Introduction

I used to walk through Christian book stores and choose my books based on whether or not the author was charismatic. I would pick up a commentary and turn immediately to 1 Cor. 12 (the section on spiritual gifts). If the author believed that the spiritual gifts were for today, I would put it back on the shelf in disbelief that the store would carry such misleading material. If they did not believe that the gifts were for today–if the author was a “cessationist”–I would consider purchasing the book.

Such was the time when I believed that all those who believed that all charismatics were practicing a different Christianity, at best, or demon-possessed, at worst.

I am not a charismatic, and I have my reasons, but I do not feel the same way today as I used to. Let me first define the terms and set up the field of play.

Definition of Supernatural Sign” Gifts

The word “charismatic” can be used in many ways. It is taken from the word “charisma.” Websters Dictionary defines it as “a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (as a political leader).” Many would say that Barack Obama or Donald Trump have charisma in such a way. Charisma is taken from the Greek charisma which means “gift.” Its root, charis, means “grace.”

In Christianity, “charismatic” refers to those who believe that certain “spiritual gifts” such as tongues, prophecy, and gifts of healings, are normative for the church. In the Scriptures, we are told that God gives certain gifts to everyone in the body of Christ. Representative gift lists are mentioned in 1 Cor. 12, Rom. 12, 1 Pet. 4, and Eph. 4. Some of these gifts seem to be natural extensions of the recipient’s personality (leadership, teaching, encouragement) while others distinguish themselves by their extra-ordinary nature. A charismatic is one who believes that God still gifts people in the church with extraordinary or supernatural gifts and that these gifts are normative in the body of Christ for the extension of God’s message, glory, and grace.

Charismatic is not a denomination, but a trans-denominational theological stance or tradition which can find representation in any denomination or tradition, including Evangelicalism. In fact, I think that the charismatic position (or some variation thereof) is the fastest-growing tradition within Christianity. 

A cessationist (taken from “cease”), on the other hand, is one who believes that the extra-ordinary gifts ceased in the first century, either at the completion of the New Testament or at the death of the last Apostle. Cessationists believe that the supernatural gifts such as tongues, prophecy, and healings were “sign gifts” that were given for the establishment of the church and then passed away due to fulfillment, or better, the exhaustion of their purpose. They served as a supernatural “sign” from God that the Gospel message being proclaimed was unique and authoritative. Since the Gospel message has been proclaimed and established in the New Testament, cessationists believe that these types of gifts ceased due to exhaustion of purpose. Therefore, with regards to the “gifts of the Spirit,” there are “permanent gifts” and there are “temporary gifts.”

What would a post be without a chart!?

Click to enlarge

 

You will notice that certain “sign gifts” are revelatory while others are confirmatory. The revelatory gifts are those that reveal God’s special message in some way. They are prophetic in nature. Not everyone would agree which gifts belong in this category. Some would not place “word of wisdom” or “word of knowledge” here and one’s placement of tongues will depend on how it is defined (prayer language? prophetic revelation in another language? Gospel proclamation in another language? Private prayer language?)

A Short Defence of Continuationism

Now, this may seem odd but I want to give a short defense of the Charismatic/continuationist position. This is how I study theology. I attempt to understand it in its best possible light, the way the super-star advocates would defend their position. These represent what I personally believe to be the strongest arguments, biblically, theologically, and practically, for the position, but this does not represent an exhaustive list of the arguments.

1. Acts chapter 2 seems to suggest that the gifts of the Spirit (particularly prophecy) would be normative for the church.

Notice (especially in verses 14-21) many Jews were gathered to discern that which was causing them to gawk: Peter and the disciples speaking in “tongues.” Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, explains the situation:

“Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. 15 For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: 17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 20 the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. 21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.'”

Peter is obviously arguing that the events that they are witnessing are evidence of the “last days” prophesied by Joel. Peter believes that the powers being displayed are evidence that the “last days” had begun. Including in these last days events are great miracles. But most importantly, Peter believes that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit during these days results in specific events: “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” These last days events do not indicate a certain duration or cessation. In fact, it would seem that they will last until the “day of the Lord.” Therefore, it would seem that Peter believes that the giving of such gifts is a perpetual norm of the last days.

2. The entire book of Acts seems to show that these supernatural gifts are common within the Church.

I don’t believe this is as strong as the last. It is very difficult to build too much theology from the narrative. It would seem that the entire book of Acts—a book devoted to the birth and growth of the Church—illustrates that these types of gifts are normative for the life of the church.

3. All of Scripture supports the idea that it is God’s nature to work in supernatural ways.

If one were to examine all of Scripture, it would seem that, generally speaking, with exceptions here and there, God speaks to his people in supernatural ways. Therefore, the supernatural gifts of the Spirit are evidence of a continuation of God’s presence within the Church serving as a means of comfort, power, and extension (foreshadowing?) of the Kingdom.

As Jack Deere says,

“If you were to lock a brand-new Christian in a room with a Bible and tell him to study what Scripture has to say about healings and miracles, he would never come out of the room a cessationist” (Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit [Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan, 1997], 54).

4.  The New Testament never explicitly states that the supernatural sign gifts would cease.

While this is an argument from silence, it is important to note that the New Testament does not explicitly say that any of the gifts would ever come to an end. In fact, it would seem that the assumption of many New Testament leaders, including Paul, that the “sign gifts” would continue until Christ comes. We have already noted Peter’s testimony above, but also notice what Paul has to say in 1 Cor. 13:

“Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

Ironically, many cessationists (including myself at one time), have used this passage to defend a belief in the cessation of the gifts! But, in reality, it speaks better for the continuationist’s position. Let me explain.

Yes it does say that “tongues will cease” and that prophecy would “pass away,” but notice when Paul believes in the cessation of such will commence: “When the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” The question becomes what is “the perfect.” Some cessationists have argued that the “perfect” is the completion of the Scriptures—the perfect revelation. The idea is that once the Scriptures have been completed, there is no longer a need for gifts such as prophecy, tongues, or any other prophetic gift. Hence, there is no longer a need for confirmatory gifts such as healings and miracles since their purpose was to authenticate the message of the speaker.

But contextually it is highly unlikely that “the perfect” is the completion of the Scripture. The context suggests that “the perfect” is the second coming of Christ!—the day of the Lord. If this is the case, this passage strongly advocates at least some form of continuationism. Notice the parallelism:

“Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.

Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

I have highlighted here using formatted text to illustrate how the text seems to function.  Notice that the passing away of tongues and prophecy parallels seeing “face to face” and being “fully known.” Whatever those are is what “the perfect” is. It would seem that the best understanding of being “fully known” and seeing “face to face” is not the completion of the New Testament, but the second coming of Christ. When else will we see “face to face” in Paul’s theology? Paul is looking to the eschaton, believing that all gifts are temporary, but their cessation does not come until Christ comes.

Now, just because I agree with charismatics that the Bible does not say that the gifts will cease, it also does not say that the writing of Scripture will cease. We believe in a 27 book New Testament canon and we believe that the Scripture will not be added to. Most all of Christianity, even charismatics, believe that the canon of Scripture is complete. Why? We suppose that God was finished talking. How do we know? Well, we turn to experience, both ours and the experience of the historic Christian faith.

5. Personal Experience

Finally, probably the most powerful testimony to the continuation of the so-called supernatural sign gifts is that of personal experience. If someone has seen or experienced such gifts in their lives, it is very difficult to argue against them. While experience should not be determinative, it would seem that with the lack of conclusive biblical evidence that such gifts have ceased, the believer has a legitimate argument that if they have experienced the gifts they, de facto, have not ceased.

What arguments to you find to be the most persuasive?

Charismatics/continuationists: do you have anything to add?

I know that this blog is titled “Why I am Not Charismatic.” I will soon get to this, but, again, I want to do the best I can to give you a balanced understanding of the issue so that we can all work through this important (and often divisive) issue with great integrity.

My Personal Experience

I think there is something important about me you should know. I want to be charismatic! I really, really do. I know some of you may not believe me and that is okay. But I think wanting to be Charismatic should be the natural desire of all Christians. I see it in Romans 8. It is the cry o the Spirit within me. We all have this. We all long for the presence of God in a way that we are not now experiencing. We want the kingdom now! We want to see God, hear his voice, and have him be interested in us. It would be incredibly meaningful. If this is the case, how is it that we think a desire to be Charismatic is wrong? I see no biblical argument you could use against this sincere desire to have a taste of the incredible world that awaits us! I want to be charismatic and so should you. But enough of this. Let’s move on.

Having discussed some of the strengths of the continuationist/charismatic position, I would now like to explain why, at this point in my life, I am not charismatic. I am going to put these in order, but I want to stress the tentativeness of my conclusion. In this, I am not necessarily offering what I believe to be strong arguments against continuationism, but only those arguments that are subjectively persuasive to me. I hope that these arguments genuinely express my position without the normal combative tone communicating “This is how everyone must believe!”

Considering the relative weakness of any biblical defense against a strong cessationist position, I am very open, biblically and theologically, to continuationism. I used to have an emotional bias against all things charismatic, but I have not had such in years. In fact, I have come to respect and be intrigued with the position due to the scholarship and balance that I find in many contemporary charismatic leaders. However, I have never witnessed anything that I believe to be persuasive evidence that the supernatural sign gifts are normative or even active in the church today. This does not mean that I have not witnessed what I believe to be are miracles (I have seen one or two) or God’s intervention and guidance, but I have never witnessed anything that would lead me to believe that someone has, as their gift to the body of Christ, any of the supernatural sign gifts.

Of course, I have heard people give prophecies. During my undergraduate, a little over ten years ago, we had a “prophet” come to our school (it was a third wave school) and lay their hands on everyone during the chapel service giving them personal words of prophecy. But it was hard to tell the difference between this and a session of palm reading. The words were so general, a sort of “catch-all”, that they could have been applied to anyone. “You have been through much pain lately . . . God knows.” “You are confused about a decision you are up against . . . God says, ‘go with your heart.'” “Be kind to her.”  Yes, people were listening with tears running down their faces, but I could not adjust my skepticism and allow for such a breach of consciousness. I thought —and still think today—anyone can do this. Anyone can manipulate their emotions and the emotions of others and find acceptance as they speak in platitudes. I have had this happen to me dozens of times. I spent (and still sometimes do) much time at Sam Storms’ church Bridgeway. I consider Sam to be the most articulate leader of the modern charismatic church. He is an incredibly deep thinker. He could not be easily manipulated. Yet, again, he is charismatic. And at his church, I have experienced dozens of failed prophecies and I have discussed this issue with Sam for a significant amount of time.

But there are rules to being a prophet that are, in my estimation, still in effect. First, if a person claims to be a prophet, they must show some type of undeniable sign. Would God really expect less? After all, I, in believing someone is a true prophet, am surrendering of my mind and  all of my thoughts about God would be affected. That is why I would say to anyone who says that they are a prophet or have the gift of prophecy, “Why should I listen to you?” Isn’t that reasonable? “What evidence do you bring that you are from the Lord?” Look at the examples of those who carried the Lord’s message in the past. Look at Moses, Elijah, Peter, and Paul. The dead were raised, the lame walked, and even shadows healed. I have never witnessed anyone who spoke on behalf of the Lord—the definition of prophecy—and accompanied such with these type of underniable miracles.

Why would God withhold such attesting signs? Don’t say that people are just supposed to believe if they are of the faith. That is completely irresponsible and will lead to a path of destruction, filled with bitterness and disillusionment. When Moses said that the people will not believe him when he says that he comes with a message from the Lord, he was right. Not only this, but the people were right not to believe him. God did not rebuke such a statement saying “If the people have faith–-true faith—they will just believe without any evidence at all. Notice the account (my comments are in brackets):

Exodus 4:1-9
“Then Moses said, “What if they will not believe me or listen to what I say? [A great and understandable question] For they may say, ‘The LORD has not appeared to you.'” [That is what I would say to anyone who speaks vainly (with empty proclamation) on behalf of the Lord] 2 The LORD said to him, “What is that in your hand?” [Notice the lack of rebuke from the Lord. God does not want us to blindly believe others when they say they speak on His behalf] And he said, “A staff.”  3 Then He said, “Throw it on the ground.” So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it.  4 But the LORD said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand and grasp it by its tail “– so he stretched out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand–  5 “that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.” [Can anyone perform such a miracle without having access to the divine?]  6 The LORD furthermore said to him, [God give yet another sign without solicitation] “Now put your hand into your bosom.” So he put his hand into his bosom, and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous like snow.  7 Then He said, “Put your hand into your bosom again.” So he put his hand into his bosom again, and when he took it out of his bosom, behold, it was restored like the rest of his flesh. [Now we have a healing miracle that was used, not for the benefit of Moses (for God had to give him the disease first) but as an attestation to the prophetic message of Moses. This would further serve to establish Moses’ prophetic gift.]   8 “If they will not believe you or heed the witness of the first sign, they may believe the witness of the last sign. [Here comes a third sign, unsolicited provided by God due to the seriousness of Moses’ bold prophetic proclamation and the protection of God’s reputation].  9 “But if they will not believe even these two signs or heed what you say, then you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground; and the water which you take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground.”

Moral of this story: If someone claims to speak on behalf of God—if someone claims to have a prophetic gift—you have every right and obligation to demand an attesting sign. As well, if you think you are a prophet—if you sincerely believe that God has called you to such a ministry—you need to tell God that you cannot do so without such a sign. If one is not granted to you, then I would be highly suspicious that you are speaking of your own imagination. I would suggest that you adjust your theology to take God’s word more seriously otherwise your supposed prophetic gift may be causing you to perpetually take the Lord’s name in vain. No small matter.

Least you think I am being overly skeptical, listen to the rebuke of the prophets in Jeremiah’s day:

Jeremiah 23:14-18

“Also among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing: The committing of adultery and walking in falsehood; And they strengthen the hands of evildoers, So that no one has turned back from his wickedness. All of them have become to Me like Sodom, And her inhabitants like Gomorrah.  15 “Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts concerning the prophets, ‘Behold, I am going to feed them wormwood And make them drink poisonous water, For from the prophets of Jerusalem Pollution has gone forth into all the land.'”  16 Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the LORD.  17 “They keep saying to those who despise Me, ‘The LORD has said, “You will have peace “‘; And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart, They say, ‘Calamity will not come upon you.’  18 “But who has stood in the council of the LORD, That he should see and hear His word? Who has given heed to His word and listened?

Prophets of today: Have you really stood in the council of the Lord? Live in fear of such a question.

I have never seen a modern-day prophet whose words were backed up by anything substantial. I have never heard of one. All I have seen are multiple vain proclamations. I am sorry to come across so harsh in this matter, but its seriousness is far beyond comparison. Any misapplication, misunderstanding, or misassociation can destroy people’s lives and their faith (from a human perspective). I have seen it too many times to number. I really have. My mother succumbed to this prophetic gift, believing in it without any substantial evidence, because she was so hurt, depressed, and desperate. This came about because my older sister, Angie, was suicidal. My mother did not know what to do or how to fix it. One day she said with great excitement, “The Lord gave me a word!!” I asked her how she knew it was the Lord and she said that she just knew. She did not seek any signs because she needed to believe my sister was going to be okay. However, things did not turn out according to her “prophecy.” Angie took her life three months later. This destoryed my mom and filled her with disallutionment. This continued until she had an aneurysm that stole half her mind, but not her life. I only tell you this because I have seen the tornadic path that false prophecy can bring.

I am not saying that there are not those out there who are different—who really speak on behalf of the Lord and back it up. I am just saying that in my experience this has never happened. I am perfectly open to it, but I have never experienced it. Therefore, I am a practical cessationist when it comes to prophecy.

The same can be said about the gift of healings. While I believe that God can and does heal people today, I have never, in my experience, come across someone with the spiritual gift of healing. I am beyond open to it. I call for it. I cry for it. I plead with God to send someone to my mother. But it does not happen. If a group of people pray and God heals someone, this is not evidence for continuationism. Evidence for continuationism would come if someone—some individual—has this gift. If you have this gift, please call me.

If you say, “Its not like that. God simply uses me sometimes to heal. I never know when he is going to grant the gift of healing and when he will deny the request.” I would say that we are simply talking past each other. In my estimation, you do not have the gift of healing. You, like me and many people in my camp, simply have the ability to pray for healing, leaving the answer in the hands of God. We all believe this can and does happen.

 

 

 

The Experience of Friends

 

This is a sort of excursus or interlude to my series that I think is a valuable part of the discussion. It comes from a friend who responded to my teaching on prophecy. Please read carefully as I believe his testimony, while you may or may not agree with it, is representative of many disillusioned continuationists/charismatics. Nathan was very passionate yet respectful in this post.

Thanks, Nathan for letting me post this.

Nathan

“I’ve held back from posting my comments thus far. But Michael has provoked me to say something. I will try to focus on the current context of this post. At this point in the series, Michael is focused on healing and prophecy, so I will focus on prophecy for now.

My experience with the gift of prophecy, healing and tongues is 20 years in the making. Grew up around the gifts. Prophecy was a dime a dozen. It was everywhere.

Now, as I look back like a PI and investigate my experiences, I consider all the prophecies that are burned into my head. And, lo and behold, not one came true. Really? Yes, really. And its not like I didn’t like prophecy, for many years I hoped against hope that it was really God speaking through these folks. But, if evidence means anything, these folks were not prophesying on behalf of God. They couldn’t have been. Most of the prophecies were tethered to real events or something coming soon. Later on the prophecies became very generic and more praise than anything. I imagine the people could have just as well given the praise without the prophecy since that was all that really happened.

So, what to make of this? I am convinced that prophecy is absolutely not the norm. I’ve got at least 100 people I can think of right now who gave prophecies that never happened. Some of these people were good brothers and sisters in the faith, some were suspect of even being born-again.
If there is any hard evidence that prophecy is normative, or even somewhat happening, I would say it ain’t happening.

So, did some other church get it right? Just not the 10-15 different church’s I attended growing up and into adulthood?

There is so much I struggled through to get to this point. Sometimes I wonder why God let me go through all this. Was it pointless? Was there any meaning? Could God use those people? Yes, and he probably did use them despite their ignorance. But then again, I believe God works through everything that happens, even our sin. But that is for another time.

Now, if you think I said this out of disgust or that I have some bias because someone wronged me, then you are mistaken. I held to the gift of prophecy as long as the Lord allowed me to. Then I was left with no other choice but to abandon this gift. I have seen so many people’s lives poisoned with false hope, including mine, because we wanted to trust God. But God didn’t come through. At least that is what I could have believed.

No, I knew God was good, but something was wrong. The people. They were wrong. I believe they were sincere, but they were still sincerely wrong. God help them. The gift of prophecy wrecked my life many times with false hopes and dreams. God can do whatever he wants, he is awesome. People unfortunately suck. And we have to be able to use our heads and discern any and everything. Else, bad stuff will happen. As if it doesn’t happen enough already. No need to try and complicate our lives with lies.

If you have the gift of prophecy and it is working for you and you have evidence to back it up, please contact me. I would love to be proven wrong. I am serious as a heart attack. I’d rather prophecy be happening rather than not. But please, I can’t tolerate false prophecies since they are dangerously toxic to our lives. By the way, God is still awesome and he is my closest friend and he has become a father to me. I trust him with all my soul and mind. He has proven to me that I can always trust him. But he has also allowed me to see our depravity and our tendency to fall into error.

I’m done. I went overboard, it think. I love every one of my brothers and sisters in Christ. Lord, sanctify us in truth, your word is truth.”

Nathan, like me, truly cries out in his soul to have God give him a message, but he, like us, must be discerning, This is GOD’S WORD, his representation, his reputation, his name. We handle such with fear and trembling, yet with great excitement. Unfortunately, many modern charismatics have the excitement, but not the fear. They must both be present.

While these may come across as anecdotal, my purpose is to simply illustrate some of the pitfalls. These stories do this wel

 

My next friend will be named Paul (not his real name). He was a missionary in Africa. A few years ago he wrote me and my colleague a very sad and disturbing letter. He talked about his love for the tribe of people he is involved with. It had been well over a few years that they were stationed with his tribe. Although he had yet to convert any  of them to Christianity, this was not from lack of trying. Paul and his wife, Katie, were in it for the long haul and they were deeply connected to the people in the tribe. One day the tribe had some significant trouble. One of his tribe neighbor’s son was dying of a great fever. There was nothing the tribe people. They were performing all their ceremonies, getting ready to bury the the six-month old once he died. Sure enough, a few hours later, the Child died. The weeping was top ,ice for {ai; tp jade,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,           ,

 

What the Third Commandment is Really About?

I have alluded to this a few times, but I think I need to introduce a proposition that may surprise some of you. It is about the third commandment. What does the third commandment really mean? It’s hard to tell from a simple word study on the Hebrew term שָׁוְא (vain). Also, our understanding of a “name” and what it signifies is much different than what it meant in the context in which this commandment was given. First, we must try to understand what it meant when it was written. Second, we can then work out how that applies to us.

It does us no good to anachronistically impose our understanding upon an ancient text. This is eisegesis (reading into the text what we presuppose), not exegesis (letting the text speak on its own terms).

Briefly, this is what I believe your studies will show. The nations to which the Israelites were going (in Canaan) had many gods. They were highly superstitious. Their prophets used the name of their god in pronouncements all the time. The usage could be in a curse, hex, or even a blessing. They used the name of their god to give their statements, whatever they may be, authority.

To pronounce something in the name of a god meant that people would listen and fear. They may have said, “In the name of Baal, there will be no rain for 40 days.” Or “In the name of Marduk, I say that you will win this battle.” This gave the prophet much power and authority.

But, as we know, there is no Baal or Marduk. Those gods couldn’t have made such pronouncements. Thus the words of the prophet had no authority and didn’t need to be praised or feared.

God was commanding the Israelites not to do the same thing. God instructed them not to use His name like the nations around them used the names of their gods. He did not want them to use His name falsely to invoke authority. This can be seen even today as the name Jesus means very little because of its constant misuse.

In essence, God didn’t want the Israelites to say that He’d said something that He, in fact, had not. This makes sense. God has a reputation to protect. He doesn’t want anyone saying, “Thus saith the Lord”, if the Lord has not spoken.

We’ve all experienced this. We’ve had someone say we said something we didn’t. This can be very damaging to our character and destructive to our reputation. Why? Because it makes us out to be something we’re not. How much more important is it for God to protect His character?

What does this mean for us? Well, for starters we understand that the third commandment is focused on something more foundational than simply saying “God damn it!”

While some people may never come close to using that phrase, people all over the Christian religious landscape are breaking the third commandment every day, damaging the Lord’s reputation. Here is what they are vainly saing:

  • “Thus saith the Lord…”
  • “God told me to tell you…”
  • “I think I have a word from the Lord…”
  • “God says that if you send in this much money, you will be blessed.”

I could go on and on, but you get the point.

If all one needed to do to keep the third commandment was to avoid saying certain socially unacceptable words or phrases, it would be the easiest of the Ten Commandments to keep!

Using the name of the Lord in vain is a serious matter. It damages His reputation and character through false and unsure claims. Before you say “God said…” please, please, please be sure He really said it.

I think the third commandment is the least understood of all the commandments. I could be wrong in my interpretation. I do not have a word from the Lord saying I am right. But I do have some persuasive (in my opinion) rationale behind it.

As an aside, I think that this misunderstanding of the third commandment is both sad and tragic. If I were Satan, I couldn’t think of a better way to trivialize such an important commandment than to fool people into thinking it’s focus is on the phrase, “God damn it.”

Does this mean that I believe that we can now say this phrase and not worry about it? No. Using this phrase in a colloquial way is offensive in many (if not most) contexts. It all comes back to being intentional with everything we say. While it is not a violation of the third commandment necessarily, it is offensive speech that must be used with wisdom and discretion. You can read more about this here.

 

An Argument from History

I have thus far discussed what it means to be charismatic equating a charismatic with one who adheres to a continuationist view of the “supernatural sign gifts.” In other words, a charismatic is one who believes that gifts such as prophecy (speaking on behalf of God), working of miracles, healing, tongues, and, if you so define them, word of wisdom and word of knowledge are normative for the church today and that we should expect people in the church to possess and practice them.

I have said that I don’t believe that there is any compelling biblical evidence to say that the gifts have ceased in any dogmatic way. I have also said that one of the primary reasons why I am not charismatic is because I have never experienced such gifts in a way that would compel me to believe that these gifts, as they are expressed today, are legitimate. I am not saying that I know that there are not legitimate expressions of these gifts out there, I am just saying that I have not experienced such. I have to be responsible and discerning with my mind before God. Therefore, my life is experiencially wanting in this area. I have every desire to believe that God is working through people in such a way, giving these gifts, but I am charismatically dry.

I now have to turn to the evidence of history. Our faith is nothing new. It is one which finds its roots in two thousand years of a legacy of saints that have gone before us. The expressions of our faith should find analogous representation in body of Christ, both living and dead. If those who have gone before us do not share our faith, then we have a responsibility to question the legitimacy of our beliefs.

From my studies, I do not find the practice of the supernatural sign gifts being in any way normative before the twentieth century. In other words, it does not seem that the historic church was charismatic in the way I have described above. In fact, I would describe them as de facto cessationists. What I mean by this is that they were cessationists out of necessity, not out of theological compulsion. They, like me, had simply not experienced the supernatural sign gifts. Again, this is not the same thing as saying that they had not experienced the miraculous or God’s hand of intervention (beliefs that all Christians share), but that they did not believe that individuals possessed the supernatural sign gifts.

Notice what John Chrysostom (347-407), the great Antiochean exegete, says when he comes to 1 Cor. 12 about spiritual gifts.

“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.” (ECF 2.12.1.1.29.0)

Chrysostom is “ignorant” of the facts because of his experience of their “cessation.” He is not living in the time of a charismatic controversy, he is just stating the way things were in his day, just a few centuries after the last Apostle died. He is a de facto cessationist. If the gifts were still being practiced in his day, the implication is that he would have been able to explain to his listeners what these gifts were. But since they had ceased, he does not know how to explain this passage.

The same can be said of the great St. Augustine (354-430). Notice what he says when it comes to the gift of tongues.

“In the earliest time the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spoke with tongues which they had not learned ‘as the Spirit gave them utterance.’ These were signs adapted to the time. For it was proper for the Holy Spirit to evidence Himself in all tongues, and to show that the Gospel of God had come to all tongues [languages] over the whole earth. The thing was done for an authentication and it passed away.” (Ten Homilies on the first Epistle of John VI, 10).

Augustine limits the practice of the charismaton (particularly tongues) to the “earliest time.” Augustine believed that these were “signs adapted to the time.” The adaptation has to do with the necessity of authenticating the Gospel message. While Augustine gives more of a theological explanation for their supposed passing, he still seems to be a de facto cessationist. If you were to ask Augustine “How do you know these gifts ‘passed away,'” my guess is that he would simply say “Because they passed away. Because no one has them anymore!”

This early church de facto cessationism is not unlike the canon of Scripture. Why has the canon “closed”? Because God stopped inspiring writers to add to it. It is that simple. It is a de facto closing. Sure, some could provide a theological explanation as to why the canon closed (i.e. the fullness of time, the finality of Christ’s revelation, the completion of soteriological history, etc.), but the fact is the reason why people believe that the canon had closed was because it had closed. No inspired verified prophet or apostle was adding to it.

This de facto cessationism continues through the middle ages and the Reformation. Outside of fringe groups and cults, cessationism was the orthodox position of the historic Christian church.

Again (and I have to repeat this because someone is going to misapply what I am saying), this is not to say that people believed that God was silent during this period or that he did not intervene or work in miraculous ways. This was the biggest and most glaring weakness in Jack Deere’s Suprised by the Power of the Spirit when he deals with this historic argument. He equates evidence that the historic church believed in the miraculous with evidence that they were continuationists. You can’t equate the two without misrepresenting what is at stake. The historic Christian church has believed in the miraculous, they have not believed in the continuation of the supernatural sign gifts, by and large.

Having said this, the historic argument must be tempered according to its relative strengths. What I mean by this is that just because the historic Christian church did not believe in the continuation of the supernatural sign gifts, this does not prove their cessation in our current day. Again, it is a de facto argument. It is very possible that God simply did not give these gifts during this time (or at least he gave them sparingly) and in our present day has poured out this power once again. This would be a de facto argument that the gifts have continued or been revived for God’s purposes today. I am certainly open to this. I am a futurist with regard to most of the book of Revelation, therefore, I believe that there will be at least two people with the gift of prophecy in the future! Does that make me a continuationist? I guess to some degree it does.

In the end, the de facto cessationism of the historic Christian church is something that must be brought to the table of this discussion and something that we must be extremely considerate of.

 

 

Excursus: It’s Not About Miracles

Regrettably, I must pause and submit another excursus. While it might seem to some to be a frustrated reaction having to reiterate an important issue, I am actually glad to have to do so since the issue of this post is so central to my argument. (So scratch my initial “regrettably”!)

Just about every objection that I have seen so far has been something I have belabored with blood, sweat, and tears to say is not the issue. Many have objected to my arguments about why I am not charismatic, especially those arguments from church history, citing all the miracles that have taken place. Their argument is that if there are truly so many miracles throughout church history, the one who says that the supernatural sign gifts have ceased—the cessationist—are in error.

This is really misunderstanding both my argument and, I believe, the issue at stake. It is not about whether miracles take place! It is not about whether you believe in miracles. It is not about whether you have experienced a miracle or heard of someone who has! We all believe in miracles! Continuationists and cessationists do. Quoting the church fathers who say that there were miracles in their day is something both charismatics and non-charismatics can accept. It does not add to the discussion.

Again, let’s be clear. According to how I am defining the issues (which I believe are correct) . . .

A continuationist/charismatic is one who believes that the so-called supernatural sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, worker of miracles, etc. are normative for the church and that we should commonly expect people to be gifted with them.

A cessationist is one who believes that the supernatural sign gifts ceased after the death of the last Apostle or shortly thereafter due to an exhaustion in their purpose. Therefore, we should not expect such gifts in the church today.

My contention in the previous post was that the history of the Church has not been charismatic in the way defined above. If the modern charismatic movement is legitimate, I believe the charismatic must make the argument that it is a modern day phenomenon.

Folks, we all believe in miracles to varying degrees. If you don’t then you have departed from the historic Christian worldview and slipped into some variation thereof (something of the deist sort).

Even most cessationists believe that God <i>could</i> gift anyone with the gift of tongues or prophecy at his will.

A charismatic, however, believes that these are normative and that we should expect them. Did you get those two important words? Normative. Expect.

If you say, “But I am a charismatic and I don’t think we should expect the gifts and I don’t think they are normative,” then you are not really a charismatic. The expectation is key. The normative is essential.

Now, one more thing that I believe is important about miracles. I will concede that while both camps believe in miracles, charismatics have a much higher lever of expectation for such due to their theology of the gifts. Cessationists can often be heard saying “That is why they are called ‘miracles’. If they happened all the time, they would be called ‘regulars’!” With this I agree.

However, there may be times in history when miracles do happen much more regularly. God moves in time at his leisure and has complete freedom. We dare not attempt to bind his freedom with an artificial theological position of our own systematic comfort. I believe that there are times in history and places where miracles do seem to become regulars. But, generally speaking, they are extremely rare. Too much expectation can set us up for disillusionment. Most people don’t get healed. Everyone stays dead. Christians’ bills sometimes don’t get paid.

Again, it is not about miracles. If you believe in miracles, you are not necessarily a charismatic.

Got it?


Building a Theology of Sign Gifts

I have said that there is no compelling reason to say that the Bible teaches the so-called supernatural sign gifts have ceased. I have also said and demonstrated that the history of the church evidences a de facto cessation of the sign gifts. As well, I have said that, despite being open to the gifts, my personal experience is lacking with regard to any of these gifts, either through direct or indirect experience.

Because of this, I would say that the only responsible position for me to hold right now is that of a de facto cessationist. In sum, this is why I am not a charismatic.

Some have objected to my beliefs citing what they suppose to be an inconsistency.  While admitting that the Bible does not present any compelling evidence that the supernatural sign gifts have ceased, I am still not a  charismatic. Why is this? Isn’t the Bible, not personal or ecclesiatical experience, my ultimate guide?

The answer is yes, the Bible is my ultimate guide. It is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice. If church history or “Michael history” says one thing and the Bible says another, then I (in theory) go with the Scriptures.

However…

While I did say that the Scriptures do not present any compelling evidence that the gifts have ceased, I don’t believe that they present any compelling evidence that they have continued either. In fact, I would say that the Bible does not necessarily speak to the issue any more than it does the closing of the canon. Remember, the Bible does not present any compelling evidence that the canon is closed, yet I believe based on the same de facto arguments that Scripture is no longer being added to. I would argue that the Scriptures have been (for lack of a better word) “closed” due to an exhaustion of purpose. Interestingly, charismatics would make the same argument, believing that the while Scriptures never explicitly say that that the canon is closed, they believe it has nonetheless. Why do we all believe that the canon of Scripture is closed even though the Bible itself does not say that it has closed? If we were theologically honest, our answer would be very simple: Because it, as a matter of fact, closed! It is a de facto argument. The canon of Scripture is closed because God has not sent a verified Apostle or prophet who added to it in the last 2000 years.

After we consider the de facto closing of the Scriptures (“canonical cessationism”), we then build a theology as to why the Scriptures have closed. This is a legitimate attempt to explain what is a matter of fact. It does not create the fact, it just explains it.

The same can be said with regard to supernatural sign gifts such as prophecy, tongues, and healings. Because they, de facto, seem to have ceased, we then attempt to offer an explanation. Here is a brief post de facto explanation as to why I believe the supernatural sign gifts might have ceased.

Exhaustion of purpose: The gifts were used for the establishing of the Gospel message in history. It seems reasonable for God to introduce himself uniquely every time he intends to provide further revelation of himself to mankind. In the history of redemption, the Christ advent and the Gospel message needed signs that accompanied it or belief would be unwarranted. Once the church was established and the historic verification of Christ accomplished, there was no longer any need to continue with such “sign” gifts.

Paul seems to indicate that this was the case as he implicitly argued that the reason for his ability to do extrordinary miracles was due to the Apostolic message he proclaimed. As others were claiming to be so-called “super apostles” (those who have an authoritative message from God), he argues that true Apostles will have these gifts to authentic their message.

“The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.” (2 Cor. 12:12).

As well, there are certian events and happenings in redemptive history that don’t need to be repeated. Notice what Paul says to the Ephesians:

“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 upon 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.” (Ephesians 2:19 – 3:1)

The “foundation” is the key. If the foundation represents a part of the structure (i.e. the Church) that is not a repeated necessity, then so does that which comprises the foundation. Everyone would agree that the work of Christ is not repeated over and over. So also, it seems to be, that the work of the Apostles and the prophets, which established the work of Christ, does not repeat itself. It is forever a part of the foundation.

There also may be a de facto ceasing of the gifts even in New Testament times. Notice what the writer of Hebrews says:

“How shall 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 bearing wit

ness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will” (Hebrews 2:3-4).

Notice that the message of salvation was first spoken by the Lord (subject #1—first generation). It was then confirmed by those who heard (subject #2—the Apostles and prophets—second generation). The “to us” is the key. The writer of Hebrews indicates that the Gospel was confirmed to them (subject #3—third generation), not by them. This seems to indiate once again that the supernatural gifts primarily served a confirmatory purpose, not simply a benevolent purpose. It also (and most importantly here) seems to suggest that these confirmatory gifts were already beginning to exhuast their purpose. The writer of Hebrews and his audience (the “us who heard”), it would seem, did not possess these gifts themselves, but relied upon the witness and testimony of those who did possess these gifts.

These are meant to offer biblical reasonings why the gifts ceased, if indeed this is the case. Again, they are not arguments for cessationism, they simply present reasons why they might have ceased.

I am not a charismatic, but I am not a necessarily a cessationist either. I will speak to this next.

Part 8
I am a “De Facto Cessationist”

Ok, after the first seven parts of this series it should be almost clear where I stand on this issue. But I ended the last post by saying that I am neither a continuationist or cessationist. Let me clarify just what I am . . .

I define a Charismatic as one who thinks that the supernatural sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, healings, etc. are normative for the church today. Therefore, believers should expect them. A cessationist is one who believes that these gifts ceased due to an exhaustion in purpose around the first century (some would say with the death of the last Apostle).

I don’t think that one can make a solid case for the ceasing of the gifts from Scripture. However, I don’t think that one can make a solid case from Scripture for the closing of the canon. I believe that both of these issues are very similar. Could God add books to the Bible if it were his purpose? Of course. Could we cry “foul” and say “You cannot do that because our traditions and councils have said you cannot? No. We (Protestants) believe in the de facto closing of the canon. What does that mean? We believe in the closing of the canon because it, indeed, closed. It is a historical and experiential reality. God just quit adding books to the canon. Only after this does our theology step in and attempt to explain this by saying it closed because soteriological history was completed.

I believe the same about the gift of prophecy, tongues, and other supernatural sign gifts. I believe they have ceased because they ceased in church history (as I argued) and I, personally, have never experienced them. Therefore, I am a “De Facto Cessationist.” Some may call it “Soft cessationist” and that is fine, but I like the term de facto since it describes the reasoning behind my position.

To those of you who are Charismatics out there:

I think that you have to understand my reasoning and the reasoning of those like me. It is not as if we are putting God in a box. We are just being responsible with our beliefs (which are precious to God) by attempting to explain the way we see things. I don’t judge all claims with the same standard. I don’t have a “guilt by association” default drive with this issue, tagging the back of the shirts of all Charismatics with a Benny Hinn label. I respect many who are Charismatic and think they are very bright and have something going on that persuades them to believe as they do. But I have been in the church all my life, traveled the world on missions trips, and partaken in many Charismatic services and never seen anything that would make me change my positions. Were I to see something that compels me to change, I would change.

With prophecy, for instance, if I were to see someone who claimed to be a prophet, speaking on behalf of God, and he, for example, raised someone from the dead, so long as he spoke in accordance with sound doctrine, I would most certainly listen (at least I hope I would). If someone claimed to have the gift of healing and came and healed my mother, I would believe and change my stance. If someone would have healed my sister before she died, again, things would be different. But the fact is that I have not ever witnessed such. I don’t even have any good first hand testimony of such happenings. Sure, I believe that God heals, so coming to me with a story of healing is already in line with my theology. But what I lack—the essential component—is God gifting an individual with the particular gift of healing. Most healings and miracles I have seen come through prayer, not through a divine conduit with this particular gift.

Therefore, I remain a de facto Cessationist.

Two Important Points:

1. Am I Putting God in a “Box”?

I often hear it said that people like me put God in a box due to my unbelief. You need to be very careful with this line of thought. It could very well be that you are the one putting him in a box. Let me explain.

I remember studying the great prayer revivals in American history with John Hannah. While discussing these movements, we, the students, inquired about why God moved so much during this time in our history. His answer was rather odd. He said there was no reason he knew of. He went on to describe similar events where revival did not occur though the actions of men were the same. The moral of Hannah’s lesson was that God moves when and where he will and we just don’t know why.You cannot map Him. You cannot put him in a box one way or the other.

If God chooses to send a prophet or a man with the gift of healing, it is his own accord, purpose, and will which sanctions such. To have a “theology of expectation” not only sets many up for disillusionment, but can also be putting God in the box that you accuse others of. God’s movements are mysterious. It could very well be that a revival breaks out. It could very well be that he decides to gift people with supernatural gifts. It is possible that he could send a prophet to your door. But this does not make it normative. It just says he did it. Praise God.

Remember the passage from the early life of Samuel where Samuel was hearing God’s voice calling him but he did not know it was God? The preface to this narrative is very interesting: 1 Samuel 3:1: “Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the LORD before Eli. And word from the LORD was rare in those days, visions were infrequent.” Why were visions infrequent? We have no idea. They just were. De facto.

2. Is God waiting on me to believe?

Also, you must remember that God’s movements in his people’s lives are not characteristically coy. When he is going to move in your life or mine, he is not waiting for us to believe in certain gifts or movements before we are qualified to receive such. He did not wait for Paul to be a believe before he hit him with a ton of bricks on the road to kill Christians. He blinded him and spoke. De facto, God was speaking. He did not wait for the Apostles to believe in tongues before they received them on the day of Pentecost. De facto, they were speaking in tongues.

If God wanted me to be a Charismatic, I would be one. He is not waiting for me to become one so that he can finally do his work.

The Spirit moves in mysterious ways. Outside of his general promises, it is very hard for us to hold his feet to the fire of the details. We wait, watch, pray, and follow his guidance. We can all put him in a box, but he won’t stay there, believe me.

I am not Charismatic. I am not necessarily cessationist either. I am, right now, a de facto cessationist who lives with a high expectation that God is going to move in the way he will. I hope that I am always ready to follow.

Thus we conclude, de facto.


C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo House Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. He can be contacted at [email protected]

    82 replies to "Why I am Not Charismatic"

    • C Michael Patton

      Someone reminding me that I had not posted all of these together like I normally do, so here it is.

    • Tim

      Thanks, Michael. As a charismatic brother, I first want to say that I appreciate your fair-mindedness and openness on this issue. So my question is not meant as an attack, but as a genuine inquiry: I understand (even if I would disagree with) the de facto argument for cessationism, but I’m less comfortable with the division of gifts into a sign vs. serving, ordinary vs. extraordinary, etc. typology. What scriptural warrant do you see for delineating the gifts in this way? Or is it more akin to the canon argument (“This is what seems to be the case, so how do we best attempt to make sense of it”)?

      Blessings,
      Tim

    • NEW LEAVEN

      Why I am not Charismatic…

      In his refutation of “all of the gifts for the church today,” Mr. Patton has constructed that classic either/or : either the canon of Scripture is not complete or an original apostle is still alive—for us to claim “all gifts of …

    • Lisa Robinson

      As someone who went from being a crazy Charismatic to a crusty cessationist and now lives comfortably (or rather uncomfortably) in the place called Tension, I appreciate the balance here. However, I would take a more cautionary approach, especially to prophecy. Depending on how you define prophecy, depends on the extent that we can say prophecy is for today. Grudem contends that prophecy is not speaking forth words of the Lord, but is more or less proclaiming impressions based on what we think the Spirit is revealing. If that’s our definition of prophecy, then I suppose that can happen today seeing as how the Spirit is alive and well and indwelling every believer. In his view and in Jack Deere’s view, NT prophets don’t carry the same weight as OT prophets (cf Hebrews 1:1). However, I’m not sure this definition really does justice to the prophecy as distinguished from that which is communicated by God authoritatively. If there is any sense that prophecy is speaking words from the Lord, that does indeed deserve much caution in terms of defining what can and should exist today.

    • ScottL

      Recently, a colleague and I started a blog entitled, To Be Continued. It can be found at http://continuationism.com. We hope it is able to become a solid theological, biblical and historical resource for continuationism.

    • I have for many years lived in the complicated middle ground between continuationism and cessationism. I have been a de facto cessationist so I understand the view well. My current position is that the gifts are still given (I have a problem with dogmatically saying something has passed away without Scriptural basis), but they have always been given according to the will of God and not every believer has every gift (1 Corinthians 12:11, 29-30). I personally do not speak in tongues but I have had other types of experiences that I have difficulty explaining without believing in the continuation of the gifts (particularly that of discernment of spirits). But I do believe there needs to be a commitment to test the gifts (1 Thessalonians 5:21) to decide if they are legitimate. Especially since I feel the unBiblical idea that everyone should have all the gifts leads to people convincing themselves they have gifts they do not have.

    • Lee H

      I am from a evangelical reformed charismatic background (and still am in it) and in the church group I am part of these gifts are expected at normal, but that everyone can have any of the gifts.

      It seems obvious to me that there are certain people who have a higher amount (for lack of a better word) of certain gifts. I would say that this is simply because of a higher faith level, but prehaps a calling to that as well.

      I don’t understand how a lack of experience should prove that the gifts don’t exist anymore. Atheists lack experience of God yet we would say they are wrong in saying God isn’t real because of this. And if the gifts we for a certain time for a reason could it not be said that the return of the gifts is for a reason and experience of the gifts proves this?

      It seems to me that the use of the gifts is increasing, that it is becoming more and more normal in certain churches.

      In Newfrontiers Adrian Holloway would be an example of a gifted healer and Julian Adams with the gift of prophecy.

    • Robert Jimenez

      Michael, have you read Gordon Fee’s “God’s Empowering Presences” yet?

    • […] the continuationist position regarding the charismata that he is giving away for free as a PDF (here). I assume he is giving it away for free, in part, because it wouldn’t be worth the cost of […]

    • ScottL

      Robert –

      I’m not sure that book of Fee’s is one you just sit down a read. More a reference work, since it is about 500+ pages. 🙂

      Maybe start with Fee’s Paul, the Spirit and the People of God. It’s a bit short at around 200 pages.

    • […] Mind Ministries, and the blog Parchment & Pen, has recently re-posted his full series entitled, Why I Am Not A Charistmatic. Patton is not anti-charismatic, but would rather call himself a de-facto cessationist. This means […]

    • […] Mind Ministries, and the blog Parchment & Pen, has recently re-posted his full series entitled, Why I Am Not A Charistmatic. Patton is not anti-charismatic, but would rather call himself a de-facto cessationist. This means […]

    • Hodge

      “Grudem contends that prophecy is not speaking forth words of the Lord, but is more or less proclaiming impressions based on what we think the Spirit is revealing.”

      Lisa,

      Grudem misinterprets a Hebrew syntactical question in Deut 18:20. This verse would negate his idea, but he mistakenly interprets the waw as “and” here. Anyone who has had a little Hebrew knows, however, that the waw is disjunctive. Hence, “or” is more appropriate. If the verse stands as it is translated in most English Bibles, then his argument fails.

    • Lisa Robinson

      Hodge,

      I have yet to take Hebrew, but I am troubled by Grudem’s understanding of prophecy. So it’s good to know about that interpretive hitch.

    • caraboska

      I find this post to be pleasantly fair-minded. There is also a position that falls through the cracks 🙂 See, some of us don’t believe in ordination or ‘gifting’ in the sense that it is discussed in the post. The functions exist, and can be manifested by anyone in the congregation at any time, and people need to be open to what God will do through them. This is a typically Quaker position.

      I think the risk of idolatry in a situation where people have that ‘high expectation’ is quite high. People can end up worshiping the gifts instead of God and get shaken up if the gifts for some reason fail to be present.

      It is also difficult to imagine that the sign gifts would be present in a church that is theologically not founded on Scripture, but tradition. Not that signs do not appear in such churches. But we have to view them as quite possibly counterfeit.

      But any time we are dealing with someone outside the (invisible) church, and especially with an entire population outside the church – the gospel still not having reached every single people group on the planet – I think the sign gifts still do have a legitimate purpose. After all, the church is supposed to be missionary in character…

      And in the case of prophecy, if the person makes reference to objectively confirmable information that they could not have known in a natural manner, then that’s the confirmation right there. It apparently has happened to me a number of times…

    • ScottL

      While Grudem’s book can be a resource in opening people to the idea of the charismatic giftings still being available today, I still think his work falls somewhat short on two accounts: 1) trying to connect NT apostles with OT prophets and 2) pretty much watering down what prophecy truly is.

      There are better resources out there such as books by Gordon Fee or Jack Deere.

    • Duncan

      How can we decide what is normative based on the visible evidence?

    • Duane

      I find interesting that Paul in 1 Cor 12:2, doesn’t want the Church at Corinth ignorant because in the past they believed in mute or silent gods. From Genesis 1 to Revelation 22 our God speaks. We all believe that He has spoken, but does the Bible state that God is now silent or that a religious man can become blind and deaf? I believe the Bible is consistent on both points that God is revelatory and man has a great deal of trouble seeing Him who in invisible and hearing His voice.

      Also in 1 Cor 12 Paul brings up the different member of one body and says in verse 21. “The eye cannot say to the hand ‘I have no need of you’ ” To be a cessationist isn’t one part of the body saying saying to those with revelatory gifts “we have no need of you”?

    • Hodge

      Duane,

      Where are you getting the idea that pagan notions of the gods include an idea that they are silent? All pagan cultures have prophecy as a part of their religions, and tongues are found in all sorts of pagan religions, including those found in Corinth. What is unique is the message, not the methods, of revelation. Hence, Paul does not want them to be ignorant in regard to a faulty view of the methods that would cause them to think that Christian maturity or spirituality was achieved by the method rather than by obeying the message that has its ultimate fulfillment in genuine love. What is also unique about God’s method is the Canon. Hence, no part of the body is missing, since the message of those who once had the methods of tongues and prophecy is contained in Scripture. The person who is rejecting a member of the body is the one who fabricates a tongue or prophecy today, when there are none, that lessens or takes the focus off of the message in the text. At least, that’s how I, as a cessationist, would answer your objection.

    • […] he has written critiquing the charismatic movement into a short PDF book available for download (here). As previously mentioned on this blog there was a quick response from T.C. Robinson criticizing […]

    • […] be a monthly book giveaway from this blogger. And there is another contest still yet! There is the perennial conversation on cessionism and tongues going around. Stuart points us to an interesting article. […]

    • […] arguing for a cessationist position on spiritual gifts. (You can download a free .pdf of the book here.) New Leaven has had a number of posts on the continuationist/cessationist argument that are worth […]

    • Duane

      Hodge,

      Where am I getting the idea that pagan notions of the gods include an idea that they are silent? I never said pagan notions, but Paul’s in the verse I referenced in that he calls them dumb idols.

      I agree that the message is unique but Paul isn’t primarily talking about the message but about the Holy Spirit and gifts in this passage and isn’t referencing the canon at all.

      Would you like to answer my other question? I’ll break it down into two for clarity. Does the Bible state anywhere that God is now silent? Doesn’t the Bible state repeatedly that a religious man can become blind and deaf?

    • […] be a monthly book giveaway from this blogger. And there is another contest still yet! There is the perennial conversation on cessionism and tongues going around. Stuart points us to an interesting article. […]

    • […] spiritual gifts by Kevin Sam On the blog, Parchment and Pen, C. Michael Patton has a post “Why I am not Charismatic“. Blogger, TC Robinson at New Leaven has also posted his reaction on Patton’s post, and on […]

    • […] and dispensationalist Dallas Theological Seminary, has written an interesting long post explaining Why I am not Charismatic (originally several separate posts, also downloadable as a short “e-book” PDF). TC […]

    • Hodge

      “Where am I getting the idea that pagan notions of the gods include an idea that they are silent? I never said pagan notions, but Paul’s in the verse I referenced in that he calls them dumb idols.”

      Thanks for the clarification. I was a little perplexed by the notion, so I’m glad that is cleared up. However, how does tongues and prophecy contrast with Paul talking about idols (which he says have living demons behind them, not nothing at all) when all of their religions carry the same things?

      “I agree that the message is unique but Paul isn’t primarily talking about the message but about the Holy Spirit and gifts in this passage and isn’t referencing the canon at all.”

      I didn’t say it was referring to the canon. I was making a theological point there. But it is referring to the message, since that is the entire point of the passage: i.e., the one faith is expressed through many gifts and comes to full fruition in mature love.

    • Hodge

      “Would you like to answer my other question? I’ll break it down into two for clarity. Does the Bible state anywhere that God is now silent? Doesn’t the Bible state repeatedly that a religious man can become blind and deaf?”

      Why would the Bible say that God is now silent when it clearly states that His Scripture never passes away and always speaks to all generations?

      But the Son through the apostles He instituted is the final revelation of God to us, so we shouldn’t be looking for someone else or something more as the Jews were (Heb 1:1-2). And Peter’s switch from false prophets among the people to false TEACHERS among you, I think clearly indicates that the role of the Church will be one of interpretation, not revelation (2 Pet 2:1). But if you want a prooftext because you think the Bible has to explicitly say everything you are to believe, then I don’t do that; and as I said, nor would there be such a text when the Bible indicates that God’s past words remain to speak to all generations forever (and that is even if He does not repeat them directly).

      But my main beef isn’t with those who believe in gifts for today. My problem is when they are put in the seat of Scripture and take the place of Spirit’s real work in the congregation of maturing people and growing them in Christ. To many charismatic settings I grew up in had a whole lot of “gifted” people with very little sense of right and wrong. We don’t fireworks to feel God’s presence, we need His real life changing presence the transforms rebels into servants of God.

    • […] Michael Patton may call his post Why I Am Not Charismatic, but he’s more Charismatic-friendly than most.   Besides, I have a thing for […]

    • Minimus

      “A charismatic, however, believes that these are normative and that we should expect them. Did you get those two important words? Normative”

      You are obviously captivated by the “normative” argument.

      I couldn’t say that kids raised in Christian homes obeying Jesus and serving Him in college is NORMATIVE!
      (By statistics, by personal experience)

      I wouldn’t say that young men who are Christians completely saying no to pornography and masturbation is NORMATIVE!

      I wouldn’t say that selfless individuals willing to give generously of their time and money is NORMATIVE!

      But they ALL should be EXPECTED, according to the Bible…

      …Just as the active use of all the spiritual gifts should be….

      …Just as good doctrine should be….

      But it’s lack of (or subjective lack of one person observing it) observance says NOTHING of what should be.

    • Minimus

      “If God wanted me to be a Charismatic, I would be one. He is not waiting for me to become one so that he can finally do his work.”

      If God wanted me to be a good father, he would make me one.

      If God wanted me to be a good teacher and preacher of His Word, I would be one.

      If God wanted me to be a sacrificial servant serving a local church, HE would make it happen.

      Why should *I* have to go to the trouble of seeking Him, praying to Him, reading His Word, looking at Greek or Hebrew, actually trying to understand it, much less find the right local church full of WHO KNOWS how many hypocrites and fakers and obnoxious people that aren’t that easy to get to know and like…
      Don’t even bother getting into what I’d have “to do” to be a good father to my 3 snot-nosed brats…

    • […] post is part of a series responding to C. Michael Patton’s eight-part series “Why I am Not Charismatic,” which is also conveniently available for download as a single e-book here.  This is in […]

    • Marv

      Okay, we’re off!! I’ve now officially posted the first part of the To Be Continued… response to your WIANC series.

      Where is it, you ask? Why at http://continuationism.com, of course.

      That is:
      http://continuationism.com/2010/05/27/im-not-charismatic-either-michael-response-to-cmp-part-1/

    • […] re-posted his full series entitled, Why I Am Not Charismatic. You can view the complete series on his blog or you can download the e-book by clicking here. Just as a side note: Patton is not […]

    • […] of a series responding to C. Michael Patton’s eight-part series at Parchment and Pen “Why I am Not Charismatic,” which is also conveniently available for download as a single e-book here. This is in […]

    • John C. Poirier

      Michael,

      Your posting this all together once again brings me to ask: What is the basis for assuming the category “sign gift”? Isn’t this category based solely on the cessationist’s desired conclusion?

      Once again: If this category is based on 2 Cor 12:12, it is a reference to the “signs of an apostle”, but, in the New Testament, more non-apostles are depicted as speaking in tongues than apostles, so tongues cannot be what Paul is talking about in 2 Cor 12:12. (After all, Paul is trying to convince the Corinthians that he is an apostle on the basis of what *he* did in their midst. The argument surely wouldn’t work if the Corinthians all did the same “signs”!)

      So what is the scriptural basis for this category?

      And if there is no scriptural basis for it (whatsoever!), shouldn’t it be dropped altogether from cessationist rhetoric?

    • […] a series in which we are interacting with Michael Patton’s own series at his blog entitled, Why I am Not Charismatic. You can even download his articles in a 22-page PDF document. Maybe Marv and I can provide the […]

    • […] a series in which we are interacting with Michael Patton’s own series at his blog entitled, Why I am Not Charismatic. You can even download his articles in a 22-page PDF document. Maybe Marv and I can provide the […]

    • ScottL

      John –

      Though we are both continuationists, what Paul was convincing them with regards to ‘sign of a true apostle’ was his suffering for them. This is distinguished from the second reference of ‘signs and wonders and mighty works’.

    • John C. Poirier

      ScottL,

      I disagree with your exegesis here. V. 11b says “for I am not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing.” Paul’s reference to “[t]he signs of an apostle [being] performed among [the Corinthians] with utmost patience” is meant to show that Paul is not inferior to the super-apostles, and he makes this claim “even though” (!) (not *because*) he has suffered numerous hardships. Besides, on your reading of v. 12, I cannot understand what the reference to “signs and wonders and mighty works” is doing there. These words don’t have any function if they are not being used appositionally to “signs of an apostle”.

    • […] series, “Why I’m Not Charismatic”. You can view Patton’s whole series here or you can download the e-booklet by clicking […]

    • […] through a series in which we are interacting with Michael Patton’s eight-part series entitled “Why I’m Not Charismatic”. You can also download Patton’s series in a 22-page PDF […]

    • ScottL

      John –

      The first reference of ‘signs’ is different-unique to the second reference of ‘signs’. Read the verse carefully. And the full phrase of the first use is ‘signs of a true apostle’.

      The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.

      With the use of the conjunction with (‘with signs and wonders and mighty works’) it becomes very easy to see that Paul is utilising the word in two different manners. The second use of ‘signs’ cannot be synonymous with the first use.

      Rather than posting a lot more here, I will refer you to this article which I take time to address 2 Cor 12:12.

    • John C. Poirier

      Scott,

      The word “true” is not in the text in 2 Cor 12:12. The NRSV translators added it, but it only confuses the verse’s meaning. Apparently they read the verse the same way you read it, and they’re helping Paul express himself a little better.

      I wonder if this added word has perhaps confused you. (I sure would like to know why translators stopped using italics to indicate that a word has been added to the text.)

      The verse makes much more sense, both grammatically and contextually, if “signs of an apostle” is the same as the “signs” in “signs, wonders, and miracles”. Would Paul risk confusing the Corinthians by using *semeia* in two such differing ways within the same verse?

    • ScottL

      John –

      I don’t know if you read my article expounding more on the passage.

      I don’t have the Greek text in front of my at this moment. Cannot one word be used to refer to two different things? It happens quite a lot, right? In the larger context, Paul is showing himself as having a true apostolic ministry as opposed to the self-proclaimed super-apostles. What were the signs of his apostolic ministry – his willingness to suffer on their behalf (1 Cor 11). That’s why he said he did this with the utmost patience. And, at the same time, he was being used in signs, wonders, and mighty works. This grouping of three words-phrases refers to miracles/healings.

    • EricW

      John:

      2 Cor 12:12 does use sêmeion both times in the verse.

      As for “true apostle,” the Greek is “the signs of the apostle….” Perhaps “true” is used to convey the sense of the definite article. It’s obvious that “the signs of THE apostle” is not a correct translation; it would be misleading. Yet the force of the article needs to be brought out, because it’s not simply “the signs of AN apostle” (though sometimes the Greek article does convey what we in English would mean with the indefinite article – see Daniel Wallace’s book – e.g., we might say that “a prophet is wise” meaning that a prophet is a wise person, but the Greek equivalent might use the definite article). Paul is emphasizing his legitimacy, so translating it as “the signs of a TRUE apostle” might be a good way to convey this sense in English, ISTM.

      As for italics – the use of italics gets to be subjective at times, and it’s really hard to say when to use them or not use them, and no system is consistent. E.g., should they be used every time the subject is not expressed in the Greek because the verb ending contains the I/you/he/she/it/we/you/they? E.g., should autos legei be translated as “he says” and legei be translated as “he says” simply because autos (he) is not in the Greek?

    • John C. Poirier

      Using “true” to translate the definite article is not the way to go. Adding “true” conveys a sense that Paul is claiming something in 12:12 that the super-apostles cannot legitimately claim, and he’s not doing that at all. If “the apostle” sounds strange, why not “the apostolate”, or something like that?

      I’ve gone round and round with people on another weblog about italics, and I find every argument against it weak. It’s not difficult at all to differentiate between those elements that are really, truly implied, and those that are added just to move the verse in a particular interpretive direction. The bother of having a rump of cases where it’s hard to decide whether to italicize is certainly a whole lot better than not italicizing at all.

    • EricW

      The LXX translators didn’t use italics or other things to indicate when they were interpolating or adding to the Hebrew, yet the NT authors and the early church considered the words of the LXX as written to be the inspired Word of God.

      And no word maps exactly from one language to another, so more than italics have to be used if one wants to be “accurate” about what is and is not being translated when compared to the original.

      E.g., when we write:
      “In the beginning
      was the Word,
      and the Word was with God,
      and the Word was God,”

      should it instead be written and translated as:

      “In the beginning
      (“the” isn’t in the Greek)

      was the Word,

      and the Word was with [the] God,
      (it’s “the God” in the Greek)

      and the Word was God”
      (but this TOTALLY rearranges the Greek word order and changes what is perhaps a qualitative theos into a noun, and misrepresents the possibly emphatic nature of theos in the Greek)

      While there may be value in using italics, I think the lack of italics is the least of the translation readers’ problems. In fact, the use of italics might give them the false assurance or impression that by ignoring the italicized words they achieve a more faithful and accurate translation of the original.

      I think a better solution is not having italics, but having footnotes indicating a more literal rendering of the Hebrew or Greek where such might be helpful. If they want to know what the Hebrew and Greek “really say,” they really need to start with an interlinear, perhaps, but then take a couple years of Greek and/or Hebrew so they can work with or from the original text. If they don’t have that, I don’t think they’re qualified to judge whether something should or should not be italicized because until they know how Greek and Hebrew work, they can’t see how and English translation reflects or fails to reflect the Greek or Hebrew.

      IMO, of course.

    • EricW

      I guess I’m saying that a translation is a translation. We don’t expect translations of French or Russian novels to use italics when the translator inserts a word that’s not “literally” in the original or to use brackets [ ] when he or she omits words that are in the original.

      A translation shouldn’t function both as a translation and a quasi-interlinear (which is what italics or brackets serve to do in a way). A translation should, as best as possible and at the expected or desired reader’s level, put in comparable English what the Hebrew or Greek say and mean. If the reader wants to know what the Greek and Hebrew “really” say – if they want to dig deeper into the text or do word studies – they should compare several translations and then use an interlinear and a lexicon. Or better yet, as I said, take some Greek or Hebrew grammar courses (class or self-study).

    • ScottL

      John –

      Regardless of our 2 particular views on 2 Cor 12:12, I am glad we are on the same page with the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit.

    • John C. Poirier

      Eric,

      Theories of inspiration should not enter into this matter. The NT writers used the LXX because they (most of them) *needed* a Greek text. It does not imply that they all looked upon the LXX the same way Augustine looked upon it. Chances are, they didn’t even think about it. (Surely, pastors don’t imply, by reading translations from the pulpit, that a translation is bibliologically the same thing as the original.) I’d bet anything that if it were pointed out that something a NT writer inferred from the LXX wording was not supported by the Hebrew, that he’d desist in making the point.

      Honestly, if you go down the route of saying that receiving the LXX as the word of God is tantamount to receiving all its words, then you’re halfway to the wacky world of the KJV-onlyists. I don’t mean to sound insulting. I just think that if you thought about it, you’d see that most of the arguments against using italics are rather silly.

      I stand by what I said about how easy it would be to decide which words should be treated as additional, in spite of your attempt to show that all translation requires the addition of numerous particles. There is a real difference between particles that are necessary to render what is truly there *semiologically*, and words that are added just to make the translation say what the translators wanted it to say. It’s a difference between a *translational* gloss and an “interpretive” gloss. Read any few verses of the New Lying — er, I mean “Living” — Bible, and you’ll see what I mean. There are stray words all over the place, and it’s unconscionable, in my view, that there’s no attempt to warn the reader of how many of them are interpretive glosses.

      Face it: we live in a day of dumbed-down translations. (I remember the day when the NIV was the loosest translation on the shelf. But it looks wooden, compared to what’s out there today.) Can’t we at least offer an escape for the reader who wants to rise above this dumbing…

    • EricW

      John:

      I guess this

      http://betterbibles.com/

      is a better place for such discussions than P and P, so I’ll not continue except to say that I probably largely agree with you but am maybe not as insistent or bothered by it.

      As for discussing if or to what extent the NT authors considered the LXX to be the inspired word of God by the way they used it, esp. where it differs from the Hebrew MT (which raises the question of what that means for our English translations, as well as for translations in general), whether an argument could or should be made that our OT should be the LXX and not the MT, etc., those questions, too, are probably more suited to a different blog and a different group of readers, perhaps the one I link to above.

    • John C. Poirier

      Thanks, Eric. I’m glad you agree with some of what I say. I’ve been to betterbibles.com (before), and I agree with some of what they say, but not all.

      I’ll just point out that italics could have helped us out on a different topic on *this* blog: the question of how to interpret Heb 2:4. Think of how much better off readers would be if translators had italicized the word “gifts”, which appears in many English translations of that verse, but which neither corresponds to, or is necessarily implied by, anything in the Greek. It would have been so easy to italicize that word, and it would have saved a whole lot of trouble in trying to interpret that verse.

      My insistence on italicizing is part of a larger concern I have: Why does everyone give the Nida-Louw philosophy a free pass? But I guess that doesn’t belong on this blog.

    • […] of a series responding to C. Michael Patton’s eight-part series at Parchment and Pen “Why I am Not Charismatic,” which is also conveniently available for download as a single e-book here. This is in […]

    • […] through a series in which we are interacting with Michael Patton’s eight-part series entitled “Why I’m Not Charismatic”. You can also download Patton’s series in a 22-page PDF […]

    • […] of a series responding to C. Michael Patton’s eight-part series at Parchment and Pen “Why I am Not Charismatic,” which is also conveniently available for download as a single e-book here. This is in […]

    • […] conclude our series in which we have interacted with Michael Patton’s eight-part series entitled “Why I’m Not Charismatic”. You can also download Patton’s series in a 22-page PDF […]

    • […] and I completed our eight part series interacting with Michael Patton’s own series entitled, “Why I’m Not Charismatic”. Michael Patton is head of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, which offers many such things as The […]

    • […] and I completed our eight-part series interacting with Michael Patton’s own series entitled, “Why I’m Not Charismatic”. Michael Patton is head of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, which offers many such things as The […]

    • ScottL

      We have recently finished up our 8-part series interacting with Michael Patton’s series here. You can see the series at our blog, To Be Continued, or you can download the PDF document.

      Thanks for your interaction and grace, Michael.

    • […] between Scott and me to respond to an eight-part blog post by C. Michael Patton, entitled “Why I am not Charismatic.”  A downloadable PDF e-book version is available […]

    • […] 4. The guys at “Too Be Continued,” a blog that argues for the continuation if the supernatural sign gifts (tongues, prophecy, healings, etc) have just finished a well done response to my “Why I am Not Charismatic.” […]

    • Oun

      I always thought ‘gift’ is something I receive. A spiritual gift is, of course, that which is from God. ‘Faith’ is gift from God, so is ‘Hope’, and, of course ‘Love’ is. Then I come to hear noise from charismatics who trumpet a different sound. ‘Gift’ as something special, not because it’s God’s gracious gift, but something they can be proud of.

      I see all the gifts listed are the ones which people actually can take as ‘power’ they can yield. Power, I mean, over others. Not much different from the social, ecclesiastical, or political power. Only when it is self-giving, it is true gift which expresses the very love we received from God.

      Then there is a sore thumb – called ‘tongue-speaking’. Think of it, one cannot make any sound or word with the tongue. Even as we groan with H.S. there is NO rolling of the tongue. The small organ is what modulates sound to be able to communicate. When used in a figurative, it means ‘language’. “Tongue speaking” is shamanic practice. Showing it off out of the closet, it is for power-seeking for their unbiblical agenda.

      Coincidentally I just had a chance to read through http://www.isaiah58.com/speakingintonguesatspiritbaptism.pdf. One line reads: … the only logical and biblically sound conclusion is that no one is born again except those who have spoken in tongues (or had Spirit-inspired “stammering lips” – Isa. 28:11-12). This helps me get convinced that why they are not Christians. What a self righteous, arrogant, and blasphemous saying! Can they be called shamanic Christians, which is oxymoron?

      I believe gift always flows down to us from God through eternity; why it should cease? Any gift without love (as Paul admonished in Co 13) is useless. Any gift for power shall cease. The so-called tongue-speaking, with is self-gratifying and pleasure-seeking, with emotionalism and mass hypnosis, has never been God’s gift; tongue has been simply misunderstood from the beginning and every Biblical passage has…

    • cherylu

      Oun,

      I wish your comment hadn’t been cut off as I would have liked to know the rest of your thought here.

      Are you saying that you do not believe “tongue speaking” is ever from God and never has been? Or are you saying that it’s misuse is not from God?

      If you don’t believe it is from God, what do you do with the Scriptures in I Corinthians–particularly chapter 14–that deals a lot with this subject?

    • EricW

      Yes, I agree, Oun. Paul was a self-righteous shamanic Christian for saying “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.”

    • Oun

      To Cherylu, #64

      Babbling is a common practice by shamanism, even now in my native country after decades of modernization as well as phenomenal growth of ‘Christianity’ itself (hand in hand with it is psychics).

      As I saw video clips of their showmanship, on TV church channels, easily on youtubes, all I can say and weep – Oh My G-d. All this in the name of God? No wonder people spit on anything Christian. What does it have anything to do with God, Christ, Cross, Salvation, Holiness and Love! Just read the article for what they claim: “No one is born again except those who have spoken in tongues” – such arrogance simply to prove themselves to be non-Christians.
      Simply with self-righteousness, self-edification, addicted with emotional highs, how they can call themselves ‘christians’ when they have nothing to do with Him. Christ Himself is not enough for them without tongues! We are made to be in the image of God, which is Christ Himself. My honest question to them: Is their way is the way to conform to Christ?

      “The tree shall be known by its fruits.” The fact is, they have shown enough of their fruits for long enough to have a verdict brought against themselves. Paul put his heart in writing 1Co 13 and 14, to tell everything is useless without love. Self-edification is oxymoron to have no place in the body of Christ. If one cannot read how Paul was rebuking the Corinthians, the Bible would be only good for pick and proof to feed on their ideas.

      I don’t find anything but rotten fruit and cancer tumors eating up the body of Christ in their writings and their showmanship on video which is no less lurid and nauseating than any dirty videos. All they do has nothing to do with the spirit; only it’s work of the soul. If you can just show me any fruitage of spirit (Gal 5:22) from their shows, I will prostrate myself before them with my nose to the ground. Who cares what they do alone ‘talking as if to a god’ (1Co 14:2) as long as they do in…

    • EricW

      Oun:

      I don’t disagree with you re: much that parades itself under the banner of “Charismatic” these days.

      I just think you paint with too broad a brush and go beyond the Scriptures in condemning all tongues speaking rather than its aberrant practices and practitioners and their extreme doctrines about the same.

      I would not put Gordon Fee or Craig Keener or J. Rodman Williams or other respected Charismatic or Pentecostal scholars in the category of self-righteous and arrogant shamanic Christians.

    • mbaker

      I wish anti-charismaticism, as far as the gifts go was not so identified with the hyper-charismatics nowadays, the same as I wish everyone didn’t base their opinion, right or wrong or upon cessationism, based on what they see wrongly practiced of the gifts in the modern American church.

      I’m sure it was quite different in the early church. There had to be real evidence.

      I think there’s a still place for the gifts, minus extremes on either side.
      It just takes a very aware pastor to discern the difference, and even more so to allow them to be practiced. And certainly a better discernment among the congregation as well to see, and to insist, more importantly, if they’re the real thing.

    • Oun

      Hi Eric #67

      Re. Gordon, Keener, etc.

      Or anyone else for that matter: Should I care what and if they do in private? No.

    • cherylu

      Oun,

      Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I have a much better understanding now of where you are coming from.

      I agree with you that there are many outlandish practices done in the name of our Lord which certainly can and do bring disgrace to His name.

      But as mbaker said above, I too believe that the gifts–including tongues–still have a place today. It is the extremes and falseness out there that we need to be aware of.

      I also believe that there is a place for tongues out loud in a church service–but only under the conditions given in I Corinthians 14. That is 2 or 3 at the most and always with an interpretation.

      And as mbaker also mentioned above, there does need to be great discernment in the body as a whole to know what is genuinely from God and what is false.

    • Jennifer Curtis

      Michael – Do you believe the miracles in The Heavenly Man? I just finished reading it and have been thinking about this subject of supernatural miracles. I am a skeptic but don’t want to be if the miracles he testifies to are real.

    • […] Our PDF Document Interacting with Michael Patton. Michael Patton wrote a series entitled ‘Why I’m Not a Charismatic’ (here is the PDF document). Marv and I decided to interact with that series. Actually, I recently […]

    • […] Michael Patton may call his post Why I Am Not Charismatic, but he’s more Charismatic-friendly than most. Besides, I have a thing for […]

    • […] Yes, I did write a series over a year ago entitled “Why I am Not Charismatics (found here). And yes, I am still not Charismatic. However, this one will be somewhat different. I have asked […]

    • […] has posted one before, which you can find here. The interesting thing is that, a colleague and I (over at our shared blog, To Be Continued) […]

    • […] I'm not completely closed off to the idea of extra revelation, but I'd be pretty skeptical–i.e. not a charismatic. In any case, we have tests for folks claiming to speak for God so we have the tools to cope with […]

    • Steve

      I’d like to respond to this well written article. It seems to my understanding that the holy spirit is normative, eternal and universal, to say a few. From a broad term how can we have mass without charisma? How can we have sacraments without charisma? If charisma is not normative then how are any prayers answered? Yes, I understand there is emphasis on normative but then you move into cessationism which in turns beacons one question. Why do we require miracles for santification and how do we prove them and yet feel after proving them that there is there is cessation of the charisma of the holy spirit? If the spiritual manifesttionof the gifts is proven then how can we not accept it and if it’s not proven then how do we sanctify?

      The reality is that there are many mysteries such as those which occur in our weekly mass for anyone to deny the holy spirit in places outside the sunday mass. I mean if god is eternal and infinite then how do we expect him to fit in only the way you choose to accept his gifts? So I do not feel that denying him in generalality as this article does in a broad way. I would dare not question gods work, whether he answers a lttile girls prayer from her bedside or a mass prayer in a bible study or prayer group or simply at the hands of mother Theresa.

    • […] arguing for a cessationist position on spiritual gifts. (You can download a free .pdf of the book here.) New Leaven has had a number of posts on the continuationist/cessationist argument that are worth […]

    • Stan

      Sorry, I read only the title and it is enough for me! EVERY real Christian IS charismatic! Just have a look what means “charisma” – charisma is GIFT. The eternal life is CHARISMA χάρισμα (Romans 6:23). And please, don’t use the term “charismatic gifts” – because it is just NONSENSE. Do you say: sunny sun?, rainy rain? sinful sinner? “gifty” gift?

      • John C. Poirier

        Stan,

        You’re right, of course, to say that “charismatic gift” is “nonsense” (in a certain way), but it’s a term we’re just about forced into using anyway. If we just referred to the charisms of 1 Corinthians 12 as “gifts”, many people with a watered-down understanding of divine giftings would conflate our meaning with that of ordinary talents. This move, in fact, has caused many, many people to dismiss the question of whether the charisms are for them — after all, they already have other “gifts” (to their minds).

        Do you have an alternative terminology to suggest — one that avoids the above-stated problem? I don’t mind using the word “charisms”. It might do the trick if it were a better-known term.

    • Stan

      John,

      We are forced to nothing. If we should be forced to use the “TV-Show-Theologians” (God be merciful!) terminology, then we disobey 2. Tim, 4:3. Should we follow watered-down understanding of many people, or should we make the crocked ways straight? The Christian semantic is so terrible twisted by the enemy that it seems to be one of the main challenges for healthy theology today!
      Yes, I find “charisms” (from χαρίσματα) faithful. Good one! I will start to apply it.

      P.S. Please, check also another jarred term above: “supernatural signs”.

    • Maggie

      Hi Michael,
      You mentioned to let you know about any people we know of who raise the dead and prophesy: try Heidi Baker. She does raise the dead, along with her husband Rolland and their ministry, IRIS Ministries, and they heal the deaf and the blind. I think that you my find their testimony convincing.
      Best,
      Maggie

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.