Why I’m a “De facto Cessationist” (But Dont Want to Be)

I suspect we agree on a lot more besides that, Chapman 😉

I hate to sound like a stuck record here, Michael: but how do you honestly hope to rise above subjectivism – even on this issue – without an independent, extra-Biblical authority capable of making definitive declarations on these matters? Just because the particular protestant tradition to which you subscribe rebels against that authority, it does not thereby invalidate that authority as a historical reality with a Biblical basis and sound philosophical foundation evidenced in centuries of tradition. Your refusal to accept that is just personal incredulity.

I would think to rebel against an authority, said authority would have to be an established authority! That I do not grant the Pope, the congregation of Bishops, nor your catechism. Respect, often. But authority? At least the type that you’re looking for, no.

In the end, we’re probably both in the same boat since the Magisterium has yet to speak dogmatically on this issue for you guys either. Kind of funny considering what I said in that open letter. At least the pope saw fit to cover the Marian Dogmas! at least the pope saw fit to cover the Marion Dogmas.

having said that, this is quite an odd view to talk about subjectivity. There are various degrees of subjectivity. Again, just like your subjectivity concerning your personal belief about the magisterial authority. Of course, your belief is subjective. so really, we’re in the same boat about it all if you are defining subjectivity that way.

however, subjectivity is normally reserved to those beliefs that you have for which there is not evidence beyond your own personal opinion. I would think you might appreciate the witness of church tradition now and then. four, well, most of the church fathers, and beyond into the reformation, certainly believed in miracles, they did not believe the three established parameters of what makes spiritual gifts. 1) continuation, 2) normative nature in history and in today’s local assembly, and 3) the personal pursuit of these gifts. All of which I can see except number two. do you think these gifts are normative for the local church? and when I say this, I do not mean the gifts themselves to the church as a whole, but the individualized gifts given to members of the church for them to function is there a part of the Body? If you do, who is your establish prophet who can regularly prophecies and gets it right?

Thank you for your clarification. Your journey through the charismatic tradition, marked by both reverence for its tenets & a rigorous quest for verifiable spiritual experiences, is profoundly moving. Your openness to the continuation of gifts, coupled with the personal struggle to witness their normative manifestation in the church, reflects a deep yearning for authenticity in faith practices.
In your discernment, you engaged with the charismatic view not just theoretically but also practically, living out its principles in community and personal devotion. This hands on approach has given you insights that are as valuable as they are hard earned. It is clear that while you maintain an openness to the possibility of the miraculous, your commitment to truth leads you to require more than anecdotal evidence.
Your reflections bring to the fore the tension between the desire for tangible evidence of the HS work and the acceptance that such evidence may not always conform to empirical standards. In spirituality, as in science, the unobservable can be just as real as the observable, though it defies quantification and replication. Your approach does not dismiss the mysterious but rather seeks to engage with it responsibly.
The challenges you’ve encountered resonate with the core of spiritual inquire: How do we hold on to the rigor of evidence while embracing the ineffable nature of divine interaction? Your framework suggests that faith and reason are not adversaries but companions in this exploration. As you’ve experienced, the spiritual path is not a linear one, nor is it uniform across all believers.
What remains clear from your dialogue with Sam and your own personal experiences is that the search for empirical solidity in spiritual matters must also leave room for the unpredictable ways in which the HS chooses to move. This dual acknowledgment does not diminish the validity of your empirical approach; instead, it enriches it, ensuring that your empirical inquiry into spiritual fits does not overlook the very essence of faith, Hebrew 11:1.
In this way, your framework is not only refreshing but also deeply necessary. It challenges the Christian community to strive for a faith that is robust, discerning, and open to the mystery of the divine. Your perspective encourages us to embrace the empirical without dismissing the enigmatic, inviting a fuller experience of the spiritual life that honors both the mind and the spirit.

Good response. I would take it even further, regarding the “authority” conversation. Protestants do not recognize any man as “authority”. Opinion makers, sure; influence, sure. But authority? No.

Outside of the topic of gifts, protestants have already been successful at debunking a lot of “church fathers” authority concusions about a lot of things Catholic.

The problem with the succession of denominations of reformation is…they still have a lot of catholic baggage that they still carry with them, thereby retaining catholic authority, unwittingly.

And that’s a problem. They are afraid to completely sever, because they still have so much respect for church history, and church fathers.

I don’t. They are just men who put on their pants the same way I do. Authority? LOL.

Edward Chapman, thanks for your take on authority within the Protestant tradition. You’re right that there is a fundamental difference in how Protestant view authority compared to Catholics tradition, with a strong emphasis on the authority of the Scriptures rather than on ay human leader. You raise an interesting point about the remnants of catholic influence in Protestant denominations. It’s a conversation worth having–how much of what is traditionally accepted within Protestant churches comes from our heritage and how much is purely from scriptural backing. Your skepticism about the authority of he church fathers is shared by may who are looking to remove layers they feel aren’t scripturally warranted.
It would be insightful to delve into your ideas about how Protestantism could further reform its practice. How do you think churches should handle the balance between respect for historical teachings and the sole authority of the scriptures?

Eric Quek,
Thank you for your reply. Let me give a little bit of a background on me.

I’m not a Jehovah’s Witness. But…When I was a baby Christian, I had a friend of mine try to proselytize me to become a Jehovah’s Witness. Well, I wasn’t having it, because everyone knew that they were a cult. But you know what? I didn’t know what they believed, so how could I conclude that they were a cult. I hardly knew what I believed. But since they had a reputation of being a cult, I was curious to see if what they said passed muster. I wanted to debate this guy. But if I didn’t know about what I believed, how could I?

Have you ever read a church’s “WE BELIEVE” statements? Who is we? And how did “we” come to the conclusion?

What I’ve learned over the years, is that “some people” had a meeting some 600 years ago, and I wasn’t invited. I never got the memo. Someone else told “we”, whoever we is, what to believe. And due to CHURCH FATHERS authority of the way of doing business, “WE” just said, “OK”. Dumb sheep!

I will give one example on what protestants of the reformation call, communion. We know that Catholics call it transub-whatever. And we know what they believe in that regard. Now, while it is a good thing that protestants rejected that, all they did was modify it into a different “ritual”.

The reference to this so-called “communion” is 1 Corinthians chapter 8. Has anyone ever read the story?

Paul was admonishing these people because there was division in the church. He wasn’t establishing a ritual of a thimble of grape juice and a piece of gluten free bread stick.

He was discussing a church banquet, and how people were being rude. The lesson was about ethics on how to conduct yourself at the dinner table at church. He used the Last Supper as THE example on how EVERYONE got to eat the meal, and no one goes hungry. And he ends the story by saying that if you are that hungry, eat at home. Where do you get “communion” from that?

Now, I don’t really care what church’s do in the communion ritual, as you are still honoring God, but that certainly is not what Paul was discussing.

I have a saying, and that saying is that denominations search the commentaries daily to see if the bible is right. But Bereans search the scriptures daily to see if what we are being taught is right…or wrong.

This communion example is just one of many. Another is that we have preachers that are expository preaching fans. That’s not exactly a good thing. You can’t learn the spiritual revelations that way.

Example: The story of Jonah. The preacher preaches that Jonah was a bad man, because he didn’t want to go to Nineveh. And the moral of the story? Be obedient. Expository!

But what is the spiritual? What is the sole purpose of the prophets? Especially in the case of Jonah? Jesus. 3 days, 3 nights.

We really need to get back to the drawing board, and get rid of Augustine, and like minded “church fathers”, and TRY AGAIN.

Why did the Jews reject Jesus? Deuteronomy 29:4. That’s why. Was Jesus supposed to have been crucified? Yes, and why? But we have Preterists who have no clue.

Can Christians get a divorce and remarry? Yes, and why? But who teaches that they can’t? Why?

We need to figure out FOR OURSELVES what we believe and why we believe it. We can’t just say, because that’s what the preacher said, because that preacher only knows what he was told, who taught him, who taught him, and so on, and it originated with some meeting that “some people” had some 600 years ago.

I don’t believe everything in the “We believe” statements.

Ed Chapman. Thank you for sharing your perspective on religious beliefs and practices. Your dedication to personal scripture study and a critical examination of established doctrines is commendable. It’s clear that you have a passion for returning to what you see as the foundations of Christian faith, grounded in a direct, unmediated understanding of the Bible. This approach is reminiscent of the Berean spirit, encourages a deep and individual engagement with scripture, which can be quite powerful.
Addressing the weaknesses you’ve highlighted in your approach offers an opportunity to enhance that engagement. As you rightly point out, any robust belief system must stand up to scrutiny, Here’s a further exploration into the points you’ve raised:
1. Regarding Tradition: While the pursuit of scriptural purity is noble, tradition plays an important role. How? Tradition often embodies the wisdom of collective spiritual experience and serves as a stabilizing force in religious practice. In addition, offer a sense of identity and community. Ignoring this can lead to a rootless spirituality, where individuals may feel disconnected from the historical church. How to leverage subjectivity: Understand that the role of tradition can provide a communal interpretative lens that guide purely subjective readings of scripture, to ensue that new interpretations are weighed against the collective understanding of the past. In addition, believe that Michael’s course: The Theology Program: Bibliology & Hermeneutics #2 of 6 goes through the principles of biblical interpretation to provide a stable starting point for understanding scripture. I personally believe it is Worth Rereading or obtain the whole series. Another way to leverage subjective interpretations is to make theological education for lay members–again this is one of Michael’s goal and in facilitating that goal he made it at very very economical price to the point of FREE. This way lay members can equip themselves with proper tools for interpretation that align with the broader Christian tradition.

Thanks Eric. I love that you recommend this!

Ed Chapman, Michael: I recommend your series including #2 : Bibliology & Hermeneutics is preciously because we need to have a common understanding in how to do hermeneutics.
This is why I recommend your series –essentially a workbook. I am novice compare to Chuck Swindoll, Daniel B Wallace & JP Moreland ( whom I had the privilege to take several of his classes at Biola University at graduate level) who are giants in their field of expertise .
First know that this is a Workbook. This means one is provided a foundation and upon that one is empowered to grow by delving into the subject.
I will pick up on Session (: History of Interpretation:
Part A. Introduce hermeneutics with key terms. I especially love his differentiation on Exegesis–drawing out the text’s meaning as the original author intended! & Eisegesis–projecting one’s own interpretation onto the text, often without regard for context or intent.! .
Part B. A Brief history of interpretation by Jewish, NT, early church, medieval and reformation hermeneutics.
Here are the summarized bullet format:
1. The first century Jews, especially the Pharisees and scribes, employed a method called Midrash to interpret Scripture. This includes a careful textual analysis and sought deeper meaning in the text.
2. They also believed in the dual Torah or Written Law/ Hebrew Bible and the Oral Law–applications and interpretation. This was later codified in the Talmud.
3. Often used typology, a technique that interprets events, person or statements in the OT as foreshadowing later events. This is Foundational in Christian hermeneutics to better appreciate its importance in both Jewish and Christian contexts.
Interpretations by Christ and Apostles:
Christ often interpreted Scripture in ways that challenged the conventional Jewish thought of His time. He used parables, typology, and a Christocentric approach where He was the fulfillment of OT prophecy. Similarly, Apostles employed a Chris centered interpretation or Christocentric hermeneutics.
Early Church Hermeneutic:
Patton argue that early Church continued the Christocentric interpretation employed by Christ and NT writers. A beautifully illustrated table: Functional–Typological, Allegorical, Historical-Grammatical hermeneutics
There are so many more which can empower oneself through such delve into leveraging hermeneutics and starve subjectivity in our dialogue.
I wish you a happy empowering journey through Hermeneutics as we all Grow together not only in academic exercise but as a tool for personal edification and clearer dialogue in faith communities.