Classical vs. Full Cessationism
Forum category
This topic needs to be in a form on the Holy Spirit, but such a form does not exist on this site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism
I am a classical Cessationist. But everytime I try and explain myself to a Charsimatic he/she always labels me a Full Cessationist, because they think I think that God does not do miracles today, but I never said that. I try and very clearly explain myself in my sermons and messages. Perhaps I dont communicate properly, or perhaps those that receive the message do so with a bias because they already disagree with me, I dont know. So what type of Cessationist are you? There are other forms of Cessationism, and I believe one form denies that all the gifts have ceased which includes the gifts of teaching, administration, helps, exhortation, and the rest. I DO NOT HOLD TO THAT FORM of Cessationism. I believe that only the gifts of miracles, tongues, and healings have ceased.
John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism
I am a classical Cessationist. But everytime I try and explain myself to a Charsimatic he/she always labels me a Full Cessationist, because they think I think that God does not do miracles today, but I never said that. I try and very clearly explain myself in my sermons and messages. Perhaps I dont communicate properly, or perhaps those that receive the message do so with a bias because they already disagree with me, I dont know. So what type of Cessationist are you? There are other forms of Cessationism, and I believe one form denies that all the gifts have ceased which includes the gifts of teaching, administration, helps, exhortation, and the rest. I DO NOT HOLD TO THAT FORM of Cessationism. I believe that only the gifts of miracles, tongues, and healings have ceased.
John
- 125 views
I approach things from a different angle. I guess I would call myself a skeptical observationist. I do not believe that the Scriptures teach that certain gifts must cease, but neither do I believe that God is obligated to distribute the same gifts He once did, and He may even distribute new gifts as He wills.
But I do not see a proper match-up between the modern charismatic movement and the gifts as exhibited in Acts, for example. Although I sympathize with the views of Wayne Grudem and D.A. Carson, I think they bend over backwards to try to validate manifestations that are not typically genuine.
I can accept that there may be some instances in which legitimate tongues exist, and I cannot judge every experience, but that does not mean I must throw discernment out the window. I think almost all of it is psychologically induced. I think anyone who is uninhibited — saved or lost — can speak in ecstatic utterances, but not unstudied foreign languages.
As far as healing goes, Paul speaks of “gifts” of healing, not a gift of healer. In other words, God may grant any Christian an instance in which he can believe God for a healing; this is not adrenaline-induced faith, but an instance where God gives faith (like the prayer of faith in James). This may occur once or more in a lifetime — if it occurs at all in this way. Traveling healers, etc., are not something I subscribe to.
These are tough issues. Part of the practical motive for being a cessationist is insulation from conflict in this area. But I think a position like mine eliminates most abuse without straining the Scriptures. But, then again, I always tend to agree with myself!
But I do not see a proper match-up between the modern charismatic movement and the gifts as exhibited in Acts, for example. Although I sympathize with the views of Wayne Grudem and D.A. Carson, I think they bend over backwards to try to validate manifestations that are not typically genuine.
I can accept that there may be some instances in which legitimate tongues exist, and I cannot judge every experience, but that does not mean I must throw discernment out the window. I think almost all of it is psychologically induced. I think anyone who is uninhibited — saved or lost — can speak in ecstatic utterances, but not unstudied foreign languages.
As far as healing goes, Paul speaks of “gifts” of healing, not a gift of healer. In other words, God may grant any Christian an instance in which he can believe God for a healing; this is not adrenaline-induced faith, but an instance where God gives faith (like the prayer of faith in James). This may occur once or more in a lifetime — if it occurs at all in this way. Traveling healers, etc., are not something I subscribe to.
These are tough issues. Part of the practical motive for being a cessationist is insulation from conflict in this area. But I think a position like mine eliminates most abuse without straining the Scriptures. But, then again, I always tend to agree with myself!
"The Midrash Detective"
Ed, I have a very similar view to yours, if not the same.
jwolf,
Normally it is because of poor or improper hermeneutics or because of one holding to a certain theological system which ineffectively addresses this phenomenon in Scripture that results in inexact or erring treatment of both OT and NT Spiritual gifts and/or capacities.
The typical Charismatic or confused and inconsistent “soft-cessationist” who uses the inconsiderate excuse to accuse those who do not hold to the view that the miraculous sign gifts are operating today, to be people who do not believe in miracles, are just that, inconsiderate and too lazy and irresponsible to take the time to honestly listen to the arguments of those holding to this view (which is one that accepts, God himself, can perform miracles today and has not removed this element or its possibility of his work among his people in the program he has for his people, today, in the church age.). Rather such people simply prefer to use scandalizing retorts that claim you deny God works miracles, essentially attempting to categorize you as a less than virtuous believer in the miraculous and blessed power of God. It’s a sham response for the lazy and irresponsible.
Additionally and related to the above which may be the cause of such straw man arguments, they either refuse (or simply are still lacking the enlightenment necessary) to understand the distinction between a miracle of God that is done apart from a miracle that stems from the operation or use of the miraculous sign gift exercised by one who possessed it. Just as the teaching gift enables a teacher to teach at will, the miraculous sign gift enabled the rare possessor of that early (but limited in scope and duration) gift, to use it as will. That is not the same context as God performing a miracle outside of the exercise of the gift possessed by a man. Both are miracles of God but the one, which was done through a man’s agency by means of the unique gift to do so, was for a specific purpose which was a sign of authenticity as to the message and authority of the church being the people of God. But other miracles which are done outside of this agency and gifting are not limited to such purposes and functions. They can be acts of benevolence by God purely for this purpose and so on. Such distinctions suffer in the hands of those who have not come to a point where they have the capacity to recognize or appreciate them and their implications.
However, not all who disagree with you do so in that way but many will. For those who do not, again I suggest it is because of poor hermeneutics or a theological system to which they are beholden that simply is not structured to handle this topic effectively or has not ventured into it aggressively. For example, Lutheranism is wonderful with respect to some doctrinal topics as is Presbyterianism or Baptist doctrine, yet in some areas each one of them has deficiencies since they (much less the Baptists) are committed to a certain inflexible itemized denominational theological expression that ultimately limits their effective treatment of the subject.
As to the main question, I am a “Miraculous/Sign Gifts and Offices Cessationist”, an MSGOC. That means not only the miraculous sign gifts are not operating today, but as well the two offices that were offices given in the context of miraculous sign gifting, namely Apostle and Prophet, not operating or in existence today.
As I said before either a poor hermeneutic or system of theology that simply disallows an effective approach and treatment seems to be the cause in many cases for the confusion. But as well, and possibly a consequence of one or both above, is an overly elementary treatment of the subject.
And part of the elementary or immature treatment is the demand by some to show them where in the Bible it says, “the miraculous sign gifts ended”. Such demands demonstrate their unskilled and childish understanding and handling of Scripture. They demand their theology be built upon direct statements and direct statements only. Their lack of sophistication regarding intermediary and complex doctrines is demonstrated by such simple mindedness.
Now, after all of these are eliminated and you are left with the few who hold to the continuation of miraculous sign gifts and offices (in some form or another,) who do acknowledge that you and/or “Cessationists” believe God does or is willing during this period of the church age to perform miracles (though not done through the special miraculous sign gifts), and also acknowledge that demands such as “show me where it says specifically such gifts have ceased” are immature approaches to the subject, then you might have a genuine theological discussion.
But with such, it takes very little time in dismantling their arguments if one has studied the topic very long and you will find, in dismantling their arguments they, too, will quickly depart from such debates or attempt to obfuscate and not address directly inconsistencies, weaknesses or flat out errors being contended. (Long Post Award!)
P.S. Bob T., who posts here, has some very effective posts at SI on the topic if you can do some searching.
Normally it is because of poor or improper hermeneutics or because of one holding to a certain theological system which ineffectively addresses this phenomenon in Scripture that results in inexact or erring treatment of both OT and NT Spiritual gifts and/or capacities.
The typical Charismatic or confused and inconsistent “soft-cessationist” who uses the inconsiderate excuse to accuse those who do not hold to the view that the miraculous sign gifts are operating today, to be people who do not believe in miracles, are just that, inconsiderate and too lazy and irresponsible to take the time to honestly listen to the arguments of those holding to this view (which is one that accepts, God himself, can perform miracles today and has not removed this element or its possibility of his work among his people in the program he has for his people, today, in the church age.). Rather such people simply prefer to use scandalizing retorts that claim you deny God works miracles, essentially attempting to categorize you as a less than virtuous believer in the miraculous and blessed power of God. It’s a sham response for the lazy and irresponsible.
Additionally and related to the above which may be the cause of such straw man arguments, they either refuse (or simply are still lacking the enlightenment necessary) to understand the distinction between a miracle of God that is done apart from a miracle that stems from the operation or use of the miraculous sign gift exercised by one who possessed it. Just as the teaching gift enables a teacher to teach at will, the miraculous sign gift enabled the rare possessor of that early (but limited in scope and duration) gift, to use it as will. That is not the same context as God performing a miracle outside of the exercise of the gift possessed by a man. Both are miracles of God but the one, which was done through a man’s agency by means of the unique gift to do so, was for a specific purpose which was a sign of authenticity as to the message and authority of the church being the people of God. But other miracles which are done outside of this agency and gifting are not limited to such purposes and functions. They can be acts of benevolence by God purely for this purpose and so on. Such distinctions suffer in the hands of those who have not come to a point where they have the capacity to recognize or appreciate them and their implications.
However, not all who disagree with you do so in that way but many will. For those who do not, again I suggest it is because of poor hermeneutics or a theological system to which they are beholden that simply is not structured to handle this topic effectively or has not ventured into it aggressively. For example, Lutheranism is wonderful with respect to some doctrinal topics as is Presbyterianism or Baptist doctrine, yet in some areas each one of them has deficiencies since they (much less the Baptists) are committed to a certain inflexible itemized denominational theological expression that ultimately limits their effective treatment of the subject.
As to the main question, I am a “Miraculous/Sign Gifts and Offices Cessationist”, an MSGOC. That means not only the miraculous sign gifts are not operating today, but as well the two offices that were offices given in the context of miraculous sign gifting, namely Apostle and Prophet, not operating or in existence today.
As I said before either a poor hermeneutic or system of theology that simply disallows an effective approach and treatment seems to be the cause in many cases for the confusion. But as well, and possibly a consequence of one or both above, is an overly elementary treatment of the subject.
And part of the elementary or immature treatment is the demand by some to show them where in the Bible it says, “the miraculous sign gifts ended”. Such demands demonstrate their unskilled and childish understanding and handling of Scripture. They demand their theology be built upon direct statements and direct statements only. Their lack of sophistication regarding intermediary and complex doctrines is demonstrated by such simple mindedness.
Now, after all of these are eliminated and you are left with the few who hold to the continuation of miraculous sign gifts and offices (in some form or another,) who do acknowledge that you and/or “Cessationists” believe God does or is willing during this period of the church age to perform miracles (though not done through the special miraculous sign gifts), and also acknowledge that demands such as “show me where it says specifically such gifts have ceased” are immature approaches to the subject, then you might have a genuine theological discussion.
But with such, it takes very little time in dismantling their arguments if one has studied the topic very long and you will find, in dismantling their arguments they, too, will quickly depart from such debates or attempt to obfuscate and not address directly inconsistencies, weaknesses or flat out errors being contended. (Long Post Award!)
P.S. Bob T., who posts here, has some very effective posts at SI on the topic if you can do some searching.
What happened to my reply? I posted a reply.
[jwolf6589] What happened to my reply? I posted a reply.It didn’t post, for whatever reason.
Alex, as a “soft” cessationist — if I really technically a cessationist — I certainly do not accuse those who have other views of not believing that God still works miracles.
I personally have never heard any fundamentalist make such a claim. I think all of us believe that God has miraculously answered prayer, sometimes saving someone, healing someone, or even changing the weather.
My argument is that many strict cessationists strain the Scriptures (esp. I Cor. 13) to make their point. I do think the burden of proof is always on us when we teach something that means a change from what the early church practiced. We do teach some things differently, and we should because we are not in the same circumstances they were in. Yet, in most instances, we are in the same circumstances. That is what makes it tricky.
When someone has the gift of teaching, that does not mean they teach infallibly or that that person is always competent in all areas. I think you have over-rated the sign gifts, whether available today or not.
I personally have never heard any fundamentalist make such a claim. I think all of us believe that God has miraculously answered prayer, sometimes saving someone, healing someone, or even changing the weather.
My argument is that many strict cessationists strain the Scriptures (esp. I Cor. 13) to make their point. I do think the burden of proof is always on us when we teach something that means a change from what the early church practiced. We do teach some things differently, and we should because we are not in the same circumstances they were in. Yet, in most instances, we are in the same circumstances. That is what makes it tricky.
When someone has the gift of teaching, that does not mean they teach infallibly or that that person is always competent in all areas. I think you have over-rated the sign gifts, whether available today or not.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Ed Vasicek] Alex, as a “soft” cessationist — if I really technically a cessationist — I certainly do not accuse those who have other views of not believing that God still works miracles.Which is why I said “some” and I certainly did not have you in mind, you have never indicated such.
[Ed Vasicek] I personally have never heard any fundamentalist make such a claim. I think all of us believe that God has miraculously answered prayer, sometimes saving someone, healing someone, or even changing the weather.Me neither, but I was responding to jwolf about Charismatics or non-fundamentalists who make such assertions.
[Ed Vasicek] My argument is that many strict cessationists strain the Scriptures (esp. I Cor. 13) to make their point. I do think the burden of proof is always on us when we teach something that means a change from what the early church practiced. We do teach some things differently, and we should because we are not in the same circumstances they were in. Yet, in most instances, we are in the same circumstances. That is what makes it tricky.It appears that the burden of proof has been met for thousands of years and it is those who assert the orthodox interpretation and practice of the church has been in error are the ones who carry the burden of proof.
In fact, I find the continuationist who claims all gifts and offices to be still active to have more theological integrity than those who would water down such gifts and offices and claim they exist (one or the other or both) but in some diluted form and occasional manifestation. They are on even more contradictory and theologically shaky ground.
[Ed Vasicek] When someone has the gift of teaching, that does not mean they teach infallibly or that that person is always competent in all areas. I think you have over-rated the sign gifts, whether available today or not.Your second sentence and your first seem to be missing something with regard to how you appear to want to build an argument. I don’t know how the gift of teaching, infallible teaching and over-rating sign gifts have to do with one another.
But, never minding that, no one has asserted those with the gift of teaching will do so infallibly, but they will do it at will and quite effectively without difference or departure from the gift’s operation since its inauguration. And certainly since its inauguration we have had ample gifted men teaching, and teaching and teaching and publishing volumes of material so that its presence is without dispute as we have with all gifts. But somehow the quasi, partial, soft, or whatever, cessationist suddenly wants to introduce the idea that the miraculous, sign gifts and offices (one or both) still exist but somehow didn’t stay in its potent form such as the gift of teaching, rather exists in some diluted or occasional form? And the biblical argument for this comes from where?
Hey Alex,
Since you agree with my position of classical cessationism, can I ask for your input? I preached a sermon on the topic and have had some charismatics go off on me for the sermon, and others tell me I talk too big, and should use terms a laymen understands, rather than big vocab. I wont ever impress everyone, but perhaps its wise to ask those who already agree with me, to see what they say. Thank you.
If I do not hear from you, I will assume all is well. Thank you.
http://www.cerm.info/sermons/audio/miracles_healing.WMA
I tried to intentionally not make it too much depth and to speak at a laymens level. But still this was far more than enough for some that complained about my advanced vocabulary.
In John MacArthurs’s Charimatic Chaos (probably a seminary level book) he uses all kinds of big words and phrases. Perhaps a reason why Hank Hanegraaf’s books are more popular with most laymen for this reason.
John
Since you agree with my position of classical cessationism, can I ask for your input? I preached a sermon on the topic and have had some charismatics go off on me for the sermon, and others tell me I talk too big, and should use terms a laymen understands, rather than big vocab. I wont ever impress everyone, but perhaps its wise to ask those who already agree with me, to see what they say. Thank you.
If I do not hear from you, I will assume all is well. Thank you.
http://www.cerm.info/sermons/audio/miracles_healing.WMA
I tried to intentionally not make it too much depth and to speak at a laymens level. But still this was far more than enough for some that complained about my advanced vocabulary.
In John MacArthurs’s Charimatic Chaos (probably a seminary level book) he uses all kinds of big words and phrases. Perhaps a reason why Hank Hanegraaf’s books are more popular with most laymen for this reason.
John
John,
I will have time between Thur and Sat and will listen to the sermon. I look forward to it and will respond as well.
Alex
I will have time between Thur and Sat and will listen to the sermon. I look forward to it and will respond as well.
Alex
Alex said:
Prejudices and culture have always been a factor in interpretation and paradigm blindness. I would argue that denying a future for ethnic Israel was a result of anti-semitism in the church, for example. So the true Protestant spirit, IMO, is one that is constantly seeking to improve our understanding of the Word. I think the church has for many, many centuries strained Scripture (racism is a classic case in point), and I think we should try to be alert to that and seek to repair those strains.
It appears that the burden of proof has been met for thousands of years and it is those who assert the orthodox interpretation and practice of the church has been in error are the ones who carry the burden of proof.If we make the practice of Christianity for a long time the standard, then we would be using the Latin Bible and praying to Mary. If we really embrace Sola Scriptura, we may certainly look at the arguments of those who went before us, but we should always be in the refining frame of mind, seeking to conform to the Scriptures more accurately. The idea that perfection in the church — even in doctrine — has been attained is not one I agree with.
In fact, I find the continuationist who claims all gifts and offices to be still active to have more theological integrity than those who would water down such gifts and offices and claim they exist (one or the other or both) but in some diluted form and occasional manifestation. They are on even more contradictory and theologically shaky ground.
Prejudices and culture have always been a factor in interpretation and paradigm blindness. I would argue that denying a future for ethnic Israel was a result of anti-semitism in the church, for example. So the true Protestant spirit, IMO, is one that is constantly seeking to improve our understanding of the Word. I think the church has for many, many centuries strained Scripture (racism is a classic case in point), and I think we should try to be alert to that and seek to repair those strains.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Alex Guggenheim] John,Thank you. I think its fine and I explain my case well. My proofer also agreed. She made a few grammatical or other suggestions, but they were just ways to communicate more effectively, and not an overall criticism of my premises. But regardless I await your opinion.
I will have time between Thur and Sat and will listen to the sermon. I look forward to it and will respond as well.
Alex
Discussion