On Closed Spigots and Private Spirits
In a recent blog, Wilson caused something of a stir by claiming that the gifts of the Spirit are: "done, ceased, kaput, no mas."
But before you panic, tweet, or burn your copy of Incomparable, I should clarify; I don’t mean our very own smooth-chinned, British, Andrew Wilson, but rather his namesake, the American blogger and scourge of the New Atheists; the witty, provocative, and beautifully bearded Douglas Wilson.
His recent posts on cessationist theology have provided much to ponder. Depending on how far back you want to go into the conversation, you may want to read this1, which is a follow up to this2, a clarification of this3 which in turn responded to this4 and this5. Should you find yourself lacking in time or inclination to follow the entire trail, just go for his most recent post, Eleven Theses on Private Spirits6.
Doug describes himself as,
A thorough-going cessationist, one who believes that the canon of Scripture is closed, and that we will never again have any revelatory gifts that would enable a man to say, “Thus saith the Lord . . .” Neither will we have miraculous sign gifts, which could plausibly authenticate a man as an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12). Jeremiah and Isaiah are in Heaven, and I don’t want anything to do with their wannabees.
To use common parlance, supernatural, revelatory gifts, imparted by the Holy Spirit, and guaranteed by Him, are no more. They are done, ceased, kaput, no mas. If you can’t find it in between Genesis and Revelation, then don’t put it in the sermon. When it comes to these revelatory gifts, the spigot has been turned all the way to the right.
Over these next few posts, I would like to offer some thoughts and raise a few questions about a couple of Wilson’s arguments. Feel free to add your own comments and join the conversation. We begin with his first thesis:
The revelatory gifts have ceased. The foundation of our faith is the word of the prophets and apostles, with Christ as the cornerstone (Eph 2:20). The ability to work miraculous signs is an authenticating mark of an apostle (2 Cor 12:12), which means that if the apostolic reality is no longer here, neither can there be a legitimate biblical proofs that it is too here. In the very nature of the case, foundation work is done first. When you are framing the house on that foundation, you must build in line with the foundation, which is not the same thing as continuing to lay the foundation. You no longer pour concrete when you are framing in the attic.
The conclusion of this argument relies on two basic premises, both of which I find to be problematic:
Premise one: Apostles no longer exist
Premise two: Miraculous gifts existed to authenticate apostles
Conclusion: Miraculous gifts no longer exist
We’ll look at each premise in turn.
Premise one
My problem with Wilson’s first premise is that it is simply assumed, and not in the least bit substantiated. Who’s to say that apostles don’t exist today? Where is the biblical justification? It’s a mighty big assumption to just slip in there, and I would like to see some sort of evidence.
I understand the imagery of houses and foundations, but that hardly settles the argument. We’re ultimately dealing with people, not concrete blocks, and the discussion can’t be settled by simply extracting principles from an isolated metaphor. Of course, there is much debate to be had over whether apostles exist today, and I would refer you to David Devenish’s recent book Fathering Leaders, Motivating Mission. But my point is simply this; if you’re going to assert that apostles are extinct, you’ve at least got to take a moment to back it up.
Since Doug has already taken us to Ephesians 2 let me just ask one question: At what point was the foundation so complete that the role of the apostle became obsolete?
The reason I ask is because when Paul writes of “God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” in Ephesians 2:20, he seems to be suggesting that the foundation has already been put in place, hence the structure of the building has begun to go up, right? So would Paul, no longer required to lay any foundations, have by this point ceased to function as an apostle?
We know this isn’t the case. All his life he continued ‘apostling’ and using the title (Eph 1:1), and not just in some nostalgically respectful manner, like being called Mr President years after your term of office has come to an end. He saw his work as continuing until death. Though ‘the foundation’ was in place (Eph 2:20), he could still speak of places where no man had laid a foundation (Rom 15:20), and he saw his foundation-laying as an ongoing role, breaking new territory with the gospel.
Something of the role of the apostle is to be a perpetual foundation builder; establishing churches in unreached areas. Given that there are still somewhere in the region of 6,900 unreached people groups, might there not be a case for saying that there is still a role for foundation-layers today?
There is much more that could be said, but let me just give three concluding thoughts on Wilson’s first premise:
1) We need more than a few thoughts extracted from a metaphor. If Wilson wants to use the cessation of the apostolic role as a major premise in his argument, then he needs to prove it.
2) Foundation building isn’t the only role of an apostle. Wilson needs to look at some of the other tasks done by apostles in the New Testament and see if there isn’t a continuing need for those to be done today as well.
3) There are still places in which foundations need to be built, and some countries are just as in need of a Paul figure today as they were in the first century.
Premise two
The next step in his argument, saying that since apostles don’t exist neither do the gifts, also seems to be flawed since it assumes (a) that the only people who performed signs, miracles and works of power were the apostles, and (b) that the sole purpose of miraculous signs was to authenticate an apostle.
Yes, Paul speaks of “the things that mark an apostle - signs (semeios), miracles (terasi) and works of power (dunamesi)” (2 Corinthians 12:12) and Acts records these being performed at the hands of the apostles (Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22; 5:12; 8:6, 13; 14:3; 15:12). But all three words are also used to describe the ministry of Stephen who was ‘a man full of God’s grace and power (dunameos) [and] did great wonders (terata) and miraculous signs (semeia) among the people’ (Acts 6:8) despite being only a deacon (Acts 6:5). Paul acknowledges that some have the ability to work miracles (1 Cor 12:6), with no indication that he is only speaking about Apostles. In fact, Wilson acknowledges others who moved in revelatory gifts, despite not being apostles, such as Agabus and Phillip’s daughters. So it doesn’t follow that the cessation of apostles necessarily means the cessation of the revelatory gifts.
Also, Jesus promised signs to his disciples in Mark 16, and we are told that these signs confirmed not the authority of the apostles, but the truth of the message (Mark 16:20). The signs point people to Jesus and to the fact of his Kingship as proclaimed by his disciples. True they also serve to authenticate an apostle, and I happen to think that apostles today should be proficient in signs and wonders (2 Cor 12:12), but that is not their sole, or even, I would suggest, their primary purpose.
Even were I to grant Wilson’s first premise, that apostles no longer exist, that would not necessarily eradicate the need for signs, wonders and miracles. Paul told the Corinthians to eagerly desire the gift of prophecy, and he didn’t caveat it, “but not too eagerly, since you have a maximum of 30 years to use it!” Nothing in Scripture leads me to believe that Paul and pals took the gifts to their graves. Rather, whilst people still need pointing to Christ, there remains a purpose for miraculous signs.
To be continued…
Footnotes
1 http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8857:eleven-theses-on-private-spirits&catid=155:private-spirits
2 http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8854:on-being-a-tricksy-dancer&catid=155:private-spirits
3 http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8851:mark-driscoll-visions-teampyro-cessationism-and-me&catid=155:private-spirits
4 http://www.tobyjsumpter.com/teampyro-on-driscoll-moscow/
5 http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/08/pornographic-divination.html
6 http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8857:eleven-theses-on-private-spirits&catid=155:private-spirits
Comments
By Andrew Wilson on 02/09/2011 at 09:34
Superb analysis, and really well written. Well done! At some point, we’re going to need some discussion here about which aspects of the apostolic role continue, I think ... And I love that you used “caveat” as an active verb ;o)
By Jack Griffiths on 02/09/2011 at 10:05
Liam this was brilliantly written! Very clear and concise. I look forward to reading more.
I think Andrew is correct that later there needs to be a discussion on what roles of an apostle continue today as I feel this is where there is a lot of confusion in the Christian community.
By Joey Natali on 02/09/2011 at 10:49
:) I was about to burn my copy of Incomparable, thank you for stopping me! :D
It’s sad that people who would use the Bible to teach and preach even in outstanding fashion cannot go to the Bible to substantiate their poor theology on certain areas.
You addressed all the issues, and I think the big one is obviously that of “the Kingdom coming into your life” through all sorts of miracles as Jesus performed.
Great deconstruction! :D I’m off to write more Scripture now!... Or am I? :D
By Liam Thatcher on 02/09/2011 at 11:22
Thank you both! I agree… That would be a very worthwhile conversation!
And if James Joyce can get away with making up words like bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk surely I’m allowed to turn the odd noun into a verb?
By Jason Reid on 02/09/2011 at 12:30
Liam
Would love to dive into this but I haven’t the time and you tend to put things better than me. Two very interesting discussions: the nature of the apostolic and the form and purpose of miraculous gifts. I look forward to your ensuing posts. Is Dave’s book worth reading, and does it represent a more ‘official’ NF line on the apostolic?
All the best from Brunei,
Jase
By Nathan Lambert on 02/09/2011 at 13:32
Well said!
I don’t know if you’re going to address this in a later post, but there’s one point which DW makes which seems particularly skewed to me. He says “If you can’t find it in between Genesis and Revelation, then don’t put it in the sermon.”
Well that needs qualifying doesn’t it? Surely he can’t mean that one must only quote Scripture in sermons in order to be correct - one might as well not preach and send people home to their studies. So he must mean that one must not preach from anything but the Bible, at which point I say Amen! And most charismatics I know would say amen, and those who don’t are at grave risk of being illuminists, nor evangelicals. So he either hasn’t studied his opponents well enough, or he is making a fair amount of sweeping statements which don’t concern 99% of charismatics.
Looking forward to the rest of the series!
By Andy Johnston on 02/09/2011 at 15:51
I burnt my copy of Incomparable months ago when I discovered that Andrew was a close fan those muddle headed Anabaptists I’ve been writing about.
I am surprised that a bearded chap such as yourself doesn’t feel more affinity with the bearded Doug rather than the “smooth chinned” Andrew.
Joking aside, a really good piece - looking forward to what is to come.
By Liam Thatcher on 02/09/2011 at 16:47
Thanks all… A couple of comments in defence of my bearded brother:
I wasn’t planning to pick up on the ‘If you can’t find it between genesis and revelation…’ line, since I didn’t think he meant it literally. I understood him to mean, not that you couldn’t quote from other books in a sermon (as an illustration, for example), but that we must not use words outside of scripture; be they our own words, the words of others, or those we claim to have been given as prophetic revelation, as if they were on par with Scripture. They should not be the basis of our preaching - that must be the word of God alone. You’re right though… I personally know of no sensible charismatics who would ever claim that their words were on par with Scripture. And that is the subject of the second post…
Douglas Wilson is a very creative, engaging, witty writer - it’s what makes his blogging so provocative and readable! And sometimes, therefore, we have to allow him a little hyperbole here and there. That’s one of the challenges of responding to him, since it’s difficult to sort the genuine argument from the tongue in cheek comment.
Also, the fact that I questioned him not providing us with any scriptural basis for disbelieving in apostles today should not be read as suggesting I think he is light on Bible! From my reading of him he has a very good grasp of the Bible indeed: in fact, it is his high view of Scripture that makes him nervous of prophecy/apostles. And I’m sure he has more rigorous, biblically thought-through reasons for his position on apostles… I’d just like to see them.
And it appears that Joycean words are too long and complex for the comment page on this blog! Very sorry about that. I shall aim to restrict my words to a maximum of 20 letters from hereon-in!
By Jez Field on 03/09/2011 at 09:37
Hi Liam,
Great blog, really enjoyed it. Looking forward to more.
Jez
By Dave Trigg on 05/09/2011 at 07:18
Liam, if the office of Apostle was meant to continue then why don’t we see the Apostles commissioning other apostles to replace them in the NT? Instead, they set up ordinary pastors and elders who were commissioned to follow the apostolic pattern modelled for them and to teach the Apostle’s doctrine. Scripture show us that the Apostles themselves didn’t expect the office to continue after their death.
By Liam Thatcher on 06/09/2011 at 11:44
@DaveTrigg - Thanks for your comment. As suggested above, I think we need to open this subject up for a more rigorous discussion: my purpose here was just to highlight some weaknesses with Wilson’s position i.e. He doesn’t substantiate his claim and miracles aren’t exclusively practised by apostles. A few brief thoughts on your comment:
(i) I’m not sure that the fact that we don’t see Apostles commissioning other Apostles is enough to prove that they didn’t expect the role to continue. At best that is an argument from silence. Though of course I do agree that the normal practice in a local setting is to raise up elders to lead the church; there should be far fewer apostles than elders, and we should be slow and careful in our recognising of apostles - it’s certainly not a claim someone can just easily make of themselves!!
(ii) How do you envisage the appointment of Barnabas as an Apostle taking place? In Acts 4:27 we are told that he laid his wealth at the feet of the Apostles, which suggests he wasn’t considered one of them, but then in Acts 14:14 he is explicitly called an apostle. So at some point between Acts 4 and 14 he was appointed as an Apostle. It is plausible that his appointment may well have taken place in Acts 11 when he and Paul were sent out, or Acts 13 where the church commissioned them with the laying on of hands and sent them out, in which case appointing or recognising apostles was something that was done in the early church. Whilst Scripture doesn’t tell us the exact process of appointing new apostles, it seems to assume that there was one.
(iii) This is probably a thought to be delved into more another day, but perhaps the reason churches weren’t instructed to appoint apostles is because it’s not their job to. Rather Jesus appoints apostles and gives them as gifts to the church (Eph 4:8, 11-14) and they are recognised by their fruit (2 Cor 3:2). Obviously there needs to be accountability, testing etc to stop just anyone claiming Jesus had appointed them (!!) but I can imagine something of this sort happening; The church recognises that someone has been called of God and willingly submits to their authority.
By Liam Thatcher on 06/09/2011 at 11:44
@JasonReid - Yes, the book’s worth a read. I skimmed it, but would like to go back and re-read it again when I get a moment. Whether it’s ‘official’ or not…? I guess as it’s written by a senior Newfrontiers guy and endorsed by Terry et al, it’s about as official as it gets at this point in time.
@AndyJohnston - I do value the ministry of my smooth-chinned brothers too! Hair isn’t everything, otherwise the fully-hirsute St Stuffed Shirt would surpass us all and I have to say, I have some concerns about his theology from time to time…
By Dave Trigg on 06/09/2011 at 13:26
@Liam Thanks for your response. I think you’re right, we really need to open this subject up for a more rigorous discussion. I have many questions and observations, so rather than responding here I’ll wait until someone posts again on the subject. By the way, you’re observation about Barnabas is a good one and there was certainly some testing of so-called apostles going on in Ephesus (see Rev 2:2).
By Rob Mason on 07/09/2011 at 13:55
Maybe I’ve misunderstood - if so forgive me…
Isn’t the argument about apostleship about ‘those who were with Jesus’.. if I remember correctly, isn’t that why some of the other apostles struggled with Paul calling himself one?
In that regard, isn’t it only apostles in that definition who were able to write NT scripture?
If so, and I hope that my logic is not giving way to the question I want to propose… , Since we can’t add to scripture, and today’s ‘apostle’s’ are functioning apostolically (as a gift rather than a direct correlation with early church apostles) wouldn’t we agree that in that case Wilson is correct to argue apostles
(with authority to write scripture) no longer exist?
hope my question/point is clear.. ?
Grace and peace to you all
By Rob Mason on 07/09/2011 at 14:06
I wonder if my thoughts on cessation or not of spiritual gifts is more because I’m uncomfortable with them. I like the fruits of the spirit, I can see them at work. I like the gifts of the spirit. I just don’t like the eeeby geebies and that somewhat clouds my acceptance that what we think of as the spirit is the spirit.
I believe the Holy Spirit is real, is God, is part of the trinity.
I believe the Holy Spirit lives in us, directs us, encourages us
I believe the Fruits of the spirit are alive and well and accessible to all
I believe that signs and wonders are possible, plausible, necessary and wonderful.
i’m not sure what going on being filled means other than ‘nurture your relationship with the Trintarian God, Spend time with each other, listen to each other, and follow his prompting.. I’m not sure it means manifest weirdly and look to get out of God some kind of ‘feel good’ feeling - though there’s nothing wrong with feeling good..
I guess I’d be a great deal more comfortable (not that my comfortability makes one jot of difference to what might actually be true) if Fruits of the spirit had more impact in [the character of] our lives, and if the gifts of the spirit made a massive impact in the lives of others (and me).
By Liam Thatcher on 07/09/2011 at 21:54
@RobMason Thank you for both of your comments, and in particular for the honesty of your second comment.
With regard to the link between Apostles and Scripture Writing: I don’t think that apostles were the only people who had the ability to write NT Scripture, nor that the ability to write Scripture is a key characteristic of what it means to be an apostle since (i) we have a fair amount of Scripture not written by Apostles (Luke, Acts, Hebrews (?) for example) and (ii) there are plenty of apostles who never wrote scripture.
I do, of course, agree with Wilson that apostles with authority to write Scripture do not exist. But I don’t think that ‘A Scripture Writer who saw Jesus’ is a complete description of what a NT apostle is. Terry Virgo put the following on his Twitter the other day, which I liked:
“You are the seal of my apostleship.” Paul said that to a church he had planted, not to a NT epistle he had written.
Regarding the feeling of discomfort with spiritual gifts, and a preference for fruit… I understand where you’re coming from. I think spiritual gifts can be abused, or clouded in a weird air of mystique that is just thoroughly unhelpful. When Jesus healed people you don’t get the impression he shook, shouted or expected them to fall over when he touched them! He practiced prophecy and healing in a remarkably normal way, and I think many people are nervous of spiritual gifts because they have seen then done oddly! That said, the right response to abuse is not disuse but proper use, and I would hate for people to neglect the gifts because they’d seen them used wrongly.
These four verses from 1 Corinthians are important and encouraging:
14:1 - ‘Eagerly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophecy.’ This seems to be a command, or at least a very strong recommendation!! All of us should seek the gifts and be willing to go a little outside of our comfort zone in order to grow in God.
14:32 - ‘The spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.’ In other words, people who prophesy have a degree of control over the manner in which they do so. They don’t have to be weird… they have a choice about the tone of voice they adopt, and the volume level at which they prophesy!
14:33 - ‘God is not a God of confusion, but peace.’ God doesn’t typically give gifts to make people odd, to cause chaos, or to disrupt meetings. He is a God of peace. And it is possible to pursue the power of God in miraculous ways and still maintain a sense of peace.
13:1 - ‘If I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and knowledge, and if I have faith so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.’ Character and spiritual gifts have to go hand in hand. In other words, we should seek both the gifts and the fruit! Gifts without love are dangerous…
By Rob Mason on 08/09/2011 at 08:57
Thanks Liam for your helpful comments.
In relation to my first point, I’m quite comfortable theologically with the idea of apostles. I think, though, that all titles (as opposed to ‘offices’ or ‘god given/people recognised authority’) are open to misinterpretation, misuse, abuse etc, and from a movement perspective I’d rather people said we ‘relate to, and recognise [person] as one with trusted authority and wisdom’ rather than saying ‘such and such is our apostle’ or we are ‘under’ that said apostle. Not that either of those statements are wrong per se, but that if we’re about ensuring that there is clarity of understanding sometimes shorthand terms aren’t as helpful as they might first appear and make comprehension by others (especially those with no church or spurious theological backgrounds) more difficult. - we must not assume as I think you’ve ably demonstrated that what one person understands by the word apostle, is what everyone understands. Let’s then be clear.
By Rob Mason on 08/09/2011 at 10:04
In respect of spiritual gifts, Thanks again Liam for your helpful and gracious comments and verses. I hope I can respond as graciously.
Notwithstanding that using verses principally (by which I mean identifying the principle of a verse and applying it to another closely related verse/topic) can really help us to understand, in practice, though we might recognise the verses that you presented in relation to the gift of prophesy or knowledge say, but don’t you think how we present them when we are assembled might show, in practice, a different understanding? For instance, prophecy might be handled quite orderly. Tongues maybe ordered, but less orderly and healings might be with even less order and with shaking, strange hand movements, noises. Finally being filled with the spirit maybe even less orderly, with shrieking, laughing, shaking, falling, and even entirely disorderly and disruptive to a meeting.
In respect of spiritual gifts, it seems to me that principally they are for others benefit. Of course there ARE benefits to us in being in the spirit, being full of the spirit and exercising spiritual gifts, but when our focus in a meeting becomes ‘what can I get’ I find that almost entirely inconsistent with corporate worship and ‘love God with all your mind and strength, and love your neighbour as yourself’
I guess part of the challenge for me is that I am looking forward to a time when the church understands itself to be the church ‘all the time’ not just when we’re assembled in meetings, so that when there are meetings where ‘things happen’ that SHOULD in my view indicate that we have a people where things happen wherever they are! Is that the case? I certainly hear some stories of where that is.. but perhaps we have a long way to go. Now, that is not to say there is no difference in our expectation or faith when the church is assembled, but perhaps simplistically I am either filled with the spirit or I’m not. I either have a spiritual gift or I don’t. So should I not expect to be actively ‘going on being filled’ when I’m at home, going on being filled when I’m at work, say? Moreover, if I have a gift of prophesy or healing then I should look to use that gift, appropriately, intentionally, all the time?.. If so, if I would feel uncomfortable doing so because of all the [‘self’] manifestations that seem to come with exercising of gifts in meetings, doesn’t that restrict my willingness to participate outside of them? [I am not beyond looking or being a fool for the sake of Christ but] as you observed, Jesus did remarkable (in that we have them recorded) things and several signs and wonders that were not so because he shook and wailed, instead wasn’t it because of what he did ‘for others’ that was remarkable?... In the end then, the eeby geeby stuff seems to make people avoid us and think we’re weird, [deluded?] and odd, rather than see us as the spirit filled, God knowing people we are, where intimacy and relationship with the Godhead is practical, purposeful, intimate and wonderful. I think in terms of our purpose, spiritual gifts (or rather what seems to come with them) seem very damaging and I can understand why much of the church treats them with suspicion or have abandonded them [I’m not arguing that we should].
I’m not sure I’ve really added much to the debate here, but I’m glad it is something we are talking about, especially if we want to be word and spirit people. (and at some point I’ll get my hands on Terry’s book… though wouldn’t it be nice if he published some chapters from it on his blog ?)
By bangdspof on 07/03/2012 at 22:43
To modify this scenario, the Government of Japan decided, ahead of the 2014 launch of three radar satellite, which, on December 12, 2011 “radar III” was successfully launched as an option to the “radar-1” has been scrapped. According to the program, radar IV “will be launched in 2012. An additional 1 spare satellite is also accelerating manufacturing.
It truly is reported, a radar satellite cost about 30 billion yen (about 2.45 billion yuan), the manufacturing cycle of seven years. This is 1 in the further spare satellites use two satellites and components, production time might be shortened by half.
Radar IV “if effective, would mean that Japan’s new generation of” 4 in a single “global surveillance network is close to completion. It really is understood that the Japanese government’s aim is to construct a international surveillance network in the “Four in One” by the two optical satellites and two radar satellites, which is an optical satellite using a radar satellite having a group, the two groups play a joint function collection of intelligence details. High resolution optical satellites, but only to shoot throughout the day as well as the weather is excellent; radar satellite low resolution photographs, but inside the rainy days and night. Mix to make sure that In any case, any point on Earth at the very least as soon as each day, reconnaissance and surveillance.
news source:<a >emporio armani watches</a>
By Jenai Goss on 08/03/2012 at 00:45
There were other Apostles besides Paul and Jesus’s apostles. (And Matthias, that replaced Judas). Jesus’s disciples are often distinguished in later books by being called the “Apostles of the lamb” or “The twelve Apostles”.
As mentioned prior, Barnabas became an apostle. Andronicus and Junia are called Apostles by Paul, many unamed apostles, the seventy Jesus sends out in Luke 10 (Which by their mission fit the job of ‘apostle’, and Silas & Timothy (1 Thess 1:1 -2:6), Apollos, and unamed apostles (II Cor 8:23, ‘apostles’ here is often translated messengers), Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25, again apostle is translated messenger), Tychicus,Erastus, and others named and unamed.
Certainly, no apostle could be “An Apostle of the Lamb” beyond the twelve, and Paul was given preeminence as to authority with the twelve. But beyond this, the role of apostle was to “go forth” and spread the gospel, plant churches, and strengthen churches. They also would lay on hands, call other apostles and teachers, and settle some matters of church doctrine and regional church issues. (Compare this to today, where missionaries are “subject” to the rule of their home pastors, as if teaching outranked apostle in church heirarchy. Imagine if we did have regional apostles who could adress doctrinal issues, and exhort the churches to exhibit love and faith and return to truth! - rather than each church isolated, errant doctrines growing as no outsider can call them on it, and not working within the larger body of Christ).
By Jenai Goss on 08/03/2012 at 01:07
As to spiritual gifts themselves, the largest argument against cessationism is that we still see them in the world today.
They are most active (not surprisingly) in third world countries, where the church is growing the fastest, and gifts to testify to God’s word or build/strengthen the church would be most needed. (IE, the gift to suddenly speak in a foreign language would not be terribly useful in America, albeit cool - but it could be a powerful testimony, as well as allow communication, in an African village).
Healings still happen, again more often in third world countries, but in America as well (myself, and others in my family, have experienced this gift from others in the church at times in our lives). It also would be strange for God to give us all these proscribed verses on healing (go to the elders and get prayed for, for instance), if by the time the book of James was circulating to any degree around the churches, the spiritual gift of healing had supposedly ended!
While I am stiull unsure whether this is interpretation of tongues (its more probably part of my gift of discernment between spirits), I have interpreted tongues before. If someone is speaking in tongues, I can often determine and translate whether it is a) a language b) an ecstatic utterance/personal prayer to God c) nonsense/babbling d) speaking by the power of a demon.
Unsurprisingly, nonsense/demonic influence is a greater risk in churches that require or encourage tongues for ‘everyone’ as a mark of being saved, and use tongues in a disorderly fashion (ie all at once, or without interpretation).
Churches that ban it entirely, as with banning other gifts, and disallowing members from operating in their place in the body, is also a tragedy. (Can the head say to the hand “You have ceased to exist! Therefore, stop grabbing things!”)?