far less asserts, that the way God related to and was active among his people in that particular "history" is finished. Gaffin has articulated a premise that may have a measure of truth, but lacks textual evidence on which to support the theological conclusion he draws from it.

One searches in vain for a text in which the charismatic and supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that attended the expansion of the gospel, and subsequently characterized the life and ministry of the churches that were planted, is not meant by God to attend the expansion of the gospel into the rest of the world in subsequent centuries or is not meant to characterize the life of such churches.

Gaffin also argues that "it is in terms of this controlling perspective that the miraculous experience of those at Pentecost and elsewhere in Acts have their meaning” (38). He then points to the signs, wonders, and miracles as attesting to the realization of this apostolic missionary program. But is that their only meaning and function? None of this has any negative bearing on the perpetuity of the gifts unless Gaffin can locate some text, any text, where the exclusive purpose of miracles and charismata is attestation of apostolic mission. Gaffin's argument isreductionism gone to seed. He isolates one function of miraculous phenomena, ties it in with the period in which it occurs, and then concludes that it can have no other functions in any otherperiod of church history. And he does this without one biblical text that explicitly asserts it.

He places emphasis on the inaugural breakthrough of the gospel into Samaria and to the Gentiles and insists that the miraculous phenomena which occurred on those occasions played an essential role of attesting to this expansion. I agree. But we must also focus on the churches that were planted and emerged and endured in the aftermath of these so-called "epochal stages" in redemptive history? What I read in Acts, 1 Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, and Galatians, indicates that the miraculous phenomena which accompanied the beginning and founding of these churches are to characterize their up-building and growth as well. It appears as if Gaffin is asking us to believe that because signs, wonders, and miraculous gifts helped launch the church by serving to attest the original proclamation of the gospel, those phenomena have no additional or ongoing function to sustain and nurture the church itself. But this is a non-sequitur lacking in biblical evidence.

Gaffin says that "Acts 2 and the subsequent miraculous events Luke narrates are not intended to establish a pattern of 'repetitions' of Pentecost to continue on indefinitely in church history. Rather, together they constitute, as already intimated, an event-complex, complete with the finished apostolic program they accompany" (38). But why can't the miraculous events and charismata continue without thinking that this means a "repetition" of Pentecost? Again, the once-for-allness of Pentecost as a redemptive historical event does not require, or even suggest, the restriction of miraculous charismata to that period. What Gaffin persists in "concluding" by "theological inference" the Bible itself nowhere asserts.

Gaffin concludes that "it would certainly be wrong to argue that Luke is intending to show that miraculous gifts and power experiences cease with the history he documented" (38-39). I find this confusing in view of his affirmation that the miraculous events in Acts subsequent to Pentecost are not intended by Luke to tell us what the rest of church history is to be like. Such events (presumably, prophecy, tongues, and healing), according to Gaffin, were “complete with thefinished [emphasis mine] apostolic program they accompany" (38).

He then asserts that "in this respect, to observe that in Acts others than apostles exercise miraculous gifts (e.g., 6:8), is beside the point. To offer that as evidence that such gifts will continue beyond the time of the apostles pulls apart what for Luke belongs together” (39). I disagree. I believe it is precisely the point. The point being that the miraculous ministry of the Holy Spirit is designed not solely for the apostles nor solely for the foundational work they performed. If, as Gaffin contends, miraculous phenomena and apostolic ministry belong together in Luke's mind, why then do others than the apostles perform miracles? It will not suffice for Gaffin simply to assert that non-apostolic miracles are beside the point. It is a vitally important point that cessationism cannot explain. Let us remember that it is, in fact, Luke himself who pulls apart the two. Perhaps he does so because that was his point!

Gaffin says that "others exercise such gifts by virtue of the presence and activity of the apostles; they do so under an 'apostolic umbrella,' so to speak" (39). Where does Luke ever say this? What biblical text ever asserts it? And even if it should be granted, why would we conclude that God doesn't want the church to experience such gifts after the apostles are gone? Again, universally applicable conclusions have been deduced without textual warrant.

In reflecting on the book of Acts, I find nothing in the perpetuity of signs, wonders and miraculous gifts that threatens the integrity or uniqueness of the apostolic era. The uniqueness of the apostolic era is that it was first and foundational, not that it was miraculous.

purpose and power

John Wimber in The Way In is the Way On:

In the Vineyard, we place a priority on being empowered by the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit empowers for a purpose-not just an experience. We seek the active presence of the Spirit to continue Jesus’ ministry. At times we almost lose the purpose; at times we seem to lose the power. From the beginning we have attempted, however inadequately, to keep these two together.

…

To continue Jesus’ ministry requires that we adopt His lifestyle. Unfortunately, Christians in the West would rather implement programs. We are blind to our mechanistic assumptions when we reduce ministry to reproducible components and try to apply them indiscriminately. There is nothing wrong, for instance, with a tool for witnessing like The Four Spiritual Laws. It helps believers communicate biblical truth. But should we use it every time? No. We must ask what is appropriate in each situation and learn the art of listening, even as Jesus modeled (see John 5:19, 30).

(via)

prayer model step 4

Step 4 of the 5-Step Prayer Model - JRW on Prayer Engagement.

left behind

Great post by Kenny Burchard explain to be left behind is better than to be taken :

I n 1969, Larry Norman wrote his song, “I wish we’d all been ready” based on the popularized rapture schema of pre-trib (and mid trib) premillennial eschatology. The chorus says…

There’s no time

To change your mind

The son has come

And you’ve been left behind

In 1972, the movie “A Thief in the Night” (and three other movies that followed it) scared the hell out of millions of people (including lots of lukewarm Christians), by presenting them with scenes of being left behind after “the rapture” to face the perils of a world run by “the Anti-Christ” and his evil system during the future “great tribulation.”

More recently, the popular fiction series of Left Behind books and films continue to reinforce the idea that any day now all true Christians will be removed from planet earth in the rapture, and taken off to a great heavenly feast up in the sky (lasting either seven years or 3.5 years depending on your preferred theological brand and stomach for enduring pain and persecution) with Jesus, while he simultaneously unleashes his vehement wrath upon the earth and all those who have been left behind to suffer.

The idea of the rapture is practically stock-in-trade with millions of primarily north American evangelicals who see the world as an increasingly evil place from which they long to escape into heaven’s bliss before it reaches the apex of evil. The quest to identify the Anti-Christ (was it Hitler, no, Reagan, no, the Pope, no, Barack Obama well — the jury’s still out, no, aha! maybe a Muslim…??), and to properly read the signs of the times (with corresponding charts noting the dates of corresponding world events) is big business!

Proponents of this eschatological system find the fearful imagery of being left behind in the rapture and suffering in the great tribulation primarily in the gospels of Luke and Matthew.

Here’s Matthew 24:36-44 —

36 But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. 42 Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

And here’s Luke 17:26-37 —

26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, 29 but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—30 so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back. 32 Remember Lot’s wife. 33 Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it. 34 I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed. One will be taken and the other left. 35 There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left.” 37 And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.”

Notice the flow of dialogue after Jesus mentions people being “taken” in vv. 34-35. “One will be taken…” — and they said to him, “Where Lord?” and he said to them… “Where the corpse is…”

This is so important. Jesus did not say that they would be snatched out of their beds in the middle of the night and taken to up to a heavenly banquet in the sky. Nope. Just the opposite. Whoever is taken in these events is not going to enjoy what happens next. Being left behind, in both texts is preferable to being taken!

N.T. Wright (thankfully) keeps these texts in their contexts, and emphasizes the peril of midnight invasion by enemies and thieves in the night who take people out of their beds and away from their work, tearing families apart as some watch their loved ones “taken” in judgment while they are “left behind.” He writes in Jesus and the Victory of God…

At that time there would be division between families and colleagues: one would be taken, another left. It should be noted that being ‘taken’ in this context means being taken in judgment. There is no hint, here, of a ‘rapture’, a sudden ‘supernatural’ event which would remove individuals from terra firma. Such an idea would look as odd, in these synoptic passages, as a Cadillac in a camel-train. It is a matter, rather, of secret police coming in the night, or of enemies sweeping through a village or city and seizing all they can. If the disciples were to escape, if they were to be ‘left’, it would be by the skin of their teeth [1].

...

What about the “Rapture” in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17

Here’s what it says…

15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

What are the elements in this text? I propose –

1. The coming of the Lord…
2. In what is pictured as a descent from heaven…
3. Which is preceded by a loud attention-getting command and a trumpet blast…
4. To which both living and dead respond by getting up from where they are — first the dead, then the living…
5. Who rush out to meet the Lord, enraptured with joy at his home-coming…
6. Who live with him forever.

When the King comes home from battle victory!

This is not imagery for a secret snatching away in the middle of the night. There’s nothing secret about it. It’s loud! There is shouting. There are trumpet blasts. There are dead people getting up, and living people getting up. There is no quiet disappearance. It’s all very loud and very visible. It’s imagery of a King returning home from victorious battle, to which all of the people who love him respond with joyful celebration — going out to meet him at the edge of the city, and marching back into the city with him in royal procession! There is an image for this very thing in 1 Samuel 18:5-7.

5 Whatever mission Saul sent him on, David was so successful that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the troops, and Saul’s officers as well. 6 When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with timbrels and lyres. 7 As they danced, they sang:“Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.”

This seems to be the exact imagery of 1 Thessalonians 4, and it would make a whole lot more sense to people living in Paul’s world to understand this text as the image of a King’s home-coming celebration. What is “rapture?” It is rapturous celebration of victory. It is being “caught up” in the joy of the King’s return, and rushing out to meet him so that you can celebrate his victory. To suggest that the first Christians would have interpreted it as a promise to be removed from the earth before judgment makes no sense. No, they were very familiar with the imagery of rapturous celebration following a King’s victorious home-coming after a successful war campaign. They would hear the trumpet announcing his presence at the border of the city, and they would all leave what they were doing and go out to where the King was stationed, fall in line behind him, and march into the city behind him — right up to the courts where the King would dismount his animal and ascend to his throne — the spoils of his victory being laid at his footstool.

Again, N.T. Wright says that this is a comforting image of hope…

for people like the Thessalonians who were suffering persecution and awaiting God’s vindication. And their ‘meeting’ with the Lord doesn’t mean they will then be staying in mid-air with him. They are like Roman citizens in a colony, going out to meet the emperor when he pays them a state visit, and then accompanying him back to the city itself [2].

The Son will come to those who’re left behind

To make the point further, who was “taken” in the flood and who was “left behind” after it was all over? I propose that Noah and his family were “left behind” (here) while everyone else was “taken” in the water. Who was “left behind” when judgment fell on Sodom? Who was “taken?” I propose that Lot and his family (minus his wife) were the only ones “left” after death “took” everyone else.

Do I believe in the rapture? If we’re talking about the scene described above… you bet! If we’re talking about being taken in the middle of the night up into the sky while God unleashes hell on earth — I’d have to say I can’t find that idea in these texts at all. Nope.

As far as Matthew and Luke are concerned, being taken away in judgment (to “where the corpse is…”) is a bad thing. Being left behind much more preferable. After all, the King is coming Home to the world that belongs to Him, and this is where I want to be when He comes.

——————–

Notes

[1] Wright, N. T. (1996). Jesus and the victory of God (p. 366). London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

[2] Wright, Tom (2002). Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians (For Everyone Series) (Kindle Locations 2232-2234).