Why I Am Not a Cessationist
There has been some recent discussion around the blogosphere regarding the role of the charismatic gifts in the church today. It began when avowed cessationist C. Michael Patton put together a series of blog posts he has written critiquing the charismatic movement into a short PDF book available for download (here). As previously mentioned on this blog there was a quick response from T.C. Robinson criticizing some of Patton’s arguments (here). There was been a few more responses at the blog Continuationism (here and here). I assume that there are several other responses of which I am not aware.
It would seem that this is an opportune time to add my own voice to the discussion. On the other hand, I know people may be tired of it already. What I will do is write out some of my own thoughts on why I am not a cessationist here. If this is timely, read now. If not, you can always come back later (or never if you are not interested in my opinion on the matter, which is understandable).
I should rephrase the matter. This is more than why I am not a cessationist. This is about why I am a continuationist. As a credo-baptist I have respect for paedeo-baptist; as a Calvinist I have respect for Arminians; as an exclusivist I have respect for inclusivist. I cannot say I respect cessationist in this debate in the same way. I understand the position, but I do not understand how anyone maintains it. It seems to me that the work of the Spirit in the life of the church through the impartation of gifts to members of the body of Christ is one of the most obvious doctrines in Scripture.
First, let me begin with Christology. The Pauline concept of kenosis should be taken seriously. I am not one of those who understands the miracles of Jesus to be due to his divine nature. Rather, as fully human Jesus was dependent upon the Holy Spirit as any other human. Jesus healed, raised the dead, fed the five thousand, and walked on water because he was in close fellowship with the Holy Spirit and the Spirit led him in these acts. Jesus being driven by the Spirit into the wilderness, or descended upon by the Spirit at his baptism, or being declared the “Messiah” (= annointed one) are all important Pneumatological acts. As a man, Jesus did these things by the will of the Father and the power of the Spirit.
The evangelist recognize this in their own language. Along with the aforementioned wilderness and baptism narratives we have the author of the Fourth Gospel (14.12-14) writing of Jesus telling his disciples that they would do greater things than he did. In the context of this gospel this is due to the fact that Jesus will be present with them via the Holy Spirit who will guide and empower them. I doubt anyone would challenge that the author of Luke-Acts understood his two volume history of the works of Jesus and his disciples to imply anything other than that the church would continue in “word and deed” what Jesus had already begun (Acts 1.1). In the Lukan narrative such continuation is depicted by powerful proclamation of the gospel accompanied by works of the Spirit in and through the church.
Jesus was the first human to become fully united with the Spirit in the sense that New Covenant members can expect today. Yes, there were those who has similar experiences with the Spirit in the Old Covenant but both the Lukan and Johannine perspective, along with the Pauline, indicate that something is essentially different. New Covenant believers experience now the very Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead, that is renewing them now, and that will raised them from the dead (cf. Rom. 8.11; 1 Cor 15).
Second, let me address eschatology. The advent of Jesus brought the age to come into the current evil age. This is what we speak about when we speak of the “already, but not yet” aspect of eschatology. The resurrection of the dead was to occur at the end of time. In Christ it occurred in the middle of time and it has already occurred inside believer’s who are awaiting it to occur outside as well (see Rom, esp. Eph). Along with the resurrection the coming of the Spirit was an eschatological act. This has occurred as well. This is why Paul draws the Spirit and the resurrection so closely together in Rom. 8 and 1 Cor. 15.
The Spirit has resurrected Christ giving him a Spirit-animated body (again, see 1 Cor 15). According to Paul, we have already been renewed in the inner man and we await this consumation in the outer man (again, see Eph and 2 Cor). Therefore we are “already, but not yet” dead, resurrected, and ruling with Christ. This may seem secondary to discussions regarding the charismata, but it is not.
To assert that the Spirit has changed how he works through believer’s now seems to me to minimize these assertions bu Paul regarding the life of the church in this era. As we are to live now like we will live then (e.g. 1 Cor. 6) so we are to experience the Spirit. This is not to say that we will need to have the gifts of healing and so forth at the eschaton. It is to say we will be empowered and animated by Spirit forever on.
When the Spirit does his final work we will not longer experience sickness, or ignorance, or disunity. In the meantime, we are to live in the Spirit in such a way that we catch glimpses of our post-eschaton, resurrected existence. This is depicted by things like the unity of the church and the fruits of the Spirit. It is also seen in the charismatic gifts that give us a glimpse of what God is planning on doing at the end of history.
I am not denying the “not yet” part of this equation. I do not think this leads to the error of the “word of faith” movement. God is still sovereign. We still live in this sinful world (see Rom. 8.18-23). Nevertheless, we must remember that we should still expect the “already” side of the equation as well. This should include the continuation of the movement of the Spirit seen amongst the apostolic church.
Third, it seems to me that people misunderstand the gifts of the Spirit. These are not moments when the Spirit exchanges sovereign rule over the church for human empowerment. Someone can have a gift of healing, pray for someone, and watch them get progressively sick. God is not bound by the gift that the Spirit has given to us.
Likewise, the gifts are not always going to be used to perfection. The Corinthians seemed to be riddled with errors when they used the gifts. The gifts of tongues was being abused often. Did this disqualify the gift? Does this mean that the gift was not an actual gift given to believer’s who abused it? No! This means it could be misused.
Too many cessationist appeal to the worst examples of the charismatic movement to show that these people must be making things up because there are times when healing does not occur, when prophecy fails, and so forth. This occurred in the apostolic era as well. Paul had to tell the elders of the churches in Thessaloníki and Corinth to “test” prophetic utterances. This does not mean that some “wolf in sheep’s clothing” has come to deceive the church (though this can happen as well), but rather that sometimes the person thinks that the Spirit has led them to say something that the community together recognizes is not a work of the Spirit at all.
Fourth, there is no evidence that these experiences were to cease in the “already, but not yet” eschatological era. The aforementioned abuses are not reason to claim cessation. On the contrary, the aforementioned eschatological framework is sufficient reason to expect continuation. While I know I make exegetical mistakes, and I am usually comfortable with others doing the same, any attempt to read 1 Cor. 13.9 as “canonization” may very well be one of the most baffling exegetical assertions. The Parousia is a much, much better explanation, especially when read in the context of Pauline eschatology. There must be another argument for cessation!
What about theologians in church history who seem to be cessationist. I think it has been sufficiently shown that this was not a catholic perspective (e.g., see here and here). There were some who did not see the Spirit moving this way amongst their own fellow Christians; there were some who saw the Spirit move this way frequently. Even if the cessationist perspective was common in church history this is not rebuttal for Pentecostals and Charismatics who have claimed for sometime that their movements as restoration movements. While there are dangers to such a claim there is much truth to it as well.
Fifth, I am convinced that the cessationist perspective is essentially a deistic, post-Enlightenment, Westernized skepticism of anything “supernatural”. It is often the result of Christians trying to explain how God functions while adopting the presuppositions of naturalist. Christianity cannot function in a naturalistic worldview. Christianity, as well as Judaism, has always claimed that God is active in history amongst humanity and creation. Most of our brothers and sisters in Africa, Latin America, and Asia are under no such delusions.
Finally, I have experienced things like glossolalia, the interpretation of tongues, prophecies, healing, and so forth. I have seen people who seem to have these gifts. I have heard many stories of healing, exorcism, and so forth. I am not convinced by those who suggest I have found what I want to be there or that the naturalistic explanations are better.
In some situations there may be a natural cause. In some situations there may be some falsehood to the claims. There can be false prophets and so forth. I know this all too well. I have had people call some really stupid statements “prophecy”. I was going to be married to like three different people that I never even dated. The woman that I did married was told by an elder in my previous church that God had told her she should not marry me (he didn’t like me).
It is my contention that fakes only imitate the real. It would be hypocritical of me to recognize exegetically (esp. thanks to the work of Gordon Fee in God’s Empowering Presence) that the gifts will not be used perfectly then dismiss the gifts when I see this actually happen. I expect people to make mistakes when giving me prophecies. Likewise, I expect some prophecies to be correct.
One can be a fine Christian and a cessationist. I do not doubt this, but I wouldn’t want to be one of those Christians. “The Spirit moves in mysterious ways” and we Christians should be the first to affirm this!
A fantastic post! In addition to the enlightenment, I’ve read that many of the cessationist arguments began as anti-Catholic arguments, since Catholic apologists often appealed to miracles.
Also, I appreciate the frankness regarding the abuses. I’ve heard Craig Keener say that he supports the charismatic view because of scripture, since there is plenty of ridiculous stuff that happens. I have to agree
.
Brian-
Thanks for your post on this. A lot to unpack here – so I won’t:-) But your strongest claim here is your most negative : a) cessationists are deistic, post-Enlightenment, skeptics at root, and b) you wouldn’t want to be one of us.
To quote Seth & Amy, “Really!?”:-)
I’ll start with (b). Many days I don’t want to be me either. So, I have to partly concede the point. But it is not because of my cessationism. Cessationists are no less Spiritual than Charismatics. If they are in Christ, they can’t be. Do we then quench the Spirit? Perhaps, but I suppose no less than Charismatics, too. I Corinthians would affirm that point, actually. So, I think your last point, while most poignantly felt, is weakest and doesn’t do much toward convincing any except the choir.
As to the first point: a) You could argue (I wouldn’t, except that you started it!:-) that Charismatic practice is itself a reaction to the Enlightenment, e.g. since we can’t access the noumena of our religious conviction, we only have access it via the phenomena of our internal experiences made public; b) historically, if there were any cessastionists before, say, Descartes, then again your assertion falls short; c) you claim to be a Calvinist, but in what sense? Sacramentally, you (should) believe that Christ is really given in the bread and wine by the Spirit (cf. WSC 88, 91,92,96; cf. I Cor. 10:16), and not simply as a memorial (that might be closer to being “naturalistic,” btw). So, anyway, Calvinists (I’ll only speak for my parched little branch of the kingdom) have a robust, non-deistic, pre-modern view of the Spirit’s work especially in the sacraments. And I guess you know that. So who are you railing against? Baptist cessationists? Well I’m with you on part of that, anyway!:-)
PG,
I do not argue that cessationist are less “spiritual” than charismatics. Anyone who receives the Spirit is “S/spiritual”. Likewise, one cannot be “S/spiritual” in any useful sense of the word without the Holy Spirit.
I do think that the cessationist position is (1) weak ecclesiology and (2) weaker eschatology. It could be argued that it is also “quenching the Spirit”. One thing that the Apostle does not say of the Corinthians desire to exercise the gifts is that it is any such thing. It seems better to make mistakes while trying to function in the Spirit than to cautiously withdraw from the chosen method of the Spirit in the church.
You say that my fifth point is my strongest. I deny this. The strongest argument comes from both a micro and macro exegetical examination of the gospels and the Pauline corpus. As I alluded it is the “already, but not yet” Pneumatology that understands the era that began at the first advent and that will end at the second to be an era of the new covenant which as Paul argues in depth is a covenant of the Spirit. The gifts are empowerment for the mission that has not concluded as is evidenced by the fact that Jesus has not appeared to bring heaven and earth together under his reign. Until this occurs there is no reason to think that the church can sufficiently function in the world by our own accord and methodology.
The argument that the cessationist perspective is highly influenced by Enlightenment thinking is not a blanket that covers all cases. I can’t say Augustine was a cessationist because of Descartes. Nevertheless, I do think that it is a strong argument for why most of the European and North American expressions of Christianity have struggled with the charismata while African, Asian, and Latino Christianity has adopted it.
As regards my Calvinism it is Middle Knowledge Calvinism. I am not “Reformed” so I could care less about Westminster. I argue for this position over and against hard lined five point Calvinism and against Arminianism on the other side. It is a soteriological designation (though I am closer to your view of the Eucharist than the “memorial” view). For an example of a theologian/philosopher who is actually Reformed and charismatic see J.K.A Smith of Calvin College. We do exist!
Excellent post, Brian.
I must say, however, that I agree with PG about your associating cessationism with the Enlightenment. I’m so tired of arguments associating a given position with the arch-bogeyman Descartes, and I’ve yet to see one that really flies.
And you’re right to ridicule the cessationist reading of 1 Corinthians 13. The worst part about the cessationist understanding of that passage is that it posits a meaning that neither Paul nor his original addressees could have understood, since neither Paul nor the Corinthians could have known that there was going to be a New Testament. Did Paul scratch his head after writing chapter 13, and say to himself, “I wonder what that means”? (A few dictation theorists might think so.)
John,
While I understand your (as well as PG’s) dislike for the Enlightenment argument it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. In part, this worldview makes it more difficult for many Christians today to feel comfortable with the charismatic gifts. To speak of having the ability to cast out demons is embarrassing to many because it sounds medieval. To speak of prophecy is to venture from reality to the scene from ‘The Lord of the Rings’. We have abrogated such phenomenon to the mythical.
Likewise, in much of the so-called “developing” world where ancestral spirits, demons, and so forth are seen as common place the idea that God would give his people (sustained) power against such forces is not so foreign. There is nothing of which to be embarrassed in many such worldviews.
So maybe it is not Descartes fault, but it surely is commonplace in Western culture and we need to explain why.
I didn’t say any of your arguments were strong, Brian.
What I said was your strongest claims were in point 5, i.e. borderline bombastic assessments of others, which I why I addressed them.
I have interacted with Jamie Smith, before online and read several of his books (not his latest unfortunately). He is a solid thinker, theologian, and philosopher. And a gracious Christian, through and through. And he is not the only Reformed person to hold ~ cessationist views. Sam Storms would also fit in that category as would Wayne Grudem.
While you could “care less” about Westminster (note: seems almost snide on your part to put it like that. It was a consensus document written across ecclesial bounds – don’t be so easily dismissive, i.e. read it, why don’t you?!:-). I’m assuming you have read folks from that ilk like Richard Gaffin “Perspectives on Pentecost” and Vern Poythress on this issue? Keying off of Vos and Ridderbos, they also do “micro” and “macro” exegesis of the NT, and operate with an eschatology of already/not yet – and yet are not sadly trapped into the tragic view that the Church must “function in the world by our own accord and methodology.” No Christian believes that – cessationist or otherwise! They (we) simply believe that there is redemptive-historical movement within the inter-advental epochs, that is marked by a cessation of the initial foundation laying gifts such as glossalia, etc.
You are saying – “Since Jesus hasn’t returned, all gifts must be operative.” You might be right, but you haven’t shown it. And I think you are (unintentionally) caricaturing those you disagree with. Cessationists believe in and live by the power of the Spirit. Pray by, and with the Holy Spirit. Our gospel and mission is no less rich, thick or Spirit filled than yours. (Note the irony here of a ~cessationist having to justify my real experience of the Spirit to a “continuationist.” Weird.)
And we believe in angels and demons and are unembarrassed about it, e.g. a man in my church recently bought a home and was having nightmares and asked me to come over and pray for him in his home. I read Scripture about Jesus casting out demons, prayed against the powers and principalities, and went home (no nightmares since, btw). In fact, my missions professor was a guy named Harvie Conn, who was a cessationist, but talked to us about about his experience of casting out demons (note: he admitted he didn’t think it was possible or necessary until he had to do it.).
Anyway, charity is one aspect of the fruit of the Spirit, too.
PG,
Again, I am not saying that cessationist are less S/spiritual than charismatics. I do not disagree with your claim that the Spirit is just as active. In fact, this is one of my problems with the cessationist position. Cessationist will acknowledge the continued work of the Spirit and even the gifting of the Spirit for the church today. Yet most cessationist place an asterisk by the so-called “power” gifts. The church can be given the gift of pastor–but not prophet. The church can be given the gift of administrative diligence–but not glossolalia. It is not that I think cessationist are not led by the Spirit; it is that cessationist are selective in acknowledging how the Spirit can work.
It is one thing to be cautious. It is something else to tell a Christian that the Spirit cannot gift them in the way they feel led because that has “ceased” when there is no exegetical justification for such assertions. While one can work within an “already, but not yet” eschatological framework without being a continuationist it seems to me that this is minimizing an aspect of this era that Johannine and Pauline approaches to eschatology would disallow. I applaud Gaffin, Vos, et al. for what I am sure is solid exegesis. Nevertheless, I am still skeptical and it seems to me that the ecclesiastical tradition within which they worked has shaped their shortcoming here.
While I should be more careful when it comes to disregarding something like the Westminster Confession (which I admit I have never read) I tend to be skeptical of large doctrinal take-it-all-or-leave-it statements. I’ve just now come around to feeling comfortable seeing some of the Fourth Century creeds as authoritative for church life and doctrine. It will be a while before I can see Westminster this way.
Again, I want to repeat because I do not want to be misunderstood here, I do not doubt that cessationist experience the Spirit as fully as charismatics. This is an individual by individual matter and it seems that if the Spirit wanted to gift someone with glossolalia, or the ability to exercise the demonic, or the ability to give a word of wisdom, but their doctrinal perspective says this cannot happen, that there is something limiting about this that I am not comfortable with accepting.
Poythress, while a cessationist, gives what I think is a good mediating position between the two sides on the full complement of gifts and experiences in a contemporary setting, i.e. he doesn’t question the motives or experiences of “continuationists,” and pushes cessationists (particularly Reformed ones) to have a richer view of God’s providence and use of means (he does cite WCF, btw).
http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1996Modern.htm
The best part, for my money, is the numerous examples he cites (from Knox to Spurgeon to RC Sproul (!)) of those who reported having, what we would call today, examples of “charismatic experience.”
Great post Brian!
Jonathan
My goodness Brian, you are on sizzling form…..What a post!
Brian -
Thanks again for link to our article.
I would say that we still need to listen. I, too, don’t believe a ‘hard’ cessationist view can be maintained from Scripture or history, and I also believe a ‘soft’ cessationist (or ‘cautious’ continuationist) view becomes unhelpful because we only end up saying, ‘I’m open,’ but we never truly seek God’s heart with regards to these things. I share more on this here.
But I have found we will never ‘win’ people over by telling them we don’t ‘respect’ their position. I know you know. Just a reminder of what I have learned.
And, in all reality, most cessationists will actually say, ‘God can do anything He wants, since He is God’. And thus they say they believe in healing, miracles, etc. But it’s more of a it-can-happen-but-does-not-happen-very-much stance. I believe this allows for them to stand on both sides of the fence, if you will. I believe this is part of the cautious view that can be detrimental. We are challenged to seek Him (and eagerly desire the gifts). If we are kind of passive-open, we won’t usually seek. I have found that in my regular life of prayer. If I don’t want it, I will stay clicking the remote or surfing the web rather than calling out to God. This happens across the board, including the gifts of the Spirit and everything else from God. I can never stand before Father and say, ‘Well, I knew you were sovereign and could do it if you want.’ We are called to seek, desire, pursue, etc. I don’t want the extreme of burdening ourselves. Yes, there is a balance. But the balance calls for seeking as well. That challenges me and my apathetic style across my walk with God.
Thanks again.
This is really good stuff friend!
PG,
I will make sure to read through that article by Poythress. Thank you for sharing it. I hoped to clarify some things regarding my own continuationist position in order to avoid any worry that I am proliferating “charismatic snobbery” so I wrote an addition post. I hope it shows that I do not deny the work of the Spirit amongst cessationist at all: http://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/avoiding-charismatic-snobbery/
ScottL,
Very wise thoughts. I agree, outright dismissal of someone’s position gains no friends. On the other hand, I did want to be honest going into my diatribe. I am not objective on this matter so I didn’t want to pretend to be. I think it serves for a better starting point in the discussion if others know how “flexible” I am.
Brian -
Yes, we need to be honest. And your words are honest. I know I have said many similar things before in the past, which then helps cessationists write me off even more. But, in the end, we are called to speak the truth in love.
ScottL,
I agree and I hope I am speaking the truth in love. I know one downside to blogging is that there are no facial expressions, hand guestures, and one cannot look at my eyes. I have no intention of being demeaning or arrogant. It is hard to write on a subject like this without sounding harsh unless I fill the post with smiley faces!
Excellent article. Thanks for posting.