Monday, December 23, 2013

transcendence and immanence

 


Let us explore a bit further the concepts of transcendence (covenant headship) and immanence (covenant involvement). Divine transcendence in Scripture seems to center on the concepts of control and authority. Control is evident in that the covenant is brought about by God's sovereign power. God brings His covenant servants into existence (Isa. 41:4; 43:10-13; 44:6; 48:12f.) and exercises total control over them (Exod. 3:8, 14).2 As Lord, He sovereignly delivers them (Exod. 20:2) from bondage and directs the whole natural environment (cf. the plagues in Egypt) to accomplish His purposes for them. Authority is God's right to be obeyed, and since God has both control and authority, He embodies both might and right. Over and over, the covenant Lord stresses how His servants must obey His commands (Exod. 3:13-18; 20:2; Lev. 18:2-5, 30; 19:37; Deut. 6:4-9). To say that God's authority is absolute means that His commands may not be questioned Qob 40:llff.; Rom. 4:18-20; 9:20; Heb. 11:4, 7, 8, 17, passim), that divine authority transcends all other loyalties (Exod. 20:3; Deut. 6:4f.; Matt. 8:19-22; 10:34-38; Phil. 3:8), and that this authority extends to all areas of human life (Exod.; Lev.; Num.; Deut.; Rom. 14:32; 1 Cor. 10:31; 2 Cor. 10:5; Col. 3:17, 23). Control and authority-these are the concepts that come to the fore when the Lord is presented to us as exalted above creation, and they are as far removed as possible from any notion of God as "wholly other" or as "infinitely distant."

God's immanence may be further described as "covenant solidarity." God elects His covenant people and identifies their goals with His. The heart of the relation is expressed by the words "I will be your God and you shall be my people" (Lev. 26:12; cf. Exod. 29:45; 2 Sam. 7:14; Rev. 21:27). He names himself as their God-"God of Israel"-thus identifying himself with them. To despise Israel is to despise God, and vice versa. In that way, God is "with them" (Exod. 3:12), near them (Deut. 4:7; cf. 30:14), Immanuel (cf. Gen. 26:3; 28:15; 31:3; 46:4; Exod. 3:12; 33:14; Deut. 31:6, 8, 23; Judg. 6:16; Isa. 7:14; Jer. 31:33; Matt. 28:20; John 17:25; 1 Cor. 3:16ff.; Rev. 21:22). Therefore we will sometimes describe God's "covenant solidarity" as a "presence" or "nearness," and this nearness, like God's exaltation, is a defining characteristic of God's lordship (Exod. 3:7-14; 6:1-8; 20:5, 7, 12; Ps. 135:13f.; Isa. 26:4-8; Hos. 12:4-9; 13:4ff.; Mal. 3:6; John 8:31-59; cf. Lev. 10:3; Ps. 148:14; Jonah 2:7; Rom. 10:6-8; Eph. 2:17; Col. 1:27). To emphasize the spiritual nearness between himself and Israel, God draws near to them in a spatial sense: on Mount Sinai, in the cloud and pillar in the wilderness, in the land of promise, in the tabernacle and temple. And He draws near in time, as well; He is "now" as well as "here." When the people are tempted to think of the covenant as an artifact of the distant past, God reminds them that He is the same today as He was yesterday. He is the God of the present and future, as much as He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; He is the God who is ready now to deliver (cf. Exod. 3:15; 6:8; Isa. 41:4, 10, 13; Deut. 32:7, 39f., 43; Ps. 135:13; Isa. 26:4-8; Hos. 12:4-9; 13:4ff.; Mal. 3:6; John 8:52-58). Thus God's lordship is a deeply personal and practical concept. God is not a vague abstract principle or force but a living person who fellowships with His people. He is the living and true God, as opposed to all the deaf and dumb idols of this world. Knowledge of Him, therefore, is also a person-to-person knowledge. God's presence is not something that we discover through refined theoretical intelligence. Rather, God is unavoidably close to His creation. We are involved with Him all the time.

As controller and authority, God is "absolute," that is, His power and wisdom are beyond any possibility of successful challenge. Thus God is eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and so on. But this metaphysical absoluteness does not (as in non-Christian thought) force God into the role of an abstract principle. The non-Christian, of course, can accept an absolute only if that absolute is impersonal and therefore makes no demands and has no power to bless or curse. There are personal gods in paganism, but none of them is absolute; there are absolutes in paganism, but none is personal. Only in Christianity (and in other religions influenced by the Bible) is there such a concept as a "personal absolute."

...

To summarize, knowing God is knowing Him as Lord, "knowing that I am the Lord." And knowing Him as Lord is knowing His control, authority, and presence.

Sunday, December 22, 2013

the christian faith

James R. Payton Jr. in Irenaeus on the Christian Faith:

[The apostolic] tradition taught that there was only one God, who created all things, formed humankind, and promised them deliverance after they fell into sin. The creation itself is good; indeed, the salvation achieved in Christ reclaims the entirety of creation, not just the immaterial realm. This savior is the Son of God, who came to fulfill the promises and prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures; to do this, that Word genuinely became incarnate. In his body he suffered, died, and rose again from the dead. He empowered his disciples to become his heralds, and they trustworthily handed on what he had taught them. The apostles carefully instructed those who would follow them as leaders within the Church to assure a faithful transmission of the apostolic message.

spiritual gifts in church history - part 3


Sam Storms continues his survey of spiritual gifts in the history of the church:

Just as a reminder, we are looking closely at the claim of some cessationists that so-called miraculous spiritual gifts ceased to operate in the church following the close of the apostolic age. In the previous article we saw extensive evidence to the contrary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Novatian writes in Treatise Concerning the Trinity (@245 a.d.):
“Indeed this is he who appoints prophets in the church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, brings into being powers and conditions of health, carries on extraordinary works, furnishes discernment of spirits, incorporates administrations in the church, establishes plans, brings together and arranges all other gifts there are of the charismata and by reason of this makes the Church of God everywhere perfect in everything and complete” (29, 10).
I earlier mentioned Cyprian (bishop of Carthage, 248-258 a.d.), who spoke and wrote often of the gift or prophecy and the receiving of visions from the Spirit (The Epistles of Cyprian, vii.3-6, ANF, 5:286-87; vii.7, ANF, 5:287; lxviii.9-10, ANF, 5:375; iv.4, ANF, 5:290).

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

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

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

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

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

Basil of Caesarea (born 330 a.d.) spoke often of the operation in his day of prophecy and healing. He appeals to Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 12 of “word of wisdom” and “gifts of healing” as representative of those gifts that are necessary for the common good of the church (The Longer Rules, vii).
“Is it not plain and incontestable that the ordering of the Church is effected through the Spirit? For He gave, it is said, ‘in the church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues,’ for this order is ordained in accordance with the division of the gifts that are of the Spirit” (On the Holy Spirit, xvi.39, NPF 2nd Series 8:25).
Spiritual leaders in the church, such as bishops or presbyters, says Basil, possess the gift of discernment of spirits, healing, and foreseeing the future (one expression of prophecy) (The Longer Rule, xxiv, xxxv, xlii, lv).

Gregory of Nyssa (born 336; Basil’s younger brother) speaks on Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 13:
“Even if someone receives the other gifts which the Spirit furnishes (I mean the tongues of angels and prophecy and knowledge and the grace of healing), but has never been entirely cleansed of the troubling passions within him through the charity of the Spirit,” he is in danger of failing (The Life of St. Macrina, FC 58:175).
The final Cappadocian, Gregory of Nazianzen (born 330 ad.), provides extensive descriptions of the physical healing that both his father and mother experienced as well as several visions that accompanied them (On the Death of His Father, xxviii-xxix, NPF 2nd Series 7:263-64; xxxi, NPF 2nd Series 7:264).

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

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

Something must be said about Augustine (354-430 a.d.), who early in his ministry espoused cessationism, especially with regard to the gift of tongues. However, in his later writings he retracted his denial of the ongoing reality of the miraculous and carefully documented no fewer than 70 instances of divine healing in his own diocese during a two-year span (see his City of God, Book XXII, chps. 8-10). After describing numerous miracles of healing and even resurrections from the dead, Augustine writes:
“What am I to do? I am so pressed by the promise of finishing this work, that I cannot record all the miracles I know; and doubtless several of our adherents, when they read what I have narrated, will regret that I have omitted so many which they, as well as I, certainly know. Even now I beg, these persons to excuse me, and to consider how long it would take me to relate all those miracles, which the necessity of finishing the work I have undertaken forces me to omit” (City of God, Book XXII, chapter 8, p. 489).
Again, writing his Retractions at the close of life and ministry (@426-27 a.d.), he concedes that tongues and the more spectacular miracles such as people being healed “by the mere shadow of Christ’s preachers as they pass by” have ceased. He then says, “But what I said should not be understood as though no miracles should be believed to be performed nowadays in Christ’s name. For I myself, when I was writing this very book, knew a blind man who had been given his sight in the same city near the bodies of the martyrs of Milan. I knew of some other miracles as well; so many of them occur even in these times that we would be unable either to be aware of all of them or to number those of which we are aware.”

spiritual gifts in church history - part 2


Sam Storms' brief summary of spiritual gifts in church history ... part 2:

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

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

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

Justin Martyr (approx. AD 100-165), perhaps the most important 2nd century apologist, is especially clear about the operation of gifs in his day:
“Therefore, just as God did not inflict His anger on account of those seven thousand men, even so He has now neither yet inflicted judgment, nor does inflict it, knowing that daily some [of you] are becoming disciples in the name of Christ, and quitting the path of error; who are also receiving gifts, each as he is worthy, illumined through the name of this Christ. For one receives the spirit of understanding, another of counsel, another of strength, another of healing, another of foreknowledge, another of teaching, and another of the fear of God” (Dialogue with Trypho, ch.39). 
“For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time. And hence you ought to understand that [the gifts] formerly among your nation have been transferred to us. And just as there were false prophets contemporaneous with your holy prophets, so are there now many false teachers amongst us, of whom our Lord forewarned us to beware; so that in no respect are we deficient, since we know that He foreknew all that would happen to us after His resurrection from the dead and ascension to heaven” (Dialogue with Trypho, ch.39). 
“For numberless demoniacs throughout the whole world and in your city, many of our Christian men, exorcising them in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, have healed and do heal, rendering helpless and driving the possessing devils out of the men, though they could not be cured by all the other exorcists, and those used incantations and drugs” (Second Apology, vi; Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:190).
Irenaeus (approx. AD 120-202), certainly the most important and influential theologian of the late century writes:

“Wherefore, also, those who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform [miracles], so as to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from Him. For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe [in Christ], and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. And what shall I more say? It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church, [scattered] throughout the whole world, has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and which she exerts day by day for the benefit of the Gentiles, neither practicing deception upon any, nor taking any reward from them [on account of such miraculous interpositions]. For as she has received freely from God, freely also does she minister [to others]” (Against Heresies, Book 2, ch.32, 4). 
“Nor does she [the church] perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she has been accustomed to work miracles for the advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error” (Against Heresies, Book 2, ch.32, 5). 
“In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms ‘spiritual,’ they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit” (Against Heresies, Book 5, ch.6, 1).

Tertullian (d. 225; he first coined the term Trinity) spoke and wrote on countless occasions of the operation of the gifts of the Spirit, particularly those of a revelatory nature such as prophecy and word of knowledge.
“But from God – who has promised, indeed, ‘to pour out the grace of the Holy Spirit upon all flesh, and has ordained that His servants and His handmaids should see visions as well as utter prophecies’ – must all those visions be regarded as emanating . . .” (A Treatise on the Soul, xlvii, ANF, 3:225-26).
He described the ministry of one particular lady as follows:
“For, seeing that we acknowledge spiritual charismata, or gifts, we too have merited the attainment of the prophetic gift, although coming after John (the Baptist).” This lady has been “favoured with sundry gifts of revelation” and “both sees and hears mysterious communications; some men’s hearts she understands, and to them who are in need she distributes remedies. . . . After the people are dismissed at the conclusion of the sacred services, she is in the regular habit of reporting to us whatever things she may have seen in vision (for her communications are examined with the most scrupulous care, in order that their truth may be probed). . . . Now can you refuse to believe this, even if indubitable evidence on every point is forthcoming for your conviction?” (A Treatise on the Soul, ix, ANF, 3:188).
Tertullian contrasts what he has witnessed with the claims of the heretic Marcion:
“Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart; . . . Now all these signs (of spiritual gifts) are forthcoming from my side without any difficulty, and they agree, too, with the rules, and the dispensations, and the instructions of the Creator” (Against Marcion, v.8, ANF, 3:446-47).
We also have extensive evidence of revelatory visions in operation in the life of the martyrs Perpetua and her handmaiden Felicitas (202 a.d.). I encourage everyone to read the moving account of Perpetua’s perseverance in faith despite the most horrific of deaths.

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

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

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

Second, Montanus himself allegedly spoke in terms that asserted his identity with the Paraclete of John 14:16. The prophetic utterance in question is as follows:
"For Montanus spoke, saying, 'I am the father, and the son and the paraclete.'" (Found in the writings of Didymus On the Trinity, 3:41).
However, many have questioned whether Montanus is claiming what his critics suggest. More likely he, as well as others in the movement who prophesied, is saying that one or another or perhaps all of the members of the Trinity are speaking through them. For example, in yet another of his prophetic utterances, Montanus said,
"You shall not hear from me, but you have heard from Christ" (Quoted in Epiphanius, Panarion, 48:12; col. 873).
Third, Montanus and his followers (principally, two women, Prisca and Maximilla) held to a view of the prophetic gift that was a departure from the apostle Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 14, insofar as they practiced what can only be called “ecstatic” prophecy in which the speaker either lost consciousness or fell into a trance-like state, or perhaps was but a passive instrument through which the Spirit might speak. One of the prophetic utterances that survived (there are only 16), found in Epiphanius, confirms this view:
"Behold, a man is like a lyre and I pluck his strings like a pick; the man sleeps, but I am awake. Behold, it is the Lord, who is changing the hearts of men and giving new hearts to them."
If this is what Montanus taught, he would be asserting that, when a prophet prophesied, God was in complete control. Man is little more than an instrument, such as the strings of a lyre, on which God plucks his song or message. Man is asleep, in a manner of speaking, and thus passive during the prophetic utterance.

This concept of prophecy is contrary to what we read of in 1 Corinthians 14:29-31 where Paul asserts that "the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophet". The Montanists cannot be charged with having originated this view, for it is found among the Greek Apologists of this period. Justin Martyr and Theophilus both claimed that the Spirit spoke through the OT prophets in such a way as to possess them. Athenagoras says of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah and other OT prophets that they were
"lifted in ecstasy above the natural operations of their minds by the impulses of the Divine Spirit, [and that they] uttered the things with which they were inspired, the Spirit making use of them as a flute player breathes into a flute" (A Plea for the Christians, 9).
The point is that, at least on this one point, the Montanists were not espousing a view of prophecy that was significantly different from what others in the mainstream of the church of that day were saying.

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

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

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

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

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


spiritual gifts in church history - part 1


The question I want to answer in this and several subsequent articles is this: “If the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians 12:7-10 are valid for Christians beyond the death of the apostles, why were they absent from church history until their alleged reappearance in the twentieth century?” My answer follows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

welcome to jesus


Doug Wilson posts Proximity and Communion:

There is a crucial distinction to be made between proximity to Jesus and communion with Jesus. We heard in the message today that the Lord’s brothers did not believe in Him, even though they grew up right next to Him. They had proximity. It was not until later that they had faith.

As one Puritan noted, not everyone who hangs around the court speaks with the king. You are here in His court. You have been seated at His Table. Do not neglect the opportunity.

You are here at the Table of a king. You have every right to be here, provided you are trusting in Him. He has welcomed you. He sits at the head of the Table, and He has provided His own body and blood for the meal. He waits for you to speak to Him. You are here in order to commune with Jesus.

You are not here to commune with yourself. So do not curl up into a little spiritual ball in order to gaze at your sins. Do not close your eyes in order to reflect on what a bad person you are. We do not deny the fact of our sinfulness, but we have come to God through the gospel in order to be delivered from that sinfulness. That is why this is good news.

Look up. Look out. Look to Jesus, and speak with Him. Look around at His body, and rejoice that you have been incorporated into it.

When you meditate, mediate on your deliverance. When you reflect, remember that God did not send His Son into the world—which we are in the midst of celebrating—in order to condemn the world. In order for the world to be condemned, nothing whatever needed to be done. The world was condemned already. In order to be saved, Jesus needed to come, and that is why He came. He came for salvation, not condemnation.

So come, and welcome, to Jesus Christ.

atheism


rejecting god


"A man rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the scarcity of evidence. Man rejects God because of a moral resistance that refuses to admit his need for God." Ravi Zacharias

jesus on homosexuality

Does Jesus speak to homosexuality?

Friday, December 20, 2013

accomplished

R. C. Sproul in The Truth of the Cross:

One of the sweetest statements from the lips of Jesus is this: ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world’ (Matt. 25:34b).

There is a plan of God designed for your salvation. It is not an afterthought or an attempt to correct a mistake. Rather, from all eternity, God determined that He would redeem for Himself a people, and that which He determined to do was, in fact, accomplished in the work of Jesus Christ, His atonement on the cross.

Your salvation has been accomplished by a Savior, One who did for you what the Father determined He should do. He is your Surety, your Mediator, your Substitute, your Redeemer. He atoned for your sins on the cross. 

knowing



We tend to forget how often in Scripture God performs His mighty acts so that men will "know" that He is Lord (cf. Exod. 6:7; 7:5) 17; 8:10, 22; 9:14, 29f.; 10:2; 14:4, 18; 16:12; Isa. 49:23, 26; 60:16; etc.). We tend to forget how often Scripture emphasizes that although in one sense all people know God (cf. Rom. 1:21), in another sense such knowledge is the exclusive privilege of God's redeemed people and indeed the ultimate goal of the believer's life. What could be more "central" than that? But in our modem theologizing-orthodox and liberal, academic and popular-this language does not come readily to our lips. We speak much more easily about being saved, born again, justified, adopted, sanctified, baptized by the Spirit; about entering the kingdom, dying and rising with Christ; and about believing and repenting than we do about knowing the Lord. For Calvin, there was no such reticence. He was quite at home with the scriptural language; he made it truly his own. And in doing so, he unlocked a rich treasury of biblical teaching of which we are largely ignorant today.

Thursday, December 19, 2013

white snarl


This is not so much another “I told you so” but rather another “I tried to tell you so.”

The other day I related how, in my debate with Andrew Sullivan, I tried to show that after same-sex mirage had a foothold in our society, the next folks in line, using all the same arguments, would be the polygamists. And here we are, unlike other functions of modern government, way ahead of schedule.

But I also argued something else, even more “out there.” I said that, given the premises we are all being harangued into adopting, there would be no saying no to bi-sexual marriages. In that chain of letters LGBTQ, why are the B’s left out of this grand expansion of marriage rights? Must be the haters.

The response to this argument has usually been something like, “He clearly doesn’t know what a bisexual is. What a maroon.” Ah, but I do know, and I also know that if somebody wants marital expression for that sexual identity, this requires, at a minimum two other people, one of each sex. And because the extra spouses involved don’t have an obligation to have their third squeeze be the shared third somebody, the whole thing spirals into chaos. What begins as a menage a trois turns into a plain old menagerie.

And so the other day something happened in North Dakota, a little something that vindicates me entirely. Now normally I would refrain from using phrases like “vindicates me entirely” out of a concern that I not fall into spiritual pride, but because vindication on this issue, with these points, only results in me being called an idiot, I feel it is a risk I can take.

What happened was this. A dude wanted to get a marriage license in North Dakota to marry a lady. He was already married to another guy back in another state that allows it. But North Dakota doesn’t recognize same sex mirages, and good on them. This means that he was free to marry the girl in North Dakota without running any risk of being charged with bigamy. But now, suppose he moves back to the state that allowed his first marriage, and he takes HER with him? That state does recognize legal marriages performed in North Dakota. And this leads to the question that I am sure is on everyone’s mind — what will happen when the three of them try to sign up for Obamacare before the deadline?

The answer to that pressing question is an answer that proves that in at least one area we have achieved true equality in the eyes of the law. When they sign up for Obamacare, all three of them, nothing will happen, just like with regular folks.

So here it comes — a Christmas word to the faithless. I am using the word faithless in both senses. I am speaking to those who do not believe, and I am speaking to those who are being disobedient to what they actually do know (Rom. 1:19-20). Ultimately the two categories are only one, but I am speaking to those who are without faith and those trying to throw it away, wanting to pretend they never had it.

The Bible says that when folly gets to this point, it is not an instance of us escaping from God’s hands, but rather a case of us falling into His hands. The wrath of God is defined in Romans 1 as God giving us up, giving us over to our lusts. When He does this, we run headlong and destroy ourselves. This is the wrath of God upon us. It is not a case of us behaving badly in ways that will eventually incur the wrath of God, but rather a proof that we have already dragged the wrath of God down upon our own heads. It is upon us now.

You conduct parades in the street celebrating your ignorance of what it means to be male and female, and it turns out that this ignorance means that you don’t know what a human being is. Assume for a moment that your class assignment came from Pope’s Essay on Man — “Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of mankind is man.” If that is the class you are enrolled in, the bad news is that you are flunking it — on the level of a chemistry major not knowing what a molecule is. This is how the blindness descends. Blindness, when it descends, falls upon the eyes. Feminists don’t know what a woman is, and humanists don’t know what a human is. This is like a geologist not knowing what a rock is, but you can get away with it for a short time if you are prepared to respond to every challenge from the haters with “because shut up.”

When you are in a free fall, there is no arbitrary place you can choose and say “thus far and no farther.” It is your judicial system that is in the middle of a bad parachute accident. You are the ones headed for the ground with a huge white snarl flapping behind you. You no longer have the option of saying that you want to stop now, before it gets troublesome. You should have thought of that before jumping out of the plane.

There is nothing left that you can do. All your presidents, your generals, your intelligence officials, your politicians, your solons, your pundits, your poets, your songwriters, your movie directors, your activists, your community organizers, and your chattering classes are, all together, headed for that sickening sound of impact.

I said there is nothing you can do, but by that I meant there is nothing for you to do from within your own bag of tricks. You are done. You are dead. It is all over.

But there is one thing you can do. You can repent — not because it isn’t hopeless, but because it is. You can pray — not because that is something desperate people always do for no good reason, but rather because it is something that desperate people do for very good reason indeed.

You must repent of your sins the way the Bible defines them. Central to your sinning has been your loss of understanding of what a human being is. You have hated God, and so you have hated the image of God. So repent of your evolutionism, your promiscuity, your autonomy, your philosophies. You must pray to the true God, and not to an idol. You may not pray to the vapory and generic God found in our civil liturgies. You must pray to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the Father of mercies.

In short, America must return to Jesus. It is not complicated.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

same-sex attraction


Nick Roen posts the following; Is It Sin to Experience Same-Sex Attraction?

There is no way around it. Dealing with same-sex attraction is messy.

There are many issues that, at least on the surface, do not seem clear. Take this question, for example: Is same-sex attraction (SSA) itself sinful, and if so, how should we deal with it?

Here is my humble attempt at an answer.

Taking Our Cues from the Bible

First, note briefly three biblical observations:

1. The Bible explicitly says that impenitent homosexual acts, not homosexual desires, keep a person from inheriting the kingdom of God. “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10).

2. The Bible does not seem to explicitly mention same-sex attraction. It is possible that the “dishonorable passions” in Romans 1:26 could be dealing with SSA, but it’s unclear whether this is a reference to simply experiencing an attraction, or following the attraction into active lusting.

3. Our passions may be disordered by the fall of this creation, and yet be distinct from active sinning. Paul said, “the creation was subjected to futility . . . [and will one day] be set free from its bondage to corruption” (Romans 8:20–21). Even Spirit-filled believers groan under this “futility” and “corruption,” including “dishonorable passions.” “We ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Romans 8:23).

Given the above three realities, it seems right to say that while homosexual practice is active sinning, the experience of same-sex attraction need not involve active sinning. John Piper says it like this:
It would be right to say that same-sex desires are sinful in the sense that they are disordered by sin and exist contrary to God’s revealed will. But to be caused by sin and rooted in sin does not make a sinful desire equal to sinning. Sinning is what happens when rebellion against God expresses itself through our disorders (“Let Marriage Be Held In Honor,” emphasis added)
In other words, although SSA is a disordered desire, owing to the fall and thus rooted in sin and broken by sin, nevertheless experiencing SSA is not in itself an act of sinning.

I mean at least two things when I say that experiencing SSA is not in itself an act of sinning.

Orientation in General

First, experiencing a general orientation is not a sin.

In our sin nature, all of us are disordered sexually. My sexuality is disordered in that I experience a homosexual orientation. What I mean is that my sexual desires are exclusively “oriented” toward the same (homo) sex. This is true of me whether or not I am experiencing a specific attraction at any given moment. As I sit here writing, I am not experiencing an attraction to another man, but I am still exclusively attracted to men. So at this moment, though I have a homosexual orientation, I do not believe I am sinning in this regard.

A Specific Attraction

Second, experiencing a specific same-sex attraction is not necessarily a sin.

Let’s say that I experience an attraction to another man. I don’t go looking for it, but it rises up spontaneously within me. At this point, my attraction falls into the category of temptation, and I can do one of two things. I can fight the desire in the same manner that anyone who is tempted with pride, jealousy, or fear would, and kill it before I sin. Or I can follow the desire into lust of the mind and eventually the flesh, which is a volitional sin.

When I look at another male and experience the butterflies of attraction, I must lay the desire for inappropriate activity with him at the feet of Jesus, and turn toward the superior promises of reward found in pursuing righteousness. If I do this, even though I have experienced the disordered groan of a broken creation, I have not sinned.

A Word of Caution

However, a word of caution might be helpful here.

There clearly is a biblical category for being tempted without sinning. Jesus was tempted in every respect, yet remained without sin (Hebrews 4:15), and James 1:14–15 distinguishes between temptation that leads to sin, and sin itself. However, it seems impossible to determine when exactly we have crossed the line from temptation into sin.

For example, how long can I experience the desire before I fight it, and still be blameless? Two seconds? Ten seconds? Half a second? Because Jesus is God, he never crossed the line between temptation and sin — though he knew the agony. But because I am finite and fallen, I cannot definitively discern this line.

Therefore, even though it is possible to be tempted without sinning, it seems wise to agree with David when he says, “Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults” (Psalm 19:12). I always want to say to the Lord, “If there was any sin in the way I handled that temptation, I am sorry. Keep me from it in the future.”

Until That Day

In summary, SSA is the result of a broken creation, and in that sense it is “sinful” or “dishonorable” (Romans 1:26). It is an effect of the fall. However, experiencing SSA is not the same as sinning. Rather, same-sex attractions should be treated like any temptation to sin. They should be fought with blood-earnestness in a way that recognizes the deceitfulness of the heart and the finitude of the mind.

When I do this — when I fight temptation, turn to Jesus, trust his promises, and rely on his Spirit — God is pleased. He is not mainly displeased because I need to fight, but pleased because I am fighting.

This is good news for all of us who experience all manner of temptations! May this fact lead us, no matter our particular groaning, to rest in Jesus more deeply, fight temptation more fiercely, and look forward to the day when our fight of faith will result in “praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:7).

cast it out


Martyn Lloyd-Jone in Revival:

And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.” Mark 9:29

“You failed there, he said in effect to these disciples, because you did not have sufficient power. You were using the power that you have, and you were very confident in it. You did it with great assurance, you were masters of the occasion, you thought you were going to succeed at once, but you did not. . . . You will never be able to deal with ‘this kind’ unless you have applied to God for the power which he alone can give you.

You must become aware of your need, of your impotence, of your helplessness. You must realize that you are confronted by something that is too deep for your methods to get rid of or to deal with, and you need something that can go down beneath that evil power and shatter it, and there is only one thing that can do that, and that is the power of God. . . . We must ask ourselves how we can succeed if we do not have this authority, this commission, this might and strength and power. We must become utterly and absolutely convinced of our need. We must cease to have so much confidence in ourselves, and in all our methods and organizations, and in all our slickness. We have got to realize that we must be filled with God’s Spirit.

And we must be equally certain that God can fill us with his Spirit. We have got to realize that, however great ‘this kind’ is, the power of God is infinitely greater, that what we need is not more knowledge, more understanding, more apologetics, more reconciliation of philosophy and science and religion, and all modern techniques – no, we need a power that can enter into the souls of men and break them and smash them and humble them and then make them anew. And that is the power of the living God.

And we must be confident that God has this power as much today as he had one hundred years ago, and two hundred years ago, and so we must begin to seek the power and to pray for it. We must begin to plead and yearn for it. ‘This kind’ needs prayer.”

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

grace


From Sinclair Ferguson’s response to Gerhard Forde in Christian Spirituality: Five Views on Sanctification, edited by Donald L. Alexander (IVP, 1988), pp 34-35:
Reformed theology is as anxious as Lutheran thought to safeguard grace. It has wrestled very seriously with the whole question of conditions. The term conditions has a certain infelicity about it. But there is a difference between what we might call “conditionality” (which compromises grace by saying, “God will be gracious only if you do X or Y“) and the fact that there are conditions for salvation which arise directly out of the gospel message and do not compromise its graciousness.

These conditions do not render God gracious to us, but are the noncontributory means by which we receive his grace.

Our Lord himself says, “Unless you repent, you too will perish” (Lk 13:3).

Only if we suffer with Christ will we reign with him (Rom 8:17).

“If we confess out sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins” (1 Jn 1:9).

There is a sine qua non to forgiveness and to justification. They cannot be received apart from faith. This is a biblical condition that does not compromise grace, but arises from it. The important thing is not to deny condition, but to underscore that “It is not faith that saves, but Christ that saves through faith” (B.B. Warfield).”

Sunday, December 15, 2013

prohecy


Doug Wilson is a cessationist who mostly gets it. He posted the below yesterday and I love it. He teaches well what I have heard/taught throughout my experience as a continuationist. Sadly, he doesn't seem to know that most (well at least all of the charismatics I run with) would say the same thing he does. When we "get a prophecy", it is always couched in, "I perceive God is saying this and you need to judge it for yourself, I may be completely wrong." We constantly emphasize that whatever we say is "in part", that the Canon is closed, and Scripture is our ultimate authority. Yet Wilson seems to think all charismatics speak, "thus saith the Lord." In spite of how many times we say there is a category that is revelation from God that is not Scripture and more than how I recognize my wife [see his post below for explanation], the ultimate argument is that we are equating our knowing with speaking Scripture. Very odd - especially when he acknowledges there is a category such as this. To Wilson's credit, at least he doesn't go all MacArthur on this.

Here's his excellent post:

A few weeks ago, I was on a radio broadcast in the UK with Adrian Warnock, which I believe I told you about at the time. At that time, I told a story about a “word of knowledge” experience I once had, which caused Adrian to call me a continuationist in denial. I said that was fine, so long as he agreed — since no new Scriptures are being produced by the “extant” gifts — that he was a cessationist in denial.

I recently received an email from a woman asking about that experience of mine, prompting me to want to say just a little bit more about it. She asked this:
“You were talking about the lady that was joining a cult, and you were trying to speak with her and you were getting no where. You read a passage of scripture and then became aware of what was really going on with her. You stated on the radio that you knew it was from God but you would never tell her that and you would never say that to anyone. I am very curious about two things.
What is your reason for doing this? Is it to avoid the whole charismatic tone? 
And what if the woman asked you how you figured it out? Would you then disclose it to her or not even then? What would you say to her?”
This whole issue is actually a question of epistemology. How do we know what we know? How do we know that we know? Now, as a Calvinist, I know that absolutely everything is “from God” in one sense, but I also know that we have to take care to distinguish the multiple senses that this can take on.

I know that Romans 1:20 is from God. I know that my understanding of it is from God. I know that my knowledge of what a grape tastes like is from God. I know that when I press the Windows key on my laptop, the screen changes, and this knowledge is from God. I know how to catch a ball, and this knowledge too is from God. But these types of knowledge are all different.

What I don’t know is that my knowledge of some event in this world, however uncanny it is, is the same kind of knowledge that moved the apostle Paul when he wrote Romans 1:20. Indeed, not only do I not know that, I know for a fact that I don’t know that. Since I know that this is not an option, I don’t want to speak in the company of Christians using the same language that was used when God was still revealing His Word to His people. I have had some remarkable experiences where my uncanny knowledge was borne out by events. But — and this is the absolute kicker — I have had times where I have known things this way and been wrong.

In other words, I believe I live in a personal world, a personal cosmos, in which God blesses and guides according to His good pleasure. He answers prayer. He directs our steps. He gives knowledge in spooky ways — just not inerrant and self-authenticating knowledge, the way He gave it to Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Agabus.

This is because, when you come right down to it, all knowledge is spooky. When I see someone a city block away, and I recognize them, how do I do that? Beats me. This murmuration of starlings is also a question of epistemology. How do they now how to do that? I don’t know — but I know it is God in every aspect of it, and I am also pretty sure the starlings are not exercising their spiritual gifts — although it is a gift and it is spiritual.

If I say to a group of biblically literate people that “God told me,” or “thus saith the Lord,” they are going to assume that I am intending this as the formal equivalent of what that same phrase would have meant centuries ago before the canon was closed. Responsible charismatics vigorously deny that this is what they mean, but to speak in this unguarded way means that you constantly have to offer such denials. Why not simply speak about it with a different vocabulary, one that does not have the aura of prophetic authority?

I believe that spiritual knowledge can be gained/given in much the same way that ordinary knowledge can be gained/given. In short, there are plenty of opportunities to make mistakes. I might recognize my wife a block away and be mistaken. A murmuration might fly straight into a giant windmill. I can be confident enough with the vibe to act on it (pray for someone, or visit them), but what I want to avoid is making grandiose claims for it.

Why? I know my Bible well enough to deck my declarations out in verbiage that sounds all new testamenty, but think it through. To speak in the name of the Lord and to have it not come to pass is no trifle. It was a capital offense in Moses’ Israel (Deut. 18:20-22), and in the time of the new covenant, we are to fear God more, not less (Heb. 10:28-29).

Friday, December 13, 2013

totality of truth

From Francis A. Schaeffer in A Christian Manifesto:

True Spirituality covers all of reality. There are things the Bible tells us as absolutes which are sinful–which do not conform to the character of God. But aside from these the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of Life equally. It is not only that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally. In this sense there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual.

Related to this, it seems to me, is the fact that many Christians do not mean what I mean when I say Christianity is true, or Truth. They are Christians and they believe in, let us say, the truth of creation, the truth of the virgin birth, the truth of Christ’s miracles, Christ’s substitutionary death, and His coming again. But they stop there with these and other individual truths.

When I say Christianity is true I mean it is true to total reality–the total of what is, beginning with the central reality, the objective existence of the personal-infinite God. Christianity is not just a series of truths but Truth–Truth about all of reality. And the holding to that Truth intellectually–and then in some poor way living upon that Truth, the Truth of what is–brings forth…personal results.

jmac's cluster


I picked this graphic because it (1) shows cessationists heading toward the desert (ironic) and (2) it's from 2006 in which one of John MacArthur's thugs wrote "it's practically impossible to have an open, candid, rational conversation about cessationism and invite charismatics to participate without finding yourself at the bottom of an angry dogpile of "Spirit-filled" critics, no matter how charitably you try to approach the subject." I find that ironic. But that aside, Sam Storms addresses the "cluster" argument:

At the recent Strange Fire conference, Tom Pennington presented a case for the cessation of certain spiritual gifts. Among the points he cited (some of which I’ll address in subsequent posts) was the so-called “cluster” argument. I never cease to be amazed (see, I’m not even a “cessationist” when it comes to being amazed by cessationists!) at how consistently this argument is brought out and rehashed, in spite of the fact that it has been repeatedly shown as false to the core. It makes one wonder if cessationists are actually taking the time to read the books and articles published by continuationists. My guess is that they are not.

The “cluster” argument is that signs, wonders and miracles were not customary phenomena even in biblical times. Rather, they were clustered or concentrated at critical moments of revelatory activity in redemptive history. John MacArthur is today an outspoken advocate of this argument. The following citation is from Charismatic Chaos. I will be interested to see if he again uses it in his more recent book, Strange Fire. Here it is:
“Most biblical miracles happened in three relatively brief periods of Bible history: in the days of Moses and Joshua, during the ministries of Elijah and Elisha, and in the time of Christ and the apostles. None of those periods lasted much more than a hundred years. Each of them saw a proliferation of miracles unheard of in other eras. . . . Aside from those three intervals, the only supernatural events recorded in Scripture were isolated incidents” (Charismatic Chaos, 112).
Several things may be said in response to this argument.

First, at most this might suggest that in three periods of redemptive history miraculous phenomena were more prevalent than in other times. It does not prove that miraculous phenomena in other times were non-existent. Nor does it prove that an increase in the frequency of miraculous phenomena could not appear in subsequent phases of redemptive history.

Second, for this to be a substantive argument one must explain not only why miraculous phenomena were prevalent in these three periods but also why they were, allegedly, infrequent or, to use MacArthur’s term, “isolated,” in all other periods. If miraculous phenomena were infrequent in other periods, a point I concede here only for the sake of argument, one would need to ascertain why. Could it be that the relative infrequency of the miraculous was due to the rebellion, unbelief, and apostasy rampant in Israel throughout much of her history (cf. Pss. 74:9-11; 77:7-14)? Let us not forget that even Jesus “could do no miracle there [in Nazareth] except that He laid His hands upon a few sick people and healed them” (Mark 6:5), all because of their unbelief (at which, we are told, Jesus “wondered”, v. 6). The point is that the comparative isolation of the miraculous in certain periods of OT history could be due more to the recalcitrance of God’s people than to any supposed theological principle that dictates as normative a paucity of supernatural manifestations.

Third, there were no cessationists in the Old Testament. No one is ever found to argue that since miraculous phenomena were allegedly “clustered” at selected points in redemptive history we should not expect God to display his power in some other day. In other words, at no point in OT history did miracles cease. That they may have subsided is possible. But this proves only that in some periods God is pleased to work miraculously with greater frequency than he is in others.

The fact that miracles and other “supernatural events” (to use MacArthur’s wording) do appear throughout the course of redemptive history, whether sporadically or otherwise, proves that they never ceased. How, then, can the prevalence of miracles and supernatural phenomena in three periods of history be an argument for cessationism? In other words, how does the existence of miracles in every age of redemptive history serve to argue against the existence of miracles in our age? The occurrence of miraculous phenomena throughout biblical history, however infrequent and isolated, cannot prove the non-occurrence of miraculous phenomena in post-biblical times. The continuation of miraculous phenomena then is not an argument for the cessation of miraculous phenomena now. The fact that in certain periods of redemptive history few miracles are recorded proves only two things: first, that miracles did occur and, second, that few of them were recorded. It does not prove that only a few actually occurred.

Fourth, the assertion that miraculous phenomena outside these three special periods were isolated is simply false. One can make this argument only by defining the miraculous so narrowly as to eliminate a vast number of recorded supernatural phenomena that otherwise might qualify. MacArthur insists that to qualify as a miracle the extraordinary event must occur “through human agency” and must serve to “authenticate” the messenger through whom God is revealing some truth. In this way one is able to exclude as miraculous any supernatural phenomenon that occurs apart from human agency and any supernatural phenomenon unrelated to the revelatory activity of God. Thus, if no revelation is occurring in that period of redemptive history under consideration, no supernatural phenomena recorded in that era can possibly meet the criteria for what constitutes a miracle. On such a narrow definition of a miracle it thus becomes easy to say they were isolated or infrequent.

But if “human agency” or a “gifted” individual is required before an event can be called miraculous, what becomes of the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus? What about the resurrection of the saints mentioned in Matthew 27:52-53 or Peter’s deliverance from jail in Acts 12? Was the instantaneous death of Herod in Acts 12:23 not a miracle because the agency was angelic? Was the earthquake that opened the prison in which Paul and Silas were housed not a miracle because God did it himself, directly? Was Paul’s deliverance from the venom of a viper (Acts 28) not a miracle simply because no human agency was utilized in his preservation? To define as a miracle only those supernatural phenomena involving human agency is arbitrary. It is a case of special pleading, conceived principally because it provides a way of reducing the frequency of the miraculous in the biblical record. In other words, MacArthur utilizes this arbitrary definition not because it’s biblical but because it serves his purpose.

Is it the case that miracles always accompany divine revelation as a means of attestation? That miracles confirm and authenticate the divine message is certainly true. But to reduce the purpose of miracles to this one function is to ignore other reasons for which God ordained them. The association of the miraculous with divine revelation becomes an argument for cessationism only if the Bible restricts the function of a miracle to attestation. And such the Bible does not do. I’ll have more to say on this in a later post.

My reading of the OT reveals a consistent pattern of supernatural manifestations in the affairs of humanity. In addition to the multitude of miracles during the lifetime of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha, we see numerous instances of angelic activity, supernatural visitations and revelatory activity, healings, dreams, visions and the like. Once the arbitrary restrictions on the definition of a miracle are removed, a different picture of OT religious life emerges.

In his book, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Zondervan), Jack Deere provides an extensive list of such supernatural and miraculous phenomena (see pp. 255-61). One thinks especially of Daniel, who ministered in the first half of the sixth century b.c., well beyond the time of Elijah and Elisha. Yet, as Deere points out, “proportionately Daniel’s book contains more supernatural events than the books of Exodus through Joshua (the books dealing with the ministries of Moses and Joshua) and 1 Kings through 2 Kings 13 (the books dealing with the ministries of Elijah and Elisha” (263). My request of all cessationists, then, is simply to cease (!) pulling this argument out of the theological moth balls until such time as you have adequately responded to Deere’s analysis of the biblical data.

Two other factors indicate that miraculous phenomena were not as isolated and infrequent as some allege.

First, there is the assertion of Jeremiah 32:20. With reference to God, the prophet declares: “You have shown signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, and to this day in Israel and among all mankind, and have made a name for yourself as at this day” (emphasis mine). This text alerts us to the danger of arguing from silence. The fact that from the time of the Exodus to the Captivity fewer instances of signs and wonders are recorded does not mean they did not occur. Jeremiah insists they did. One might compare this with the danger of asserting that Jesus did not perform a particular miracle or do so with any degree of frequency simply because the gospels fail to record it. John tells us explicitly that Jesus performed “many other signs . . . in the presence of the disciples” which he did not include in his gospel account” (John 20:30) as well as “many other things which Jesus did” that were impossible to record in detail (John 21:25).

Second, most cessationists insist that NT and OT prophecy are the same (MacArthur certainly does). They also readily acknowledge that NT prophecy was a “miracle” gift. If OT prophecy was of the same nature, then we have an example of a miraculous phenomenon recurring throughout the course of Israel’s history. In every age of Israel’s existence in which there was prophetic activity there was miraculous activity. What then becomes of the assertion that miracles, even on the narrow definition, were infrequent and isolated?

It would appear, then, that the argument for cesssationism which appeals to the notion of miraculous phenomena as clustered, and therefore isolated, in redemptive history, is neither biblically defensible nor logically persuasive. May the appeal to this argument finally and forever “cease”!

reftagger