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.

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.

Evangelical and Charismatic: Affirming Both Word and Spirit

Colin Hansen's book Young, Restless, and Reformed alerted us all to the rise of the young Calvinistic movement that is growing.  What is worthy of note is that this growing movement is more charismatic in nature.  Hansen writes:

Considering domestic and international trends, it's likely that Reformed evangelicals will become more charismatic if Calvinism continues to spread.  Cessationism among American evangelicals has waned outside Reformed circles just as it has within.  Certainly around the globe, Christians tend to assume that the New Testament miracles continue today.  (p. 103)

A fascinating thing I noticed in reading Hansen's book is how often Dr. Wayne Grudem was mentioned.  He was not interviewed for the book but time and time again people who were interviewed brought up his name and books--especially his Systematic Theology (see pages 12, 97, 102, 116, 122, 125, 127).  In that Dr. Grudem combines both a deep love for the Word of God and a deep passion for the power of God displayed in the full range of spiritual gifts it is no wonder that the neo-Reformed movement is displaying both of these tendencies.  Dr. Grudem is not the only one who is manifesting this twin emphasis of Word and Spirit.  I have already written about Sam Storms and his book Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist (see here).  Below are three more books seeking to combine a robust concern for the Word with an experiential role for the Spirit in spiritual gifts.

The first book is: Empowered Evangelicals: Bringing Together the Best of the Evangelical and Charismatic Worlds by Rich Nathan and Ken Wilson (Vine Books, 1995).

The foreword is written by J. I. Packer and he helpfully writes:

This is a book that should not have been needed.  But it is needed, and in some quarters quite urgently.

It seeks to lead polarized people out of some tangles of negative and impoverishing opinion in which they are currently caught.  One group sees the other as weak in the head, while the second rates the first as weak in the heart.  Each forfeits some wisdom and maturity by declining to learn from the other.

....

Wilson and Nathan are pastors, not devotees of either side but men with feet in both camps, and what they want to do is help these two sorts of Bible people to benefit from each other's insights and experience at the local church level.  I applaud their venture.  It would be a mistake to treat their upbeat, well-rounded presentations as implying that once their points are taken all problems are solved and all troubles are over, but following their lead will be a big step forward toward the unity in truth and power that our times oblige us to seek.  They did not waste their talents when they wrote Empowered Evangelicals, and you will not be wasting your time when you read it.

The second book is: The Word and Power Church: What Happens When s Church Experiences All God Has to Offer? by Doug Bannister (Zondervan, 1999).

This book chronicles Bannisters journey from evangelical cessationist to someone seeking and experiencing more of Spirit's power.  He writes:

I now had a foot in both camps.  As an evangelical, I loved the Word but longed for more of the Spirit.  As someone who had begun to drink from the water of the charismatic renewal, I loved the emphasis on the Spirit's power, but saw that this power needed to be wedded with a stronger rooting in the Word.  I saw strengths and weaknesses in both traditions.  Both camps hold a piece of the puzzle the other needs.  (pp. 19-20)

Again, J. I. Packer endorses this book as well!

The third book is: Straight Talk on Spiritual Power: Experiencing the Fullness of God in the Church by Bill Hull (Baker, 2002).

Bill Hull is well-known within evangelicalism for his many books on disciple-making.  In this book he shares his journey into experiencing more of the Spirit's power and how he led his church into this charismatic dimension.  In his introduction Hull writes these poignant words:

As I had observed in Florida the chasm between traditional evangelicals and evangelical charismatics is rapidly closing at the leadership level.  But at the local church level, there is still cultural separation that is just as strong as any theological differences.  I find there are more cessationists by custom than by study.  Someone taught us that certain gifts and means of power are no longer active; therefore our church culture has been shaped around that teaching.  The worship, the teaching, the praying, it all is slanted toward the cultural customs of the past.  People's resistance is not theological.  It is, however, a deeply inbred way of thinking.  If the process of change affected only principles and logic, change would come a lot easier.  Despite the baggage of our tradition, my desire for our church was to take them on a journey to experience all the fullness of God.  But I knew that taking them on such a journey would require a great deal of prayer, team building, teaching, and patience.

The evangelical church is divided into two groups: those who are focused on the Scriptures and those who seek spiritual power.  The separation was never announced, just experienced.  The Word-focused church gets periodic visitations of power, and the power church gets periodic visitations of the Word.  For churches to continue like this is wrong.  For me, the separation of my church from other bodies of believers became a matter of personal integrity.

I believed, along with the pastoral staff and elders, that all the gifts of the Spirit are active and available to the church.  It became clear to me that our practice and our beliefs were not consistent.  We had treated the gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 like the crazy uncle the men in white coats came and took away years ago.  We all know he is alive but we don't talk about him.  I began to see the duplicity in our practice.  God convicted me.

God seemed to be saying, "If I have gifted my people for the common good, then why are you not teaching it?  You are blocking the flow of my power.  Why are you asking them to serve me without their tools and weapons?"

The congregations of many churches are not fully equipped for ministry.  A good third of the Spirit's gifting lies dormant, because of custom or theology it is not available.  How can the church serve God and fulfill the Great Commission with one arm tied behind its back?  Since I believe that the full package of gifts was and is available to the church, my not teaching about them was wrong.  I became convinced that I must move forward in a way that would be for the common good of the church.  This would mean teaching on the subject; it would mean dealing with the unknown.  (pp. 20-21)

The rest of Hull's book explains what he taught and how.  He has a number of great discussions and is pastorally sensitive to the journey he was taking his congregation on during this time.

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?

"Strange Fire" and Responsible Criticism (2)

I published a post a couple of weeks ago about John MacArthur and his upcoming Strange Fire conference.  I expressed concern over the rhetorical and theatrical recklessness of the promotional video as well as Pastor MacArthur's book Charismatic Chaos.  The way that MacArthur argues leads one to believe that he sees absolutely nothing beneficial to the "charismatic movement."  In a follow-up post I quoted J. I. Packer from a 1984 book in which he critically interacts with the charismatic movement.  Dr. Packer wrote another essay in which he continued to interact with the charismatic movement in an even-handed manner.

In 1989 J. I. Packer wrote an article for Christianity Today (May 12, 1989) entitled "Piety on Fire" in which he analyzes the charismatic movement.  Packer is a cessationist and he has his fair share of critical concerns about the charismatic movement but he also shows himself able to recognize positive elements in the movement.  A few of Packer's thoughts are below:

Doctrinally, the renewal is in the mainstream of historic evangelical orthodoxy on the Trinity, the Incarnation, the objectivity of Christ's atonement and the historicity of his resurrection, the need of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, personal fellowship with the Father and the Son as central to the life of faith, and the divine truth of the Bible.  There is nothing eccentric about its basic teaching.  (p. 20)

Compare the following from Packer with John MacArthur's wholesale dismissal of the charismatic movement:

But even if the charismatic movement has no more to give to the church than it has given already, it is surely strange that it should ever be dismissed as not "from God"--that is, as manifesting throughout something other than God's grace, so that every element of it should be explained as merely human or actually demonic.  Yet that verdict has on occasion been voiced.  How should we respond?

Our first comment must be that such thinking is largely emotional and irrational.  The human mind has an unhappy tendency to jump from specifics we dislike to blanket condemnation of the larger reality of which the specifics are part.  Someone misbehaves once, so we tag him as a no-good forever.  We think a store cheated us over one purchase, so we resolve never to shop there again.  Our car gives trouble, so we henceforth refuse all cars of that make.  So, too, if charismatic phenomena offend our sense of social, liturgical, or theological propriety, and charismatic individual embarrass us and make us feel threatened, we are very apt to respond by abusing the whole movement and denying that there is anything of God in it all.  But how silly!  And how nasty!  This is a reaction of wounded pride and willful prejudice, and as such is bad thinking in every way. 

Our second comment must be that by biblical standards the negative verdict is impossible. This can be seen from an argument classically set out by Jonathan Edwards in the aftermath of the much-criticized Great Awakening, of which he became the prime defender.  In The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God, Edwards reasons as follows: Any movement that (1) exalts Jesus Christ as Son of God and Savior, leading people to honor him as such; (2) opposes Satan's kingdom by weaning people from sin and worldliness; (3) teaches people to revere and trust the Bible as the Word of God; (4) makes people feel the urgency of eternal issues and the depth of their own lostness without Christ; and (5) stirs up in people new love of Christ and of others, must be a divine work at its heart, whatever disfigurements may appear on its surface, since these are effects that Satan and fallen humankind have no wish to induce, and in fact try to avoid.  But the Great Awakening had these distinguishing marks; therefore, it was a work of God.

That the charismatic renewal has had the same fivefold effect is beyond dispute; therefore, it too must be adjudged a work of God.  No doubt human folly breaks surface in it, as happens in all movements involving human excitement; no doubt Satan, whose nature and purpose is always to spoil any good God produces, keeps pace with God in it, engineering lunatic fanaticism within it ranks as he did in the Great Awakening.  But to diagnose human and satanic disfigurements of this contemporary work of God is altogether different from seeing it as intrinsically the fruit of psychological freakiness or satanic malice.  (p. 21--emphasis added)

Packer ends his article with these words:

The charismatic renewal has brought millions of Christians, including many clergy, to a deeper, more exuberant faith in Christ than they had before.  It has quickened thousands of congregations, invigorating their worship, making love and fellowship blossom among them, increasing their expectancy and enterprise, and giving stimulus to their evangelism. Charismatic insistence on openness to God has transformed countless lives that previously were not open to him.  Is this from God?  The question answers itself.  (p. 23)

Again, Packer shows himself to be a responsible critic of the charismatic movement in a manner that eludes John MacArthur. 

"Strange Fire" and Responsible Criticism

I published a post a couple of weeks ago about John MacArthur and his upcoming Strange Fire conference.  I expressed concern over the rhetorical and theatrical recklessness of the promotional video as well as Pastor MacArthur's book Charismatic Chaos.  The way that MacArthur argues leads one to believe that he sees absolutely nothing beneficial to the "charismatic movement."  In this post I want to look at a more responsible critic of the charismatic movement to demonstrate a better way to speak and interact with this theological movement.

In 1984 J. I. Packer published Keep In Step With the Spirit.  In that book he engaged the charismatic movement critically but responsibly--and Christianly.  Packer begins by using a credal test and a moral test as drawn from 1 John.  In light of these, Packer states:

When we apply these tests to the charismatic movement, it becomes plain at once that God is in it.  For whatever threats and perhaps instances of occult and counterfeit spirituality we may think we detect round its periphery (and what movement of revival has ever lacked these things round its periphery?), its main effect everywhere is to promote robust Trinitarian faith, personal fellowship with the divine Saviour and Lord whom we meet in the New Testament, repentance, obedience, and love to fellow Christians, expressed in ministry of all sorts toward them--plus a zeal for evangelistic outreach that puts the staider sort of churchmen to shame. (p. 185)

Packer then goes on to list out 12 "positive aspects" to the charismatic movement.  Here is the list along with a few of Packer's comments.

1.  Christ Centeredness.  Faith in, devotion to, and personal fellowship with the living Christ of Scripture are at the movement's heart.  Charismatic books and songs show that whatever my be true of this or that individual, the mainstream of the renewal is robustly Trinitarian, and the stress on the Holy Spirit's ministry does not displace the Lord Jesus from his rightful place as the Head of the body, Lord and Saviour of each human limb in it, and the constant focus of affection and adoration in the worship of his and our Father.  On the contrary, the Spirit's floodlight ministry in relation to the Lord Jesus is well understood, vigorously affirmed, and by all accounts richly enjoyed wherever the renewal takes hold.

2.  Spirit-empowered Living.

3.  Emotion Finding Expression....Granted, charismatic forms of emotional expression can easily become an exhibitionist routine, but then cool bodily stillness, with solemn fixity of face, can equally easily be the expression of a frigid, heartless formalism.  Between these two you may make your choice, but by scriptural standards there is no  doubt that a disorderly liveliness, the overflow of love and joy in God, is preferable to a tidy deadness that lacks both.  A living dog, after all, really is better than a dead lion (see Ecclesiastes 9:4).

4.  Prayerfulness....Many who pray in tongues pray much and for long periods of time; it is doubtful whether those who do not pray so much have any right to criticize what they are doing.

5.  Joyfulness.

6.  Every-heart Involvement in the Worship of God.

7.   Every-member Ministry in the Body of Christ.  

8.  Missionary Zeal.  Charismatics' concern to share Christ, their readiness to testify to their own experience of him, and their unwillingness to be discouraged when their witness is coolly received are exemplary.  No evangelical advocate of lay witness could ask for more.  The boldness of Acts 4:13 and 31 is much in evidence in charismatic circles.

9.  Small-group Ministry.

10.  Attitude Toward Church Structures.  

11. Communal Living.

12.  Generous Giving.

Packer goes on in this chapter to list out 10 "negative aspects" of the charismatic movement to balance out the ledger.  My purpose is not to detail Packer's arguments but rather to show that this Reformed critic of the charismatic movement is able to see much that is good and commendable in the charismatic movement.  This is surely a more accurate way to evaluate this large and variegated movement than MacArthur's wholesale dismissal of the entire movement under the charge of "blaspheming the Holy Spirit."

"Strange Fire" Conference

In this promotional video for the upcoming "Strange Fire" conference, Pastor John MacArthur warns about the "unacceptable" and "false worship" of the charismatic movement.  This is a movement that "blasphemes the Holy Spirit."  Notice the broad brush strokes that are used to implicate this group called the "charismatic movement."  Notice, also, the opening scene of the video with its bloody figurine being stoned to death!




Pastor MacArthur has not been known to be an accurate or careful critic of the charismatic movement in the past.  For example, his 1992 book Charismatic Chaos was woefully lacking in any serious engagement with responsible charismatic/Pentecostal scholarship.  Rich Nathan in his response to Charismatic Chaos notes the following points (as scattered throughout his review):

"This book, however, is particularly difficult to read for a number of reasons.  MacArthur has the unfortunate weakness of exaggerating his opponents' faults.  Not only is the bizarre and the quirky repeatedly emphasized, but MacArthur rarely acknowledges a mainstream view within the charismatic or Pentecostal movements that's balanced, Biblical, and mature.  MacArthur, moreover, rarely admits that the Pentecostal/charismatic movement--now over 400 million strong--has borne tremendous fruit for the kingdom of God.  He simply does not permit himself to acknowledge positive contributions by this enormous and varied movement."

"Throughout this entire book, MacArthur has chosen to exaggerate the weaknesses of the charismatic viewpoint by selecting examples of the worst or the weakest of charismatic proponents rather than the best."

"Perhaps the worst flaw in MacArthur's argumentative style is is tendency to label his opponents with excessively negative and perjorative adjectives."

"In other places in Charismatic Chaos, he accuses charismatics and Pentecostals of being immoral (p. 21); 'keen but clueless' (p 40); anti-intellectual (p. 40); not far removed from existentialism, humanism, paganism (p. 41); and, being 'perilously close to neo-baalism' (p. 43).  It is difficult to dialogue with somebody who is as abusive and caustic as MacArthur is in his attacks on charismatics.  He expresses surprise that charismatics become defensive when he simply 'speaks the truth in love' to them.  Perhaps if MacArthur stopped labeling and vilifying charismatics, they might find it easier to listen to him." 

Based on the video preview of the conference I fear that not much is going to be different with this upcoming critique.

NOTE: I have written a brief critique of Pastor MacArthur's handling of one issue in his Charismatic Chaos.  It is not an exhaustive critique but it does detail his logical and exegetical errors on one specific point.  See my post: Epaphroditus, Sickness, and Healing.

ADDITIONAL POSTS ON THIS TOPIC:

"Strange Fire" and Responsible Criticism

"Strange Fire" and Responsible Criticism (2)

John MacArthur on John Piper and Wayne Grudem Regarding Spiritual Gifts

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

RELATED ISSUES:

Evangelical and Charismatic: Affirming Both Word and Spirit

Charismatic Calvinist

John Piper on Tongues, Prophecy, Healing, and Exorcism

There are some excellent short videos (7-10 minutes each) that feature John Piper talking about some of the more "extraordinary" spiritual gifts.  I like the content as well as the pastoral sensitivity Piper demonstrates with these issues.

On tongues and NT prophecy

On healing and exorcism

Regarding the Charismata: A Few Comments

Steve Hays has an interesting discussion on spiritual gifts and the continuing debate between cessationists and continuationists.  His post, The Charismata, looks briefly at a number of issues.  I will post some of Hays' comments and then intersperse a few of my own.  Last year on the Parchment and Pen blog, C. Michael Patton and Sam Storms had a charitable debate in regards to the issue of spiritual gifts--with a special focus on the more "extraordinary" ones, namely prophecy, healing, tongues and interpretations of tongues.  I engaged the discussions in the comments sections and it is from these comments I will draw some of my quotations for this post.

There are two inter-related but distinct issues below.  The one concerns the authority of Scripture and the authority of New Testament prophecy.  Does a recognition of modern prophecy compromise the authority of Scripture?  The second issue revolves around the subjectivity of modern claims to prophecy.  There are, of course, more issues than these to be addressed in a full-blown theology of spiritual gifts but these two issues are important and are dealt with a bit below.

Steve Hays writes regarding the relationship between modern day prophecy and the authority of Scripture:

Cessationists view modern prophecy as a threat to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

Charismatic writers are often sensitive to this charge. One way they deflect the charge is to distinguish between canonical prophecy, which is infallible–and the NT “gift of prophecy,” which is fallible. There are some Jewish precedents for that distinction. Cf. D. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World(Wipf & Stock 2003); C. Keener, “5. The Nature of Prophecy,” Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 1:1–2:47 (Baker 2012), 902-908. They also cite examples of what they take to be fallible Christian prophets in Acts 21:4,11

This issue of the relationship between Old Testament prophecy and some New Testament prophecy was also brought up by Sam Storms in his defense of modern prophetic ministry.  Storms essentially follows the model developed by Wayne Grudem.  In reference to "Jewish precedents for this distinction" that Hays mentions I wrote this to Michael Patton:

 Michael,
 Another very good TUP (Theology Unplugged)–thank you. In regards to the difference between OT and NT prophecy that you asked Sam about you might want to check out Wayne Grudem’s “The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians” (Univ. Press of America, 1982; Wipf and Stock 1999) pages 21-43. As you probably already know this is essentially Grudem’s Ph.D. thesis so the level of sophistication is higher than in his later “The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today” (Crossway, 1988). The reason I single out the above pages is because here Grudem looks at the Inter-testamental period of the Jewish understanding of prophecy and argues from the primary sources that there was a notion of cessation of scripture quality words alongside a different conception of prophecy of a lower level. Here is a quotation from that section that sort of summarizes Grudem’s point he is driving toward:
“My only concern in this section is to show the existence of a conceptual framework in which one could think that the fact of continuing revelations was entirely consistent with a belief in the cessation of prophecy with a divine authority of actual words, because the two were thought of as related but nevertheless distinct. In order to show that, it is only necessary to demonstrate that the same writers or traditions who believe in the one also accept the other.”
Grudem goes on to posit that: “Especially for a former rabbi such as the Apostle Paul, the conceptual framework was already available and would have seemed quite natural.” (pp. 32, 33) This provides something of a historical context in which Paul was writing and this too should be taken into account when seeking to understand Paul’s arguments.



 Hays brings us a number of cessationist responses to the notion of a kind of prophecy that is not infallible.  He starts by bringing up the argument for its usefulness:

Cessationists counter on various grounds. What’s the point of fallible prophecy? Isn’t that innately unreliable?

This same point was brought up by various cessationists who were responding to the Patton/Storms debate.  I argued in the following manner with a gentlemen named Jim who wondered how "uncertainty could be edifying":

Jim Z. (#45):
You comments need some nuance as they appear (to me) to be a bit overblown in that a seek a philosophical precision of “certainty” or else there is no possibility of edification.

1. You ask, “how can uncertainty be edifying.”

It is not the “uncertainty” in the abstract that is edifying. You have not framed the conceptual issue very well here. A more accurate question is, “how can a fallible source of knowledge be edifying?” There are, of course, all sorts of ways in which a fallible source of knowledge can be edifying. Sam’s point was that preaching was in the same boat conceptually on this count. It is a fallible source of knowledge and yet it has been known to be edifying.

2. You write: “If I came to you and told you that God may or may not have told me that you may or may not survive your current disease, are you actually going to shout “Praise the Lord!”?”

No, I would not say that. What I would ask is “why are you telling me this? What in your experience is leading you to say this?” I would also weigh the entire context (who you are, how well you know me, your past experience in such things, etc); all the kinds of things we weigh in any relationship. Don’t forget that the Storms/Grudem model places great emphasis on judging/sifting the prophecies (1 Cor 14.29).

3. You end your comment with a false dichotomy: revelation or “random synaptic misfire.” No other options? What about a revelation from God that is not “heard” very well by the hearer? What about a revelation from God that is not communicated well by the hearer? There are a number of other options between the two you give.

There was also this interchange that broached this same issue from a slightly different manner.  I made the following comment and then Jim and I interact.

This was a great TUP session! As you all discuss 1 Cor 12 and 14 you are also manifesting the reality of 1 Cor 13 and that is wonderfully refreshing. This TUP was particularly enlightening because I think it very clearly brought out the fundamental issue of tension between the perspectives being articulated. As I heard Sam state it: in the OT there was an infallible connection between a) the revelatory act and b) the communicative act. He believes that this does not necessarily hold in for the NT conception of prophecy. Michael took issue with this. Sam urged that these two contrasting views of prophecy be examined by looking at how prophecy is described and functions in the NT. Toward that end I would urge a look (again) at Acts 21.4–”and through the Spirit they were telling Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.” Grudem writes about this passage:
“The difficulty with the entire passage…is the fact that the expression ‘through the Spirit (in Greek, ‘dia tou pneumatos’) modifies the verb ‘they were telling in the Greek text (it modifies the imperfect verb, ‘elegon’)…So here is speech given “through the Spirit” that Paul disobeys! This fits well with a view of prophecy that includes revelation given by the Holy Spirit and an interpretation and report of that revelation that is given in merely human words, words that the Holy Spirit does not superintend or claim as his own, words that can have a mixture of truth and error in them.”
The amazing thing is that many hard cessationists handle the verse in the same way! They recognize that the Holy Spirit revealed something but the people added something else in. Richard Gaffin in “Perspective on Pentecost” talks of not confusing the revelation and their speech act (p. 68). O. Palmer Robertson likewise says: “To this perfected revelation the concerned disciples appended their own conclusion: that Paul should not proceed to Jerusalem.” “The Final Word” p. 111. He goes on to cite others (Munck, Bruce, Alexander, and Calvin) who agree with him. I have mentioned in another thread George Gillipsie’s view is the same on this passage. I know it’s only one passage but we begin to see the reality of a revelation from God that is added to by the receiver and then the whole complex of revelation/communication is said to be “through the Spirit.” This seems to accord with what Grudem and Storms want to say NT prophecy is.



.                 

.                jim says: 
September 16, 2011 at 2:39 pm 
 

Richard, You said”They recognize that the Holy Spirit revealed something but the people added something else in.” So the point being that a truth/revelation could be reveled to a prophet today and added to by the prophet through their speech. So where does that get us. How would I know if a revelation that is being shared with me by a prophet, is indeed the actual message that God gave to the prophet. How do I even know there was a message given at all to the prophet. And if in the end I have to check/spell it with God’s word as final authority then why bother with prophet’s at all, let’s go to the real source.



.                 

Richard Klaus says: 
September 16, 2011 at 3:58 pm 
 


Jim,
 

Here are a few thoughts with the limited space here:
 

1. Let me respond to your last sentence, first. Why bother? Because God’s word says there is a gift of prophecy for the church that brings edification, exhortation, and consolation (1 Cor 14.3) and that these prophecies are to be tested (1 Cor 14.29; 1 Thess 5.21). We don’t have any examples of NT believers taking your view–”Well, if I have to examine it by the Scripture why bother with the prophecy at all–just go to the Scriptures.” Paul explicitly says, “Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances” (1 Thess 5.19-20).
 

2. How do I know? You raise this in a couple different ways in your post. This is obviously an epistemological issue. As such it is not that different from the rest of life. Once we get past the false dichotomy of incorrigible certitude or complete skepticism we recognize that we all live with a range of varying degrees of certainty. Many times this is contextually determined. For example, I know that people can lie and have been lied to in the past. This does not mean every person lies to me. When my wife professes her love to me I don’t reason, “Well, people can lie, she is a person, therefore she may be lying!” The context of our life together brings the reality of knowing her words are true. This is important to remember because we are talking about communal prophecy in 1 Cor 14 and Rom 12. We often think and talk about these issues very individualistically. But our lives as lived out in the matrix of community is an important part of the knowing process. Do I know the one prophesying? Do I know their character? Do I know their “track record” with prophecies? Also I evaluate the actual prophecy itself. Sometimes it “rings true” to my experience. There is one example of this given in 1 Cor 14.24-25 where it speaks of an unbeliever having his heart exposed and this is very clearly known to be true by the receiver that he falls down and worships. For more on this I would recommend you look at Vern Poythress’ article “Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology” especially section 6–’Circumstantial content received through nondiscursive processes.’ http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1996Modern.htm
 

3. My point in my post was to look at Acts 21.4 and show that both continuationists and cessationist say similar things about the revelation/response distinction. Grudem and Storms find exegetical support for their view of prophecy. What is your understanding of Acts 21.4? 

Word of Faith vs Cessationism--Who's Closer to Jesus?

There is a thought provoking article over at Scot McKnight's blog.  It's by a guest writer named "T" and he is using McKnight's book The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited (Zondervan, 2011) to engage in a thought experiment.  Here is a portion of what "T" wrote:

It was in the context of having read Scot’s book and letting these ideas ruminate, tearing down structures in my mind and building new ones, that I read a post by Roger Olson asking if the word-faith movement within extreme Pentecostalism presented ‘another gospel.’ Let me add right now that I disagree with word-faith (and ‘prosperity gospel’) teaching wholeheartedly. In the interests of space, my naked disavowal will have to suffice. But as I read the post that was rightfully denouncing extreme word-faith and prosperity gospel teachings, I couldn’t help but wonder, If the gospels are the gospel, does extreme cessationism present a “gospel” that is farther from “the gospels” than word-faith Pentecostalism? 

As I thought about this, I thought of several things. Initially (as a born and raised Biblicist evangelical!) I thought in terms of express scriptural support for word-faith on one extreme and for extreme cessationism on the other. On that score, word-faith has a clear advantage over cessationism. Even if it has to be selective in its NT areas of focus, it can at least point to clear, express NT teachings, not only to support the general idea that God does miracles through his people, but also the extreme word-faith teachings (Mark 9:23, James 5:15, Matthew 17:19-21). Again, while I think other portions of the NT make it clear that these verses must be nuanced to avoid taking them without any qualification, they are more expressly supportive of word-faith teachings than most of us would like. But my next line of thought wasn’t rooted in my Biblicist leanings and prima-scriptura goals, but in Scot’s thesis. Namely, if the gospels are the gospels, they proclaim a Jesus that not only heals as the bread and butter of his work, but also 

- Authorizes/commands others who represent him to heal the sick, cast out demons, raise the dead, 

- Commends the faith of those who believe in his authority and/or willingness to heal (Centurian, Canaanite woman), 

- Challenges and/or criticizes the faith of his disciples when they don’t have the faith to believe that THEY can cast out demons in his name, 

- Predicts that anyone who believes will also do what he has been doing (John 14:12; Mark 16:17), 

- Sends out apostles after his resurrection who found churches who then, in fact, also do miracles and signs and wonders in Christ’s name (Galatians 3:5, I Cor. 12-14, James 5:13-18). 

Considering all this and more with “the gospels are the gospel” ringing in my head, I began to lose articulable reasons to answer this question in the negative: “Do word-faith Pentecostals proclaim a Jesus, a gospel, more like the Jesus presented in the gospels than cessationists do?”