View PDF here.

Part 1: Introduction

I used to walk through Christian book stores and choose my books based on whether or not the author was a 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 – i.e., 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.

The word “charismatic” can be used in many ways. It is taken from the word “charisma.” Webster’s 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 has 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 recipients 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 the extra-ordinary 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 Evangelicalism.

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 a fulfillment 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 type of gifts ceased due to an 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?


If you can see this (!), you will notice that certain “sign gifts” are revelatory while others are confirmatory. The revelatory gifts are those that reveal God’s 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?). Either way, the category describes those gifts which involve a supernatural revelation from God.

The “confirmatory gifts” are those which confirm or provide evidence for the revelatory gifts. In other words, someone cannot just claim to be speaking prophetically on behalf of God. Their message must be confirmed by some undeniable act of extraordinary power. Otherwise, anyone could claim to speak on behalf of God.

Of course the gift of healings have a benevolent purpose as the benefits of such gifts affect people in a wonderful way, but, according to most cessationists (and even some charismatics), the result that a person is healed is the secondary purpose. The primary purpose is to legitimize the message of the healer.

A very important point need to be made (if you don’t get this, don’t even bother engaging in this conversation.): Whether one is a charismatic or a cessationist, all Christians believe in God’s supernatural intervention. Only a deist would claim that God has a “hand-off” approach to history and our lives. It is not that the cessationist does not believe in healings or miracles, it is that they don’t believe in the gifts of healing, miracles, etc. being given to a certain people. Both charismatics and cessationists (should) pray for God’s supernatural intervention, can believe in stories of healings, and can expect God to direct their lives through some sort of divine guidance. In other words, just because someone prayed for healing and believes it happened, this does not make one a charismatic (properly speaking).

However, there does seem to be a higher level of expectation for divine intervention among charismatics than with cessationists. I am not saying whether this is good or bad. Expectation of the power of God can both motivate a Christian’s life or be a cause for great disillusionment.

Part 2: In Defense of Charismatics

I have briefly described what it means to be Charismatic in the theological sense of the word. In essence, it does not have to do with a belief in God’s intervention in history or his willingness or power to perform modern day miracles but, properly speaking, instead has to do with a particular belief often called “continuationism.” As apposed to “cessationism” the “continuationist” believes that the so-called supernatural sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, and healings (among others) are still active gifts of the Spirit given to people today. The church, according to continuationists, should seek, expect, and promote the use of such gifts. All Charismatics are continuationists and all continuationists, properly speaking, are charismatics (even if you use a small “c”).

Now I want to give a short defense of the Charismatic/continuationist position. Please understand 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 2 seems to suggest that the gifts of the Spirit (particularly prophecy) would be normative for the church.

Notice especially 14-21 where Peter is explaining to the many Jews gathered to see why these people were speaking in tongues.

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; included in these “last days” events are great miracles. But more 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 the supernatural gifts are common within the Church.

While I don’t believe that this argument is as strong as the last (for it is very difficult to build too much theology from narrative), it would seem that the entire book of Acts – a book devoted to the birth and growth of the Church – illustrates that these type 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 and 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 expansion (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.

Yes, it does say that “tongues will cease” and that prophecy would “pass away,” but notice when Paul believes in the cessation of such gifts will commence: “when the perfect comes.” The question thus 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 Scripture had been completed, there was no longer a need for gifts such as prophecy, tongues, or any other prophetic gift. Hence, there was 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, i.e., the day of the Lord. If this is the case, this passage 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.” 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, for when else will we see “face to face” in Paul’s theology? Paul is looking to the eschaton (end times), believing that all gifts are temporary, but their cessation does not come until Christ comes.

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 then the gifts de facto have not ceased.

I know that this is titled “Why I am Not Charismatic.” I will soon get to this, but 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.

Part 3: Prophecy and Healings

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 a 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 that communicates, “This is what I think everyone should believe!”

1. I have never had a genuine charismatic experience.

Considering the relative weakness of any biblical defense for 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 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 particular gifts – workers of miracles, healings, prophecy, or the like – that I mentioned previously.

Of course, I have heard people give prophecies. During my undergraduate studies, 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 in 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 face, but I could not adjust my skepticism and allow for such a breach of conscience. I thought – and still think today – anyone can do this.

If a person is a prophet, they much show some type of undeniable sign. Would God really expect less for the surrendering of my mind? I would and will say to anyone who claims that they are a prophet or have the gift of prophecy, “Why should I listen to you? 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, lame walked, and 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 miracles.

Why would God withhold such attesting signs? It is insufficient to say that people are just supposed to believe if they are of the faith. Opens a door of irresponsibility and leads to a path of destruction, filled with bitterness and disillusionment.

When Moses said that the people would not believe him if he says that he comes with a message from the Lord, he was right. Not only this, but the people would have been 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 gives yet another sign, this time 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. [Yet a third sign, unsolicited by Moses but provided by God due to the seriousness of Moses’ bold prophetic proclamation and the protection of the minds’ of the people]  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. Indeed, I have never heard of one. All I have seen are multiple vain (empty) proclamations. I am sorry to come across so harshly in this matter, but its seriousness is far beyond social niceties. Any misapplication, misunderstanding, or mis-association can destroy people’s lives and their faith (from a human perspective). I have seen it too many times to number.

I am not saying that there is none who is different – who really speaks on behalf of the Lord and backs it up. I am only saying that in my experience this has never happened. I am perfectly open to it, but I have never seen 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 yearn 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 do so or when he will deny such a 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 everyone else, simply have the ability to pray for healing, leaving the answer in the hands of God.

Part 4: A Testimony

This is an excursus or interlude to my series that I think is a valuable part of the discussion. It comes from a friend named Greg (not his real name) who responded to this series. Please read carefully as I believe his testimony, while you may or may not agree with it, is representative of many disillusioned continuationists/charismatics. Greg was very passionate yet respectful in this post. I pray that you would show the same maturity in your responses.

“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 unforntunately suck. And we have to be able to use our head 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 everyone of brothers and sisters in Christ. Lord, sanctify us in truth, your word is truth.”

Part 5: 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 experientially 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 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 some might 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 Surprised 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, but it has 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. That is, just because the historic Christian church did not believe in the continuation of the supernatural sign gifts 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.

Part 6: 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 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 a variation thereof (something of the deist sort).

Even most cessationists believe that God could 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 take note of 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. Expectation is key; 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 them 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 for 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?

Part 7: 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. I have said as well 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 veritable 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 ecclesiastical 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 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 extraordinary 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 certain 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. In the same way, it seems 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 witness 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 indicate 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 exhaust 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 reasons 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. It is to this position that I now turn my attention.

Part 8: I am a “de facto Cessationist”

Okay, so far in 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 “guilty by association” default folder with this issue, tagging the back of the shirts of all Charismatics with a Benny Hinn label. I respect many who are Charismatic and I 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 in the continuation of sign gifts. 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 for 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 ends the series, de facto.


C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon 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. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    98 replies to "Why I am Not Charismatic (Complete)"

    • ScottL

      Michael –

      I guess your three greatest hang up points in being a continuationist are:

      1) The word ‘normative’. You do not believe such ‘sign’ gifts and ‘revelatory’ gifts are normative. They might happen every blue moon, but not regularly.

      2) You see church history as mainly showing their non-existence.

      3) You’ve not really seen any of these gifts, at least convincingly, in your life.

      Is that a fair assessment?

    • EricW

      I would love for you to invite Jack Deere, Wayne Grudem, Craig Keener and/or Gordon Fee to respond to your post and specific points and read their theology of the sign gifts in light of their own personal experience and observation, and whether they’ve seen/experienced an abundance or a paucity of the same, with documentation re: such.

    • Lisa Robinson

      Ron, the fact that perfect (τελειον) is neuter does not mean it can’t relate to a person. Spirit (πνευμα) is neuter also but we know Him to be a person. So it is quite possible that this verse is referring to Christ. In fact, that is how I have always interpreted, albeit loosely.

    • Kara Kittle

      Interesting chart there…

      So you become an evangelist permanently…but have gifts temporary? So if the gift of wisdom is temporary then what do you base evangelism on? Seems that wisdom and knowledge should be part of an evangelist’s life.

    • Lisa Robinson

      To follow up on Scott’s 3 points that he highlighted, I’m wondering if a fourth might be purpose, as in the purpose of the gift. I contend that the sign gifts demonstrated in Acts hinged upon Acts 1:8. Everything following explains how this was carried out. Considering the Jewish mindset towards their election and what it meant to worship YHWH and their attitude towards Gentiles, not to mention introducing this new way now available to all in that particular pagan culture, it seems reasonable that sign gifts as played out in Acts would be needed to accomplish the purpose of Acts 1:8. Therefore, I agree that Acts implements a transition establishing the church.

      So if the gifts were given to testify of Christ and to edify the body (1 Cor 14:5), in 21st century western civilization, why are sign gifts needed today with a closed canon, a multiplicity of translations and vast resources? In remote parts of the world, where missionaries to to the unreached, yes….

    • EricW

      Lisa:

      It seems to me that the neuterness of to pneuma – wind, breath, spirit/Spirit – even when meaning a person, is due to it being a neuter noun, a fact that can’t change (unless one wants to invent a masculine word ho pneumos or a feminine word hê pneumê for “masculine” or “feminine” spirit beings).

      In 1 Cor 13:10 “the perfect” is simply the substantival use of the adjective teleios, teleia, teleion. I.e., the author could have written ho teleios or hê teleia if he meant “the perfect/complete [person].” But it seems to me that he is contrasting “the partial” (to ek merous) (including the idea of immaturity) with “the complete” (to teleion) (including the idea of maturity), and hence the neuter would be the likely choice. He is comparing and contrasting states/situations (though one of those states – the parousia and/or the eschaton – involves the presence of a Person).

    • ScottL

      Kara –

      There is a little difference between a ‘word (message) of wisdom’ and a ‘word (message) of knowledge’ and then looking to grow in the general grace of God’s wisdom and knowledge.

      An example of a ‘word of knowledge’ is Jesus with the woman at the well. He knew she had had 5 husbands and the man she lived with was not her husband (John 4:17-18). This was a ‘spontaneous’ revelation from the Spirit. (Christ in His humanity did rely on the Spirit.)

      Still, I am not sure the chart is the best categorisation of the gifts. But at least you can see the difference between knowledge and a ‘word of knowledge’.

    • ScottL

      Lisa –

      I continue to be humbly saddened by these statements: So if the gifts were given to testify of Christ and to edify the body (1 Cor 14:5), in 21st century western civilization, why are sign gifts needed today with a closed canon, a multiplicity of translations and vast resources? In remote parts of the world, where missionaries to to the unreached, yes…

      You know I’m not a weirdo charismatic, I really want to stay healthy in these things. TBN is not my choice. But such summary statements seem to be read back into Scripture without great Scriptural support. Aren’t we still looking to fulfil Acts 1:8? Aren’t we still looking to see Jesus do greater works through us (not quality, but quantity)? Don’t we still have the same Spirit indwelling and empowering us? I mean, I almost feel like pulling out the card that says, ‘Where does the Scripture purport that ‘sign’ gifts were only needed for a very few years, and especially would not be needed with a closed canon?’

      Maybe I am just stubborn, but that is the usual reformed card pulled out each time. I just feel to much A + B = F is coming forth than A + B = C.

    • Lisa Robinson

      Eric, I see your point especially in consideration of vs. 11. Something to ponder.

    • Kara Kittle

      CMP,
      I respect your opinion in this matter. But as far as the church not believing in the continuation of the gifts that is not entirely historically accurate either.

      For instance these are references against that very concept:

      1:Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio
      2:Vatican II, Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People, Apostolicam Actuositatem
      3:Pope St. Clement I, Letter to the Corinthians Ch. XXXVIII. Ante-Nicene Fathers,
      4:Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

      Those references state the Catholic church has never accepted the position of cessationism.
      St. Patrick, St. Francis, Pope Clement I, Hildegard of Bingen, all not only believed it but practiced it.

    • Kara Kittle

      ScottL,
      Jesus did say “These signs shall follow them that believe”.

    • John C.T.

      CMP, “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.”

      As indicated by a number of people over your series of posts, you frame the debate in a specific way by your definition of “charismatic”. However, you provide no adequate justification for your definition. Moreover, your definition both unnecessarily limits the word to a particular sociological phenomenon and ignores the wider senses of the word as it is used in English.

      Regards,
      John

    • Lisa Robinson

      Scott, yes clearly the work of Acts 1:8 goes on. I am not saying that sign gifts are non-existent, hence the reference to remote parts of the world. What I’m saying is why are they needed here and now. And this statement here, ‘Where does the Scripture purport that ’sign’ gifts were only needed for a very few years, and especially would not be needed with a closed canon?’ What is the canon? Is it not God’s word to us sufficient for all things? (2 Timothy 3:17). They didn’t have that in Acts.

    • EricW

      To KK’s comments I would add that while the Orthodox Church didn’t embrace the Charismatic Movement like the Roman Catholic Church did (in fact, it largely rejected it), I don’t think the EOC would be considered “cessationist” either. However, they view the gifts as primarily residing or operating in those who through the church disciplines and katharsis and askêsis have taken the call to theôsis seriously and progressed spiritually – e.g., the gifted elders on Mt. Athos, the Russian Orthodox monks and elders, etc. This is in seeming contrast to the believers in Corinth and Galatia Paul wrote to, where the manifestations of the charismata and the outpourings and operations of the Holy Spirit did not seem to be dependent on the maturity or spirituality of the church members; in fact, some of them seemed to be the opposite of seasoned and wise believers. The Russian Orthodox also have their “holy fools.”

    • Kara Kittle

      Lisa,
      And in regard to those people in the remote part of the world who still practice it…(I don’t see how Dayton, Ohio is remote, but ok), the question now becomes…

      If those people in those remote countries still practice it, are they in the stone age regarding Christian understanding?

    • ScottL

      Lisa –

      Why ask this question: What I’m saying is why are they needed here and now?

      Now, the question is sensible, but not I am not sure it becomes helpful when we start from a skeptical point of view that doesn’t believe they are needed because we have our leather bound Bibles today. For me, it’s still a case of A + B = F rather than A + B = C.

      What is the canon? Is it not God’s word to us sufficient for all things? (2 Timothy 3:17).

      I know we know that Paul was referring to the OT here. I am not saying we cannot conclude the same on the NT. But we can’t use 2 Tim 3:16-17 as an argument that says, when we have a closed canon with the final 27 books, then we don’t need these gifts. All will be ok from here on out.

      Why would those in China or India or Africa need these and us westerners not? Sooner or later, in the next few hundred years, there might not be any remote parts. Are we just to say that, in 300 years, we won’t ever need such gifts?

    • ScottL

      Kara –

      Jesus did say “These signs shall follow them that believe”.

      Yes, I agree. But I am not sure why you pointed out that verse.

    • Kara Kittle

      ScottL,
      Because the gifts in question are the gifts He was referring to. I was merely making a point of reference that even Jesus advocated the gifts in operation in the lives of believers.

    • ScottL

      Kara –

      I agree, but most reformed believers will say that Jesus was specifically making this statement to the first apostles. They were the ones who were to walk in these signs alone. I don’t agree with that statement since Philip, Barnabas, Stephen, Agabus, Ananias, and some others were used in such. But that is what will be argued.

    • Jugulum

      Eric & Lisa,

      I agree about “the perfect”. The neuter gender does seem to make it unlikely to refer to the person Jesus. But that doesn’t mean the default alternative is “the completed Bible”!

      People suggest “Jesus” as “the perfect” because the passage seems to be talking about major changes—“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..” “Jesus” doesn’t quite work, because “the perfect” doesn’t seem to be a person. But the other possibility is that it refers to the fullness of the eternal state.

      Kara,

      Jesus did say “These signs shall follow them that believe”.

      Or… Maybe not. That verse is in the part of Mark that’s not in all the manuscripts, and might not have been in the original Gospel According to Mark.

    • EricW

      (deleted; Jugulum made my point re: Mark 16:17a)

    • ScottL

      Jugulum –

      Even with Mark’s ending in question, we can turn to John 14:12 and be encouraged.

    • Kara Kittle

      ScottL,
      Don’t they study this verse using hermeneutic methods? Just asking. BTW, I am one of those weirdo Charismatics..lol.

      From Merriam-Webster Dictionary

      These (plural of this) signs ( something material or external that stands for or signifies something spiritual) shall (used to express a command or exhortation) follow ( to engage in as a calling or way of life) them (used as object of a verb or preposition) that believe (to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something)

      Now using these terms which indeed many have more than one meaning, it still stands to reason that Jesus was saying those who believe, these natural things shall happen.

    • Cadis

      I think if you have dispensational leanings the question of the gifts the sign gifts is ‘easier’ to answer and put to a rest ,with this understanding of the scope of scripture, than it can be coming from other systems of theology.

      I’m a little more than a de facto cessationist. Through all of the miracles given to Israel in the O.T. did it produce faith? I do understand the need for credentials for a prophet or a spokes person of God but Israel became that they “required” a sign to believe God. They had God among them performing miracles yet they did not believe. He was rejected by them. The signs did not make them believe. He was seen of some 5,000 after his resurrection yet overall Israel did not believe. They lacked faith. A faith that even witnessing miracles could not produce.

      It is one thing to pray for the needs and the healing of our sick, I pray from pure empathy and desire that God would make them well and it is another to say healing is a sign that God is with and among and for us. The sign that God is with and among and for us was Christ and was Christ crucified, Christ raised and interceding for us….that should answer any doubt that God is for us.
      How much more of a sign is required than God among , dying and raised for us?

      To those who have eyes to see and ears to hear it is enough, the gospel will be sufficient. The sign gifts were credentials of those chosen apostles of the Church (12)they established the church, got the message out but the sign gifts did not prove or validate ‘The gospel’ message. “Now abides faith , hope and love” “the just shall live by faith” People in the new testament did not believe because they were healed or heard in their own language. They believed because they were born again and those who did not believe did not believe still and even the very miraculous signs could not persuade them. Those signs turned against them. If the signs did not lead Israel or others (gentiles) to believe the gospel what makes us think they are needed to ‘win’ people today?

    • Jugulum

      Lisa,

      Is it not God’s word to us sufficient for all things? (2 Timothy 3:17).

      All things? No. It’s sufficient for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness–making us competent & equipped for all the good works God has for us to do.

      How precisely would the operation of the gifts in question imply insufficiency of Scripture to equip & train us?

    • Kara Kittle

      Cadis,
      For you is it a matter of “Whatever God wills to do there is nothing we can or should do about it”? I have heard that same idea coming from people who have had children in the hospital and they said don’t pray for their children because what ever God wills then that is it. Sort of just float along theology.

      And this was not just people from the faith only movement of charismatics…but a fundamental Baptist church. Why are we then taught according to scripture to lay hands on the sick, anoint with oil, call on the elders, pray ye one for another that ye might be healed and various other verses if it is for naught? Either we must because we are compelled through scripture and the Spirit or we do not keep those things taught to us.

      Didn’t Jesus even say the sign of the Son of Man returning is the times would be like in the days of Noah? Why would He say it is a sign?

    • ScottL

      Cadis –

      There were more than 12 apostles in the NT (even more than 13 if you count Paul). There were maybe up to 20 in the NT. We just don’t realise that. And don’t forget the best one ever – not Paul, but Jesus (Heb 3:1).

      And, interestingly enough, there were others used in signs and wonders besides the apostles – Stephen, Philip, Ananias. Not to mention that, if we want to recognise prophecy and tongues as revelatory and signs, we have to consider a numerous amount of people being used in those. I mean, there were tons of them.

    • Kara Kittle

      ScottL,
      120 in the upper room and yet not all were mentioned by name…3,000 were added to the church in that day alone..and none were mentioned by name. And then daily more were added, and none were mentioned by name.

      Apparently God does draw people through the use of gifts.

    • Cadis

      Kara,

      “Why are we then taught according to scripture to lay hands on the sick, anoint with oil, call on the elders, pray ye one for another that ye might be healed and various other verses if it is for naught? ”

      because we love one another. I did not say it was for naught, I just said that healing is not a sign that the gospel is correct.

      “Didn’t Jesus even say the sign of the Son of Man returning is the times would be like in the days of Noah? Why would He say it is a sign?”

      Because Israel requires a sign…I’ll be raptured no sign needed for me 🙂

      Scott,

      Yes you are right but even still the Church was (see we probably are not going to agree here) ‘founded’ by the 12 and are so named foundational in Rev. And my main point is still the same in that the sign gifts helped to established the church and give crededance to those who claimed to be prophets now speaking something “new” “a mystery” now revealed. This is why I started with the dispensational view,who will see this slightly different than you will.

    • ScottL

      Cadis –

      I am aware of the dispensational view. Used to be part of a Baptist church that taught such. Interestingly enough, the Assemblies of God are dispensational, but they just take Acts 2 and the words about the last days to point to the very last before some kind of ‘rapture’. So they are now saying God brought the signs back around. 🙂 But the last days have been going on for about the last 1979 years – first advent to second advent of Christ.

      Even more interesting is how Paul and James weren’t part of the 12, but they got to write some good ol’ Scripture in the NT. I think Paul wrote most of it. 🙂 And then you got those 500 or so that saw Christ, but most of them weren’t apostles. So then we have to wonder if seeing Christ post-resurrection was the confirmation one was an apostle. For me, the whole system is not able to stand when we start looking past the traditions and start considering what actually was happening in those early days.

      I agree that signs and wonders testify to God’s glory and gospel, but thankfully we need the same attestation today since we have the same Spirit and have the same commands given to the first apostles. We can walk into many situations today and there isn’t a prescriptive Bible verse that can always do the job. What we might need in a situation is a word of knowledge or word of wisdom. We might need the Spirit to give a specific revelation into the life of someone. Rom 10:9 won’t do in this time in the salvation of this person. But God shows you they are in a deep depression over the loss of their mother in the last month. You share this, they burst forth in tears, and they all of a sudden are open to the gospel unlike before. We need the living Spirit today, as I know you know.

    • Minnow

      CMP–I honestly do not understand why you seem to need to beat this dead horse. By your definition the Apostles and Jesus himself were not “gifted”. They were simply used more frequently by God than the average Joe. The difference between them and others who are used by God is probably only that they were more atuned to the Spirit’s leading and didn’t go out on their own as often as the rest of us do (praying without the desired result of a healing).

    • Lisa Robinson

      Kara asked:

      “If those people in those remote countries still practice it, are they in the stone age regarding Christian understanding?”

      In a sense, yes. In remote parts means areas of unreached people groups in which many communication disconnects would occur including language, worldviews and religious practices. I am referring to the more rural/tribal areas and most have not even heard of Jesus.

    • cheryl u

      I have a couple of thoughts here. First, it seems to me that the Scripture itself tells us that we should be expecting spirititual gifts to be in operation and that we should be looking for them and desiring them. I Corinthians 14:1 says, “Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual {gifts,} but especially that you may prophesy.”

      My second thought is that the rest of that same chapter speaks of the reasons for tongues and prophecy. Prophecy is said to be used to bring conviction to unbelivers and comfort and learning to the believers. And tongues could be used in church so long as there was an interpreter otherwise they were to be used privately by the Christian to speak to God. Verse 12 of the same chapter says that the reason the the gifts were to be used was to edify the church. None of that sounds to me like the reason for the gifts, at least not these specific ones mentioned, was simply for signs to establish the gospel.

    • Lisa Robinson

      Jug, my comment was in relation to Scott’s comment ‘Where does the Scripture purport that ’sign’ gifts were only needed for a very few years, and especially would not be needed with a closed canon?’ So the all things would be in relation to what 2 Timothy specifies, as you stated. Again, it goes back to purpose of the sign gifts

      Scott, to your question:

      “Why would those in China or India or Africa need these and us westerners not? Sooner or later, in the next few hundred years, there might not be any remote parts. Are we just to say that, in 300 years, we won’t ever need such gifts?”

      Because people in remote parts of China, India or Africa may not have access to Bibles or Bible instruction or even the gospel.

      In terms of the canon, I think we can both agree that Scripture speaks in a prophetic sense. So the Scripture (sacred writings) spoken on in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, would naturally include the inspired writings that would eventually become the NT.

    • Lisa Robinson

      Cheryl,

      Actually 1 Cor 14:22 (?) says that tongues are for a sign to the unbeliever. Prophecy is for the believer.

    • Dave Z

      The sign gifts were not always in effect in the early church either. Paul, after some spectacular and even remote-controlled miracles (Acts 19:11-12), “left Trophimus sick in Miletus.” Had “normative” healing ceased already? Paul did not instruct the Corinthians to heal those who were sick from improper practice of the Lord’s Supper. And, of course, healing can only go so far – people still die. There are limits to the promises of Scripture.

      But I believe God still works in miraculous ways. I have had people speak “words of knowledge” to me, regarding situations they could not have known through normal channels.

      So as CMP says, it’s hard to convince someone who has seen them in action that the sign gifts have ceased, but the excesses of many charismatic/Pentecostal churches have forced me to be pretty skeptical about the vast majority of “miracle” claims.

    • cheryl u

      Lisa,

      However, in verse 23, it says that if all speak in tongues and an unbeliever comes in, he would think they were all crazy! That doesn’t sound in this instance like tongues are a too convincing sign to them of the validity of the gospel. However verse 24 says that prophecy will convince an unbeliever. And in verse 26 tongues is included in the list of things that is to be done for edifiying in the church.

    • Jugulum

      Lisa,

      OK. “All things” didn’t mean “all things” in that context. 🙂 (That’s fine.) Like you said, it goes to the purpose of those gifts. Hence my question:

      How precisely would the operation of the gifts in question imply insufficiency of Scripture to equip & train us?

      If you’re saying this, then I understand. (Whether I agree is another matter.) “2 Tim 3:16-17 is relevant because those gifts were intended for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness–making us competent & equipped.”

      If that’s not what you’re saying, then your question (“Is it not God’s word to us sufficient for all things?”) doesn’t make sense to me. I mean, I don’t see how you were applying it.

    • C Michael Patton

      Wow, lots of comments. Have not had time to read through them all.

      Ron, I would place the context of the “perfect” over the gender in this case, especially since there is no clear referent to it otherwise. I would say that taking “the perfect” as the Scripture, in my opinion, can only come by bringing your theology to the text which naturally has nothing to say about it.

      ScottL: yes, I think that that is a fair assessment.

    • Dave Z

      I have not done an in-depth study on it, but there are two ways to read verse 14:26:

      1) “these things must be done so the church may be strengthened,” implying that without them the church will be weaker,

      or

      2) “When these things are done, it must be for the strengthening of the church,” which would go to the motives of the speaker of a “hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.”

      I have moved from perspective 1 to perspective 2 over the years because I’ve seen some churches that did not practice the sign gifts, yet were strong, healthy and growing while some charasmatic/Pentecostal churches were mired in conflict, disagreement and sometimes, bizarre practices.

    • Jugulum

      Lisa,

      On tongues as a sign: Right, “tongues are a sign for the unbeliever”–but what does that mean, specifically?

      I wrote an entry in December, An Exhausting Set of Questions on Tongues. I was trying to explore the issue from all sides, and point out all the issues to work through. The sixth section was about tongues-as-a-sign.

    • Jugulum

      CMP,

      What about taking “the perfect” not as Jesus, but as “the eternal glorified state that Jesus will usher in”?

      That fits both the context and the gender.

    • C Michael Patton

      Yes, that is exactly how I take it. The perfect is not simply Jesus, but the second coming.

    • Kara Kittle

      Lisa,
      Tell me one part of the world where no one has heard the Gospel.

      Could it be in Africa? Oh wait..there’s the Ethiopian Church that claims to have the ark of the covenant. Could it be Asia..oh wait, much of that has Christian churches for over a millenia. Could it be Australia? Oh wait, aren’t there Europeans there? Could it be South America? Oh wait…what’s the deal with that big statue. Where in this world now has not the Gospel not reached?

      With the internet, satellite tv and shortwave radio it has completely covered the globe, the moon, and outerspace. The only people who have not heard the gospel yet are simply those who have grown up in households who have not allowed it there. But those people around them have. There is not any untouched place now.

      Ask Muslims who Jesus is…most know Him from the Koran, albeit in a different way than we, but they know the Injeel. Ask Buddhists and Hindus who Jesus is and they will tell you, albeit in a different way than you or I.

      OK I will concede there are people who have not heard the Gospel, and yet those people also live in civilized countries like the United States. There was a lady who commented on that.

    • Lisa Robinson

      Jug, yes that is what I’m saying (#39)

    • Kara Kittle

      Jugulum,
      I tend to go one step more than that, we have not partaken of the wedding feast yet.

    • Lisa Robinson

      Kara, the issue is not really whether they’ve heard but what resources exist for them to hear. I am not talking about the “civilized” countries or parts of continents that you mentioned. The fact that someone here has not heard the gospel is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make because of the vast amount of resources we have here to explain it to them.

    • Cadis

      Wow there are allot of posts. I was always under the impression that speaking in tongues was a sign as much against Israel as it was for the church.
      Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
      Isa 28:12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

      Scott, I know that some dispensationalists believe in the continuing gifts. That’s why I said it made it ‘easier’ I think dispensationalism makes it easier to put the sign gifts as temporary but it does not mean you are a cessationist by default.

      If you are a good dispensationalist it will make you a cessationist by default 🙂 (just kidding, kinda, I think)

    • Cadis

      actually I don’t mean to sound sure, I’m not sure but in trying to work through it , It seems as though they are very connected and one would lead to the other.

      meaning I’m not positive of the connection between dispensationalism and cessationism but in my mind at this moment in my thinking they seem to be extremly interwoven.

      Speaking to a people with stammering lips is not a good thing or a good sign , I would think.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.