"The message of mainstream dispensational fundamentalism today [is] a discouraging, defeatist message!"
[RPittman] It seems that the working of the Holy Spirit is being confused with certain outer signs. Whereas there were certain signs produced in individuals by the Holy Spirit in the primitive church but we are not to mistake this as the real work of the Holy Spirit, which is an inner working. These initial signs have not been normative in the Believing Church since its establishment. It does not necessarily follow that the lack of signs indicates a lack of the Holy Spirit working. There is no essential connection.“R” —
I disagree with what I think you are saying. There IS an intrinsic connection between some of the signs and wonders in the book of Acts and the events which they accompanied. In various cases, the miraculous signs may have been causative of the events (i.e., Acts 2:7-12) while in other cases they may have merely signified that God was superintending a once-for-all, never-to-be-repeated work (i.e., Acts 10:44-46).
If you are a cessationist, as I am, I would say the burden is on you to produce a passage where sign miracles occurred, but where the events in question bore “no essential connection” to the sign miracles.
I would also challenge anyone to show how any events in the book of Acts would tie to the expectation of “revival” today, or why we would be looking for events (which were originally accompanied by miracles) to re-occur — this time without the miracles.
The book of Acts is foundational, and a house only needs one foundation. We do not need another Day of Pentecost any more than we need another Good Friday. That is part and parcel of dispensational theology (as well as cessationism).
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
First, the real problem is not Fundamentalism but Christianity in north America. According to Barna we went from 12% in 1990 who answered questions that indicated the possibility of being real born again believers in Christ to 5% in 2002. All other polls indicate a general declining knowledge of Bible and doctrine among evangelical church members. People who go to church today generally want their immediate emotional and felt needs met. There is a declining interest in doctrine. Many want to feel God or have an experience. This creates an unpopularity for more sound ministries.
Second, the recent Calvinism resurgence appears to be a pseudo intellectual surge among some who have an inordinate interest in debate and discussion and little interest in evangelism.
Third, there most likely will not be a mass general society people mover awakening as in the past because a good percentage of professing evangelical Christians are involved in the substitute phoniness of the Charismatic movement. This is a good inoculation against the general awakening of the Spirit that would again move masses toward the Gospel of Christ.
Fourth, it appears to me that the persons behind this blog are not really qualified by education and experience to give a meaningful analysis of the conditions and remedies for Fundamentalism. Others have already offered too many opinions of a wide variety. Time to move on to real ministry and forget the spoiled brat hang ups about Fundamentalism.
Fifth, many brought up in Fundamentalism suffer from the spoiled brat syndrome. Wheaton College, Fuller Seminary, Bethel University, Biola University, and others, are still accepting applications. They have campuses which accommodate spoiled brat Christians. They may even have a major for that now.
It appears to me we are going into Fundamentalism analysis over load. :cry:
Second, the recent Calvinism resurgence appears to be a pseudo intellectual surge among some who have an inordinate interest in debate and discussion and little interest in evangelism.
Third, there most likely will not be a mass general society people mover awakening as in the past because a good percentage of professing evangelical Christians are involved in the substitute phoniness of the Charismatic movement. This is a good inoculation against the general awakening of the Spirit that would again move masses toward the Gospel of Christ.
Fourth, it appears to me that the persons behind this blog are not really qualified by education and experience to give a meaningful analysis of the conditions and remedies for Fundamentalism. Others have already offered too many opinions of a wide variety. Time to move on to real ministry and forget the spoiled brat hang ups about Fundamentalism.
Fifth, many brought up in Fundamentalism suffer from the spoiled brat syndrome. Wheaton College, Fuller Seminary, Bethel University, Biola University, and others, are still accepting applications. They have campuses which accommodate spoiled brat Christians. They may even have a major for that now.
It appears to me we are going into Fundamentalism analysis over load. :cry:
[RPittman]I agree with certain parts of your reply but the Holy Spirit has always manifested Himself in signs as well as in an inward work. There should be no dichotomy between the display of signs and that of holiness in any christian.[Richard Pajak]It seems that the working of the Holy Spirit is being confused with certain outer signs. Whereas there were certain signs produced in individuals by the Holy Spirit in the primitive church but we are not to mistake this as the real work of the Holy Spirit, which is an inner working. These initial signs have not been normative in the Believing Church since its establishment. It does not necessarily follow that the lack of signs indicates a lack of the Holy Spirit working. There is no essential connection. Regarding spirituality, the signs are not causative. The perfectly reasonable explanation is that these signs were intended for a specific period of time to authenticate and manifest God’s power. The Jews were quick to follow after signs (Mark 8:12, Luke 11:29, I Corinthians 1:22). Christ rebuked them.[Jim Hollandsworth] Paul,How is it possible for a cessationist to ask for an Acts like revival when they quench the expressions of the Holy Spirit when He does begin to work? Cessationism to me seems to be a faith quencher.
But why aren’t the saints, by faith, claiming the promises of the Word and asking God to send a mighty, Acts-like revival (which, incidentally, He has done numerous times all throughout church history) for the purpose of enlivening the church and saving masses of souls prior to His catching up of the saints? That’s my point.
The problem today is that people are enamored with bells and whistles. People buy on selling points rather than quality and value—cars are bought for the stereo system, computers for gadgetry, and clothes for the label. Likewise, modern smörgåsbord religion attracts on what produces the “feel-good” in me and satisfies me rather than what is pleasing to God. “Signs and wonders” satisfy this lust. Thus, people are seeking self-satisfying personal experiences instead of righteousness, holiness, godliness, and a life pleasing to the Lord.
The absence of revival is simply explained. It is due to worldliness in Christians who are not dedicated and not committed to pleasing God. In a way, it is even more subtle. The busyness and pleasures of modern life distract Christians from serving and walking with God. We are nominal Christians without spirituality or power.
In conclusion, we don’t need the signs to have revival. Quenching the Holy Spirit is when we live our lives according to our own pleasures and desires. The quenching is an inner attitude mitigating against His leading into righteousness, holiness and godliness. It is interesting and instructive, I think, that many of those advocating the signs lack “the fruit of the Spirit [which] is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, [m] eekness, [and] temperance …. (Galatians 5:22-23).”
The fact that there may be does not invalidate the fact that the Holy Spirit has and does display Himself in whatever way He chooses and scripture abundantly shows that He is not shy in expressing Himself in signs.
Even if “many of those advocating signs lack the fruit of the Spirit” they do not neccessarily have a monopoly on this lack over that of cessasionists and to boldly claim that they do is a poor argument…lacking the fruit of the Spirit is a human failing that crosses theological lines. There is a scriptural injunction to seek the gifts AND to display love and the fruits. What we are guilty of is simply taking Scripture at it’s word and are being condemned for it because it doesn’t fit the theology of the cessasionist error.
Richard Pajak
True fundamentalism will never die, it will only change hands. This is because true fundamentalism is posited in the essentials of the faith. The creeds were an early form of fundamentalism. And history demonstrates this to be true. As others slip away into apostasy, aberrant cults, some kind of social rectification alliance to substitute for the focus on the propagation of the gospel and the dissemination of bible doctrine or disappear altogether, time and time again groups will either maintain their integrity or new bodies will emerge with the whole Royal Flag in hand.
“However, the evidence is that it was not normative because of the relative few incidents over a fairly expanded time period. Reading it in Scripture creates a condensed view that compresses time. Furthermore, the signs in Scripture were clearcut manifestations (i.e. observable) that were different from today’s supposed signs and wonders.”
But it is surely true that the signs recorded in Scripture were not the only signs that were performed, in other words there were undoubtedly many unrecorded signs and miracles which did not make it into Scripture. The Scripture gives us a snippet of the events of that period and it surely cannot be right to assume that this was all there was.
The way I read Scripture is that this is supposed to be the normative. If it fails to be so then we are at fault.
“I think there’s a confusing use of terms such as fruit, sign, and gift. These need more definition before I can reply. I will ask a question though. If one has signs and not the fruit, what does it mean? In other words, what does the sign indicate without the fruit?”
It means the same as it does with a cessasionist who may have no signs nor fruit. It means that the person has a whole lot more refining to be done in his life. I do not have the authority to call his gifts or signs demonic or false. Because someone in your church may not display the fruits of the Spirit in totality or in perfection, in fact in even much imperfection, does not mean that you would condemn every aspect of his life or say that he cannot be a true christian, simply that he needs a lot of work still needed to be done in his life. I would not be so hasty as to condemn someone for being imperfect. When christians are exposed for some hypocrisy in their life it is not a cause for gloating, another cudgel with which we can bash charismatics with, it is a tragic personal failure in that life to live according to the Lord’s wishes. Because someone displays signs but fails to display the fruit of love that cannot be used then to denigrate all charismatics.
What for example about those charismatics who DO display the fruit of love? What conclusion will you come to regarding their display of signs? Are their signs genuine because they display the fruit of love? I do not think you would come to that conclusion because you have a cessasionist outlook.
“Also, whether cessationists or non-cessationists have the fruit of the Spirit has nothing to do with the argument.”
I was simply addressing the comment that was made that many charismatics do not display the fruit of the Spirit and was pointing out that non charismatics fail in this area also. It wasn’t a new point I was bringing into the discussion but a reply to a comment made.
But it is surely true that the signs recorded in Scripture were not the only signs that were performed, in other words there were undoubtedly many unrecorded signs and miracles which did not make it into Scripture. The Scripture gives us a snippet of the events of that period and it surely cannot be right to assume that this was all there was.
The way I read Scripture is that this is supposed to be the normative. If it fails to be so then we are at fault.
“I think there’s a confusing use of terms such as fruit, sign, and gift. These need more definition before I can reply. I will ask a question though. If one has signs and not the fruit, what does it mean? In other words, what does the sign indicate without the fruit?”
It means the same as it does with a cessasionist who may have no signs nor fruit. It means that the person has a whole lot more refining to be done in his life. I do not have the authority to call his gifts or signs demonic or false. Because someone in your church may not display the fruits of the Spirit in totality or in perfection, in fact in even much imperfection, does not mean that you would condemn every aspect of his life or say that he cannot be a true christian, simply that he needs a lot of work still needed to be done in his life. I would not be so hasty as to condemn someone for being imperfect. When christians are exposed for some hypocrisy in their life it is not a cause for gloating, another cudgel with which we can bash charismatics with, it is a tragic personal failure in that life to live according to the Lord’s wishes. Because someone displays signs but fails to display the fruit of love that cannot be used then to denigrate all charismatics.
What for example about those charismatics who DO display the fruit of love? What conclusion will you come to regarding their display of signs? Are their signs genuine because they display the fruit of love? I do not think you would come to that conclusion because you have a cessasionist outlook.
“Also, whether cessationists or non-cessationists have the fruit of the Spirit has nothing to do with the argument.”
I was simply addressing the comment that was made that many charismatics do not display the fruit of the Spirit and was pointing out that non charismatics fail in this area also. It wasn’t a new point I was bringing into the discussion but a reply to a comment made.
Richard Pajak
[RPittman] Paul, we are, I think, quibbling about semantics to no avail. I say, “Let it be.” Thank you for your comment.“R” - Perhaps — but you pepper me with statements/questions and then say “Let it be.” :D
This thread has turned into a wordy debate about cessationsim/inner holiness, which I have neither time nor interest in trying to unravel.
The point I made which is at issue above is fairly basic, and flows from dispensationalism and cessationism, namely: There are certain events in the book of Acts which are non-repeatable. We can learn from them and draw implications and applications, but we have no expectation of or formula for repeating them. Expecting to do so, and using such passages as a template for “revival” is disingenuous to the text and sets people up for a false hope — breeding sort of a soft charismaticism. Unless you want to go full throttle and join the Third Wave…
FYI — I use the term “sign-miracle” to reinforce the true meaning of “miracles” as “signs.” Otherwise we get the confusion as seen on this thread — “We had an extra 15 people in church on Sunday — it was a MIRACLE…!!!”
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
How you understand, interpret, and apply the teaching of Jesus below:
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 7:15-21)” [emphasis added] I understand what the passages are saying but at the same time which one of us has not produced some bad fruit in our lives. We may be genuinely born again but because we are iimperfect our lives will at times express some bad fruit. I would not therefore have the rashness to call someone a false prophet or someone destined to hell on the basis of their imperfections or failures. There is fortunately a place for repentance and forgiveness for the bad fruit that sometimes springs up in us.
Richard Pajak
[Bob T.] Second, the recent Calvinism resurgence appears to be a pseudo intellectual surge among some who have an inordinate interest in debate and discussion and little interest in evangelism.
I could not disagree with you more. After the shenanigans of the last 30-70 years, I think we’re seeing a lot of people within the Fundy movement trying to go back in church history and figure out what they believe and what the traditional, historic doctrines of the church are, which will affect evangelism and disciplemaking. Although I am not a five point Calvinist, I have to admit that reading some of what he’s written has helped me think through some things, and I do disagree with Calvin on some things.
If we’re going to be serious about where we’re going, we ought to know where we’ve been in the past. Your allusion to Fuller is a good point of that; I want nothing to do with either that school, the faculty there, or the pursuit of academic respectability at all costs mindset that lead that institution off the rails in the first place. But if I were ignorant of church history, I wouldn’t know that, would I? ;)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[RPittman] After all, “the shenanigans of the last 30-70 years” (I think you’re stretching the dates a little here) are not necessarily representative of Fundamentalism…
I am one not-so-young-anymore fundamentalist who is not-so-enamored of Calvinism, but I have to express my empathy for Jay on this one. The shenanigans are very real, and Jay’s timing is probably about right.
At least by the 1950s fundamentalists had begun to fundamentally shift away from some of the traditional practices of orthodox Christianity, and in their place substituted Sunday School contests, pack-a-pew nights, impractical but extravagant bus ministries, world’s largest ice cream sundae contests, Cowboy Bob jumping off the church roof contests…the list is pretty much endless, and I have yet to mention non-Biblical preaching, emotionalism and crowd manipulation. Many of these practices became the basis of the later contemporary church growth movement which fundamentalists now decry — though some of them would still like to retain some of the old “shenanigans” which gave birth to it.
Are some YF’s “shortsighted, over-confident, and lacking in both experience and knowledge”? Absolutely — I have met some of them. But there are many with a great deal of humility, experience and knowledge who also see some of the same problems in fundamentalism which have concerned me for years. I believe that enough of them are now rising up to cause another “fundamental shift” in at least some sectors of fundamentalism, and I am encouraged by it.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[RPittman] Jay, you probably know from church history that the earlier Fundamentalists were well versed in their doctrine and knew what they believed and why. For the most part, they were not Calvinists although some of their orthodox allies, such as Machen and others, were. Calvinism, as you know, is quite appealing to those who aspire to intellectualism (intellectualism is not necessarily intellectual) because it was spawned by the writings of John Calvin, who reflected his Renaissance culture of humanism as well as the religious counterpart, the Reformation. It may be instructive to consider that Calvin wrote the Institutes, his seminal work, at an early age fresh from his training in law and humanism. No one can convincingly argue that he was not influenced by his training and culture.
If (and I’m not sure you are) you are arguing that intellectualism is antithetical to fundamental doctrine, then I’m going to continue to disagree with you. Machen is a perfect example of that, as are Drs. Barnhouse & Boyce. Do we really need to talk about Paul’s education in the OT law, or men like John Chrysostom or Irenaeus?
After all, “the shenanigans of the last 30-70 years” (I think you’re stretching the dates a little here) are not necessarily representative of Fundamentalism any more than the Salem Witch Trials were representative of New England Puritanism. Fundamentalists have no monopoly on excesses. These excesses were not pervasive throughout the movement. When the worst excesses of the Fundamentalists are compared to say the Charismatics, they are small in comparison both in scope and number. Every movement or establishment has its own failings and shortcomings.Yes, I did stretch the dates a little…in order to gather up as much of what happened as possible. If the Scopes trial (1925) was the waterloo of the established Fundy movement (the Fundamentalist pamphlets/books were published previously - 1910-1915), then I think it’s only fair to start in that area. Nor have I ever claimed that the fundy movement is the sole realm of ‘excesses’. It does seem, however, that a lot of people are willing to sweep what happened under the rug in light of “all the great things that we done” - eg, Mark Minnick’s response to the Sweatt matter last spring-summer. I’m not as bothered by the ‘excesses’ as I am of the desire of some to maintain that nothing ever happened…to ignore the dark side of Fundy history.
Many of the YF’s are overly critical of the old guard. However, they are shortsighted, over-confident, and lacking in both experience and knowledge. They judge out-of-context, not having lived during the era. Judge Learned Hand said: “Do not judge another man until you have walked a day in his shoes.” Every generation knows better than it elders, has confidence that they can fix things, and is self-justified in its views. Those of us in the older half ought to know because we went through the same thing. However, the YF’s will no doubt look back over their own unique string of failure in fifty years. “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy (Matthew 5:7).” It is always wise to be merciful.
Mercy is not the same as the acknowledgment of the truth. Will the YF’s mess up and make errors? Yes. Will they probably go wrong in areas of doctrine? Of that I have no doubt. But while they can’t bear witnesses of the ‘40’s, ‘50’s, and ‘60’s, they CAN bear witness to the results of those days as they establish or take over ministries.
Against the background of the disappointments and failures of Fundamentalism, one can easily understand the desire to find stability, belief, certitude, and comfort in the idealism of a distant past. This is romanticism. The warts and blemishes do no show across the distance of time. The flaws and excesses were there nonetheless. One only needs to read the Martyr’s Mirror to see the other side of the Reformers. As the Roman Catholics persecuted the Reformers, they in turn shamelessly persecuted the Anabaptists and other non-conformists. Furthermore, the Reformers held some views that are repugnant to modern Christians. In short, I doubt if the Calvinist YF’s will find the lasting satisfaction and final solutions that they seek. It’s a trend, a phase, a fad, a thing………….. I basically agree with old Bob. This too will pass. ;-)
I agree…but I still think that the emphasis on re-reading and paying attention to the original Reformers will help us in the long run.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[RPittman]The trouble with calling someone a false prophet by your standards is that I would end up with no other choice but to ascribe the term “false prophets” to cessationists which I am reluctant to do not because it may be inappropriate,and I’m sure many display some of the fruits of the Spirit, but simply because I do not feel I should judge in such harsh terms. It is before God we shall give account. I am responsible for what I do.[Richard Pajak]Richard, if you understand what the Scripture is saying and what it says is true, then don’t look for rationalizations. IMHO, Scripture is its own best commentary, so we check out what the rest of Scripture says. I John gives the answer. It is not the occasional falling into sin but it is the continual walking in sin that indicates one is not a believer. To illustrate, every apple tree produces some bad apples but it always produces apples because it is an apple tree and not an orange tree.How you understand, interpret, and apply the teaching of Jesus below:I understand what the passages are saying but at the same time which one of us has not produced some bad fruit in our lives. We may be genuinely born again but because we are iimperfect our lives will at times express some bad fruit. I would not therefore have the rashness to call someone a false prophet or someone destined to hell on the basis of their imperfections or failures. There is fortunately a place for repentance and forgiveness for the bad fruit that sometimes springs up in us.
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 7:15-21)” [emphasis added]
There are some in the charismatic movement I would steer clear of as well as being wary of the errors of cessationists. I look after our church library and would not tolerate any cessasionist books in it because I feel they would lead people astray.
Richard Pajak
Discussion