Have you noticed the rise in psychic “hotlines” and TV shows nowadays? Five years ago, it would have been difficult to find even a psychic commercial on TV. Now, there are several half-hour infomercials, aired almost round the clock.
Have you also noticed New Age music cropping up here and there, not to mention the infiltration of Eastern Mysticism into the West, and increased UFO sightings (not to mention TV programs about them)? How about the rise of “what’s in it for me” attitudes, a morality of convenience, and a market-driven society (i.e., making a living as an end in itself)? While we’re at it, we could add the increasing denial of absolute truth by most Americans–even though a large proportion claim to be evangelical Christians, the prioritizing of relevance over truth, of pragmatics over knowledge, of feelings over beliefs. Al Franken, of Saturday Night Live fame, some years ago epitomized what we are seeing with his self-serving commentary (he humorously suggested that this decade should be labeled the “Al Franken” decade).
A New Kind of Charismatic
Part and parcel of this phenomenon is the rising popularity of charismatic Christianity–especially among those who had never been attracted to the charismatic movement before. Specifically, the Pentecostal/charismatic movement historically has roots in Wesleyan theology and practice. In other words, it has historically been associated with Arminian theology. The reason for this is not immediately obvious, but can be seen through a variety of connections. Arminianism teaches, among other things, that a person once saved can lose his salvation. Hence, Arminians put a strong emphasis on moral duty, as well as spiritual experiences, as the continued confirmation that one is still saved. It is a natural extension from this stance that the test by which a person knows he is saved is various manifestations of the Spirit. Thus the craving for supernatural experiences is both endemic to the charismatic mindset and necessary as continued confirmation of salvation.
But this craving for confirmation is not the motivation of many who have become charismatics in the last few years. Indeed, what is unusual about the current popularity of the charismatic movement, principally the Vineyard form, is that has attracted many Calvinists as well as many well-trained scholars. Every year at the Evangelical Theological Society meetings1 I learn of a few more professors of theology who have joined the ranks of the Vineyard movement. Often, the response of colleagues when they find out about one these theologians is one of astonishment: “No! Not him! I never would have expected him to become a charismatic!”
Cognitive Christianity and the Impoverished Soul
Why are scholars suddenly becoming charismatics? What has happened in the last few years to attract the intelligentsia to this group?
We can give both a short answer and a long one. The short answer is that many Christian scholars have for a long time embraced a Christianity that is almost exclusively “from the neck up.” That is, theirs is a cognitive faith, one where reason reigns supreme. They are usually fine exegetes and theologians, able to defend the faith and articulate their views in a coherent, biblical, profound, and logical way. But (without naming names) many of these savants have lost their love for Christ. They love the Bible and know it inside and out. But their soul has become impoverished. They love God with their mind only; that is the extent of their spiritual obligation as they see it. In fact, for them, personal experience–especially of a charismatic sort–is anathema. It has no place in the Christian life. Study of the Bible so that they can control the text is what the Christian life is all about.
But when crisis comes–such as the death of a loved one, a teenage daughter’s pregnancy, or some major upheaval in their church ministries–their answers appear shallow and contrived, both to others and themselves. They have the inability to hurt with the hurting, though they know all the right verses on suffering! They begin to search for answers themselves, answers of an entirely different sort. Often, in the crucible of the crisis, they attend a charismatic meeting. And there, a “prophet” reveals something about their life. They are both amazed at the prophecy and deeply touched at the perception into their own condition. (Of course, cognitive types almost always marvel when other, more sensitive people, intuitively recognize traits and characteristics, internal workings and struggles in others.) Their souls get drenched with an emotional infusion that had been quenched for too long. It doesn’t take long before they hold hands with those whom they used to oppose, even to the point of now leading charismatic groups. They in fact become the theologians of a new breed of charismatic, giving a rather sophisticated rationale for charismata. In the process, they have gone through a paradigm shift: their final authority is no longer reasoning about the Scriptures; now it is personal experience.
Because of a crisis, personal, spiritual experience has replaced reason as the authority that guides their lives. They have exchanged, in some measure, their heart for their mind.2 That’s the short answer.
The Age of Epistemological Narcissism
The long answer is this. The history of the Church and indeed of western civilization, in terms of authority, can be traced out rather simply.3 Before the Reformation, tradition was the final authority. This included the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and all its trappings. When that pesky little German monk, Martin Luther, nailed his ninety-five theses to the door of the Wittenberg church, a new authority was boldly announced: revelation. Actually, it was an old authority, but one which Luther and later Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and a host of others, argued had been subverted to tradition by the Church in Rome. The Reformation’s battle cry was sola scriptura–that is, Scripture alone is our authority. The Roman Church argued that we needed tradition, especially the interpretations offered by church fathers, in order to understand Scripture. This was so, they argued, because the Bible could not be easily grasped. The Reformers argued for the perspicuity of Scripture–that it was sufficiently clear to be a good guide in essential matters, such as the person of Christ, the Trinity, salvation. In order to prove the point they needed to exercise reason. New hermeneutical methods were developed, translations were made, commentaries were written. All of this was consistent with the view that the Bible should be clearly understood. The Reformers knew it to be so in their study; they wanted to make it so for the person in the pew.
As long as reason was the handmaid of revelation, there was no problem. But once reason became master, revelation was increasingly viewed as unnecessary and, in fact, untrue. With the birth of the Enlightenment came the promise of a new king. He would soon reign over virtually all human thought in the western world.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the Enlightenment had so captured the evangelical community that the Bible became more an object of study than a guide to life. Seminaries in this century followed largely the Princeton model (a strongly Calvinist school) of reasoning about the Scriptures. Pastors were trained to expound the text of Scripture–and this came to mean explain the text, but not apply the text. Too many seminaries viewed one’s exegetical and theological skills as the lone spiritual barometer. There was no accountability of one’s life. Whether one believed the Bible and consequently tried to shape his life by its precepts was often not in view.
The problem with this model was that non-evangelical scholars could also do first-rate exegesis. Many of these non-evangelical savants would be considered nonbelievers: besides rejecting the Bible as the Word of God, they did not embrace the bodily resurrection of Christ or, sometimes, even the existence of God. Hence, if quality exegesis was an indicator of spirituality, then an atheist might be considered spiritual! The barometer of mere knowledge obviously has its defects, for without belief there is no life. Cognition is important for true biblical scholarship; but without conversion as a first step, such is certainly not evangelical biblical scholarship. Further, this approach trickled down to the pew: for many churches, even today, mere Bible knowledge, regardless of its application to one’s life, is equated with true spirituality. Reason has come to reign over revelation even for evangelicals.
With the advent of postmodernism, reason has increasingly become passé. It’s not necessarily that reason is rejected as untrue; rather, it is judged to be irrelevant. So what authority is left? What authority remains after tradition, revelation, and reason have all been abandoned? Personal experience. Ours is the age of epistemological narcissism. This is no longer the age of cogito ergo sum (“I think; therefore, I am”—the hallmark of Cartesian logic); it has become the age of sentio ergo sum (“I feel; therefore, I am”). And since there are no external standards by which to judge personal experience (since other authorities are rejected), anything goes–whether it be sensuality or hallucinogenic existence, full-blown mysticism or an uncritical embracing of supernatural phenomena from any and all corners.
So, how does the current charismatic movement fit into this? Why are so many intellectuals embracing the charismata? It seems that the vacuum left in their souls by a rationalistic faith has made them ripe for a different kind of authority. As sons of the Enlightenment, these cognitive scholars have embraced reason as the supreme authority in their lives. But the rationalism of the Enlightenment is, when unbridled, antithetical to revelation. These scholars viewed personal experience as the enemy of the gospel, while embracing reason as its friend. But when some crisis invades their lives, and their purely cognitive faith cannot supply the deepest answers (for it does not address the whole man), they have to find the answers some place. And they look to an entirely different authority. They are ripe for excess in one area, just as they had lived in excess in another. Ironically, they end up mirroring the present age of postmodernism, just as they had mirrored the past one of rationalism.
In reality, both personal experience and reason are part of proper human existence. Like fire, they can be used for good or evil. When they take on the role of supreme authority, consciously or not, they destroy.4 “I know” and “I feel” must bow to “I believe.” (When either one is elevated above revelation it produces arrogance.) The cognitive content of that belief is the revealed Word of God. It requires diligent study to grasp its meaning as fully as mere humans can grasp it. But it will not be believed unless there is a personal experience with the Risen One. Thus, the trilogy of authority can be seen this way: both personal experience and reason are vital means to accessing revelation. We are to embrace Christ, as revealed in the Word, with mind and heart.5 When either reason or experience attempts to escape the supreme sovereignty of the revealed Christ, the individual believer starts down a path of imbalance. Tragically, his service to the Lord Christ is thereby increasingly curtailed.6
1 The Evangelical Theological Society is a group of evangelical leaders, principally professors at seminaries and evangelical colleges. Full membership requires subscription to a minimal core of doctrines and a Th.M. (Master of Theology) degree or its equivalent.
2 This does not mean that these scholars no longer use their brains! But it does mean, for many of them, that reason is subordinated to personal experience in an epistemological hierarchy.
3 I owe the framework of the “long answer” to Dr. Bob Pyne, professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Seminary. He is not to be blamed for the details, however!
4 Most charismatics today would argue that their personal experiences are fully subordinate to revelation. But most cognitive Christians would also argue that reason for them is subordinate to revelation.
5 Thus far I have left tradition out of the equation. This is, however, something of an overstatement. In reality, most of us employ tradition as a conduit to another authority. Often we are unaware of the tradition’s influence. Those in Bible churches worship in a way quite different from those in more liturgical settings; Koreans worship in a way that is markedly different from African-Americans. And a given group may tacitly assume that somehow its worship style is the right one, or that others are wrong because they are different. The difference between evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics with reference to tradition is that evangelical Protestants generally feel more at liberty (and more responsible) to question their tradition, and to change it in line with what they perceive is the biblical norm. In other words, they are able, when it is brought to the conscious level, to subordinate tradition to revelation.
6 You will notice that I have not in this blog given any arguments against the charismatic movement. This blog is instead intended to set the stage, giving a rationale for why so many are flocking toward this kind of Christianity.
150 replies to "Charismata and the Authority of Personal Experience"
“Heb 2.3,4 clearly states that the sign gifts were non-operative among second generation Christians. That is, there were no longer any people with those gifts.”
Early church fathers in the second and third century speak of these gifts still being at work in their time although not with the same frequency in the third century. Assuming these reports are true, that contradicts this understanding of this passage in Hebrews.
“Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? … But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way…. For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect…. When I was a child I spoke like like a child…. For now we see in a mirror dimly…. (1 Corin. 12.29, 9, 11 RSV).
I’m a little confused. If by “sign gifts” you mean the signs of an apostle, then how does this speak to the cessation or continuity of such gifts as tongues and prophecy? Surely, you’re not claiming that only apostles of Jesus Christ had these spiritual gifts. Doesn’t Paul give extensive instruction to non-apostolic believers regarding the usage of these gifts? This doesn’t, in and of itself, mean that these gifts didn’t cease of course. But I don’t understand how the signs of an apostle are relevant to this issue. The question of whether we have apostles of Jesus Christ today is an important one, but this is quite distinct from the issue of the current status of the gifts of tongues and prophecy.
Heb 2.3,4 clearly states that the sign gifts were non-operative among second generation Christians. That is, there were no longer any people with those gifts.
Your Bible must read differently from mine:
3 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, 4 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. (NASB)
This passage does NOT “clearly state that the gifts were non-operative among second-generation Christians.” Nor does the Greek text exhibit anything different. Even in his essay on this passage, Dr. Wallace does not state that this is what Hebrews 2:3-4 “clearly states.” As he writes:
“The argument that this text refers to the cessation of certain gifts is based on an inference in the text, viz., that since the first generation of Christians were explicitly eyewitnesses to certain sign gifts, the second generation of Christians was not…. All in all, Hebrews 2:3-4 seems to involve some solid inferences that the sign gifts had for the most part ceased. Further, it offers equally inferential evidence of the purpose of the sign gifts: to confirm that God was doing something new. The whole argument of Hebrews rests on this assumption: there is a new and final revelation in Jesus Christ (cf. 1:1-2). He is the one to whom the whole OT points; he is the one who is superior to the Aaronic priesthood, to prophets, and to angels. He is indeed God in the flesh. Is it not remarkable that in this exquisitely argued epistle, the argument turns on Scripture over against experience? The strongest appeal the author makes to the audience’s experience is to what they were witnesses to in the past. If the sign gifts continued, shouldn’t we expect this author (like Paul in Gal 3:5) to have employed such an argument?”
“infer” does not = “clearly states”
“Heb 2.3,4 clearly states that the sign gifts were non-operative among second generation Christians. That is, there were no longer any people with those gifts.”
“Early church fathers in the second and third century speak of these gifts still being at work in their time although not with the same frequency in the third century. Assuming these reports are true, that contradicts this understanding of this passage in Hebrews.”
Where exactly does Hebrews 2:3-4 “clearly state” this anyway. This passage is compatible with such a view, but I fail to see how it can be used as a basis for establishing it. Maybe it’s just not clear enough for me 🙂 This would also seem to argue too much. Would you claim that miracles and spiritual gifts also ceased with the first generation? This passage isn’t speaking of people with these gifts, but the gifts themselves. [I’m not in support of a ‘signs and wonders’ theology, btw, but this does not seem to be a sound use of this passage.]
Just to clarify in case I have left people believing otherwise, I don’t see these verses in Hebrews 2 clearly stating that these gifts have ceased.
Sorry, Cherylu. I meant to tag onto what you wrote, not seem as if I was questioning you too.
1 Corin. 12.29, questions whether all have the gifts; and tells us that in any case, even the gift of our prophesies is “imperfect.” While we should seek “higher” gifts than miracles.
Of particular relevance here: regarding seeking “higher” gifts (than miracles?) a number of religious functions are considered higher than miracle workers: “first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers.” Only “then powerful works” (12.28).
There are higher gifts than miracle working, it seems.
Further, more than such gifts are required, to be considered fully good: “If if speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a … piece of brass or a clashing cymbal” (13.1-2).
I heard yesterday from my former colleague whom I mentioned in an earlier post who is now in the Vineyard camp. I had asked him to come over and read this blog. He said that I was partially responsible for him going into the Vineyard camp because I had recommend years ago that he read George Ladd’s Theology of the New Testament which I was using as a texbook in a grad class I was teaching. I had totally forgotten that I had recommended the book to him. For those that don’t know, Ladd taught the Kingdom now but not yet motif that is very prevalent in the Vineyard church today. Ladd was a professor at Fuller Seminary and his teachings had great impact on the founders of Vineyard. I don’t believe he himself ever joined that movment though.
Brett,
When Paul says “seek the higher gifts”, he immediately follows that by “especially that ye may prophesy”.
At times it seems clear that Paul is questioning whether all – or even anyone – can work miracles. Further, in any case, Paul is urging us to seek “higher” gifts than deeds of power, and prophesy.
Regarding “prophesy” specifically? At times we are urged not to “despise” prophesy; but to “test” it to see if it is true. While indeed Paul seems to hint that this specific ability will pass away: “Love never fails. But whether there are gifts of prophesying, they will be done away with; whether there are tongues, they will cease… For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially; but when that which is complete arrives, that which is partial will be done away with” (1 Corin;. 13.8-10).
Not “all” have these powers; if any have them at all. Furthermore, whatever wonders and abilities we have – if any – remain imperfect says Paul; until the End of Time, and the Second Coming (13.10 ff).
Thanks, all, for answering my question about the source of the “sign gifts” terminology. I’m well aware of 1 Cor 14:22 and 2 Cor 12:12. I was just wondering if there was something else, as neither of these passages supports the idea that tongues and prophecy are “sign gifts”.
Paul refers to the “signs of an apostle” in 2 Cor 12:12, but what does that have to do with tongues and prophecy? The apostles clearly weren’t the only ones to speak in tongues. The whole gathering on Pentecost, Cornelius’ household, the new converts in Acts 8, and the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19 all spoke in tongues. Glossolalia is widespread in the Corinthian church. In fact, almost every NT mention of glossolalia is to someone *other* than an apostle doing it. The same goes for prophecy. Paul specifically tells the Corinthians to desire to prophesy.
The question then is how anyone could subsume two charisms that are clearly widespread beyond the circle of the apostles under the category “signs of an apostle”. 2 Cor 12:12 provides no purchase for the idea that tongues and prophecy are “sign gifts”.
[cont’d on next comment]
[cont’d]
The problem with 1 Cor 14:22 is that it appears to be a quotation of a Corinthian formula. That’s why it conflicts with the following verses. When Paul says “tongues is a sign for unbelievers”, he is most likely quoting something that the Corinthians said. He then corrects their wrong belief by pointing out that if everyone in the church is speaking in tongues, and an unbeliever enters, the unbeliever will think that everyone is crazy. (Actually, the quotation of Isa 28:11 in 1 Cor 14:21 is probably part of the Corinthian formula, and, indeed, provided the Corinthians with their prooftextual support for their belief. This is suggested by the fact that Paul quotes 1 Cor 14:21 here according to a non-septuagintal version [kaige* or proto-Theodotian] and by the fact that Paul refers to this verse from Isaiah as coming from “the Law”, which is not at all consistent with Paul’s quotation formulas. I argued this all in a paper that I read at a meeting at Marquette several years ago.) In other words, it is not Paul but the Corinthians who refer to tongues as a “sign”, and, when they do, Paul corrects them.
If my reconstruction of 1 Cor 14:22 is wrong, there is still little hope of deriving a theology of “sign gifts” from this verse.
The quotation from Hebrews is interesting, but it clearly has only to do with apostolic signs. As I have shown, tongues and prophecy can in no way be considered apostolic signs.
Well, some minor objections? To some extent, the word “apostolic” is not necessarily confined just to the original 12 apostles who were alive when Jesus was; some say that anyone who followed Jesus dutifully and well, is an apostle. Indeed Paul himself never met Jesus in his first lifetime. But Paul is often called an apostle.
Then too, the meaning of the sentence that tongues are a “sign” only for unbelievers, might really mean this: probably 1) “speaking in tongues” only meant, speaking in foreign languages; “tongues.” Then 2) these tongues are significant – intelligible signs – only for foreigners/unbelievers. For those who speak these foreign languages. A topic Paul addresses elsewhere. While tongues are babble for others. So that there should be restaints on using them in Church.
BUt these are rather academic matters. What concerns mostof us here, is the larger matter at issue here, in cessationism: finding that there are at least some Pauline statements, that wawrn about problems in claiming to work miracles. Paul 1) questions whether miracles are performed commonly; Paul questions whether “all” or even any, can work them. While 2) any wonders that might be worked, are “imperfect.”
The larger point is this: those who claim to be working miracles today, should probably consider the many cautions Paul issued about miracles.
John,
Here is an assignment for you. It will be extremely difficult if you ask me.
1. List ALL spiritual gifts given to believers in the NT, not just the miraculous ones, all of them.
2. Assign every single gift to one of two columns: 1) those that are apostolic, as in the signs of an apostle, and 2) all other gifts. This is easier said than done. Make sure you justify (to yourself) which gift should be included and excluded from the gift of the apostles.
The result is you will have the list of gifts that ended/ceased with the last apostle.
This can only be done individually, if you ask me. You don’t report the results, although some have actually tried this, such as Robert L. Thomas. But he’s interpreting the scriptures based on his complex network of presupposition, which we all have.
I must warn you again. This will be a very difficult, time-consuming process, but well worth it. Your list is already done before you start; that is, it will be the by-product of your unique set of presuppositions.
Best of luck,
CQ
CQ,
I’ve done this divvying up of the charisms before. In fact, I did it in a paper I recently wrote.
These charisms, I believe, are the “signs of an apostle”: working of miracles, healing, and perhaps faith. (I say “perhaps” faith, because it isn’t clear to me what “faith” means in the list of charisms in 1 Corinthians 12.)
All the rest of the charisms are available to anyone.
This seems to be confirmed by the wording of 1 Cor 1:7. Paul there says that the Corinthians were not lacking “in any” charism, but in 1:5, he had referred to the charisms of the Corinthians as consisting only of those which enriched them “in speech and knowledge of every kind”. It therefore appears that Paul thought of the “speech” and “knowledge” charisms as being available to anyone, while the “power” gifts were available only to the apostles. (“Speech” gifts = tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy; “knowledge” gifts = word of wisdom, word of knowledge, discerning of spirits; “power” gifts = miracles, healings, and faith.) This is consistent with what Paul says about the signs of an apostle.
I’m aware that many would expand the list of nine charisms to include less spectacular operations, but, in trying to keep to the logic of Paul’s wording in 1 Corinthians, this is the scheme that I think obtains, at least for the sake of the points Paul wants to make in 1 Corinthians. Given that we have little indication of what some of these charisms really are, I allow for some leeway, but I’m confident that I’m not far off.
John,
You wrote:
These charisms, I believe, are the “signs of an apostle”: working of miracles, healing, and perhaps faith.
So, are you saying that healing and working of miracles are NOT for today?
CQ
I’m not saying that. There’s a difference between a miracle happening and someone having the charism of the working of miracles.
The difference has to do with whether the miracle happened through the agency of a person with a specific charism, or rather was the result of God’s response to prayer.
John C,
What do you do with the fact that the early church fathers talked about gifts of healings, etc still being in operation long after the death of the apostles?
If you want to question whether some people get miracles through charism, Paul might help here; when he suggests that not “all” can work wonders. Perhaps those who try to work them out of charisms, would be included.
Personally though, I DO go a step further; and suggest that today, probably no one at all is getting miracles; certainly not on the scale that many churches have promised.
Probably all the alleged miracles I have heard of, in our time, can easily be explained as 1) psychosomatic illnesses, cured by a change of psychology (as above); or 2) natural processes, poorly understood by an undereducated public. Or as 3) simple false accounts by an unreliable or “false witness.” Including many early Church fathers: “all have sinned,” even our early priests.
Brett,
“If you want to question whether some people get miracles through charism, Paul might help here; when he suggests that not “all” can work wonders. Perhaps those who try to work them out of charisms, would be included.”
Saying “not all” is a far cry from saying “no one can work miracles” is it not?
Brett,
I see you edited your last comment. So, am I to understand that you think the reports of the early church fathers were false?
Isn’t that assuming a lot?
God answers prayer. That in itself might make it hard to distinguish between healing with personal agentivity, and healing more generally. Consider, for example, the promise in James 5 that the prayer of faith will heal. In my view, that’s a promise, but it is not the charism of healing. I’m not sure the church fathers could see the difference, and, even if they did, I’m not sure we could see that they did.
My purpose has been to describe Paul’s “system”, to the degree that it was a system. My main purpose, of course, is simply to underline the very clear fact that tongues and prophecy can in no way be subsumed under the “signs of an apostle”.
My point is that the terminology of “sign gifts” needs to be dropped. The battle over the continuation of the charisms will not be fought on level ground until we all agree on using fair terminology.
There is no unjustifiable personal assumption in asserting that the early church fathers made mistakes; we are merely following the Bible itself. It was the Bible that said “all have sinned.” That would include “all” the early Church fathers. And present-day priests and ministers too: “all” means “all.”
C. is right in saying that the Biblical warning by Paul, that not “all” can work miracles, does not definitively say that no one can. On the other hand, Paul’s statement is not logically inconsistent with that position either. Think of a Venn Diagram here. If not “all” can work miracles, then 1) at least some cannot. Perhaps many who claim to. While 2) perhaps even none at all can. That last possiblity is not directly stated; but it is not logically ruled out, either.
While in any case, Paul is definitely implying that many cannot work miracles; perhaps all. While later on, we are told there are higher gifts, that we should seek. Paul admitting too, that even perhaps his own, “our” prophesies, are “imperfect.”
So there are signs of imperfection, unreliablity, all around, when the apostles like Paul begin talking about miracles.
I’m reading a quote from Iraneus (c.180). He says that God has given gifts to people in order to promote the welfare of others. He speaks of demons being cast out, foreknowledge of things to come, visions and prophetic utterances, people laying hands on the sick and their being made whole, and the dead being raised up and remaining among them for years.
Sounds pretty convincing to me. It seems to me that unless you start with the presupposition that these gifts just weren’t available any more, a quote like this saying that they did would be a pretty hard thing to dicsount.
These accounts would be hard to discount … unless you know a little History; and know that in this era, all kinds of people were saying fantastic things, and claiming wonders and miracles. In the name of Zeus, Ishtar, God, whoever.
People 2000 years ago, did not have accurate information or science to correctly assess what was happening. For example: if there were psychosomatic healings around Iraeneus, would he have known enough about science, to have known they were merely psychological cures, and not miracles? Of course not.
Brett,
I know from past conversations with you that you pretty much discount all miraculous things as having a natural explanation, so I know there is no use to try to convince you of anything otherwise.
I do think that folks reading here that may not have read these quotes do deserve to be made aware of them however.
Of course. I think they should hear both sides.
In the 4th century, Chrysostom states that the miraculous gifts recorded in 1 Cor we no longer seen in his day. So, if we follow church fathers, we have to base our theology on unstable ground.
Here is a few quotes on tongues; Chrysostom’s statement included,
1. Clement of Rome – wrote a letter to the Corinthians in 95 A.D. discussing all of their spiritual problems. Tongues were never mentioned even though Corinth is the one place in the New Testament where tongues were apparently commonly used.
2. Justin Martyr – compiled a listing of spiritual gifts active in his time (A.D. 100-165) and did not include the gift of tongues.
3. Origen – never mentioned tongues and even argued that the “signs” of the Apostolic Age were temporary and that no contemporary Christian exercised any of these early “sign” gifts. (A.D. 185-253). He professes to have been an eye-witness to many instances of exorcism, healing, and prophecy, although he refuses to record the details lest he should rouse the laughter of the unbeliever (Cent. Cels., I, ii; III, xxiv; VII, iv, lxvii).
4. Chrysostom – writing on 1 Corinthians and the gift of tongues said, “This whole place 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. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?.” (A.D. 347-407).
5. Augustine – comments on Acts 2:4: “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,…
I am aware that there came a time in church history where they said that these gifts were no longer happening.
The quotes I gave were before that time. And the reason that I originally gave them was that someone way back up this thread made the statement that second generation Christians didn’t have any of these gifts operating.
By the way, Origen’s quotes are a bit confusing. I wonder what “sign” gifts he was speaking of? He does talk about seeing healing, exorcism and prophecy. And he is one of the ones I was first speaking of when I brought up the church fathers. He said that these gifts were still in operation although not nearly as much as at the beginning.
Why the operation of these gifts seems to fade out over time I do not know. I know that my understanding of Scripture doesn’t say that they will be gone permanently before the return of the Lord.
For every father who denies the continuation of tongues, there’s another who affirms it. The best explanation for this is that tongues was geographically widespread, but that in many places it wasn’t accepted in the mainstream. This, in fact, is the image Tertullian provides of the church in Carthage. There was a main worship service, during which nothing spectacular apparently happened, and then afterwards there was another (informal) gathering, during which those who were more inclined toward charismatic worship got together. Given such an arrangement, it would not be surprising that your more bookwormish bishops (like Augustine, Chrysostom, etc.) would not know much about charismatic workings. In fact, the legitimation of the church by Rome (the context for Augustine and Chrysostom, but not yet for Tertullian) would likely cause charismatic workings to be even harder to find.
All of this, however, is ancillary to the question of what the NT says about the matter. There simply is no scriptural basis for cessationism.
[…] not sure whether Daniel Wallace’s recent post on Parchment and Pen, Charismata and the Authority of Personal Experience, was intended to coincide with the annual celebration of the world’s most famous irrational […]
80. cherylu on 16 Mar 2010 at 11:23: … Why the operation of these gifts seems to fade out over time I do not know. I know that my understanding of Scripture doesn’t say that they will be gone permanently before the return of the Lord.
FWIW, a friend of mine wrote a thesis/dissertation defending the Eastern Orthodox Church against the charge often made by Charismatics and Pentecostals that the waning and dying off of the Spiritual Gifts was in direct proportion to, and a result of, the institutionalization and hierarchalization of the Church, with the Episcopacy and structured liturgy replacing the prophets and other charismatic ministries/operations, etc. I.e., the “It’s Constantine’s Fault” charge.
In the midst of writing it, though, he said he saw his thesis fall apart in his hands, as the evidence and research he was doing showed that this was indeed what had happened. He also experienced a powerful personal encounter with the Holy Spirit at that time, IIRC, as well as a physical healing of sorts. Shortly thereafter he, and then the rest of his family, left the Orthodox Church. And a few months later so did we, though not necessarily for the same reasons.
Just sayin’. 🙂
In science, it is well known that determining what causes what, is difficult. Particularly, it is never sure if a correlation between two events, means that one caused the other. It is not even sure, which is the cause, and which is the effect. An example of this confusion, can be seen in your example above.
If increasing institutionalization of a church, correlates with a decline in the number of miracles, which causes which? You assume that say, 1) institutionalization means lack of faith, and fewer miracles. But there is another possibility: 2) when a church at last becomes better organized, it at last sees there are fewer miracles.
Or for that matter 3) because miracles are not reliable, the Church begins to substitute for them, a more modest but organized body of teachings.
“Come, let us reason together.”
Dr. Wallace, your thoughtful post seemed to invite a reponse from a differing perspective. I have posted one on our new continuationist blog “To Be Continued…” as well as on Theologica.
Blessings.
83. Brett on 16 Mar 2010 at 1:05 pm: …You assume that….
Brett:
I didn’t and don’t assume anything. I think my friend decided to investigate – with the expectation of falsifying – the Charismatic/Pentecostal charge. If he did assume anything, he perhaps assumed that the organization/institutionalization of the Church was unrelated to a diminishing of the charismata.
“He who has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying….”
Eric, you are normally a person of great integrity. But here your language is hesitant; you “think” your friend decided to investigate; a “sort” of health miracle happened to you.
Did your friend conduct a scientifically valid investigation or not?
That’s one problem with reports of miracles.
Marv:
I read your blogpost re: this post. Do you have an email address where I could contact you? (I couldn’t find such on your blog site(s).)
Brett:
I’m still a person of great integrity. My language isn’t hesitant, but reserved. I.e., I don’t want to claim or say more than I can affirm or state, but I can affirm what I stated in my posts. The health miracle happened to the friend, not to me – following his encounter with the Holy Spirit, he realized a couple weeks later that his blood sugar was normal and he didn’t need to take his insulin shots. Miracle? Psychological? Skin response? Whatever you want to call it, Dr. Brett. It’s been over a year now, too, I think. (Darn! There’s that “I think” again! Why can’t I have any integrity?)
As per my last post, I don’t think you are correctly reading what I write.
You’re right; you did qualify things appropriately.
But that means that we can’t be all that sure here.
With regard to blood sugar levels and diabetes, note that such things can be controlled to a degree, without medication; just by eating less sugar and so forth. Perhaps your friend semiconsciously modified his sugar intake? Weight levels are also a factor here.
So was it the Holy Spirit, or a conscious or semi-conscious modification of diet? By the way, the Bible considers diet to be extremely important (as in say Dan 1).
Eric, that would be great. If you would like to leave a comment on our blog site, that will leave your e-mail address, and I’ll contact you from there.
Brett,
I can’t help but wonder why it is so very hard for someone that claims to be a Christian (correct?) to admit that there may actually be miracles happening around him even today?
Yes, we need to not swallow everything “hook, line, and sinker,” as the old saying goes. But it seems to me like you have a vested interest somehow in trying to disprove or discourage belief in anything miraculous.
If our God isn’t a God of the miraculous, what kind of a God is He anyway??
Will do, Marv. Thanks!
Brett:
As a friend said to me long ago when I was first seriously exploring Christianity: Are you looking for a reason to believe, or a reason not to believe?
I have no idea if his “healing,” if one wishes to call it that, was miraculous, psychological, spontaneous remission, or what. I don’t think he’d even claim that the Holy Spirit did it. He’s just thankful. In fact, the protracted illness he suffered prior to these events, and which caused him to cry out to God for answers to his distress, may have been a factor as well. I don’t know.
On the other hand, he told me that he saw blind eyes literally opened when he was traveling with (ba-da-bing!) Benny Hinn many, many years ago in Africa. He’s seen and experienced much of the fake, but also some of the real. He and his family are some of the meekest, most unassuming persons I know.
Well, it matters. The Bible warned that there are many “false prophets” and false miracle-workers out there, who are following a false idea of God. Therefore, it matters somewhat, whether their miracles are real and good, or not. We should not be blindly following them, trusting them.
Brett,
I agree with your last statement totally.
However, does that mean that we then try to prove that there are no miracles happening at all anymore? That is what it seems you have been trying to do not only on this thread but in all conversations on a similar theme on this blog for as long as I have known you to comment here.
Isn’t that a bit like throwing out the proverbial baby with the proverbial bath water?
Well, I happen to believe that most of the miracle-promisers out there – nearly all of them in fact – are false prophets, false miracle workers. So there’s an awful lot of miracle-disproving that has to be done.
Man, you must run yourself ragged with all that miracle-disproving!
Brett,
If that is truly what you believe, it seems to me it would be very helpful to state your case in a way so that people understand that is what you are trying to say.
You have come across in every conversation that I have seen you involved with on this subject as simply rejecting the miraculous altogether for the present day. Why have we spent hours discussing with you whether miracles even exist or not if that is not really the point you are trying to make?
To clarify things further for me here, can you tell me what you mean by “false miracle workers”?
Remember that the Pharisees asked Jesus to speak plainly; but usually he would not. Though eventually his disciples thought that “sure”ly he was at last speaking plainly to them, normally the language of Jesus himself, and of the Bible itself, was often veiled.
Basically though, the usual phrases and words in the Bible for “miracles,” are more properly, words and phrases like “deeds of power,” and “prodigies,” and so forth; not “MIRACLEs.”
And there is an academic/theological argument that as a matter of fact, the many things that appear to be supernatural miracles, in the Bible, are really, if you look closer, wonderful but natural or technological things; that have been misunderstood. This reading holds up, surprisingly, without changing a single word of the Bible itself.
So that the whole idea that the Bible promised “miracles” is probably a misreading of the Bible, in this theology.
As some have noted here, these natural wonders are amazing enough however; even if we know that some healings are from psychological fixes of psychosomatic situations, for example, still that natural healing is quite a wonder, in many respects.
So that, even if we have God that works even through natural “wonders,” even that is amazing enough.
And conveying that is important. Since in this theory, to this very day the whole world is following a false notion of how God works, his “wonders” and “deeds of power.” Indeed, the popular idea of unnatural miracles may be a massively popular misunderstanding or delusion; following a false idea of Christ.
If this is true, it is therefore important to correct the false notion of miracles. And help others to find the right, accurate idea of God. Though there are very good reasons for not speaking too “plainly” even here, its worth suggesting that something like this theory, might be one justification, for continuing to speak about God as if he was important. While simultaneously rejecting…
Brett,
Okay, so you don’t believe in miracles. Gotcha.
But I am sure I don’t know how you think people that were lame from birth being healed instantly, blind eyes made to see with a touch, the dead raised–even after 3 days in the tomb–leprousy healed, a fig tree withering over night after being cursed, etc. are all natural phenomena or physcologically induced. That would take a whole lot more faith for me then to believe that God did a miracle.
“If this is true, it is therefore important to correct the false notion of miracles. And help others to find the right, accurate idea of God. Though there are very good reasons for not speaking too “plainly” even here, its worth suggesting that something like this theory, might be one justification, for continuing to speak about God as if he was important. While simultaneously rejecting…”
Are you going to finish what got cut off here? I would really like to know what you mean by, ” continuing to speak about God as if he was important.”
Does that mean that you don’t think He is? I certainly hope that I am misunderstanding you here!!
“…. rejecting miracles.”
Regarding blindness: one of the extremely common forms of blindness, is psychologically induced; it is common to go blind, after being exposed to a great shock. And since its cause is psychological, it can also be cured even instanteously, by good counseling, etc..
A possible example of this in the NT, would be Paul being struck blind on the road to Damascus. No doubt it was a great shock for Paul, to suddenly hear, alive, the voice of the allegedly dead founder of the religion he was then, as Saul, persecuting. But his sight returned, as he reconciled himself psychologically, to this event. Indeed, Paul’s example seems like a textbook case of psychologically- or stress-induced blindness – and recovery.
Other cases of blindness in the NT are similar; still others are different. When Jesus cured one blind man by the pool, note that he makes a “paste” of clay, and rubs it in the eye of a blind person to cure him. JEsus is sometimes known as a “physician”; and it may be that this was a somewhat medicinal, exfoliating paste, that would remove scales, longstanding scabs (of for example, a Gonorrhea infection of the eye?).
If this understanding of wonders is true, then rather that following preachers who are promising supernatural miracles, you would do better to follow … a different school of theologians.