Regarding the doctrine of the gifts of the Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, 28; Ephesians 4:11; Romans 12:6-8; 1 Peter 4:11) two basic theories are held: (1) cessationism and (2) continuationism.
Cessationism teaches that some gifts have ceased due to there function in redemptive history, while others remain.
Continuationism teaches that all the gifts continue for all time though not necessarily with the same normalcy.
Within the continuationist camp there are two distinct understandings: (1) normative and (2) non-normative. The normative understanding (sometimes called restorationist since the understanding is that the experience of the Apostolic church should be restored) is that all the gifts of the Spirit are normative for all time. In other words, if all of the gifts are not being experienced as a normal part of church life then something is terribly wrong. The non-normative understanding is that, while all continue for all time, all should not be considered normative for church life. God gives the gifts at different times for different reasons. While we should always earnestly seek all the gifts, we should not feel that something is amiss with the church if all are not normally experienced.
Normative continuationism is a defining characteristic of the modern Charismatic movement which is, generally speaking, held by those who practice a Baptist ecclesiology and tend towards an Arminian or semi-Pelagian soteriology. Cessationism was the default theory in the Reformed tradition prior to the Charismatic movement. Today both cessationism and non-normative continuationism are considered generally acceptable among the Reformed. There are exceptions, but these are the general trends.
Since encountering the doctrine of the gifts of the Spirit, my viewpoint has been non-normative continuationism. But this week I revisited my MDF (Ministerial Data Form, a standard form of the PCA for ministerial candidates) and studied the doctrine a bit further. After reading Sinclair Ferguson and Richard Gaffin on the gifts of the Spirit, my view has changed. My MDF now reads:
I believe the gifts of the Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12) manifested during the time of the Apostles were means God used to attest the legitimacy of the Apostolic-prophetic teaching, which became the sure foundation (Ephesians 2:20) of the Christian church. I believe the biblical and historical evidence points to a cessation of that particular expression of Spiritual gifts in the established church after the time of the Apostles. Those happenings that have been viewed as miraculous gifts among modern restorationists are, in my view, a misinterpretation of religious experience, whether true or false religion. As Richard Gaffin writes: “Prophecy and tongues . . . are revelatory gifts, temporarily given to the church during its foundational, apostolic era. They are inseparably connected with the ministry of the apostles and have since been permanently withdrawn, along with the apostles, from the life of the church” (Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, [Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishers, 1979], 117). Also, the gifts of healing, tongues-speaking, prophetic utterances, and Spirit baptism propagated for the most part by the contemporary Charismatic movement differ significantly from the biblical descriptions of their expression in the time of the Apostles. As Sinclair Ferguson writes: "Misinterpretation on a large scale seems to have taken place in the twentieth century. In so far as that is true, a reinterpretation which anchors experience in more biblical categories will not only produce a broader theological harmony on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; it will also marry experience to truth in such a way that greater stability and richer fruit of the Spirit will be created in the life and character of the church of Jesus Christ. This, after all, is the goal which all the gifts of the Spirit are given to serve (cf. Ephesians 4:7-16)" (The Holy Spirit [Downers Grove: IVP, 1996], 236-37).
Today I also ran across an excerpt from Jonathan Edwards on this doctrine. Edwards writes:
If saving grace is more excellent than the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, then we cannot conclude, from what the Scripture says of the glory of the latter times of the Church, that the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit will be granted to men in those times. Many have been ready to think, that in those glorious times of the Church which shall be after the calling of the Jews and the destruction of the Antichrist, there will be many persons that will be inspired, and endued with a power of working miracles. But what the Scripture says concerning the glory of those times does not prove any such thing, or make it probable. For it has been shewn [sic], that the pouring out of the Spirit of God, in his ordinary and saving operations, to fill men's hearts with a Christian and holy temper, and lead them to the exercises of the divine life, is the most glorious way of pouring out the Spirit that can be; more glorious, far more glorious, than a pouring out of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. And, therefore, the glory of those times of the Church does not require any such thing as those extraordinary gifts. Those times may be far the most glorious times of the Church that ever have been, without them. Men's not having the gift of prophecy, of tongues, of healing, &c., as they had in the apostolic age, will not hinder those being far more glorious times than there were then, if the Spirit be poured out in greater measure in his sanctifying influences; for this, as the apostle expressly asserts, is a more excellent way (1 Cor. xii. 31). This glory is the greatest glory of the Church of Christ, and the greatest glory which Christ's Church will ever enjoy in any period. this is what will make the Church more like the Church in heaven, where charity or love hath a perfect reign, than any number or degree of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit could do. So that we have no reason, on this account, and perhaps not on any other, to expect that the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit will be poured out in those glorious times which are yet to come. For in those times, there is no dispensation to be introduced, and no new Bible to be given. Nor have we any reason to expect our present Scriptures are to be added to and enlarged; but rather, in the end of the sacred writings which we now have, it seems to be intimated, that no addition is to be made till Christ comes (see Rev. xxii 18-21) ("Charity More Excellent Than the Extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit," from Charity and Its Fruits, 45-47).
The more I study this doctrine, the more I see that it is essentially intertwined with bibliology and eschatology. This comes through clearly in the Edwards excerpt. His understandings of Scriptural sufficiency and postmillennialism greatly inform his understanding of the gifts of the Spirit. I have a lot more studying to do, but for now I think the cessationist view is preferable.
14 comments:
Some good slooge on a seldom addressed topic.
Danke,
Gunny
You are most welcome Gun. Thanks for the encouragement. We missed you this Friday. Maybe next time?
Lord willing. I certainly hated missing out on Matt's last love outing.
;-(
Freitag isn't typically the best bet, but when I have one that looks promising, perhaps I'll slooge you a heads up to see if we can pull it out.
Jay,
Well done. Can you explain in a bit more detail why or where you believe Scripture teaches cessationism. We certainly see the non-normative pattern illustrated throughout Scripture. But try as I might, I can find no biblical basis for cessationism.
and Gunny...slooge! Slooge. (Cowbell)
Well, Matt identified the elephant in the room that nobody was willing to talk about.
The major flaw with an otherwise great post ... it needed more cowbell!
Matt,
I don't think the Bible makes a specific pronouncement in either direction. Even if we take the "perfect" in 1 Corinthians 13 to mean the Second Coming, we may be reading Paul with more precision than was originally intended if we understand him to mean that the extraordinary gifts will necessarily continue until the Second Coming. As Ferguson points out D. A. Carson, a moderate continuationist, and Richard Gaffin, a cessationist, agree that Paul's teaching does not preclude the ceasing of the gifts sometime prior to the parousia. Gaffin writes that one who reads Paul's teaching as support for continuationism "reads Paul too explicitly in terms of the issues raised in the present-day controversy over spiritual gifts . . . Paul is not oriented here to the distinction between the apostolic, foundational present and the period beyond. Rather he has in view the entire period until Christ's return, without regard to whether or not discontinuities may intervene during the course of this period, in the interests of emphasizing the enduring quality of faith, hope, and especially love (vv. 8, 13)."
So if it is conceded that Scripture neither explicitly confirms nor denies the continuation of the gifts, then we must make some good and necessary inferences based on the biblical teaching on the function of charismata.
Following Ferguson's argument, the NT divides the last days into Apostolic/Foundational and Post-apostolic periods. Ephesians 2:20 speaks of the foundation laying period marked by the ministry of the Apostles and prophets. Just as miraculous gifts have attested other remarkable times in redemptive history, so also with the apostolic church. The extraordinary gifts were given to aid in laying the foundation, which was the Apostolic teaching of the New Covenant in Christ's blood. Since that teaching has been completed, there is no longer any extraordinary function of the gifts needed.
I think I should further clarify Carson and Gaffin's interpretation. Both see Paul's statement about the perfect coming and the imperfect passing away as proverbial. In other words, it is a general principal meant to convey the primacy of love not a precise declaration with the parousia in view.
That's a shame that Carson and Gaffin misread such a simple passage. :^)
I follow your argument, but find it unsatisfactory (or, as we used to say in the Army, unsat, right Gunny?)
Prophecy, for example, was used by God in the OT to warn His people and pronounce judgment. Are you saying there can be no need to warn the church or for God to chastise His covenant people (or was that only for the old dispensation? hehe).
There is a clear pattern of the gifts occurring more or less now and then throughout Scripture. I think the cessationist view has a burden of proof it must meet before we take the liberty of disobeying Paul's command in 1 Cor 14 to seek out the gifts.
Such a positive command should be taken seriously by God's people unless there is some clear indication that it is no longer binding.
I got a fever, Jay!
Indeed, and it in finding it unsat, it would be a 'no go' at this station.
Sorry, I haven't responded yet. I plan to address these questions further next week. Lord willing, I will finish Gaffin's work on this issue while vacationing this weekend.
God used to attest the legitimacy of the Apostolic teaching...
A good stopping point, and one that may answer the need for "preemptive prophecy" like warnings to his people. Frankly, as far as an eschatological need, the Scripture gives us signs of his approach that the Spirit thought adequate.
That being said I am a modified cessationist. Or, I like to say a cessational continualist. Because, the Spirit is free and we do not have the answer or access to the operational manuel. It think that there is more than a little wiggle room, eschatologically, to say that the miraculous may return as we see the day approaching. The question, as it has always been, and one that Edwards had to deal with, is do we have the proper safeguards in place to be able to discern between the true and false excitements?
Perhaps I missed it, but isn't there a sense in which there is category between the miraculous/exceptional/extraordinary and the common. I mean how does one know the "calling" whether salvific or ministerial without a work of the Spirit. Particularity in calling, especially to ministry, seemingly would fit in between somewhere, no? Or, is it right to just try it to see if it fits?
Iron Sharpens Iron ran this last week.
Strongtower,
I think the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary ministry of the spirit is valid. I think of it as basically analogous to the distinction between providence and miracles.
I've responded to the above questions here.
Post a Comment