My friend Glenn Lucke has been trying to comment here and for some reason Typepad isn't taking his comments. I suppose he has offended the typepad gods whereas I continue to be their obedient servant. Glenn's suggestion is that someone bring Richard Gaffin's perspective from his book Perspectives on Pentecost into the debate. It has been years since I have read that book so I am not prepared to do so, but if anyone else is familiar with Gaffin's arguments, may I gently encourage you to write a post on his perspective and post it and trackback here.
For now though I do want to point out something that I think bears on the charismatic-cessationist discussion that I haven't seen discussed. That is the doctrine of providence. I don't want to make too broad a statement here because I am far from having read all of the relevant literature, but I don't believe I have seen any cessationists relate their views to the doctrine of providence.
In saying this I'm mainly referring to reformed cessationists and I'm mainly referring to the doctrine of providence in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter V, paragraph 1 says:
God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
We reformed cessationists believe that God has ceased revelation, but He hasn't ceased upholding, directing, disposing and governing all creatures, actions and things. In other words, God is working in a mighty way at all times.
I think this speaks to charismatics and cessationists. To the charismatics it blurs the natural/supernatural distinction. In other words its not as if God is absent from the natural and present in the supernatural. God is present in everything. The fact that I just took a breath is an example of direct, divine activity. In other words, I am as dependent on the power of God to enable me to breathe as Lazarus was for Jesus to raise him from the dead.
This is a good reminder to the charismatics to not be so enamored with the spectacular. God is moving at all times, not just when something big happens. The confession will go on and talk about how God usually works through ordinary means but that He is free to work without, above or against them. What the charismatics call supernatural or a work of the Spirit is usually one of these places where God works without, above, or against the ordinary means. Hence, I like the way some frame this in terms of ordinary and extraordinary providence.
Such an understanding could end any charismatic elitism where charismatics feel that the Holy Spirit is moving more powerfully in them because they see the spectacular stuff. God is working in all believers at all times, even if He is only enabling them to breathe. And besides, the spectacular stuff is vastly overrated as a tool for changing lives if the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 is any indication. Let's not forget verse 31:
He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’
But this also speaks to cessationists in that we ought to wrestle with the positive implications of our theology. I am absolutely against people running around saying "God told me this or that," but at the same time I, and those like me, ought to give greater thought to what we mean by the words "uphold, direct, dispose, and govern." Obviously God does this through ordinary means but we ought to be able to give a positive apologetic for what we mean when we say that God is able to work without, above, or against ordinary means.
I once spoke to Dr. Bill Edgar from Westminster Seminary about this and his comment was that charismatics and cessationists agree (or should agree) that God is doing marvelous things in our world, it is just that we differ on how to interpret them.
We cessationists shoot ourselves in the foot when we only talk negatively about the charismatic gifts. This is similar to the way, when the subject of sex comes up, many Christians simply default to warnings against illicit sex and never talk about the beauties of sex. When the subject of charismatic gifts come up many of us automatically default to negativity without giving a corresponding positive explanation of the mighty works of the Holy Spirit today.
And since so much of this debate revolves around the place of subjective impressions in the believers life I think I could find a place for these in the doctrine of providence. At this point, Adrian Warnock is doing the dance for joy because he thinks I have capitulated to the charismatic position. But not so fast Adrian, there are more issues involved than this.
I think Phil Johnson chose some very wise quotes from Spurgeon in this regard. While Spurgeon believed that God can work through impressions he gave very stern warnings not to trust those impressions:
I hope that none of us will ever fall into the snare of following the guidance of impressions made upon us by texts which happen to come prominently before our minds. You have judgements, and you must not lay them aside to be guided by accidental impressions.
Some, I know, fall into a very vicious habit, which habit they excuse themselves—namely, that of ordering their footsteps according to impressions.
So I offer this not as any kind of last word, but maybe it will help push the discussion forward a bit. I'll say more about cessationism later (maybe) but I will say that I am happy to find common ground where I can and I hope this helps in that regard.
The Scripture I would like to throw in here is Col1:27, "..God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."
What does it mean, "...Christ in you the hope of glory?" Connect this to Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever," and you have an interesting situation.
Charismatics aen't saying they are Christ certainly, but that part of His gifts can be imparted from us because He is in us THROUGH faith (see II Cor. 5:7 for instance) to others. The fact that He is the same today as yeterday shows us that what He did when He was alive; or even in the Apostolic era of the first century, He will do today through us.
I rest at least the first part of my case...:)
Posted by: Diane R. | November 09, 2005 at 09:10 PM
One Reformed non-charismatic non-cessationist does raise issues related to this. D.A. Carson thinks we deny the doctrine of providence if we take either of two extremes. If we tend to think things just move along according to natural laws without considering things ordained by God, then we're deists. If, on the other hand, we tend to emphasize certain events as miraculous as if other events aren't in God's providence, then we're like the ancient Greek pagans (or the Baalists, for that matter) who thought certain maladies are of God and certain benefits the result of our manipulative rituals to bring out God's response. No one will explicitly state that either is their view, but in practice people often enough demonstrate that they believe one or the other.
The first sort of view is common enough among cessationists, and the second is common enough among charismatics. You can be a cessationist or a charismatic and not hold either view, of course, but these are tendencies that Carson is particularly sensitive to as a non-charismatic non-cessationist, a view that tends to be less prone to either.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce | November 10, 2005 at 08:17 AM
I agree, David. Although some will argue that the charismatic gifts or "the still small voice" remain necessary in order to provide guidance to the people of God, Scripture (as applied by the Holy Spirit's ordinary operations) and Providence are in fact all that is necessary to guide us aright. As I wrote in my blog last night:
With all due respect to those who insist that the gift of prophecy is still operational in the church today, I ask one simple question, "Why?" As my testimony has shown, God has given me everything that I need in Christ. As far as revelation is concerned, I have found that the Scriptures as illuminated through the Holy Spirit are sufficient for all of my needs, so I need no new words of revelation to add to my knowledge or to encourage me, and since God always guides me rightly through Scripture and Providence, I have no need for a still small voice. The ordinary operations of the Holy Spirit that I enjoy are more than enough to aid me to live the Christian life in a joyous and victorious manner! I have all the revelation I need in the Law, Prophets, and Apostles, and have no need for any new prophetic witness. I am complete in Christ.
Dave
Posted by: theinscrutableone | November 10, 2005 at 09:29 AM
David,
Nicely said--a great post for both sides to hear.
Posted by: DLE | November 11, 2005 at 02:16 AM
I don't consider myself to be charismatic in the popular sense of the word, but I guess after following this discussion I would have to include myself in that camp, technically--for this reason:
I cannot see how one can separate impressions, thoughts and experiences from Providence. Neither can one rightly interpret such thoughts and experiences apart from the bedrock foundation and authority of Scripture--otherwise the Enemy's deceptions and our own subconscious desires could easily be mistaken for 'a still small voice'. I am not talking here about great revelations for the whole Church, to be placed on par with the divine revelation of scripture--I'm talking day to day guidance, teaching and understanding provided to us by the Holy Spirit. How is this not Providence? And how, when these impressions, thoughts and understandings are revealed to us by the Holy Spirit and used for the edification of the Body of Christ are they not the gift of prophecy? Perhaps it is a gift (to perceive God's guidance in this way). So not everyone has experienced this--or needs to experience this. How God chooses to guide each of us certainly doesn't make either the one who has no need for this, nor the one who does experience guidance in this way, superior to the other.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm sure there is much more charlatanism and self-deception out there, than genuine personal revelation by the Holy Spirit. And many of my amazingly coincidental experiences and thoughts could very well be explained as my brain, through intuitive processes and subconscious memories tapping into information and scriptural knowledge. But that is no less an amazing thing to me, that God would guide my thoughts and memories to aid me (or help me aid others) with very specific help at precisely the time I need it. I don't know whether or not you consider this prophecy--but it is certainly God's Providence.
Where Scripture is available, it is imperative to know and study it deeply and regularly in order to know the Will of God. However, where Scripture is not available, surely God speaks to His people through many and various means.(Obviously they would have had to had some exposure to Scripture, at some point in time, in order to become God's people). Of course, this does leave a lot of opportunity for deception---but our access to scripture doesn't seem to have prevented that from happening, here, either. Only a deep love of the Lord above all else and a genuine desire to seek His will above our own prevents us from misinterpreting either Scripture, Providence, or 'a still, small voice'.
Posted by: Debra | November 11, 2005 at 09:21 AM
Well, I mentioned Gaffin's argument in the other thread, w/out expounding.
Quick view: In Scripture (particularly in John's Gospel & Acts) we see signs & wonders functioning to attest as to the authenticity of the Message and the messangers. This I can clearly see in Scripture, and am on board with Gaffin.
That attestation was meant for the time of the Apostles, in Gaffin's view. There is no clear biblical text for this, so I hem & haw on that part of Gaffin's argument. If I missed something, perhaps it is the effect of time on my memory since I read it some time ago. Perhaps I hem & haw because something about Grudem Wimber's view connects w/my experience or that of people I trust. I don't want to lock God in a box He did not clearly put Himself in.
This would certainly be compatible with the WCF's view of God's providence. He chose to 'go the extra mile' to kickstart the church (and may still in new mission fields).
This would not mean God ceases to heal, but that the 'gift of healing' would not be given to any particular people to run healing ministries.
God can continue to give wisdom, but there is not some monk we can seek out who has the 'gift of wisdom'.
I suspect this may be a better way to view things, without the polarization that sinfully occurs when we discuss such matters. Discerning truth is righteous, we just tend not to do it that way- self most definitely included.
This would also remind us that God is free to do what He wants to do (heal, not heal) without judging those who think He does heal, or those who did not get healed.
Posted by: cavman | November 11, 2005 at 11:10 AM
With all due respect to those who insist that the gift of prophecy is still operational in the church today, I ask one simple question, "Why?" As my testimony has shown, God has given me everything that I need in Christ.
Doesn't Paul indicate that the spiritual gifts are given in order to strengthen and deepen our commitment and dependence on one another within the body of Christ? All cells within a body depend on the head to sustain life, but if all of the cells performed the same function and had the same 'abilities' then they would have little need for other cells.
We are complete in Christ but that completeness comes from our connection to Him as the Head of the Body of the Church of which we are members. Cells ultimately derive their life from the head which orders and controls all functions within the body. I know we are known,loved and strengthened by Him, as individuals--but we are still a part of His Body, the Church. And as members of the body, he has created us each to function for the benefit of others--and He equips us through His Spirit to do so.
Posted by: Debra | November 11, 2005 at 01:08 PM
Hello. I was wondering if anyone had a comment on a charismatic and a non-charismatic being married together. I am seriously dating a young lady who is Reformed in her soteriology, but believes AND practices the charismatic gift (specifically, tongues). I a firm cessationist and believe I've studied this issue quite thoroughly. Of course, I can study it further, but only to be more informed, since I don't think I will be persuaded to change my views. I desparately need some godly counsel on this matter. This dating thing can drive a man nuts! Thanks.
Posted by: Joe | May 22, 2006 at 08:44 AM