The Westminster Confession of Faith and a Nuanced Cessationism

Garnet Howard Milne in his book The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation: The Majority Puritan Viewpoint on Whether Extra-Biblical Prophecy is Still Possible (Wipf and Stock, 2007) argues that the Westminster divines were cessationist in their understanding.  Yet Milne acknowledges that these same divines operated with a nuanced view of revelation.  Milne explains:

Secondly, when the divines penned their cessationist clause, they were operating with a conscious distinction between two types of revelations, one of which they deemed had ceased and one of which continued, and always would continue until the end of time.  That which had ceased was “immediate” revelation in the sense of a direct conveyance by the Holy Spirit upon the faculty of the understanding.  The key features of this “immediate” revelation were that it was equal to Scripture in authority and that is contained new extra-biblical revelation of either doctrine, ethics or other forms of divine guidance. (p. 287)

Milne goes on to explain the other kind of revelation that continued:

Thirdly, the divines allowed that dreams, angelic visitations and prophetic impulses or motions might have a role in the only legitimate revelation that now remained, “mediate” revelation.  “Mediate” revelation, as its name implies, was revelation mediated through some intermediary; in this case, the Scriptures.  The Scriptures were an essential mean whereby God imparted this revelation.  What was thus conveyed was a greater understanding of the meaning of  God’s mind in the Scriptures, not merely a greater grammatical or contextual understanding of the biblical text.  “Mediate” revelation was considered to be an application of the divinely inspired written Word of God to the life of an individual, nation or church.

An analogous use of the former modalities of “immediate” revelation was not, therefore, denied. (p. 287)

This may seem like the traditional distinction between “revelation” and “illumination” but the process of disclosure for “mediate” revelation could include “dreams, angelic visitations and prophetic impulses or motions.”  It is crucial to note that in practice “mediate” revelation did not really look distinct from “immediate” revelation.  Milne gives as an example of “mediate” revelation:

Angels too were considered to be able to impress the faculty of the imagination and move the thought processes in such a manner that secrets could discovered through contingent events.  The 1605 Gunpowder Plot was believed to be providentially uncovered through the means of an angelic agency putting it into the mind of Francis Tresham to warn his Catholic brother-in-law Lord Monteagle by letter, advising him not to attend Parliament on 5 November of that year.  Lord Monteagle subsequently revealed the plot to the government and so disaster was thwarted. (p. 288)

Why is this considered “mediate” revelation—what Scriptures are the medium through which this revelation is being conducted?  Milne argues:

The Scriptures were relevant in these sorts of cases as the source of the mediated revelation, because they contained promises of deliverances for God’s people, covenanted nations and churches, in a variety of contexts. (p. 288)

It should be notice that the connection between the revelatory modality (angelic agency acting on the mind) and the specific biblical text is a bit stretched.  Under such a rubric almost any non-discursive revelatory modality could be made to fit with some broad Scriptural theme. 

In light of the above, care should be taken not to merely respond to a word—the verbal token “revelation”—but, rather, to probe into the conceptual dynamics behind the language.  There may be resources in the Reformed heritage—both the conceptual distinction between “immediate” and “mediate” revelation as well as the actual practices of the heritage—that help bridge the gap in understanding between cessationists and continuationists.[1]

---

     [1] Two crucial essays that help bridge this gap are Dean R. Smith, “The Scottish Presbyterians and Covenanters: A Continuationist Experience in a Cessationist Theology,” Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001), 39-63 and Vern Poythress, “Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit Within Cessationist Theology” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39 (1996), 71-101.

Cessationism and Secularism: Comparing the Arguments

Steve Hays over at Triablogue has an interesting post comparing the hard-core cessationist arguments used by John MacArthur and his followers to those of secular atheists.  Here are a few items from his longer post:

Let's spend a little more time on the parallel between MacArthurites and secular debunkers. As I've documented in the past, MacArthurites resort identical arguments. I'll give back-to-back examples at the end of this post. Unfortunately, the MacArthurites are matching the atheists move for move.

Before discussing that, let's back up a step. In my experience, MacArthurites are so transfixed by errors and abuses in the charismatic movement that that fills their view screen. They are oblivious to the danger which they themselves are fostering in their overreaction to the charismatic movement.  

Their attitude reminds me of the classic Twilight Zone episode ("The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street") in which alien invaders successfully deflect attention from the real threat by making neighbors turn on each other in a self-destructive witch hunt. 

Secular debunkers deploy these arguments to discredit miracles in general. MacArthurites ape the same arguments to discredit postapostolic charismatic miracles in particular. The obvious problem is arbitrarily restricting the force of their arguments to all and only postapostolic charismatic miracles. They act as if their arguments, like smart bombs, will only target just those reported miracles which happen to conflict with cessationism, why allowing biblical miracles, and the subset of postapostolic miracles consistent with cessationism, to escape unscathed. 

Unfortunately, MacArthurites are conditioning Christians who've imbibed their brand of cessationism to commit apostasy if they ever encounter atheists who use the very same arguments to discredit biblical miracles. Imagine teenagers who attend Grace Community Church (or students to attend the Master's College or Master's Seminary). Teenagers (or students) who've dutifully mastered the objections to modern charismatic miracles offered by MacArthurites like Fred Butler, Ed Dingess, Lyndon Unger, et al. 

Imagine, when surfing the web, they are suddenly exposed to atheists who use the identical arguments to discredit biblical miracles? Not only have MacArthurites left them defenseless against this line of attack, MacArthurites have predisposed them to lose their faith on contact the moment they encounter direct, parallel arguments against the miracles of Scripture. The proverbial accident waiting to happen. Instant apostates: just add water. 

MacArthurites are giving atheists a huge opening to begin picking off Christians. Of course, that's not their intention. But when they are warned, they angrily denounce the warning. Obviously, MacArthurites aren't equipping Christians on how to field this challenge, for they don't even acknowledge the problem they've nurtured. The MacArthurite is safe so long as he remains in his freeze-dried condition, sealed in a waterproof container.

 Hays give some specific examples that show the mirror-reasoning used.  Here are two he mentions:

Atheists on cancer

Also, he [God] could say, "Folks, I'm going to do you a favor: make you immune to cancer," where from that day on no cancers are observed in anyone. It would put the oncologists out of business, but it would please everyone else, but more importantly: it would provide excellent evidence that God exists.  

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/drange-interview.html

Someone tells us that God loves us as a father loves his children. We are reassured. But then we see a child dying of inoperable cancer of the throat. His earthly father is driven frantic in his efforts to help, but his Heavenly Father reveals no obvious sign of concern. Some qualification is made -- God's love is "not a merely human love" or it is "an inscrutable love," perhaps -- and we realise that such sufferings are quite compatible with the truth of the assertion that "God loves us as a father (but, of course, ...)." We are reassured again. But then perhaps we ask: what is this assurance of God's (appropriately qualified) love worth, what is this apparent guarantee really a guarantee against? Just what would have to happen not merely (morally and wrongly) to tempt but also (logically and rightly) to entitle us to say "God does not love us" or even "God does not exist"? I therefore put to the succeeding symposiasts the simple central questions, "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or of the existence of, God?"  

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/theologyandfalsification.html

MacArthurites on cancer

All of that to say, if contiuationists are correct that signs and wonders are a part of the normal Christian experience and they are happening with regularity among God’s people, then there should be gifted individuals who should do extraordinary signs and wonders with their laying on of hands.  Their ministry should be public — I would suggest a children’s cancer hospital or special ministries department at a local church.  And their ministry should be witnessed by believers and unbelievers alike and those signs and wonders should be both undeniable and verifiable.  

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/the-continuationists-signs-and-wonders-problem/

Continuationists would easily smash the cessationist position if any one of the thousands of people who claim to have the spiritual gift of healing would simply clean out a cancer ward on camera with verification by medical staff (and Jesus did this repeatedly – Matthew 4:24, 8:16; Luke 4:40), but the fact that nobody ever tries to attempt this is suggestive.  

http://mennoknight.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/cessationism-and-continuationism-and-strange-fire-oh-my-part-1/

Atheists on biased sources

We have many of Caesar's enemies, including Cicero, a contemporary of the event, reporting the crossing of the Rubicon, whereas we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a hundred years after the event, which is fifty years after the Christians' own claims had been widely spread around.  

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html

MacArthurites on biased sources

I would even add, verified by unbelievers who knew the person before he or she was healed and now know of the person’s healing. 

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/the-resurrection-schtick/

Steve Hays has much more to say in his post and a number of other examples.  Be sure to read his post The Monsters on Maple Street for the full text and all the examples.

Craig Keener on Miracles

Craig Keener is the author of an important two volume work entitled Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts.

Dr. Keener recently gave a lecture on contemporary miracles that is full of amazing stories of God's miraculous power.

NOTE: See my post The Reformed Tradition and the Miraculous: Some Reflections.  I mention some of Keener's work in this essay.

Ephesians 2.20 and Cessationism

Ephesians 2.20 has become one of the "go to" texts for cessationism.  Here are a few links examining this key text showing that it is not as forceful in supporting their position as cessationists think.

Primer on Eph 2:20 by Steve Hays

Parsing Theological Metaphors by Steve Hays

Ephesians 2:20--The Cessationists "Go-To" Text by Sam Storms

The Reformed Tradition and the Miraculous: Some Reflections

I have been involved in two different churches over the past fifteen years.  These have both been confessional Reformed churches that used the Westminster Confession of Faith as their doctrinal statement.  In reflection upon these churches and the larger Reformed tradition of which they are a part it is important to look to the Gospels and see Jesus’ kingdom proclamation and ministry with the goal of assessing whether they may be, perhaps, a disconnect in vision and praxis within the Reformed community.  To be sure, there are a number of emphases in the Reformed community that line up nicely with Jesus’ teaching and ministry.  However, for purposes of this essay I will look at those areas where the Reformed tradition does not live up to the realities of Jesus kingdom message.  Although there are a number of elements and foci to Jesus’ kingdom ministry narrated in the Gospels I wish to focus attention on Jesus’ miraculous approach to ministry as a fundamental aspect of his kingdom proclamation and how this intersects with hermeneutics and practice. 

            An apt place to start in determining the major aspects of Jesus’ kingdom ministry are his words in Luke 4.18-19:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.

The Reformed tradition has read these words and put a particular stress on the “preaching” and “proclamation” elements.  The ministry of the church continues the ministry of Jesus by preaching the word of God to the nations.  There is no small measure of truth in this.  What

is missed, however, is the focus on the miraculous in-breaking power of God for the restoration of the whole person.  Graham Twelftree accurately describes this dynamic when, in commenting on this passage, he writes that “we see Luke balancing the teaching and miracles of Jesus in such a way that they are of equal significance.”[1]  In the conservative Reformed tradition there is little opposition to this as long as this dynamic is restricted to Jesus and his authoritative apostles.  Twelftree, however, goes further as he examines the fullness of Luke’s presentation about the combination of word and deed:

The balancing of word and deed is seen throughout the Gospel and even in Acts.  Near the end of the Gospel, in the story of the walk to Emmaus, those with Jesus state that Jesus was “a prophet mighty in deed and word” (Lk 24:19).  And in the first verse of Acts Luke describes his Gospel as having been about “all that Jesus did and taught.”  Thus not only can it be concluded that Luke saw miracles as part of the whole of Jesus’ ministry… but that these kinds of miracles were to continue among his followers.[2]

It is here that many in the Reformed tradition hesitate.  All sorts of schema are crafted that allow for the miraculous in the ministry of Jesus and among his apostles but disallow them in the continuing life and ministry of the church.  Without getting into the larger issue of the cessation of the miraculous and the theological constructs that undergird this view, I want to note how this view tends to screen out emphases that are in Jesus’ ministry.[3]

            One such emphasis is Jesus’ holistic ministry of salvation.  In the Gospel of Luke the language of “saved” (σώζω) is used in a broad manner.  When Jesus forgives the woman who anointed his feet with her tears he tells her, “Your faith has saved you” (Luke 7.50).  The linking of forgiveness of sins with being “saved” is standard fare among Protestants of all stripes—Reformed included.  What is interesting to observe is how expansive Luke’s view of “salvation” is in the ministry of Jesus.    In Luke chapter 8 the narration of Jesus’ encounter with the man filled with a “legion” of demons occurs.  After casting out the demons the man is described in verse 36 as one who “had been saved.”[4]  In the same chapter  (verse 48) the language of “saved” is used in reference to a hemorrhaging woman who is healed—“Daughter, your faith has saved you.”[5]  Two verses later the language of “saved” is used when speaking about the raising of Jairus’ daughter from the dead—“only believe, and she will be saved.”[6]  Thus, forgiveness of sins, healings, exorcisms, and even life from death are all seen to be labeled under the language of being “saved.”  This shows a full and holistic approach to the human plight.  To be sure, healing is not guaranteed to everyone and the language of “salvation”—even in Luke’s presentation—centers on the restored relationship with God through the forgiveness of sins and the cleansing work of the Spirit.[7]  Even so it is significant and challenging to see the holistic emphasis of Jesus.  The Reformed tradition has tended to see only the “spiritual” dimension to the exclusion of a more robust conception of God’s concern for all of life. 

            A further corollary flowing from the above is a failure to properly appropriate Jesus’ view of sickness as manifested in the Gospels.  Within the Reformed tradition there is a strong emphasis placed on the sovereignty of God as coming to expression in God’s all-encompassing eternal decree.  The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of this in this manner: “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (WCF 3.1).  In light of this understanding of providence there is a tendency to look through the lens of the decree of God when it comes to the issues of sickness and disease.  Some Reformed Christians may even feel unsure of how aggressively they should seek God’s favor of healing in prayer tending to look for the grace to endure sickness rather than the grace to have sickness healed.  This can result in confusion in that one wonders if praying for the release of sickness is somehow fighting against the hand of God.  I remember well one conversation with a gentleman whose son had been diagnosed with a degenerative bone and skin disease.  As we watched our sons jumping on the trampoline he told me of how he prayed to God and that he knew God was sovereign.  He then asked, “Do you think it’s okay to keep praying and asking God to heal my son?”  In his mind there was a tension that resulted in confusion as to whether God wanted him to even ask anymore for his son’s physical deliverance from the disease.  This is the danger of so stressing the divine decrees.  This can result in a tendency toward acceptance in the face of illness when, perhaps, a more aggressive stance against sickness is called for by the Christian community.  A more focused meditation on Jesus’ approach to sickness can help bring balance.

            Jesus did not like sickness.  The words of popular author Ken Blue are blunt and, perhaps, in need of some nuance, yet they begin to accurately point in a helpful direction:

Sickness is never viewed by [Jesus] as anything but bad, and he never dealt with sickness in any way but to heal it.  Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus sanction sickness for anyone for any reason.  He never counseled anyone to accept sickness as inevitable or profitable.  More to the point, Jesus never inflicted sickness on anyone to accomplish some higher good, although he often healed existing illness for that very reason (Jn 9).  Jesus is clear that sickness is an enemy not a friend.  When possible, it is to be healed and not accepted.[8]

Again, Blue may be a bit lopsided in that there are other types of perspectives drawn from the full canon to be taken into account when developing a full theology of sickness and healing.  Nevertheless his point about Jesus should not be missed.  Reading through the Gospels it is evident that Jesus is often healing due to his being moved by compassion.  Matthew 14.14 is illustrative: “And when he went ashore, he saw a great multitude, and felt compassion for them, and healed their sick.”  This motivation of compassion is often overlooked when considering the healing ministry of Jesus.  There is a tendency in much of the Reformed tradition and even in the broad evangelical tradition to think of Jesus’ healings as solely signs or pointers to Jesus’ divinity.  But focusing again on what the Gospel texts so clearly speak of, namely Jesus’ compassion, allows one to seek the compassionate hand of Jesus in the midst of the illnesses that beset us.  By stressing the compassion of Jesus this helps us to avoid an unhealthy separation of the historical Jesus from the ascended and exalted Christ at the Father’s right hand.  Sam Storms captures this important point for understanding and practice when he writes:

Matthew tells us that when Jesus saw the great multitude he had compassion for them and healed their sick (Matt. 14:14).  My question is simple: As the exalted Son of God looks down from the right hand of the Majesty on High, does he feel differently toward the sick and infirm?  Is he now apathetic toward their pain?  No one denies that miraculous healing now is less frequent than it was then.  But what shall be our response to this?  Personally, I am not content to deal with this problem by minimizing, if not denying, compassion as a preeminent factor in why God heals the sick.  I would rather ground my confidence in the immutability of God’s character, lay prayerful hands on the sick with the unfailing assurance that whereas the church may have changed, God has not, and live with the mystery of unanswered prayer until Jesus returns.[9]

What is particularly noteworthy is that Sam Storms is a Calvinist who has written in defense of the Reformed doctrine of providence.

            The disjunction between the pre-cross Jesus and the post-ascension Christ also effects the way the Gospels are read.  The hermeneutical implications are brought out by Paul Elbert in his review of John Christopher Thomas’ work The Devil, Disease and Deliverance: Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought:

[B]ut it is clear that within much Evangelicalism today there is the unarticulated presupposition that, aside from the supposed non-paradigmatic nature of Lukan characters (especially regarding their involvement with the Holy Spirit), even the historical Jesus is not paradigmatic with respect to the activity of the spiritual Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., what the historical Jesus did in his healing ministry should not be expected in prayer for believers today.  I believe this approach, with its hidden stimulus towards reinterpretation with respect to the miraculous is at odds with the understanding of the primitive church and with the expectations NT writers had for their readers.  Thomas’ solid results make this ingrained speculation gap between the historical Jesus and the spiritual Jesus who pours forth the Holy Spirit in healing less likely, indeed they reduce it to disfavor, paving the way for a new scholarship to further challenge this corrosive and unevangelistic impulse from data in the text themselves.  Indeed, the essence and ultimate helpfulness of Thomas’ work is that the NT characters are emblematic or paradigmatic with respect to their illness and healings or non-healings, so that, properly understood the NT reality is apropos for applications to Christians today.[10]

These thoughts of Elbert offer a hermeneutical challenge to the Reformed tradition that often refuses to see Jesus’ ministry and that of the early followers as having any direct relevance or application today. 

This is a particularly North American and European problem in that these cultures read the narratives of the Gospels from a viewpoint heavily influenced by the Enlightenment.  The Reformed tradition tends to read the Gospels for its enduring message about Jesus but often fails to read them for any sort of modeling for the miraculous in the life of the church today.  This is not the case with those portions of the church in the Majority world that have not been touched by Western views of the Enlightenment.  As Craig Keener argues:

Readings of Scripture in the Global South often contrast starkly with modern Western critics’ readings.  These readings from other social locations often shock Westerners not only because others believe the early Christian miracle narratives to be plausible; they astonish many Westerners because these readers also often take these narratives as a model for ministry.[11]

The Reformed tradition with which I am most familiar simply cannot read the Gospels in this way in that its commitment to cessationism entails that the miraculous is all but non-existent today.  It is interesting to note that in the Keener article referenced above he cites a 2006 Pew Forum Survey that looked at ten countries.  Keener summarizes the reports findings:

In these 10 countries alone, and for Pentecostals and charismatics in these countries alone, the estimated number of people claiming to have ‘witnessed divine healings’ comes to 202,141,082 (i.e., about 200 million).  What may be more interesting in this survey, however, is the category of ‘other Christians’, with somewhere around 39 per cent in these countries claiming to have ‘witnessed divine healings’.  That is, over one-third of Christians worldwide who do not identify themselves as Pentecostal or charismatic claim to have witnessed divine healings.[12]

In fact, in this very essay Keener provides data regarding resuscitations from the dead from his extended family on his wife’s side![13]  The testimonial evidence is pervasive but a commitment to cessationism does not permit much of the North American Reformed community to see this evidence.  This not only produces a stilted view of the rest of the world but also creates a failure to read the Gospels with an eye for how narratives containing the miraculous might function as models for ministry today. 

            As a fascinating counter-perspective Tod Vogt in an essay on the Gospel of Mark sets out to compare the different ways in which different cultures read the narratives containing the demonic.[14]  Vogt worked among the Fon Christians of Benin, West Africa and he interviewed various church leaders about how they read specific narratives in the Gospel of Mark (1.21-28; 5.1-20; 9.14-29) regarding the demonic.  He contrasted this with a selection of commentaries written by scholars in the West.  In looking at Mark 1.21-28 he summarizes the comparison in this manner:

For modern Western Christians, salvation is primarily spiritual but for the Fon Christians salvation has very real physical dimensions.  This exorcism demonstrates this physical dimension of salvation.  Salvation and liberation from the forces of evil are synonyms.  Salvation for animistic peoples, including the Fon has the immediate result of providing power with which they can fight against the evil spirits or evil forces that torment them.  They focus on verse 24.  “And he cried out, ‘What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth?  Have you come to destroy us?  I know who you are, the Holy One of God.’”  Where Western theologians give emphasis to the identity of Jesus, Fon Christians give emphasis to the power of Jesus.  Their concerns are earthly versus the predominantly cosmic concerns of Western theologians.[15]

This should not be taken to endorse every single interpretative or hermeneutical judgment made by non-Western interpreters.  It does, however, raise an interesting question.  Which readings of the Gospel narratives—Western Reformed or non-Western—more accurately capture the intention of the Gospel writers themselves? 

            The Reformation tradition of which I am apart has a number of positive elements and benefits the larger Church in a number of important ways.  The largely negative assessment here ought not to be construed as a wholesale dismissal of this tradition—I am, after all, still part of that tradition!  Nevertheless, when it comes to assessing this tradition against the life and ministry of Jesus in regards to the miraculous there are problems.  Those elements of the Reformed faith that emphasize a strong cessationism miss crucial themes in the Gospels both at the hermeneutical and practical levels.  Michael Green’s words about the Western Church are appropriate for the Western Reformed tradition in particular:

Instead of being a community demonstrating the Lord’s power, we have become one which talks incessantly.  We need to remember that “the kingdom of God is not talk, but power.”  Where churches have regained dependence on God’s Spirit, where they have believed that God is active among his people today, where they have prayerfully asked him to give them not only qualities of character but spiritual power, then those same gifts which we see in the New Testament have appeared today… It has long been fashionable for us to dismiss these gifts as unnecessary or unattainable today.  We would be unwise to do so.  They are part of God’s equipping of his church for Evangelism.[16]

There is hope.  For whatever reason, the Holy Spirit may suffer himself to be quenched for a season but he is always the “wildcard” in the midst of the body of Christ.  He may yet assert his gracious sovereignty and bestow gifts as he wills—even if the church isn’t always ready or willing.

---

     [1] Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1999), 146.

     [2] Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 180-181 (emphasis added).

     [3] For one work that analyzes the cessationist argument of B. B. Warfield see Jon Ruthven, On the Cessation of the Charismata: The Protestant Polemic on Postbiblical Miracles (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).

     [4] Greek: ἐσώθη; 3^rd person, singular, aorist, passive, indicative.

     [5] Greek: σέσωκεν; 3^rd person, singular, perfect, active, indicative.

     [6] Greek: σωθήσεται; 3^rd person, singular, future, passive, indicative.

     [7] Ben Witherington, “Salvation and Health in Christian Antiquity: The Soteriology of Luke-Acts in its First Century Setting,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 161.

     [8] Ken Blue, Authority to Heal (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1987), 29.

     [9] Sam Storms in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views (ed. Wayne Grudem; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 323-324.

     [10] Paul Elbert, “The Devil, Disease and Deliverance: Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought—An Appreciation and Critique” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 3 (2000): 143-145.

     [11] Craig Keener, “Cultural Comparisons for Healing and Exorcism Narratives in Matthew’s Gospel,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 66 (2010), n. p. [cited 12 December 2013].  Online: http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/viewFile/808/808.

     [12] Keener, “Cultural Comparisons for Healing and Exorcism Narratives in Matthew’s Gospel,” Online.

     [13] Keener has subsequently published his two volume work entitle Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011) in which he details numerous accounts of the miraculous throughout church history and today.

     [14] Tod K. Vogt, “Jesus and the Demons in the Gospel of Mark: Contrasting Secular and Animistic Interpretations” Journal of Applied Missiology 7 (1996), n. p. [cited 12 December 2013].  Online: http://www.ovc.edu/missions/jam/markdmon.htm.

     [15] Vogt, “Jesus and the Demons in the Gospel of Mark,” Online.

     [16] Quoted in J. P. Moreland, The Kingdom Triangle (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 172.

J. P. Moreland on the Abandonment of Cessationism

Cessationism is the idea that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, such as prophecy, healing, miracles, and tongues (see 1 Cor. 12:8-10; 13:8-10), ceased with the death of the apostles and, thus, are no longer available today.  Fewer and fewer Christian scholars hold to cessationism, and it may fairly be called an increasingly marginalized viewpoint.  This shift in scholarly opinion has been partly responsible for the renewal of miraculous ministry in the Western church (non-Western Christians are almost never cessationist in orientation).

If you are a cessationist, please do not misunderstand my point.  I was trained in a cessationist seminary and have great respect and love for my cessationist friends.  Cessationists have tirelessly and faithfully called the church back to the Bible as the final authority for ministry and practice.  The church owes their cessationist brothers and sisters an incredible debt for this, even if not for their cessationist conclusions.

Moreover, the simple fact that cessationism is an increasingly minority position does not prove it is wrong.  However, this observation is of limited value.  If a viewpoint is an increasingly minority position among learned folk and yet one continues to accept that viewpoint, one needs to be able to explain why it is losing favor in such a way that one can continue to accept the position with intellectual integrity.  For example, if one can show that for historical, sociological, or spiritual reasons, people have a vested interest in retaining a majority viewpoint even though it is false and perhaps, less rational than the marginalized position, this this carries weight.

Precisely this strategy is what critics of evolution use in arguing that, while in the minority, Intelligent Design and various creationist theories are better justified than evolutionary alternatives.  But this strategy is a hard sell regarding the waning of cessationism.  Indeed, a growing number of noncessationists have come from the cessationist camps, and they have a solid understanding of the case for cessationism.  Moreover, it is hard to find sociological, historical, or spiritual reasons that adequately explain the growing and widespread acceptance of noncessationism among Evangelical scholars and pastors.

Because of this, I urge my cessationism brothers and sisters to reconsider their viewpoint.  At the very least, the direction of Evangelical thought on these matters should cause cessationists to lower the degree of strength they take themselves to have regarding the truth of their position.  In other words, even if one continues to assert cessationism, one should be far less confident that it is true than was possible, say, forty years ago.  This means that the harshness and rigidity that sometimes characterized cessationist advocates should be tempered, not merely because all of us need to dialog about our differences in a gracious manner, but because it may well be intellectually irresponsible to embody that sort of certainty with respect to cessationism that sometimes fuels such harshness and rigidity.  [Bold added]

--J. P. Moreland, The Kingdom Triangle (Zondervan, 2007), pp. 175-176

Millard Erickson on Spiritual Gifts

I've been reading sections of Millard Erickson's Christian Theology for a theology class I'm taking.  This the third edition (2013) so it is his most update version.  I've written a bit about chapter 21 "The Origin of Humanity" HERE.

Chapter 40 is titled "The Work of the Holy Spirit" and on pages 798-803 he addresses the issue of "The Miraculous Gifts Today."  I didn't find his presentation particularly enlightening.  Here are a few reasons.

1.  As with other sections this chapter shows no awareness of developments in this arena over the past 30 years.  The most current bibliographic entry is 1972.  This is important because Erickson is attempting to engage with linguistic arguments to overturn those who affirm tongues-speech today.  There has been a great deal of research into this since 1972 and Erickson doesn't address any of it.  He could have interacted with Vern Poythress' research even for the first edition of Christian Theology (1983).  Poythress published "Linguistic and Sociological Analyses of Modern Tongues-Speaking: Their Contributions and Limitations" in 1980.  This essay was subsequently republished in Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia. Watson E. Mills. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Pp. 469-489.

2.  This chapter betrays a preoccupation with the "Charismatic movement" as it was expressed in the 1960's and 70's.  During this time a major focus was on the gifts of "tongues" (glossolalia).  Erickson writes:

Most frequently mentioned are faith healing, exorcism of demons, and especially glossolalia or speaking in tongues. (p. 798)

I would argue that the 1980's brought about a focus on the gifts of prophecy and healing.  Particularly among those who aligned with the "Third Wave" these were the gifts that were stressed.  Erickson does interact a bit with this view of prophecy in chapter 41 but his discussion here in chapter 40 needs to be updated.

3.  Erickson writes:

The question that has occasioned the most controversy is whether the Holy Spirit is still dispensing these gifts in the church today, and, if so, whether they are normative (i.e., whether every Christian and should receive and exercise them.  (pp. 798-799)

The way that Erickson has set this up is a bit reductionistic.  Why should we think that normativeness of the gifts (of a more "supernatural" kind) should be seen in such an individualistic manner?  Perhaps they are normative for the church without necessarily attaching normativeness to every individual believer.

4.  Erickson makes a methodological decision at this point that is suspect.  He writes:

Because glossalalia is the most prominent of these gifts, we will concentrate on it.  Our conclusions will serve to evaluate the other gifts as well.  (p. 799)

First, there is no reason to suppose that glossolalia is the most prominent of the gifts currently among those who espouse their continuation.  Second, it doesn't follow that conclusions relevant to the gift of tongues necessarily can be used to evaluate other spiritual gifts.  Paul spoke of tongues being of lesser value than prophecy (1 Corinthians 14) so there may be unique features for other gifts need special discussion.

5.  On page 801 Erickson discusses the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" in his discussion of tongues.  This, however, is a conceptually distinct issue from the continuation of the gift of tongues.  Classical Pentecostalism is different from the brand of evangelicalism known as the "Third Wave."  Erickson seems to be conflating what should be distinguished.

6.  Erickson writes:

In the final analysis, whether the Bible teaches that the Spirit dispenses special gifts today is not an issue of great practical consequence.  For even if he does, we are not to set our lives to seeking them.  He bestows them sovereignly; he alone will do so regardless of whether we expect it or seek it.  (p. 802)

There is a great deal to take issue with in just these three sentences.  First, are we really to think there are no "great practical consequences?"  What a person or church decides on this issue can have profound practical consequences for what church will attend, how that service could be conducted, and how one might pray--all very practical consequences!  Second, Erickson's use of language is vague when he talks of how "we are not to set our lives to seeking them."  What does this mean--"set our lives?"  Is this indicative of a person's sole pursuit in life?  If that is the person being considered then he has set up an easy target to refute.  Of course, the pursuit of spiritual gifts should not the main or sole pursuit of Christians.  In speaking this way it seems that Erickson may be against any seeking of spiritual gifts.  This doesn't fit with Paul's thinking in 1 Corinthians 14 where we are told to "desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy" (1 Corinthians 14.1).  [Sam Storms has a good discussion of this passage HERE].  Erickson seems to come dangerously close to using the fact of God's sovereignty as an excuse for passivity and inattention to these gifts.

"Strange Fire"--Michael Brown Responds (Twice!)

Michael Brown is a charismatic scholar who recently wrote the commentary on Jeremiah for the revised  Evangelical Bible Commentary.  The biographical statement on this work states this about Dr. Brown:

Michael L. Brown, (PhD, New York University) is president and professor of practical theology at Fellowship for International Revival and Evangelism School of Ministry. He has also served as adjunct professor of Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield and adjunct professor of Jewish apologetics at Fuller Theological Seminary School of World Mission. He has contributed to the Oxford Dictionary of Jewish Religion, and the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament.

Dr. Brown is also the author of the important book Israel's Divine Healer which is part of the series "Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology."

These statements are put forward to show Dr. Brown's commitment to the written Word of God.  Dr. Brown has recently published two articles critiquing John MacArthur's "Strange Fire Conference."

The first article is entitled John MacArthur, Strange Fire, and Blasphemy of the Spirit.  In it he writes:

Without a doubt, there are horrific things being done in the name of Jesus and the Spirit, often onChristian TV for the whole world to see—and this stuff is downright shameful, bringing reproach to the reputation of the Lord. Along with other charismatic leaders, I have renounced these things for decades. But is it the responsibility of every charismatic-Pentecostal pastor and leader to renounce these things all the time?

Pastor MacArthur has called on his Pentecostal brothers and sisters to stand up and speak out against these abuses, joining him at his upcoming conference; but if a pastor is shepherding his flock and feeding them God’s Word and his people are not guilty of these abuses or watching these TV preachers, why is it his responsibility to address these errors? Does Pastor MacArthur feel the responsibility to monitor the preaching of tens of thousands of non-charismatic pastors across the country and publicly renounce their errors? Why, then, must Pentecostal and charismatic pastors renounce extremes in their movement to somehow prove their orthodoxy?

He goes on to write:

Again, I am not for a moment excusing doctrinal errors, emotional manipulation, financial greed or other spiritual abuses often perpetuated in the name of the Spirit, but it is absolutely outrageous that Pastor MacArthur claims, “The charismatic movement is largely the reason the church is in the mess it is today. In virtually every area where church life is unbiblical, you can attribute it to the charismatic movement. In virtually every area—bad theology, superficial worship, ego, prosperity gospel, personality elevation. All of that comes out of the charismatic movement.”

And he is quite wrong when he states, “Its theology is bad. It is unbiblical. It is bad. It is aberrant. It is destructive to people because it promises what it can't deliver, and then God gets blamed when it doesn't come. It is a very destructive movement.”

In reality, more people have been saved—wonderfully saved—as a result of the Pentecostal-charismatic movement worldwide than through any other movement in church history (to the tune of perhaps a half-billion souls), as documented recently in Allan Heaton Anderson’s To the Ends of the Earth: Pentecostalism and the Transformation of World Christianity. And professor Craig Keener has provided overwhelming testimony to the reality of God’s miraculous power worldwide today (see his brilliant two-volume study Miracles).

Tragically, rather than recognizing the outpouring of the Spirit worldwide—God’s true fire, falling in abundance in many nations—and focusing on the spiritual deadness that exists in many Spirit-denying churches, Pastor MacArthur has chosen to focus on aberrations and extremes in the charismatic movement, even making the extremely dangerous claims that charismatics are blaspheming the Spirit and attributing “to the Holy Spirit even the work of Satan.”

To be perfectly clear, I am not for a second claiming that Pastor MacArthur is blaspheming the Spirit (God forbid!), but in the New Testament, blasphemy of the Spirit is knowingly attributing the works of the Spirit to Satan (Mark 3:23-30), and I am far more concerned about denying the true fire than I am about putting out every aberrant charismatic brush fire.

Dr. Brown's second article is entitled An Appeal to John MacArthur to Embrace God's True Fire.  A few relevant comments are:

Today, the Holy Spirit continues to move in wonderful and sometimes unusual ways, overpowering some people with His presence, producing in others a deep conviction of sin that moves them to cry out and groan, producing in still others a glorious and inexpressible joy that moves them to dance and shout, and confirming the Word with signs following—the greatest sign of all being radically changed lives for the glory of God.

Yet rather than recognize this, Pastor MacArthur claims that charismatics have “stolen the Holy Spirit and created a golden calf and they are dancing around the golden calf as if it is the Holy Spirit. ... The Charismatic version of  the Holy Spirit is that golden calf ... around which they dance with their dishonoring exercises”—and in this scathing indictment he names fine godly leaders like Mike Bickle and Lou Engle, claiming that they are guilty of blaspheming the Spirit.

Recognizing the many wonderful things that Pastor MacArthur has done for God’s people and for the name of Jesus, I urge him to sit down with these leaders whose ministries he attacks (or to sit with me as a former leader in the Brownsville Revival) to listen to their extensive teaching of the Scriptures and to meet with some of the thousands of young people who have been impacted by their lives and who are now burning bright for Jesus, reaching the lost on college campuses, seeking God earnestly in day and night prayer, contending for the lives of the unborn and pursuing holiness in the fear of the Lord.

I too reject many abuses in the charismatic movement—including our flesh-exalting personality cults; our carnal prosperity message; our manifestation mania; our superficial sensationalism; our mindless gullibility; our cheapening of the word “apostolic”; our constant fascination with the latest trend—but I recognize these as part of the dirty bathwater to be thrown out rather than the precious baby to be nurtured.

We can only hope that Dr. MacArthur would be willing to sit down with responsible charismatic teachers like Dr. Brown and engage in true critical interaction.  Without this responsible interaction I'm afraid that the "Strange Fire Conference" will just be one large exercise in the logical fallacy of beating up straw men.

John MacArthur on John Piper and Wayne Grudem regarding Spiritual Gifts

I've written about John MacArthur's upcoming Strange Fire conference (here, here, and here).  Pastor MacArthur's rhetoric seems primarily rooted in responding to the face of charismatic Christianity as found on television.  There seems to be little understanding of responsible charismatic theology.  Dr. MacArthur doesn't even adequately define those who disagree with him.  For example, Dr. MacArthur says the following in an interview in January 2011:

There are people like people like C.J. [Mahaney] and other people like that who have shed that theology and simply hold on to what is called a non-cessationist view, that is the view that may be the miracles and signs and the tongues still exist.  They haven't ceased.  That's what's called a non-cessationist.  We would be cessationists, if we would  say we can show biblically how that's all ceased.  So what's left to them is they've embraced good theology and I think they're moving in the right direction.  But many of them, you know, people like John Piper and Wayne Grudem who are, generally speaking, theologically sound will hold on to that non-cessationist's view and say, "Well, God could do that and there could be miracles and there could be tongues."  

Dr. MacArthur has not done justice to these men and their views.  John Piper and Wayne Grudem are not simply "non-cessationists" who think that God "could do that."  This is false.  Here is something of Piper's view from a sermon he preached:

In the previous section I argued that "signs and wonders" in the New Testament were not the prerogative of apostles only. The "seventy" performed them (Luke 10:9,17), deacons performed them (Acts 6:8; 8:6), Galatian Christians performed them (Galatians 3:5), Corinthian Christians performed them (1 Corinthians 12:9-10). Since signs and wonders were not the prerogative of the apostles, there is no New Testament warrant for inferring that these miracles were to cease after the apostolic age.

In fact, I want to argue in this section that the New Testament teaches that spiritual gifts (including the more obviously supernatural or revelatory ones like prophecy and tongues) will continue until Jesus comes. The use of such gifts (miracles, faith, healings, prophecy, etc) give rise to what may sometimes be called "signs and wonders." Therefore signs and wonders are part of the blessing we should pray for today.

There is no text in the New Testament that teaches the cessation of these gifts. But more important than this silence is the text that explicitly teaches their continuance until Jesus comes, namely, 1 Corinthians 13:8-12.

The main point of this passage is that love is superior to spiritual gifts like "prophecies" and "tongues" and "knowledge". The basic argument for the superiority of love is that it lasts forever while these gifts do not. They cease "when the perfect comes," but love goes on forever. The reason given for why these gifts cease is that they are "imperfect". But when the "perfect" comes the imperfect will pass away. So the key question is: When does the "perfect" come which marks the end of the imperfect gifts like prophecy?

The answer is plain in the text if we follow Paul's line of reasoning. Verse 8 says, "Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away" (RSV). Why are these gifts temporary? The answer is given in verse 9: "For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect." So the reason these spiritual gifts are temporary is their incompleteness or imperfection.

How long then are they to last? Verse 10 gives the answer: "When the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away." But when is that? When does the perfect come? The answer is given in verse 12: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood." The "now" of incompleteness and imperfection is contrasted with the "then" of seeing face to face and understanding even as we are understood.

So the answer to the question of when the perfect comes and when the imperfect gifts pass away is the "then" of verse 12, namely, the time of seeing "face to face" and "understanding as we are understood." When will this happen?

Both of these phrases ("seeing face to face" and "understanding as we have been understood") are stretched beyond the breaking point if we say that they refer to the closing of the New Testament canon or the close of the apostolic age. Rather, they refer to our experience at the second coming of Jesus. Then "we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2) The phrase "face to face" in the Greek Old Testament refers to seeing God personally (Genesis 32:30; Judges 6:22). Thomas Edwards' hundred-year-old commentary is right to say, "When the perfect is come at the advent of Christ, then the Christian will know God intuitively and directly, even as he was before known of God" (First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 353, italics added).

This means that verse 10 can be paraphrased, "When Christ returns, the imperfect will pass away." And since "the imperfect" refers to spiritual gifts like prophecy and knowledge and tongues, we may paraphrase further, "When Christ returns, then prophecy and knowledge and tongues will pass away."

Here is a definite statement about the time of the cessation of spiritual gifts, and that time is the second coming of Christ. Richard Gaffin does not do justice to the actual wording of verse 10 when he says, "The time of the cessation of prophecy and tongues is an open question so far as this passage is concerned" (Perspectives on Pentecost, p. 111). It is not an open question. Paul says, "When the perfect comes [at that time, not before or after], the imperfect [gifts like prophecy and tongues, etc.] will pass away."

Therefore, 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 teaches that such spiritual gifts will continue until the second coming of Jesus. There is no reason to exclude from this conclusion the other "imperfect" gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10. Since these include miracles, faith, healings, etc., with which we associate "signs and wonders", there is clear New Testament warrant for expecting that "signs and wonders" will continue until Jesus comes.

Now, obviously, this is more than simply saying that all the gifts "could" be operative today.  Pastor Piper is arguing that all are available!  Dr. MacArthur's comments are even more off-base in discussing Wayne Grudem's views.  Reading chapters 52 and 53 of Dr. Grudem's Systematic Theology shows that he is very much arguing for the full range of spiritual gifts today--including gifts of healings, prophecy, tongues and interpretations of tongues.  For those wanting a short study by Grudem on these issues and to see for themselves exactly what his views are, one should consult his essay Should Christians Expect Miracles Today? Objections and Answers from the Bible.  Now there is a category of person who corresponds to Dr. MacArthur's "non-cessationist" portrayal.  In a four-views book edited by Wayne Grudem entitled Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views (Zondervan, 1996) one of the views is called "Open But Cautious" and is defended by Robert L. Saucy.  Saucy's position is nicely summed up by his words:

To state my opinion up front, the New Testament does not explicitly teach the cessation of certain gifts at a particular point in the experience of the church.  It is, therefore, impossible to say, on the basis of biblical teaching that certain gifts cannot occur at any given time according to God's sovereign purpose.  On the other hand, there are several lines of evidence that demonstrate that the miraculous phenomena experienced in the early biblical church are not standard for the life of the church throughout all time.  (p. 100)

Here is a statement that is reflective of MacArthur's "non-cessationist" position.  This, however, is not Piper's or Grudem's view.  To assert otherwise is irresponsible scholarship.  

Pastor John MacArthur should do two things.  First, he should accurately and honestly speak of his fellow ministers' views.  He may disagree with both Piper and Grudem but he should be able to correctly label their views.  Second, it would be helpful if MacArthur would responsibly interact with the actual arguments put forward by Piper and Grudem.  In his book Charismatic Chaos MacArthur interacts with Grudem's views on prophecy in only one footnote on pages 368-369 and even this does not adequately articulate Grudem's views.

Can we expect better from the upcoming Strange Fire conference?