Showing posts with label Doctrine-Spiritual Gifts-Cessationism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Doctrine-Spiritual Gifts-Cessationism. Show all posts

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Common Objections to Cessationism

By Nathan Busenitz @ http://www.sfpulpit.com

conference logoPlease forgive the informal nature of this post. But it’s late (on Thursday night of a busy conference week). The spiritual encouragement and fellowship this week has been wonderful. For those who haven’t been following the conference on Tim Challies’s blog, his live-blog updates have been great.

In addition to the general sessions, the Shepherds’ Conference offers several dozen breakout sessions (seminars) during the week. Tomorrow morning (Friday), I will be giving my seminar on the charismatic issue. (I noted this several weeks ago, when we began looking at several key passages in the debate).

Anyway, my seminar will essentially consist of two main parts…

I. The Case for Cessationism

II. A Response to Common Objections to Cessationism

For those who are interested, here are the ten objections I am responding to:

1. The claim that cessationism grieves and quenches the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph. 4:13; 1 Thess. 5:16–22).

2. The claim that there is no one text that explicitly demands the cessation of the gifts. The best cessationists can do is imply cessationism from a variety of texts.

3. The claim that cessationism is wrong because there are texts that explicitly demand that we not prohibit or despise the gifts, but rather seek them (1 Cor. 14:5, 39)

4. The claim that there are texts that indicate that the miraculous gifts will last for the entire church age (Acts 2:17–21; Romans 11:29; 1 Cor. 1:4–5 ; 1 Cor. 13:10; Eph. 4:11–13)

5. The claim that since the charismatic gifts filled more purposes/needs than just authenticating the message/messenger, and since those needs still exist in the church today, the gifts are also still needed.

6. The claim that cessationists are afraid to embrace the full power of the Holy Spirit due to peer-pressure, traditional stereotypes, and personal comfort boundaries.

7. The claim that cessationists are inconsistent in asserting that some of the gifts have ceased (the miraculous gifts) while some of the gifts have continued (the non-miraculous gifts).

8. The claim that cessationists promote a sterile overly-formal Christianity which overemphasizes doctrinal head knowledge and underemphasizes true spirituality.

9. The claim that cessationism is wrong because miracles still occur, not to mention all of the sign gifts that are displayed each week at thousands of charismatic churches.

10. The claim that cessationism (as a theological perspective) is dying out.

I’m sure my charismatic friends could add more to this list, but hopefully this is a fair representation of critiques. At the very least, the list represents various objections that I have encountered in my discussions regarding this issue.

I plan to post more on this topic in the coming weeks. I will probably put my notes from the conference up as well — responding to each of these objections (in what I hope is an intellectually-honest and gracious way). In the meantime, I would enjoy hearing from anyone from a continuationist persuasion, in case you believe I am missing something major in this list.

(By Nathan Busenitz)

24 Responses to “Common Objections to Cessationism”

  1. on 09 Mar 2007 at 3:37 am Adrian Warnock

    Here are a few others to add to your very helpful list:-

    1. The argument from church history that men like Huss prophesied, men like Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones spoke of being guided by the Spirit, and dramatic healings are recorded associated with some of the reformers – including resurrection of the dead .

    2. The argument that since Peter in Acts 2 stated that the “last days” prophecy of Joel was being fulfilled and that this promise was for future generations and all Christians to argue that gifts have ceased is to argue that we are living in days AFTER the last days! (Now where does THAT fit in anyones eschatology?)

    3. The claim that the goal of our salvation appears to be receiving the Spirit who is a guarantee of our inheritance. If there is no conscious experience of the Spirit to be had today, how can He give us assurance? (cf Eph 1:13-14, Gal 3:14, Phil 3:8-11)

    4. That Jesus promises us an experience of the Spirit that would be better for us than if he himself were to remain on earth - which of us have plumbed the depths of an experience of God to that extent that we could say we would prefer our experience to meeting Jesus in the flesh?
    (John 14, 16:7)

    5. The claim that Biblical Prophecy was not always 100% accurate, nor automatically enscripturated (1 Cor 13:9, 2 Sam 7, Acts 21:9, Acts 21:4,10-11,32-33, Acts 27:10, Acts 27:22, 1 Samuel 10:5 , 10 , 11, 12; 19:20, 24; 28:6 , 15 ; 1 Kings 18:4, 13 19 , 20; 1 Kings 20:35, 41; 22:6, 10; 2 Kings 2:3; 17:23; 24:2; 2 Chronicles 18:9; 20:20; 24:19; Ezra 5:1; Jeremiah 7:25; Hosea 12:10 Matthew 2:23)

  2. on 09 Mar 2007 at 6:19 am Joshua (Australia)

    Hi I just thought that I would add to this. I once was under the belief like many pentecostal people that the continuance of these giftings was esentual to the faith. In fact I even thought that the bible supported it. But it was not until oneday “I actually picked up my bible” and “actually dug further”, and “searched out the context, the meaning, and who the scriptures where addressed to” that I actually changed my opinion. Since then I do believe in that statement as made in Corinthians “These things too shall cease! talking about prophecy, tongues, and the like” I may be one in a few. But I do feel now as though the scriptures themselves have pointed me in that direction.

  3. on 09 Mar 2007 at 7:20 am Frank Emrich

    How I wish I could attend this seminar. I just had the unpleasent “experience” of listening to JP Moreland tell us that “no scholar” believes in cessation anymore and those of us in Bible churches who do will be extinct in just a few years. Thanks for writing and speaking on this important subject.

  4. on 09 Mar 2007 at 7:54 am Paul Schafer

    Nathan,

    What is the purpose for the discussion on cessation versus charismatic positions?

    How would this discussion minister to the men once they went through your discussion?

    Sincerely,

    Paul Schafer

  5. on 09 Mar 2007 at 8:32 am LeeC

    Your link to Challies is off.
    I am being told that “You don’t have permission to access /Because of our love for God, we want to see His Spirit honored. ”

    Which can be a tad disconcerting at 7:30 am… ;)

  6. on 09 Mar 2007 at 8:45 am Mark McDaniel

    I would add another argument. The Sovereignty of God issue. God may have decided to cease using spectacular gifts after the canonization of scripture, He may have not, but to effecively limiting God through a doctrinal proclamation seems to be a bit problematic. Can God enact a miracle today? I should think that God has that perrogative.

    Additionally, many cessasionists hold to their position dogmatically and doctrinally, but just listen to what the majority of prayer requests are during Wednesday night prayer meeting - healing. Pragmatically, all believers hope for God’s miraculous intervention in their or their loved one’s lives.

    I am not advocating a Charismatic/Pentecostal perspective concerning gifts (which come from a human sovereignty position) but for a natural application of charis that Paul advocated in the New Testament under the sovereign control of God through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps this would be a “Sovereigntist Position.”

  7. on 09 Mar 2007 at 9:42 am John

    I’ve also heard “only MacArthur is a cessationist.”

  8. on 09 Mar 2007 at 11:54 am Denis

    Regarding: effecively limiting God through a doctrinal proclamation seems to be a bit problematic

    I would argue this line of reasoning is itself problematic. A doctrine should stand or fall based on scripture, not based on how we feel it impacts God as we know him.

    We must allow Scripture to define what God is like and what he does and does not do. This doesn’t limit God, after all the Scriptures are his way of explaining himself to us (to the degree that he does).

  9. on 09 Mar 2007 at 12:06 pm Mark McDaniel

    I would agree with that wholeheartedly. The issue would be for one to say, “There is no healing today, period!” and provide no allowance for God to providentially move according to his purposes. In the case of natural law, like gravity, generally things work as God has designed it to be. However, there are many cases throughout the scripture where God contravenes natural law (the sun in Joshua, etc.)…This is what I mean by a Sovereignty position on gifts. God may choose not continue with the “power gifts” [all though there is no tier system within charis - it’s all grace, and all measured out by Christ], that is his perrogative, but we as believers should not create a doctrinal position which dictates God’s activity, that is all I am saying. Thanks for your comments.

  10. on 09 Mar 2007 at 12:53 pm F. Scott Petersen

    There are cessationists and “strict” cessationists. That is, those who believe that all miracles and spiritual gifts have ceased would be termed “strict.” A case can be made for a middle position, which posits that God in His perfect freedom and sovereignty allows for miracles. Such miracles would be the exception, not the norm. Having been given the infallible Scriptures, the apostolic era gifts are no longer needed, and so have ceased.

  11. on 09 Mar 2007 at 1:20 pm Denis

    Hi Mark,

    The problem I see is that you’re argument has no Scriptural basis (I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, by the way).

    For example, what if I suggest that the orthodox understanding of salvation cannot be true because this doctrinal position limits God’s sovereignty? After all, he may very well decide to save an unrepentant sinner who mocked the sacrifice of Jesus with his dying breath. Any doctrine requiring the acceptance of Jesus’ sacrifice would then limit God. However, scripture clearly teaches to die without Christ is to die without salvation.

    My point is, arguments about putting limits on God can be brought out (and are brought out) against virtually any Christian doctrine - and even against Christianity itself. It is therefore not a good argument for or against a given doctrine unless such an argument can be backed up with Scripture.

    One final point regarding natural law. I can confidently say that the entire world will never again be destroyed by flood. Saying so doesn’t limit God’s sovereignty, but rather conforms my understanding of God to his revelation to us.

    Thanks.

  12. on 09 Mar 2007 at 1:22 pm Riley Brown

    2. The claim that there is no one text that explicitly demands the cessation of the gifts. The best cessationists can do is imply cessationism from a variety of texts.

    Not only is there no text that demands cessation as a whole, there are also no texts that demand of any of the gifts individually either.

    If I understand your interpretation of I Cor. 13:13 correctly as referring to a time in the future (Rev 22:4), then there is no text.

    You work to concoct “paradigms.” I, on the other hand, can simply quote scriptures. I like that.

    (repost of part of earlier post)
    It’s as if this whole cessationist “Theology of Excuses” is like the emperor who has no clothes. The theology has no scriptures. I mean literal and direct scriptures that specifically negate any of these supernatural things.
    If I say we should prophecy, the Bible says ,”they shall prophesy.” Acts2:18
    If I say we can do what Jesus did, Jesus himself said, “the works that I do shall he do also.” John 14:12
    If I say we can heal the sick, the Bible says, “they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” Mk 16:18
    If I say that visions are still possible, the Bible says, “your young men shall see visions.“ Acts 2:17
    These are direct and literal statements. I could go on but you get my point. Show me your direct and literal scriptures of cessation.

    Yours in Christ,
    Riley

  13. on 09 Mar 2007 at 1:24 pm Riley Brown

    5. The claim that since the charismatic gifts filled more purposes/needs than just authenticating the message/messenger, and since those needs still exist in the church today, the gifts are also still needed.

    Not only is there a different purpose there is also a different people. The gifts of the Spirit in I Cor. 12 are for the Body of Christ, not just apostles.

    Yours in Christ,
    Riley

  14. on 09 Mar 2007 at 1:33 pm Riley Brown

    8. The claim that cessationists promote a sterile overly-formal Christianity which overemphasizes doctrinal head knowledge and underemphasizes true spirituality.

    This point is a setup. It needs to be reworded. “True spirituality” involves the fruit of the Spirit more than the gifts. You do not try to underemphasize the gifts of the Spirit you seek to eliminate them. Change “true spirituality” to “scriptural manifestations of the supernatural power of the Spirit.”

    Yours in Christ,
    Riley

  15. on 09 Mar 2007 at 1:38 pm Riley Brown

    In addition to my previous post you might also reword point 8 to say it’s intellectualism vs. supernaturalism. I noticed that nowhere do you mention the word intellectualism.

    Riley

  16. on 09 Mar 2007 at 1:40 pm Riley Brown

    I would also add this point.

    11. Cessationism denies the full power and potential of the believer through the power of the Spirit.

    This point is not man centered it is simply what the scriptures say.

    Supporting Verses: (repost of part of earlier post)
    1.) Faith has not passed away.
    Mark 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
    “All things” still means “all things” and would include all of the miraculous things in the Bible. Notice that I didn’t quote Matt. 9:26 or Luke 1:37 that say that with God all things are possible. Nobody disagrees with that. This verse says that people who believe can do all things. Do you believe it? A case could be made I suppose that “all things” would not include cosmically omnipotent things the Bible never states that anyone can do. But it surely would include everything supernatural and miraculous that the Bible does say that men can do.

    2.) You can do the miraculous works that Jesus did.
    John 14:12 …he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also…
    The word “works” is used by Jesus and John in the Gospel of John to refer to the miraculous works of Jesus like healing the sick and casting out demons.
    If anyone is inclined to mistakenly try to reinterpret “he that believeth on me” to mean apostles only, they should look at John 6:47. This verse has the same entire phase from the first “Verily” to the “on me…” It is identical to the first part of John 14:12 in both the English (KJV) and the Greek. This verse shows that “he that believeth on me” simply refers to everyone who has received eternal life by believing in Jesus. In other words John 14:12 means that you as a believer, with the kind of faith that Mark 9:23 quoted above talks about, can do the miraculous works that Jesus did. (I’ll give you a hint: You’ll need Acts 1:8 too.)
    Don’t be deceived into thinking you can use the next phrase of John 14:12 as an excuse not to do this part. “Greater works” does not refer to getting people born again. Getting people born again is the most important thing but the word “works” must have the same meaning in both phrases and it refers to Jesus miraculous works. Greater works then would simply be greater miraculous works in scope and number since “greater” surely can’t mean “better” than the works the Jesus did. Until you have at least done the same “works” of the first phrase there’s no need to worry about what the “greater works” even are. And since the phrases are connected by “and” you’re supposed to be doing both anyway.
    By the way, the word “works” does not refer to his sacrifice. Only Jesus could do that.

    3.) You can do “all things whatsoever” that Jesus commanded the apostles to do.
    The Great Commission says that all believers (that’s you) should be taught to do everything that Jesus taught the twelve apostles to do.
    Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
    The “you” refers to the apostles and other disciples to whom Jesus is speaking. The “them” refers to all of us who have heard the message and have believed in Jesus.

    Here is an sample of what Jesus commanded his apostles to do. Those in the ministry are supposed to be teaching everyone in their congregations to do all these things.
    Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them,… (see also Mat 11:1)
    Mat 10:7 …preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
    Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils:…
    This does not mean that other necessary things should not be taught also. It just means that the Great Commission is not being completely fulfilled if people are not being taught to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils, and raise the dead as well as preach the gospel. Thus the Great Commission teaches us to fully preach the Gospel. (“Full Gospel” see Rom. 15:19)

    4.) The fullness of the Holy Spirit enables “he that believeth on me” to have a ministry that flows out like a river. (Notice that it’s the same phrase used in John 14:12.)
    John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
    The same phase “he that believeth on me is used here and in John 14:12. This implies that the fulness of the Spirit in our lives enables an overflow of ministry like a river that would include doing the miraculous works that Jesus spoke of in John 14:12.
    I don’t believe that this is the same thing that is referred to in John 4 talking about a “well of water springing up into everlasting life”. That’s talking about being saved where “up” speaks of our vertical relationship with God. In John 7:37 it’s talking about being filled to overflowing where it flows “out” horizontally in ministry to others. And it’s not just a well but a whole river flowing out.

    5.) Miraculous signs should follow them that believe
    Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name …
    …shall they cast out devils Mk 16:17
    …they shall speak with new tongues Mk 16:17
    …they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover Mk 16:18
    If you doubt this verse here’s a link for you:
    http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
    I will point out that this verse is in complete agreement with the other verses here listed. The phrase “them that believe” is functionally equivalent to “he that believeth on me” in John 14:12 and 7:38. If signs are to follow believers and not just the apostles as this verse states, the whole paradigm of - apostles have ceased therefore gifts have also ceased - collapses.

    All these verses talk about believers doing supernatural things. Taken together they make a strong case for the continuation of supernatural gifts and miraculous works and the Bible never negates this.

    If you have a scripture that literally abrogates, negates, or causes to cease any of these things let’s hear it.

    Yours in Christ,
    Riley

  17. on 09 Mar 2007 at 3:13 pm Nate B.

    Thank you all for your helpful feedback here. I just finished the seminar (at noon PST), and am now back in the office feeling totally worn out. But I appreciate all of your thoughts above, and your willingness to interact.

    Next week I plan to post the notes from my entire session. There’s a lot, so maybe I’ll break it into parts for the blog. (At that time I’ll respond to each of the objections I listed in my post today.)

    I am (obviously) a cessationist, but I look forward to the gracious and fruitful dialogue we will continue to have on this topic over the coming weeks.

    Thank you again for your feedback.
    - NB

  18. on 09 Mar 2007 at 4:35 pm Peter Kirk

    Another argument against cessationism: it effectively undermines the authority of the New Testament. Cessationism implies that large parts of the NT, such as 1 Corinthians 14, are no longer applicable today. Indeed arguably this is true of the whole NT, because (obviously if you think about it) it was all written during the period before the completion of the canon and so before the gifts are supposed to have ceased. Cessationists have to teach that commands like 1 Corinthians 14:29 are no longer valid. But if that scriptural command is no longer valid, how about others? Cessationists can offer no consistent criteria to judge which parts of the NT lost their validity when the gifts ceased, they are left to judge this according to their personal subjective judgment, which they are therefore putting above Scripture.

  19. on 09 Mar 2007 at 6:50 pm Dluxe

    Nathan,

    Thanks so much for seeking this kind of feedback and for planning to post your notes.

    On a related tangent, it seemed like the series you ran on here exploring the scriptural foundation for cessationism (I think you called it, “The When Question”) seemed to kinda evaporate mid-argument. Did I miss something, or did other stuff just come up requiring that the series be cut short?

    Thanks again for your ministry to us through the blog/conferences/etc.

    - Dluxe

  20. on 09 Mar 2007 at 7:18 pm Nate B.

    Dluxe,

    Thanks for your question… I have not forgotten about my “when question” series. Because of conference preparations this last week, things here have gotten busy.

    Perhaps I’ll put my notes up first (which I think will answer a lot of questions), and then I’ll continue the when series later, if it still seems that there is interest.

    Thanks,
    NB

  21. on 09 Mar 2007 at 7:19 pm Jared White

    The thing I find funny is this: if there’s at least as much indication in New Testament that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit are for today as for the cessationist position (I’ll be generous and say it’s a coin toss), why would anyone WANT to believe the gifts have ceased? Isn’t it better to assume that God is so good and so gracious that he gives us the ability to edify the Church, preach to the lost with demonstrations of Power to confirm the message, and make war against the schemes of the devil? Why would a believer prefer to view God as a changeable being who only poured out His Spirit for a certain time just so the Bible could be written? Is the world less lost now than in the first century A.D.? Is the world not hurting as much now as then? Is the world not hungering for a miracle as much now as before? Can reading about the supernatural in the Bible replace experiencing the supernatural now?

    So, please, tell me: if it’s possible that charismatics are justified in believing what the NT says about the gifts of the Spirit, what is the reason you would prefer to be a cessationist?

  22. on 09 Mar 2007 at 9:30 pm John

    @ Jared White

    1) I’ve rarely seen NT type gifts practiced ANYWHERE. Now, I have heard of a couple of instances, and so it has piqued my interest, but you have to admit, if the gifts are real there are too many phonies out there.

    2) I’ve never seen the gifts and the ones that ppl claim to say are not impressive at all. Surely the NT miracle workers were better anybody i have seen. Now, I have credible ppl who have told me stories about crazy stuff that frankly its hard to disbelieve, but 100% of what I’ve seen is nonsense.

    3) Biblical case for cessationism is awesome.

    4) How many ppl you know are converted b/c of someone’s prophesy and tongues? How many of those have stayed orthodox and faithful? zero, zero.

    I grew up in a charismatic env. and you might be living in some weird enclave where the Spirit is on fire, but that doesn’t really happen in real life.

    5) Christian life and the power of Christ I have seen and witnessed is the Holy Spirit working powerfully through the Gospel and peoples lives. These two things are by far more powerful than all the tongues in the world.

    6) Do you really want a church dependent on miraculous gifts or a church that depends only on following Christ? Okay, if tongues and prophecy is so awesome and powerful let’s see you do that at your work place okay? I think you’ll see that sharing the Gospel and loving ppl will do far more, has done for more, is doing for more, will do far more, etc.

  23. on 09 Mar 2007 at 10:34 pm Riley Brown

    Uh-Oh. Looks like we’re back to disagreeing again. Agreement was nice while it lasted.

    John said:
    3) Biblical case for cessationism is awesome.

    You must’ve been reading different posts than the ones I saw. All I saw was a non-scriptural concoction that fizzled out to nothing. As Dluxe said it “seemed to kinda evaporate mid-argument.”

    4) How many ppl you know are converted b/c of someone’s prophesy and tongues? How many of those have stayed orthodox and faithful? zero, zero.

    Speaking in tongues is not a method of preaching the gospel. Never was, never will be. It’s for personal edification - “does not speak to men but to God.” I Cor 14:2 How could you preach the gospel to men when you’re not even speaking to them?
    The gospel is the “power of God unto salvation.” Rom. 1:16 There is no argument about that or that the gospel is the greatest power. Nevertheless, this recognition does not require you to reject other parts of what the Bible says about supernatural things in their proper place and perspective.

    6) Do you really want a church dependent on miraculous gifts or a church that depends only on following Christ? Okay, if tongues and prophecy is so awesome and powerful let’s see you do that at your work place okay? I think you’ll see that sharing the Gospel and loving ppl will do far more, has done for more, is doing for more, will do far more, etc.

    There is no necessity to artificially set up an either or situation between miraculous gifts and following Christ. Jesus did miraculous gifts himself so how would doing miraculous gifts conflict with following Christ.
    John 14:12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also;…
    Where’s the conflict between doing these same works and following Christ?

    Speaking in tongues is not for the workplace it’s for your own prayer closet primarily. Remember, speaking in tongues is not a means of preaching the gospel. No one in the Bible preached the gospel by speaking in tongues. Prophecy and healing might have a place in the workplace but not speaking in tongues. I just prayed today for one of the clerks in the courthouse where I was working. God fixed the problem right there and got all the glory. Most people don’t expect God to do anything in their workplace. I’ve consistently seen this kind of experience to be a powerful encouragement and strengthening of their faith as to the presence and power of God in their lives right where they’re at. What’s wrong with that? Wouldn’t Jesus have done the same?

    Yours in Christ,
    Riley

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Cessationism: The When Question (Part 7): Eph. 2:20

By Nathan Busenitz @ http://www.sfpulpit.com

The foundation of the church...Ephesians 2:19–22: “[19] So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, [20] having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, [21] in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, [22] in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”

This passage (specifically verse 20) is a critical text for the cessationist, since it establishes (in his paradigm) the notion that New Testament prophets were given for the foundation stage of the church, and not for the entire church age. In the same way that the apostles are no longer in the church today, neither are prophets. Thus, it is reasoned, the gift of prophecy has ceased.

Virtually everyone agrees that there are no apostles in the church today (in terms of the specific office, as used in Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; and 4:11 and numerous other places in Paul’s writings). After all, an apostle had to be (1) be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22; 10:39–41; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7–8); (2) be directly appointed by Jesus Christ (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2, 24; 10:41; Gal. 1:1); and (3) have the ability to confirm his mission by miraculous signs (Matt. 10:1–2; Acts 1:5–8; 2:43; 4:33; 5:12; 8:14; 2 Cor. 12:12). Based on these three criteria (all three of which one must meet to be an apostle), there were no longer any apostles (in the specialized sense) after the first century.

Since the apostolic office has ceased, having accomplished its purpose in laying the foundation for the church, can we then conclude that the prophetic office has also ceased?

This, according to most commentators, depends on who the “prophets” are in this verse. If the “prophets” are New Testament prophets, then the cessationist paradigm is greatly strengthened.

As continuationist Wayne Grudem has written:

If [Ephesians 2:20 is] referring to all the prophets in all the local congregations in first century churches . . . then it would seem that they are portrayed in a unique ‘foundational’ role in the New Testament church, and we have to agree with Dr Gaffin—we would expect this gift to cease once the New Testament was complete (Grudem, Prophecy, 48; cited from here).

At first glance, it appears that the verse is highlighting two distinct offices within the early church—that of apostle and that of prophet. But Grudem sees it differently. In his view, the verse would be better translated as “the apostle-prophets” or “the apostles who are also prophets.” It is the prophetic aspect of the apostle’s ministry that is being discussed in this verse. Thus, the apostolic office is the only one that we should expect to have ceased.

Dr. Grudem’s primary argument for his position appeals to Granville Sharp’s first rule of Greek grammar. According to this rule,

When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle . . . .” (Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, 2).

In other words, in a Greek construction of article-noun-kai-noun, the two nouns refer to the same person.

While it is generally recognized that Granville Sharp’s rule consistently applies to singular nouns, it does not universally apply to plural nouns. Daniel Wallace explains:

“Sharp’s rule Number 1″ doesn’t always work with plural forms of personal titles. Instead, a phrase that follows the form article-noun-”and”-noun, when the nouns involved are plurals, can involve two entirely distinct groups, two overlapping groups, two groups of which is one a subset of the other, or two identical groups (Wallace, 72-78; Online Source).

Because the nouns in this case are plural in form, Granville Sharp’s rule does not necessarily apply. Grudem’s appeal to Ephesians 4:11 (where some interpret a parallel construction as “pastors who are also teachers” rather than “pastors and teachers”) has been strongly criticized. According to R. Fowler White:

The obstacle is that Grudem interprets the syntax of the article-noun-kai-noun plural construction in Eph 2:20 in a way which, as D. B. Wallace has demonstrated, has neither clear nor ambiguous parallels in the NT. In addition, Wallace has shown that even the one true grammatical parallel that Grudem cites (Eph 4:11, tous de poimenas kai didaskalous) has been widely misunderstood because few exegetes have ever seriously investigated the semantic range of the article-noun-kai-noun plural construction. In fact, Wallace boldly challenges the exegesis of Eph 4:11 by Grudem and others, emphatically insisting “that such a view has no grammatical basis” in NT usage. According to Wallace’s findings, the least likely interpretation of Eph 4:11 is that it means “the pastor-teachers, that is, the pastors who are also teachers”; more likely, it means “the pastors and other teachers.” (Online Source)

With his grammatical argument seriously in question, Grudem’s other supporting arguments quickly dissipate. Space does not allow a full discussion in a blog article. However, R. Fowler White’s journal article, which has been referenced several times already in this post, provides a compelling response to each of Grudem’s assertions. In the words of Thomas Edgar, a cessationist:

Ephesians 2:20 could not be more clear. The verse contains no difficult words, nor any difficult or unusual grammatical constructions. The grammatical construction of one article preceding two nouns joined by “and” is a familiar and well-known construction. Any alleged complexities in interpreting this verse arise not from the verse itself but from the presuppositions of the interpreter (Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, 78–79).

In establishing that there are two distinct offices in this verse, Richard Gaffin (in Perspectives on Pentecost) notes that is important to keep several key exegetical points in mind. These can be summarized as follows:

(1) Ephesians 4:11 clearly distinguishes between the apostles and the prophets. The context of the letter, then, points to a distinction in Ephesians 2:20.

(2) First Corinthians 12:28 is the only other text where apostles and prophets are mentioned together. Here also, they are clearly presented as separate groups.

(3) Paul does not designate the apostles as “prophets” anywhere else in his writings.

(4) Since Paul does not do so elsewhere, it is unlikely that he would do so here at least without a little bit of explanation.

We conclude, then, that the grammar, the context (cf. Eph. 4:11), and Paul’s usage elsewhere provides strong evidence for the fact that the “prophets” of 2:20 are distinct from the “apostles.” This would be true, also, of Ephesians 3:5 (in which it is clear that New Testament, not Old Testament, prophets are in view).

To again cite Grudem’s earlier quote (from above):

If [Ephesians 2:20 is] referring to all the prophets in all the local congregations in first century churches [i.e. New Testament prophets in a general sense] . . . then it would seem that they are portrayed in a unique ‘foundational’ role in the New Testament church, and we have to agree with Dr Gaffin—we would expect this gift to cease once the New Testament was complete.

Based on the exegetical evidence, this is exactly what cessationists expect.

Response to “The When Question (Part 7): Ephesians 2:20”

  1. on 05 Feb 2007 at 1:30 pm Nate B.

    For those who would like to study this further, please see the following articles by Dave Farnell, one of our NT professors here at The Master’s Seminary:

    Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today? (Part 4)

    Fallible New Testament Prophecy/Prophets?: A Critique of Wayne Grudem’s Hypothesis

    In fairness, we should also add that some continuationists, such as Jon Ruthven, do not hold to Grudem’s view and yet do not see Ephesians 2:20 as a support to the cessationist position. Ruthven argues that Ephesians 2:20 refers to a foundation that will recur as a pattern until Christ returns (this is in accord with his understanding of Ephesians 4:11–13). In our own opinion, the fact that there are no longer apostles in the church is a strong argument against Ruthven’s recurring pattern view. As Samuel E. Waldron writes: “The admission that the apostolate has ceased is a fatal crack in the foundation of Continuationism” (To Be Continued?, 23).

    Also, Grudem has added a response to Wallace in his most recent edition of The Gift of Prophecy: In the New Testament and Today (2000; originally published in 1988). He continues to hold to his view despite the absence of any exact parallels outside of Ephesians 4:11.

Friday, January 26, 2007

Cessationism: The When Question (Part 6): The Perfect: 1 Cor. 13:10

By Nathan Busenitz @ http://www.sfpulpit.com

What Is the “Perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10?

It seems there are almost as many views of “the perfect” as there are commentators who write about 1 Corinthians 13:8–13. Space on a blog does not permit a full investigation into each of these, but rather a cursory explanation of the major views.

The Different Views

(1) Some (such as F.F. Bruce) argue that love itself is the perfect. Thus when the fullness of love comes, the Corinthians will put away their childish desires.

(2) Some (such as B.B. Warfield) contend that the completed canon of Scripture is the perfect. Scripture is described as “perfect” in James 1:25, a text in which the same word for “mirror” (as in v. 12) is found (in James 1:23). Thus partial revelation is done away when the full revelation of Scripture comes.

(3) Some (such as Robert Thomas) contend that the mature church is the perfect. This view is primarily based on the illustration of verse 11 and on the close connection between this passage on Eph. 4:11–13. The exact timing of the church’s “maturity” is unknown, though it is closely associated with the completion of the canon, and the end of the apostolic era (cf. Eph. 2:20).

(4) Some (such as Thomas Edgar) see the believer’s entrance into the presence of Christ (at the moment of death) as the perfect. This view accounts for the personal aspect of Paul’s statement in verse 12. Paul personally experienced full knowledge when he entered Christ’s presence at his death (cf. 2 Cor. 5:8).

(5) Some (such as Richard Gaffin) see the return of Christ (and the end of this age) as the perfect. This is also the view of most continuationists. Thus, when Christ comes back (as delineated in chapter 15), the partial revelation we know now will be made complete.

(6) Some (such as John MacArthur) view the eternal state (in a general sense) as the perfect. This view accounts for the neuter of to teleion (as a reference to a general state of events and not a personal return of Christ), and also allows for the obscurity of revelation to continue into the Millennial Kingdom. This view overlaps with both numbers 4 and 5 above in that, according to this view: “For Christians the eternal state begins either at death, when they go to be with the Lord, or at the rapture, when the Lord takes His own to be with Himself” (John MacArthur, First Corinthians, p. 366).

My Preferred View

Of these views, I (personally) find the last three more convincing than the first three. This is primarily due (I will confess) to the testimony of church history. Dr. Gary Shogren, after doing an in-depth study of some 169 patristic references to this passage, concludes that the church fathers unanimously saw the perfect in terms of something beyond this life (most normally associating it with the return of Christ). Even Chrysostom (who was clearly a cessationist) saw it this way. While not authoritative, such evidence is difficult to dismiss.

From an exegetical perspective, the first three views have difficulty explaining the phrase, “then I will see face-to-face” (v. 12) as something other than the full knowledge that believer’s receive in glory. It is also difficult to imagine how the term “perfect” could describe the Christian’s present level of knowledge in this life.

View 6 then (which overlaps with views 4 and 5) is my preferred understanding of the perfect. In this sense, “the perfect” or “perfection” would be essentially synonymous to “glorification.” Such a view seems to adequately fit the historical data, while also accounting for the personal nature of Paul’s statements in verse 12. The moment of the believer’s glorification is the moment in which all the partial knowledge of this life is removed and replaced with full knowledge.

Though we have the completed canon, our knowledge is still not perfect (which is why discussions like this one continue to persist). Do we have all that we need for life and godliness? Absolutely. But do we now know fully as we will then be fully known (v. 12)? This does not seem to be the case.

For Paul, his partial understanding and partial knowledge was done away at the moment of his death, when he was ushered instantly into the presence of Christ (v. 12; cf. 2 Cor. 5:8). The incompleteness and obscurity of this life disappeared. In its place he experienced the full revelatory knowledge of glory. When he died, his partial knowledge became full knowledge, as his faith became sight.

For Paul’s readers (and for all believers who would die throughout church history), complete understanding came at the moment they entered the presence of Christ. For those believers, in the future, who are alive at His return, complete understanding will come at the moment of His appearing. In either case, the obscurity of this life is done away for each believer when glorification comes.

If, as seems apparent in the passage, the teleion refers to the individual’s presence with the Lord [either through death or through rapture], this passage does not refer to some prophetic point in history. [Instead,] it serves to remind the Corinthians of the abiding nature of love in contrast to the gifts, which by their inherent nature are only temporal, only for this life. (Thomas Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, 246)

Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians, then, is that they be less worried about what only has value for this life (the limited knowledge derived from the gifts), and be more concerned with what has value for the life to come (namely, love). This fits perfectly within the scope of Paul’s larger argument.

Thus, how long the gifts will continue into church history is not explicitly addressed in this passage. For Paul and his Corinthian readers, living in an era in which charismatic gifts were unarguably operational, it is unlikely that Paul was thinking in terms of church history and more likely that he was thinking in terms of the personal experience of his audience. For the Corinthian recipients of this letter, the limited knowledge of prophecy did not “cease” at the close of the canon or at the return of Christ. It ceased, instead, at the moment they were ushered into our Lord’s presence.

Paul’s point, then, is that until we each get to heaven our knowledge (through whatever means it comes) remains incomplete. But when glorifcation comes, then that which is partial will be done away.

One Important Closing Thought

In closing our discussion on this text, one final point should be made. The interpreter can take any of the above positions, and still remain a cessationist. In fact, there are cessationists who hold to each position listed above.

Thus, Anthony Thiselton notes in his commentary: “The one important point to make here is that few or none of the serious “cessationist” arguments depends on a specific exegesis of 1 Cor 13:8–11.These verses should not be used as a polemic for either side in this debate (pp. 1063, emphasis original).

Ultimately, we conclude that this text does not explicitly answer the when question, with regard to when the miraculous gifts will end in church history. To be sure, they will not continue into the eternal state. But whether or not the gifts themselves remain in operation until the end of the church age is something beyond the scope of Paul’s argument. It is not the apostle’s purpose to answer the when question from the perspective of church history. Rather, his goal is to make one very important point: Love is superior to the gifts. While the gifts produce that which is incomplete (and therefore limited to this life), love never fails — it has value both for this life and for the life to come.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Cessationism: The When Question (Part 5): 1 Cor. 13:9ff

By Nathan Busenitz @ http://www.sfpulpit.com

1 Corinthians 13:8-13: (8) Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. (9) For we know in part and we prophesy in part; (10) but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. (11) When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. (12) For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. (13) But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

The When Question (Part 5)Verse 8 was discussed in yesterday’s post.

In verse 9, I believe Paul narrows his argument to focus on prophecy and knowledge specifically (both of which are forms of partial revelation). Some will argue that tongues (along with all the other charismata) are implied by the context. Perhaps they are; and this is not essential to the argument I hope to ultimately make for this passage. At the same time, I believe interpreters must be careful not to simply (and conveniently) dismiss certain exegetical elements as “changes in style,” when those changes do not fit with their interpretation.

At the very least, it seems that Paul leaves out tongues in verse 9 because it is somewhat extraneous to his argument, which contrasts that which is partial from that which is complete. Gordon Fee (a continuationist) among others recognizes this distinction. Fee explains that the absence of tongues in verse 9 is due “partly to the fact that ‘tongues’ does not lend itself easily to the way these sentences are expressed. ‘We speak in tongues in part’ is not particularly meaningful” (p. 644, n. 21).

On a side note, if the cessation of tongues is tied to the “perfect,” and if the “perfect” refers to the return of Christ, the continuationist faces an interesting problem. Those who interpret “tongues” as “heavenly languages” or as “prayer speech to God” (as most continuationists do) are faced with a dilemma. Do heavenly languages stop (cease) when believers get to heaven? Thiselton in his commentary underscores this problem, noting that Paul’s use of pauo “must surely call into question the notion that tongues are either, in Paul’s view, a language of heaven, or a paradigmatic way of expressing exalted intimacy with God. If this were so, why would they cease at the eschaton [when the perfect comes]?” (p. 1061)

In any case, I believe Paul narrows the discussion here to prophecy and knowledge. He does this because his focus is on partial revelation in contrast to perfect revelation. This is explicit in verses 9-10, where the apostle writes: We know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect [complete] has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

There are at least a couple important exegetical points to be noted in these verses.

(1) First, “the perfect” (to teleion) can be translated as “perfect,” “complete,” or “mature.” Because of its contrast with the “partial,” it seems best to understand it as “complete.” Thus, it is perfect in the sense of perfectly complete (with an emphasis on quality rather than quantity). And it is mature in the sense of having reached its intended end or fulfillment. Paul’s use of the term elsewhere, as well as its use in the Septuagint, seems to support this understanding of the text. (For an extensive study of to teleion in the Pauline corpus, see here.)

(2) Second, both “the perfect” and “the partial” are neuter in gender and singular in person. This is in distinction to “prophecies” (feminine plural) and “knowledge” (feminine singular) from verse 8. Grammatically, the “partial” does not specifically refer to “gifts of prophesy” or “gifts of knowledge.” If it did, it would be feminine plural.

It seems instead, from the context, to refer to the the partial revelation (or knowledge) that results from (and thus characterizes) the revelatory gifts. This is in keeping with verses 2, 9, and 12, which emphasize not the incompleteness of the gifts themselves, but the incompleteness of the revealed information that comes from them. It is that incomplete revelation that will be done away when the perfect comes.

Along these lines, Thomas Edgar reasons:

The prophecies and knowledge in this passage are not the gifts themselves, as most interpreters seem to assume, but the content associated with the gifts. There are several reasons for understanding the passage this way. The gifts are not partial, nor will there be a day when the partial gifts will be replaced by complete gifts. The stress in this passage is not on the gifts but on knowledge and prophecies [which result from the gifts], such as Agabus’s prophecy regarding famine. The word ”prophecies” used here does refer to the gift in a few passages. However, it usually refers to the prohecies themselves. Likewise, “knowledge” is not described anywhere as one of the spiritual gifts. The “word of knowledge” is the gift; however this title is not used here. Finally, verse 12 refers not to gifts specifically but to unclear versus direct sight and partial versus complete knowledge.

. . . Someone will object that this entire section of 1 Corinthians discusses gifts; therefore, this must be the issue here. While Paul is still discussing gifts, in this particular section he is discussing the content resulting from the gifts and the basic element involved in the gift of tongues. He does this in order to show that the basic reason for these gifts is only temporal and the gifts are, therefore, less significant than love that lasts. Direct sight and complete knowledge will eventually be every Christian’s privilege; therefore, the partial knowledge and prophecy resulting from the gifts will no longer be necessary. (Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, pp. 245-46)

Whether or not one agrees with all of Edgar’s conclusions (and not all cessationists do), his overarching premise is hard to argue against: namely, that Paul’s focus is on the incomplete revelatory content that characterizes the revelatory gifts. This is in contrast to the perfect, which by implication would refer to complete revelatory content, or at least a time when such content will be available.

This interpretation is further supported by the illustrations of verses 11–12. The child/adult contrast in verse 11 is one of limited understanding versus full, mature understanding. The mirror/face-to-face contrast, again, is one of limited “dim” perception as opposed to uninhibited “face-to-face” perception. Thus Paul concludes verse 12 by saying outright: “Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I also have been fully known.”

If our understanding is correct, then Paul’s emphasis is not: “When the perfect comes, the partial gifts will be done away.” Rather, his point is that: “When the perfect comes, the incompleteness and obscurity that now characterizes the gifts will be done away.” Or perhaps more clearly, “When the perfect comes, that which is partial about the gifts (namely, the obscure and incomplete knowledge that characterizes them) will be done away.” When complete revelation comes, partial knowledge will come to an end.

Richard Gaffin points out the significance of this understanding:

Paul’s primary emphasis here is on the partial, obscured quality of the believer’s present knowledge brought by prophetic gifts, in comparison with faith, hope, and especially love that have what we might call an eschatological “reach” or “grasp” (vv. 12–13). Such knowledge will not cease until the arrival of “perfection” (v. 10). . . .

With this accent on the partial quality of the believer’s present knowledge, the particular media of that revealed knowledge are, strictly speaking, incidental. Paul mentions prophecy and tongues because of his pastoral concern in the wider context (chaps. 12–14) about the proper exercise of these two gifts. But the time of their cessation is not a point he is concerned with, and it is gratuitous to insist on the contrary from verse 10. Rather, his interest is in showing the duration of our present, opaque knowledge — by whatever revelatory means it may come (and that would even include inscripturation) and whenever they may cease. (Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views, p. 55).

The question still remains as to what the “perfect” is. That will be the topic of our next post. Whatever it is, when it comes, the partial revelation and incomplete understanding characteristic of charismatic gifts will be done away, being replaced by a knowledge that is perfect and complete.

(To be continued tomorrow)

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Cessationism: The When Question (Part 4): 1 Cor. 13:8

By Nathan Busenitz @ http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/24/the-when-question-part-3-1-cor-138/#more-430

Church PewsThere seem to be only two things that commentators agree on when it comes to 1 Corinthians 13:8–13: (1) The point of the passage is the superiority of love over spiritual gifts, and (2) This passage is one of the most hotly debated in the church today.

It is ironic, in fact, that a passage about love has been such a point of contention. And the interpreter, before he ever gets to these six verses, does well to first read the preceding half of chapter 13. Verse 2 is especially apropos, for even if we had all knowledge (such that we could solve every exegetical riddle including this one), but did not have love, we would be nothing.

I note this, not as an excuse for slip-shod exegesis, but rather as a reminder of Paul’s main point. His primary aim in verses 8–13 is not to tell his readers when the gifts will cease. It is rather to substantiate one important spiritual axiom, that the temporary is inferior to the eternal. In a church that had wrongly prioritized certain gifts, abusing them for selfish purposes, the apostle’s message could not have been more needed. He takes their focus from what will not last (prophecy, tongues, and partial knowledge), and reminds them of what will not fail (namely, love).

In studying this passage, I have been amazed at how much ink has been spilled in an attempt to explain what is essentially a sub-point in Paul’s argument. It’s not that the pages and pages of commentary are not helpful. I think they are. It’s just that I hate to see the grand flow of Paul’s thought lost, like a forest that can no longer be seen because of the trees.

That being said, Paul does make some important statements about spiritual gifts in this passage. It is with some reluctance, then, that we move from the grander theme of love to the specific topic at hand.

Verse 8

“Love never fails; but if prophecy, they will be done away; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be done away.”

In contrast to love, which never fails, at least three of the revelatory gifts will fail at some point. Those three gifts are delineated in verse 8 (prophesy, tongues, and knowledge). They are probably singled out because the Corinthian’s misuse of the gifts primarily centered around these three. Thus Paul is emphasizing his point: Love is greater than any gift, even the most popular gifts, like prophecy, tongues, and knowledge.

It is interesting (and I believe significant) that Paul uses two different words when speaking about the cessation of these gifts.

When speaking of prophecy and knowledge he uses a form of the word katargeo (translated “will be done away”), but regarding tongues he uses a form of the word pauo (translated “cease”). Some commentators have argued that this is simply a stylistic change, in which Paul used a different word to avoid redundancy. But that seems unlikely for at least two reasons:

(1) Paul uses katargeo again in verse 10 and once more in verse 11. By using it four times in vv. 8–11 (twice in verse 8 and twice in verses 10-11), Paul demonstrates that he is not adverse to a redundant use of the same word. In fact, he uses katargeo a total of eight times in this epistle, but uses pauo only once (and it is here, in this verse). Paul’s unique choice of pauo in contrast to his repeated use of katargeo, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is surely more significant than just a desire for stylistic variation.

(2) Paul’s argument will proceed by contrasting that which is partial with that which is complete (in vv. 9 – 11). While it is possible to have partial prophecy and partial knowledge, it is not really possible to have partial languages (no matter how those languages are construed). Thus, while partial prophecy (v. 9) and partial knowledge (v. 9) will “be done away,” tongues simply “cease” (or stop). The timing of that cessation (of tongues) is not explicitly delineated in the passage.

It is interesting to note as well that pauo is in the middle voice, perhaps giving it something of a reflexive force. Based on this, some commentators have contended that tongues cease of themselves. Other commentators disagree, arguing that the middle voice has no exegetical significance here beyond stylistic choice. In any case, I do not believe Paul’s change from katargeo to pauo can simply be glossed over as a stylistic variation. As one of my own Greek professors has written:

Paul used pauo for a distinct purpose, a purpose different from what he communicated by katargeo. The use of the two different verbs was not merely to avoid repetition, because Paul uses katargeo four times in vv. 8, 10, and 11. Thus a distinction is intended. (Source)

As Paul continues his argument in vv. 9-12, he narrows the discussion to knowledge and prophecy (as forms of partial revelation), and leaves the subject of tongues behind. He does not address the question of when tongues cease. He simply says tongues cease. This is in contrast to love which continues (vv. 8, 13).

The question of how long tongues will continue into church history, or when tongues will cease, is not directly answered by this text. Nor is it necessary to Paul’s main point.

But what about prophecy and knowledge? Paul now turns his attention to those two gifts in verses 9-10, which we will get to in our next post.

(To be continued tomorrow)

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

The When Question (Part 3): 1 Corinthians 1-Spiritual Gifts-Cessationism

By Nathan Busenitz @ http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/17/the-when-question-part-3-1-corinthians-1/#more-414

Though often overlooked in this debate, 1 Corinthians 1:4–9 is a passage that some have suggested “implies that the gifts of the Spirit are operative until ‘our Lord Jesus Christ is revealed’ (C. Samuel Storms, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views, p. 205).

The text itself reads as follows:

(4) I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, (5) that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, (6) even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, (7) so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, (8) who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (9) God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Does verse 7 imply that the spiritual gifts enjoyed by the Corinthians will endure until the second coming of Christ?

Interestingly, commentators are pretty well divided over this issue—on a couple fronts. For instance, not all commentators agree that the “gift” (charismati) of verse 7 is referring, in a specific sense, to the “spiritual gifts” of chapters 12–14. The word “gift” does not appear with the adjective “spiritual.” And Paul uses “gift” elsewhere in this letter to refer to non-miraculous gifts (such as the “gift” of singleness in 7:7; cf. 2 Cor. 1:11). He also uses it elsewhere to speak of salvation through Christ (Rom. 5:15; 6:23). The general nature of Paul’s introduction, and his emphasis on soteriological grace (from conversion to consummation) also suggest this conclusion. Thus, even charismatic commentators (such as Gordon Fee) recognize the possibility that Paul is using “gift” here in a general redemptive, rather than a special miraculous, sense.

On the flip side, Paul’s reference to “speech” and “knowledge” (in verse 5) does seem to set the stage for his later discussion regarding revelatory gifts (from tongues and prophecy to wisdom and knowledge). So perhaps a little of both is at play in this text. After all, in a period when all of the charismatic gifts were undeniably in operation, Paul could have easily spoken of all of the gifts of grace (both redemptive and miraculous/charismatic) in a general sense. Then again, the speech and knowledge of verse 5 could have more to do with providing a God-ordained contrast to the philosophical wisdom of the world (which Paul will immediately discuss in chapters 1-3).

It is interesting to note that God the Father and God the Son are referenced multiple times in this passage. If the special gifts of the Spirit are primarily in view here, it is noteworthy that the Person of the Spirit is not mentioned.

Commentators also seem to be split on the relationship between the two phrases, “so that you are not lacking in any gift” and “awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Some see no temporal link between the two phrases (or at least make no mention of it in their comments on the text). In other words, they do not assert that the second phrase is an indication (or implication) of how long the gifts will last.

Others do see a link, claiming that the gifts of verse 7 will last until the revelation of Christ at His return. Of these scholars, those who interpret the gifts redemptively, contend that the grace of salvation will continue until the Lord returns. On the other hand, those who interpret the gifts more specifically (in terms of 1 Corinthians 12–14) contend that it is the miraculous/charismatic gifts which will continue. These charismatic commentators generally support their interpretation by pointing to 1 Corinthians 13:8–10, basing their understanding of 1 Corinthians 1:7 on that later text.

Grammatically and contextually, I don’t think the case can ultimately be proven either way. Even if one concludes that the gifts in view here are specifically the gifts of 1 Corinthians 12–14 (which is highly debatable), the interpreter must be cautious not to read more into Paul’s introductory comments than is actually there. Paul’s purpose here is to introduce his epistle in a general sense (by means of thanksgiving and encouragement). He will get to specifics (regarding the special miraculous gifts) later in the letter.

The bottom line is that apostle does not explicitly say (in this text) that the gifts will last until the return of Christ. Rather, he urges the Corinthians (who were the blessed recipients of divine grace) to continue in their eager expectation for Christ’s return (when the grace that they enjoyed now, in part, would be realized in full.) The implied duration that charismatic commentators see in the text seems to be based more on a preceding theological presupposition (read in from 1 Cor. 13), than on conclusive exegetical data from this passage itself.

Ultimately, then, I do not believe the when question can be decisively or definitively answered from this text. The passage, which is an introductory word of thanksgiving (for the Corinthians’ salvation and state of spiritual blessing) and encouragement (that they would eagerly anticipate the return of Christ), leaves the when question open.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

The When Question (Part 2): Acts 2-Spiritual Gifts & Cessationism

By Nathan Busenitz @ http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/16/the-when-question-part-2-acts-2/#more-411

The When Question (Part 2)Acts 2, which records the Day of Pentecost, is one of the central passages that must be considered in the continuationist/cessationist debate. In fact, the modern Pentecostal movement was born, in large part, through the study of this passage. In 1901, Charles Parham (the recognized founder of the modern Pentecostal movement),

directed [his students] to the account of Acts 2 where xenolalic tongues sparked the initial phase of Christian growth, and on Jan. 1, 1901, one of Parham’s students (Agnes Ozman) experienced the expected blessing and sign. (International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, 956)

Parham was convinced that the end of human history would be marked by a “latter rain” outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and that the initial evidence of this outpouring would be miraculous tongues. For both of these elements of his theology, Acts 2 was a foundational starting point.

Thus the modern Pentecostal Movement was born.

We will discuss tongues-speaking later in our series. With regards to the when question, we are more concerned with whether or not Acts 2:17–21 (which comes from Joel 2:28–32) indicates how long the miraculous gifts will continue throughout church history.

Acts 2:16–21 is admittedly a difficult passage, and conservative evangelical scholars continue to debate its proper interpretation. There are at least four views regarding how these verses, at the beginning of Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, relate to the prophecy of Joel 2:28–31.

1. Future Fulfillment Only. This view argues that Joel’s prophecy will be literally fulfilled at some point in the future (toward the end of the 7-year Tribulation period). Peter used Joel’s prophecy as an illustration of what was happening at Pentecost. (Merrill F. Unger [in “The Baptism with the Holy Spirit (Part 2)” BSac 101:403 (July 1944): 373-74], and Clifford Rapp Jr. [in “A Doctrinal Study of Acts 2:14” CTSJ 1:1 (Spring 1995)] defend this view.)

2. Dual Fulfillment. This view suggests that the prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost (at least partially [Joel 2:28-29]) with a more full fulfillment to come in the future. (Walter C. Kaiser, [in Back Toward the Future: Hints for Interpreting Biblical Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989) 43], Paul Feinberg, (in “Hermeneutics of Discontinuity,” Continuity and Discontinuity [ed. J. S. Feinberg; Wheaton: Crossway, 1988] 126-127)] are representatives of this type of view. This view would include proponents of progressive dispensationalism.)

3. Past Fulfillment Only. This view suggests that Joel’s prophecy has been completely fulfilled in New Testament history. Whether the cosmic signs are allegorized, applied to Christ’s crucifixion, applied to the destruction of Jerusalem, or applied to some other historic event, the case is made that we should not expect a future fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. (John R. Stott [in The Message of Acts (Downers Grove: IVP, 1990), 73] and F. F. Bruce [in Commentary on the Book of the Acts, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 67–6] represent this view, which is the typical covenantal understanding of the text.)

4. An Advance Type. Daniel J. Treier, in “The Fulfillment of Joel 2:28–32: A Multiple-Lens Approach” JETS 40:1 (March 1997): 13–26, argues for an advance typology, in which (if I am reading him correctly) Peter referred to the future historic events of Joel’s prophecy as a type of Christ’s earthly ministry. In the same way that the cosmic disturbances of Joel’s prophecy will motivate faithfulness to Yahweh at the end of the age, so the miracles of Christ should have invoked a similar response from the crowd at Pentecost. (Treier’s explanations and conclusions can be found in his article in JETS.)

Our goal here, of course, is not to delve into the pros and cons of each of these viewpoints. But I felt a treatment of Acts 2 would not be complete without at least acknowledging the various exegetical/hermeneutical issues that surround the text. (Personally, I am somewhere between numbers 1 and 2, with a curious interest in number 4. I find number 3 to be the least satisfactory approach, but again, that’s not what we’re here to talk about.)

Our goal is to consider this passage as it relates to the continuationist/cessationist discussion–specifically with regard to the when question. Does Acts 2:16–21 indicate how long the miraculous gifts of the Spirit will continue into the church age?

Acts 2:16–21: This is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:
‘AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says,
‘THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND;
AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY,
AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS,
AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;
EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN,
I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT
And they shall prophesy.
‘AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS IN THE SKY ABOVE
AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BELOW,
BLOOD, AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE.
‘THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS
AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD,
BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME.
‘AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.’

Douglass Oss, representing the Pentecostal (Assemblies of God) perspective, argues that Acts 2 sets the stage for continuing gifts throughout the whole church age. He writes,

The modern Pentecostal movement has from its inception emphasized Peter’s “this is what is spoken” definition of the “last days” as the primary foundation for the empowering aspects of its pneumatology. Spurred on by this understanding of fulfillment, Pentecostals have steadfastly proclaimed the continuing charismatic nature of the church empowered by the Spirit. (Are Miraculous Gifts for Today: Four Views, p. 265).

In Oss’s view, Peter applied Joel’s prophecy to the whole church age (which began at Pentecost and will end at Christ’s return), and not just to Pentecost itself. The church age will be an age that is marked by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the evidences of such an outpouring will include prophecies and visions. Thus, we should expect charismatic phenomena (like prophecies and visions) to mark the entire church age.

But there is a problem. Joel’s prophecy includes other elements that did not occur on the day of Pentecost, and in fact have not yet occurred in church history (“wonders in the sky,” “signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke,” “the sun will be turned into darkness and the mood into blood.”) These cosmic signs are clearly not a normative, continuing part of the church age. Oss recognizes this difficulty and responds by writing:

It is often pointed out in objection to this understanding of the text that the more cosmic events (Acts 2:19b–20) simply did not occur and therefore Acts 2 is not the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. But in light of Peter’s clear fulfillment language (e.g., ‘this is what is spoken’), it is better to understand the signs that occurred on the day of Pentecost as marking out the beginning of the last days and the more cosmic signs as belonging to the end of the last days, just prior to the day of the Lord. (Four Views, 266).

In other words, the miraculous signs of Pentecost were a fulfillment of the first part of Joel’s prophecy, and the miraculous signs of the Parousia (Christ’s return) will be a fulfillment of the second part of Joel’s prophecy. The important thing to recognize (according to Oss) is that the church age is the age of the Spirit’s working. And since the Spirit is working for the entire church age, we should expect Him to dispense the miraculous gifts throughout the entire church age.

But there are a couple issues at play here. First, one has to assume that Oss’s understanding of the fulfillment language in Acts 2 is correct in order to embrace his view. I’m not sure all Pentecostals would agree with Oss’s assessment. Some would interpret Acts 2:16-21 in terms of dual fulfillment, identifying their contemporary experience with the “latter rain” of Joel 2:23.

Beyond this, however, I don’t see how Oss can exegetically support his claim that the signs accompanying Pentecost (and the apostolic era) should be expected to endure throughout all of the church age. Rather, it seems more tenable to assert, given Oss’s own reasoning, that in the same way that the cosmic signs are limited to the end of the age, the charismatic signs would be limited to the beginning. If that which marks the end is only found at the end, then that which marked the beginning could reasonably be expected to be found only at the beginning.

At best, in my opinion, Oss’s understanding of Acts 2:16–21 leaves the timing question open-ended.

What about the “latter rain” of Joel 2:23?

Traditionally, pentecostal charismatics have generally seen their movement as the “latter rain” of Joel 2:23. Thus, they believe that, though Joel 2:28–31 may have been partially fulfilled at Pentecost, its full fulfillment began in 1901 (or shortly before) when the modern Pentecostal Movement began. “Simultaneously, similar groups sprang up all over the world. They claimed that God in the last days before the millennial reign of Christ was pouring out His Holy Spirit upon His powerless church. There was to be a second, or fuller, realizing and fulfillment of Joel 2:28–29” (Robert C. Dalton, Tongues As of Fire, pp. 9–10). According to this perspective, the end of the church age will be marked by a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit (as evidenced by miraculous gifts) just before the Lord returns. Even if the miraculous gifts ceased or significantly declined in church history, they have now reappeared in keeping with Joel’s prophecy.

One primary problem with this interpretation is that it undermines the chronology of Joel’s prophecy. If the specifics of Joel’s prophecy (in 2:28-29) are to be interpreted in a literal futurist sense, then the other elements of Joel’s prophecy must be viewed in the same way. But those other elements (which chronologically precede 2:28–29) have not yet literally occurred. Unger explains:

Before ever it [Joel 2:28–31] is fulfilled, however, the great invasion from the North must occur (Joel 2:1–10), the Tribulation take place (Acts 2:19–21), Armageddon be fought (Joel 2:11), Israel be regathered and converted (Joel 2:12–17), and the Lord’s Second Advent come, issuing in great deliverance (Joel 2:18–27). (Unger, “The Baptism with the Holy Spirit (Part 2),” 374)

One cannot take part of Joel’s prophecy in a literal futurist sense, and simultaneously disregard the other elements of his prophecy. Since those other elements have not yet occurred, the “latter rain” self-identification of some pentecostals becomes very difficult to exegetically maintain. Interestingly, some “latter rain” advocates will readily admit that the miraculous gifts either temporarily ceased or seriously declined at some point in church history. They differ with cessationists, of course, by asserting that the gifts have now reappeared in full force.

In an extended quotation, Thomas Edgar responds to the “latter rain” movement like this:

Many Pentecostals hold that the sign gifts did cease and that they have reoccurred in these “latter days.” This must be demonstrated from Scripture, however. There is no biblical evidence that there will be a reoccurrence in the church of the sign gifts or that believers will work miracles near the end of the Church Age. However, there is ample evidence that near the end of the age there will be false prophets who perform miracles, prophesy, and cast out demons in Jesus’ name (cf. Matt 7:22–23; 24:11, 24 ; 2 Thess 2:9–12). During the Church Age there will be false leaders who fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness (2 Cor 11:13–15). During the Tribulation period, there is no indication that believers, other than the two witnesses of Revelation 11:3–12, will perform miracles. Those performed by the two witnesses are exceptional, and their actions are comparable to those of Old Testament prophets rather than to those of the apostles. The two witnesses are not part of the church, and if they were, they could hardly be considered typical of the church.

The “latter rain” arguments are incorrectly based on verses that actually are referring to seasonal rainfall in Israel. Hosea 6:3 and Joel 2:23, for example, refer not to some unusual outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the last days of the Church Age. They refer instead to spring rains, in contrast to early rains in the fall.

The arguments based on the expression “in the last days” in Acts 2:16–21 are also invalid. … This passage gives no evidence for a reoccurrence of miraculous gifts during the “last (latter) days” of the church. The present charismatic movement is characterized by phenomena that began in the church about 100 years ago, which apart from any historical connection or evidence are claimed to be the same as the miracles performed in the apostolic age. It is simply naive to accept this claim without some direct historical link or solid biblical evidence that these present phenomena are the same as those in the days of the apostles. (Thomas R. Edgar, “The Cessation of the Sign Gifts” BSac 145:580 (October 1988), 375)

What can we conclude then about Acts 2:16–21 and the when question?

It seems to me that, no matter which hermeneutical approach the continuationist brings to the text, the exegetical evidence actually works against his non-cessationist views. At best, it leaves the question opened-ended—to be addressed by other, more specific texts.

More to the point, I believe Peter’s reference to the cosmic signs of Joel’s prophecy (which all agree do not characterize the entire church age) argue in favor of the viewing the charismatic signs similarly.

Monday, January 15, 2007

The When Question (Part 1)-Continuationast/Cessationist Debate

By Nathan Busenitz @ http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/15/the-when-question-part-1/#more-408

The When Question (Part 1)Last week, I suggested that the continuationist/cessationist debate revolves around two primary questions: the when question (regarding the duration of the miraculous gifts) and the what question (regarding the nature of the miraculous gifts). For the next few days, I’d like to focus on the key texts involved in the when question.

Does the New Testament indicate when the miraculous will cease? And if so, when?

In interacting with this question, I believe that the following six texts (at least) must be addressed. Over the next few days we’ll take a look at these texts and consider their import regarding when the miraculous gifts did/will cease.

Acts 2:14–21: But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. “For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:

‘AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says,
‘THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND;
AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY,
AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS,
AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;
EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN,
I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT
And they shall prophesy.
‘AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS IN THE SKY ABOVE
AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BELOW,
BLOOD, AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE.
‘THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS
AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD,
BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME.
‘AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.’

1 Cor. 1:4–8: I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 13:8–13: Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Eph. 2:19–22: So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Eph. 4:11–13: And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

Heb. 2:2–4: For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.

Friday, January 12, 2007

Cessationism’s Noble Lineage

By Nathan Busenitz @ http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/01/12/a-friday-filler/#more-406

Cessationism’s Noble Lineage: tracing cessationism throughout much of church history.

The article itself is a survey of Christian leaders throughout church history who have held to a cessationist view. As men who eagerly desired to understand the Word of God correctly, I believe their insights are valuable though, of course, not authoritative.

Here then are some thoughts on cessationism from some of church history’s leading theologians:

*****

John Chrysostom (c. 344–407):

This whole place [speaking about 1 Corinthians 12] is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. [1] *****

Augustine (354–430):

In the earliest times, “the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues,” which they had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance.” These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away. [2]

*****

Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–c. 466):

In former times those who accepted the divine preaching and who were baptized for their salvation were given visible signs of the grace of the Holy Spirit at work in them. Some spoke in tongues which they did not know and which nobody had taught them, while others performed miracles or prophesied. The Corinthians also did these things, but they did not use the gifts as they should have done. They were more interested in showing off than in using them for the edification of the church. . . . Even in our time grace is given to those who are deemed worthy of holy baptism, but it may not take the same form as it did in those days. [3]

*****

Martin Luther (1483–1546):

[Rather than acknowledging the availability of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, as the spiritual enthusiasts of his time did, Luther (in his Large Catechism) defined the Holy Spirit’s gifts as:]

· the holy Christian Church,
· the communion of saints,
· the forgiveness of sins,
· the resurrection of the body, and
· the life everlasting

[Thus in the Large Catechism, he writes:]

Learn this article, then, as clearly as possible. If you are asked, What do you mean by the words, “I believe in the Holy Spirit”? you can answer, “I believe that the Holy Spirit makes me holy, as his name implies.” How does he do this? By what means? Answer: “Through the Christian church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.” In the first place, he has a unique community in the world. It is the mother that begets and bears every Christian through the Word of God. The Holy Spirit reveals and preaches that Word, and by it he illumines and kindles hearts so that they grasp and accept it, cling to it, and persevere in it” [4]

[As The Encyclopedia of Religion concludes: “Both Luther and Calvin wrote that the age of miracles was over and that their occurrence should not be expected.”]

*****

John Calvin (1509–1564):

Though Christ does not expressly state whether he intends this gift [of miracles] to be temporary, or to remain perpetually in the Church, yet it is more probable that miracles were promised only for a time, in order to give lustre to the gospel while it was new or in a state of obscurity. [5]

“…the gift of healing, like the rest of the miracles, which the Lord willed to be brought forth for a time, has vanished away in order to make the preaching of the Gospel marvellous for ever.” [6]

*****

John Owen (1616–1683):

“Gifts which in their own nature exceed the whole power of all our faculties, that dispensation of the Spirit is long since ceased and where it is now pretended unto by any, it may justly be suspected as an enthusiastic delusion.” [7]

*****

Thomas Watson (c 1620–1686):

“Sure, there is as much need of ordination now as in Christ’s time and in the time of the apostles, there being then extraordinary gifts in the church which are now ceased.” [8]

*****

Matthew Henry (1662–1714):

What these gifts were is at large told us in the body of the chapter [1 Corinthians 12]; namely, extraordinary offices and powers, bestowed on ministers and Christians in the first ages, for conviction of unbelievers, and propagation of the gospel. [9]

The gift of tongues was one new product of the spirit of prophecy and given for a particular reason, that, the Jewish pale being taken down, all nations might be brought into the church. These and other gifts of prophecy, being a sign, have long since ceased and been laid aside, and we have no encouragement to expect the revival of them; but, on the contrary, are directed to call the scriptures the more sure word of prophecy, more sure than voices from heaven; and to them we are directed to take heed, to search them, and to hold them fast, 2 Peter 1:29. [10]

*****

Conyers Middleton (1683–1750):

We have no sufficient reason to believe, upon the authority of the primitive fathers, that any such powers were continued to the church, after the days of the Apostles. [11]

*****

John Gill (1697–1771):

[Commenting on 1 Corinthians 12:9 and 30,]

Now these gifts were bestowed in common, by the Spirit, on apostles, prophets, and pastors, or elders of the church, in those early times: the Alexandrian copy, and the Vulgate Latin version, read, “by one Spirit”. [12]

No; when these gifts were in being, all had them not. When anointing with oil, in order to heal the sick, was in use, it was only performed by the elders of the church, not by the common members of it, who were to be sent for by the sick on this occasion. [13]

*****

Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758):

In the days of his [Jesus’] flesh, his disciples had a measure of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, being enabled thus to teach and to work miracles. But after the resurrection and ascension, was the most full and remarkable effusion of the Spirit in his miraculous gifts that ever took place, beginning with the day of Pentecost, after Christ had risen and ascended to heaven. And in consequence of this, not only here and there an extraordinary person was endowed with these extraordinary gifts, but they were common in the church, and so continued during the lifetime of the apostles, or till the death of the last of them, even the apostle John, which took place about a hundred years from the birth of Christ; so that the first hundred years of the Christian era, or the first century, was the era of miracles. But soon after that, the canon of Scripture being completed when the apostle John had written the book of Revelation, which he wrote not long before his death, these miraculous gifts were no longer continued in the church. For there was now completed an established written revelation of the mind and will of God, wherein God had fully recorded a standing and all-sufficient rule for his church in all ages. And the Jewish church and nation being overthrown, and the Christian church and the last dispensation of the church of God being established, the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were no longer needed, and therefore they ceased; for though they had been continued in the church for so many ages, yet then they failed, and God caused them to fail because there was no further occasion for them. And so was fulfilled the saying of the text, “Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.” And now there seems to be an end to all such fruits of the Spirit as these, and we have no reason to expect them any more. [14]

Of the extraordinary gifts, they were given in order to the founding and establishing of the church in the world. But since the canon of Scriptures has been completed, and the Christian church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased. [15]

*****

George Whitefield (1714-1770):

[After being accused of practicing the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, said:]

I never did pretend to these extraordinary operations of working miracles, or speaking with tongues [since] the karismata, the miraculous gifts conferred on the primitive church . . . have long since ceased. [16]

*****

James Buchanan (1804-1870):

The miraculous gifts of the Spirit have long since been withdrawn. They were used for a temporary purpose. They were the scaffolding with God employed for the erection of a spiritual temple. When it was no longer needed the scaffolding was taken down, but the temple still stands, and is occupied by his indwelling Spirit; for, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you” (I Cor. 3:16). [17]

*****

Robert L. Dabney (1820–1898):

After the early church had been established, the same necessity for supernatural signs now no longer existed, and God, Who is never wasteful in His expedients, withdrew them. . . . Miracles, if they became ordinary, would cease to be miracles, and would be referred by men to customary law. [18]

*****

Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892):

[The believers mentioned in the book of Hebrews] had attained the summit of piety. They had received “the powers of the world to come.” Not miraculous gifts, which are denied us in these days, but all those powers with which the Holy Ghost endows a Christian. And what are they? Why, there is the power of faith, which commands even the heavens themselves to rain, and they rain, or stops the bottles of heaven, that they rain not. There is the power of prayer, which puts a ladder between earth and heaven, and bids angels walk up and down, to convey our wants to God, and bring down blessings from above. There is the power with which God girds his servant when he speaks by inspiration, which enables him to instruct others, and lead them to Jesus; and whatever other power there may be—the power of holding communion with God, or the power of patient waiting for the Son of Man—they were possessed by these individuals. [19]

The works of the Holy Spirit which are at this time vouchsafed to the Church of God are every way as valuable as those earlier miraculous gifts which have departed from us. The work of the Holy Spirit, by which men are quickened from their death in sin, is not inferior to the power which made men speak with tongues. [20]

[Speaking of the office of the apostles,] an office which necessarily dies out, and properly so, because the miraculous power also is withdrawn. [21]

*****

George Smeaton (1814–1889):

The supernatural or extraordinary gifts were temporary, and intended to disappear when the Church should be founded and the inspired canon of Scripture closed; for they were an external proof of an internal inspiration. [22]

*****

Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920):

Many of the charismata, given to the apostolic church, are not of service to the church of the present day. [23]

*****

William G. T. Shedd (1820–1894):

The supernatural gifts of inspiration and miracles which the apostles possessed were not continued to their ministerial successors, because they were no longer necessary. All the doctrines of Christianity had been revealed to the apostles, and had been delivered to the church in a written form. There was no further need of an infallible inspiration. And the credentials and authority give to the first preachers of Christianity in miraculous acts, did not need continual repetition from age to age. One age of miracles well authenticated is sufficient to establish the divine origin of the gospel. In a human court, an indefinite series of witnesses is not required. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses,” the facts are established. The case once decided is not reopened. [24]

*****

Benjamin B. Warfield (1887–1921):

These gifts were not the possession of the primitive Christian as such; nor for that matter of the Apostolic Church or the Apostolic age for themselves; they were distinctively the authentication of the Apostles. They were part of the credentials of the Apostles as the authoritative agents of God in founding the church. Their function thus confined them to distinctively the Apostolic Church and they necessarily passed away with it. [25]

*****

Arthur W. Pink (1886–1952):

As there were offices extraordinary (apostles and prophets) at the beginning of our dispensation, so there were gifts extraordinary; and as successors were not appointed for the former, so a continuance was never intended for the latter. The gifts were dependent upon the officers. We no longer have the apostles with us and therefore the supernatural gifts (the communication of which was an essential part of “the signs of an apostle,” II Cor. 12:12) are absent. [26]