DownshoreDrift

Excellent post, Alan! I don't know why I never made a connection between Jesus' experience in Mark 6:4-6 and the apparent lack of miraculous works we see in our own culture (although I tend to believe that more miracles happen than we think; we just credit science, medicine, etc.).

Slam dunk. This is really good stuff, Alan. Keep going Brother and let's see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

It's interesting that, during this same rationalistic period of the Enlightenment, Deism was birthed. In many ways I see some similarities between Deism and cessationism. Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, published a version of the Bible that excluded the miracle stories because he didn't believe God got actively involved in the world. It seems to me that, while modern cessationists at least recognize the validity of the miraculous in the biblical witness, their denial of God's continuing activity in those ways has a lot in common with that Deism even today.

I absolutely agree, Paul. I referred to Deism in my previous post, and in many ways, we can become de facto Deists. Deism was attractive to Enlightenment thinkers until Darwin's theory of evolution. Deism was needed to answer origin questions, but Darwin got them off the hook and they were free from God altogether. We seem to keep digging that perspective up, and I'm going to deal with it more in a later post when I specifically address Baptists and our lack of dependence on the Holy Spirit for so much of what we attempt to do for God.

Good post.

Jesus made mud of His spit and smeared it on a guy's EYES! He put spit directly on another guy's, and actually put His own spit on a yet another guy's TONGUE!

David danced before the ark NAKED (either completely, or partially ... which would have been as outrageous as nudity today)! Isaiah went forth naked and barefoot for 3 years! Assyria's king led a bunch if prisoners around naked, with the "buttocks uncovered"!

Saul went to Naioth himself, to get David and ended up taking his clothes off and lying on the ground, prophesying. Nebuchadnezzar went on an unplanned vegetarian diet after getting a little too proud.

God sent a huge fish to swallow a recalcitrant Jonah and spew him up on the beach to deliver a message.

God told Ezekiel to bake some special bread over human dung. He relented when Zeke protested, but that's what He said, first!

A DONKEY prophesied one time!

Now. My question is this: God said He'd use the His foolishness to confound the world's wisdom. WHERE IS HIS FOOLISHNESS IN THE CHURCH TODAY? "The church" is slick, professional, erudite, studied, intellectual and proud, and other than swinging a sometimes large political voting block, we're largely powerless.

And, trying to tell us what God doesn't do any more.

Add conceit to the list.

Alan,

I suppose I will continue to comment on Jerry Corbaley's, Bart Barber's, Brad Reynold's blogs, et al, from time to time when they write on these subjects. But, in the end, you are playing on their "home field" and they control the discussion.

I would love to see what any of them (or their acolytes), or even Dr. Yarnell or Dr. Patterson, have to say regarding your posts here.

I am glad I have held off giving a more thorough response, since, at least up to now, I am happier with what you are writing than anything I might have been able to come up with.

Keep up the good work! And God bless you!

David

I'll refer back to my original thought that God wrote the Bible for folks seeking the truth, not for those attempting to "prove a point". If that's the case, then He spoke plainly and if someone has to get verses from all over the Bible to disprove what's plainly stated somewhere, then I question their motives.

David .. I gave up commenting on Jerry C's, and similar blogs. Dad told me that arguing with some folks is like wrestling with a pig .. you both get muddy, and the pig likes it!

Alan,

I think your writing is another great argument for the working of the Holy Spirit (alive and well) being put to great use for the advancement of His kingdom. I believe it to be the power of God revealing His nature through His word into your writing to illuminate all who read and learn. I am enjoying the thought processes being generated and look forward to the subsequent posts. I can't help thinking of how often we box God in for our minds to be able to grasp his workings and forget to let God be God. After all I want to believe in a God that can do "immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine." Be blessed and keep the focus on Christ

Alan,
Kudos on such a lucid and gracious post. You have succinctly and adeptly put into words what I've been trying to help Dr. Brad Reynolds understand via comments on his post. I hate to admit that I am subject to my own environmental 'upbringing', but alas, aren't we all?

Grace and peace brother,

PTL

Alan,

Wow...I just finished both posts. Wow...you have done a splendid job of clarifying issues and historical patterns, as well as, giving a clarion call for a return to the God of the Bible.

I do think, all too often, in our western culture [even in our western brand of Christianity] we tend to think, if not try to explain, the slinging off of the viper by Paul, as a unfortunate incident of an old snake with dull fangs which couldn't do it's natural thing, [at least in our day since miracles aren't needed because we have the Bible] instead of "God did that marvelous act and can do it again". [As you've shown it's the same idea of not seeing the miraculous gifts being experienced in our day.]

You're right. It seems most of the cultures of the world have no problem believing it was God and He can do it again when they come to know about our God. Maybe we had better go there and share the gospel or let them come here and share the gospel. Either way the harvest may be greater than we are now experiencing. Just being slightly facetious. Great posts and greatly appreciated.

This is Awesome!

From our "sophisticated" Western standpoint, we look down on "superstitious" cultures, dismissing their belief in spirits and demons and the like, and this attitude comes back to bite us when we look at the very Scriptures that we claim control all of our doctrine.

Does the new convert from an animist culture look at his Bible and say, "Oh, well I guess this doesn't happen today because we have all God's revelation right here"? What an absurd thought! No, he has to be carefully taught to embrace the gnosticism of the cessationist: Look how smart we are! We've figured out a way to call ourselves inerrantists while we exclude the possibility that God might do something that makes us uncomfortable! And all you rubes and hicks believe in the sign gifts because you haven't been blessed with the special knowledge we worked so hard to get.

God help our unbelief. (End of rant, stepping down from soapbox)

Thanks again for your careful treatment of this subject.

Rhetorical question for deep thought...when someone believes in cessationism, what are they placing their faith in?

Good post. I'd also be interested in your thoughts on Acts 8, where believers had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus but not in the Spirit. That is often a part of the theology of a baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I'd be delighted to see all of the spiritual gifts in operation today. I fully believe that God is capable of doing so if He so desires. I see nothing in scripture demanding that any spiritual gifts necessarily must have ceased.

I have a blind woman in my congregation, and I would love for her to have her sight. She's a dear friend and an honorary grandmother to my son. Alan, would you please come lay hands on her and restore her sight? If you can't, would you please send over some of these people you know who can do such things? She's a faithful and devout believer, and nothing like those in Mark 6 (who were lost people, right?). If you'll do that for me, you'll certainly have convinced me. But that really won't be very important. The big thing is that you'll have my undying gratitude and God will receive untold glory.

Give me a call and I'll give you directions to her house(972) 782-8428 is my number at church.

Thanks,
Bart

Wow, David, I have acolytes?!

Should I see a doctor about that? :-)

Bart, thanks for stopping by. I myself am blind in my right eye. My father is disabled. I have a child with cancer. I know that we have all believed God, but God in His sovereign design has chosen not to heal. I am not saying that individual cases of people not being healed is because of a lack of faith. I do however believe that when we have an overall lack of faith for these things in the West, it causes us to see it happen less.

But, just because I don't see everyone I pray for healed, it doesn't mean that I am going to base my belief in God's Word on my experience, or my lack thereof. I would rather be considered a fool and believe the Bible, than to be considered respectable and explain everything away.

By the way, I have seen God heal miraculously many times. I can give you names and phone numbers as well. It doesn't mean that it is something that we can control, however. We remain dependent upon God. Even Paul did not have complete control over his gifts. You show your lack of understanding regarding these things with your condescending remarks, in my opinion.

I'm not being condescending. I have prayed for her to receive her sight, myself. I have seen God heal people of diseases, but not at all in the way that people were instantly healed at the touch of people in the Bible by folks who had the gift of healing. If there are people who have that gift today, wouldn't it be worth a try for them to come see her?

This is not just some academic topic somewhere. It is about real people with real faith and real problems. It is easy to talk about it in the abstract, but a different thing to address the substance of it all. It is an easy thing to suggest that we are so faithless that we (like the folks in Mark 6) are responsible for our own lack of healing. It is another thing altogether to tell this dear, believing lady that her own lack of faith keeps her from seeing.

Alan,

Rereading your first response, I see that I have mischaracterized what you said--you explicitly did not say what I have later claimed that you have said. I apologize.

Bart,

Perhaps the word "acolyte" was little over-dramatic.

I will say this, though. Your posts almost always make me think, and I appreciate the fairness and good spirit you show in your comments and answers to others' comments. You have probably earned your way towards having a few "acolytes." :-)

But I do reiterate this: My comments were an attempt to show the mischaracterization of your entire series. You paint those like me as people who do not believe that God COULD restore sight. Instead, I am saying not only that this dear lady's sight has not been restored, but that I have never encountered (not only in personal experience, but in any second-hand or third-hand or fourth-hand account) any credible claim that a person with the gift of healing ministered and a blind person received sight. Yet I completely believe that such things happened in the Bible and that God is entirely capable of doing such things today. You suggest that I am changing my belief in God's Word or my belief in God's power to fit my personal experience. Not so. I still believe fervently that the events in God's Word are entirely true and that God is completely capable of working the same thing today. In fact, I even consistently ask God to do so. But He hasn't. Not for me; not for you; not for the vast majority of Christians alive today.

If you believe that the gift of healing is simply that, when I and my church pray for someone with cancer, sometimes the cancer goes away, then can you identify for me any Southern Baptist who does not believe in such a thing?

But, if you believe that the gift of healing is that the Holy Spirit has enabled some people to bring sight to the blind, to make quadraplegics walk, to heal hemorrhages by touch (which is what I believe the gift of healing in the New Testament was), then who do you know who has this kind of gift? And I do not require that they be able to do it 100% of the time. Tell me about the person who can only make 5% of the blind people they touch regain their sight. For only a 5% chance it would be well worth the expense to me to get you and your dad and your son and my friend together, to pray in faith, and to see what God might do.

I just don't know anyone like that to call...from anywhere in the world.

I call that a cessation. And it grieves my heart, because I hurt for sick people, too. Don't we all?

Bart,

Sorry it took me so long to respond. We've had MAJOR storms come through Alabama today and the internet was knocked out.

I see your point. I really do. But, I can't do theology that way. I can't look to my experience (or lack thereof) to interpret the Word for me. The Word has to shed light on my experiences. I don't have the gift of healing, even though I have prayed for people and have seen them miraculously healed. I attribute that more to God answering my prayers than any gifting I might have had. I have known people, however, who had far more success than others in praying for people and seeing them healed. Is that considered the spiritual gift of healing? Again, I don't know. We don't come with signs around our neck explaining what our gifts are. God often works in secret and He chooses not to do the spectacular thing to get everyone's attention. I don't know why that is, and I wish He would just send 10,000 angels to my city so that everyone would know that He's real. But, instead, he chooses to work through us who believe, secretly, like yeast working through the dough. It's not the way I would like it either, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to throw out sections of the Word to fit my experiences.

I'm not saying that YOU are necessarily doing that. I am so grateful that you pray for people to be healed, and in this case, I think that is what matters. Whether you believe in the gifts or not, God is honored when we call upon Him. I would NEVER say that an individual being healed or not is because of their lack of faith. That can be spiritually abusive and incredibly presumptous. Sometimes, God is glorified THROUGH our sickness. I also see your pastor's heart.

But, here's the real point of all of this: You can believe what you like. I love you as a brother and appreciate your ministry. I would not eliminate you from service in the SBC because of your position because this is a secondary issue, in my opinion. You would find that our practice and the gospel we preach is exactly the same. I'm not a charismatic or pentecostal and I don't push this perspective on anyone. I just quietly believe. That perspective extends to all of the gifts that I see in the Bible. The problem is, the SBC is saying that there is not room for people like me because we teach "doctrine that is harmful to the churches." Of course, they are specifically targeting speaking in tongues, but I think that the core of this is the cessationist/continualist debate. That is why I started here in my series of posts. I respectfully disagree with their position, and I'm left wondering why there isn't room in our mission work and leadership for BOTH perspectives, as long as we are courteous to one another and focus on bringing the gospel to the lost.

Trust me, Bart. This is no academic exercise and this subject is far from abstract for me. It is very real and very much related to real people and real problems. I just see it differently than you do. I am thankful for your insight and the way it sharpens me. This is why we need one another and do not need to separate over side issues.

Alan,

I'm thankful that the storms have left you safe.

Speaking of storms, I do acknowledge that there is a "storm" over this topic currently ongoing in the IMB as well as the SBC at large. But inclusion or lack thereof is not explicitly the subject addressed in this text. Rather, the topic on the floor, as I understand it, is whether a cessationist view "does damage to our view of God" and is part-and-parcel with a "modernistic, scientific worldview."

I am not, strictly speaking, a garden-variety cessationist. I have to put qualifiers on my cessationism (see here). But even those who meet the textbook definition of a cessationist are, I think, honestly confronting the same historical phenomenon: What happened in the New Testament is not happening today. Nobody is touching the blind and immediately restoring their sight, making quadraplegics walk, or raising the dead (see my post here). All of that happened in the New Testament, but is not happening today.

So, if one is not a cessationist, it seems to me that one must become a "lessationist" (to coin a term). In other words, one must make the modern gifts to be something less than what they were in the New Testament. But I'm not sure that is good exegesis or good theology, either.

The same phenomenon applies to tongues, where xenoglossy does not occur any longer (or at least there is no record of such). Yet (contra your otherwise well-formed argument in another post), Paul does refer to the gift as an ability to speak in the tongues of men as well as of angels. I would not exegetically rule out the idea that New Testament tongues-speaking involved as a component some concept of speaking in the "tongues of angels," but I absolutely maintain that the New Testament gift of glossolalia involved speaking in the "tongues of men." Furthermore, both are "tongues" (i.e. languages) and not merely random assortments of sounds. Both are linguistic. And those who have claimed restoration have only claimed restoration of part of the package. The utter dearth of any miraculous speaking in the tongues of men makes the alleged modern phenomenon of speaking in the tongues of angels suspect, in my opinion.

So, assuming that I and all of these other people are not simply the last people to find out about the rampant xenoglossy, resuscitations from the dead, and miraculous healings of the biblical pattern, how otherwise do we explain the situation around us?

I will say this about your very thoughtful and articulate series: It is the first I have seen from a Baptist perspective to address what I think is an inevitable concept. If we maintain that these gifts have been restored and have only been restored to a few, we are necessarily encouraged to conclude that those who have received it are spiritually superior to those who have not, as you have suggested that they must be a part of cultures with more faith. That is one possible answer, although it is not an answer that I accept. It seems to me that Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard settle once-and-for-all the question of whether those practicing the "gifts" are somehow closer to the Lord than the rest of us.

Great discussion. Thanks for the dialogue. I'll try to answer any more direct questions you might have for me, but otherwise I'll trouble you no longer.

In Christ,
Bart

P.S. Oops...your system will not allow me to post links in the comment. You will just have to look for my articles on "A Posteriori Cessationism" and "What Is the Outcome" over at Praisegod Barebones in order to know what I'm talking about.

Bart,

You can post links here by typing in the whole url. It's a pain, but that's how it works. For everyone else, here's Bart's first post, "A Posteriori Cessationism" http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2006/09/posteriori-cessationism.html

I couldn't find your second post, but if you'll point us to it, I'll be grateful. I want all sides to be represented here so that the readers can decide for themselves.

Concerning cessationism doing damage to our view of God, yes, I stand by that. I think that it is an incomplete theology. But, lots of things do damage to our view of God. Most Christians primarily have a human centered approach to their faith. That does damage. We pray primarily for ourselves. We see God as our great need meeter only. Just go into your local Lifeway and peruse the book titles. There are lots of belief systems that do damage to our view of God. That doesn't mean that I would not work with those folks or do ministry with them. I have lots of ingrained beliefs that fall short of what they should be. I'm alright with admitting that because I want to grow and I confess that I'm not there yet. We all see through a glass darkly. That is why continuing discipleship and the gift of teaching is needed to form us into the image of Christ. Please don't take that comment as a slam. Both Calvinists and Arminians would say the same thing about one another, yet we are able to get along, or we should be.

Since my comments on xenoglossy are on another post, I will just say that I agree with you, to a point. We do speak in the "tongues of men." We're doing it right now. Could it be that Paul was contrasting prophecy, which was the greater gift and would be in understandable language, with tongues, the lesser gift that was not understood? That would definitely fit the context. Plus, I am not totally ruling out that tongues in Acts were the tongues of men supernaturally given to those who did not understand what they were saying. I'm just saying that the exegetical weight should lean the other direction with 1 Cor. 14 (Paul's teaching)as the hermenuetical key rather than Acts (the narrative).

As far as encountering the danger that people who are gifted would be seen as more spiritual than others, I would completely agree with you. Jesus defined spirituality as loving God and loving others. Tongues, healing, miracles, and prophecy do nothing to make a person more "spiritual." We should not be comparing ourselves anyway, because it is all God working through us. Paul deals with this in 1 Corinthians 13 where he describes love as the most excellent way. I am firmly in that camp and it is another one of the things that I do not like about what I see happening in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. But, just because some abuse the gifts and make more of them than they should, it doesn't mean that we should run away. We are free in Christ to experience all He has for us. He gives the gifts and everything that comes from Him is good. James 1:16,17 says, "Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." This fits very well with Paul's arguments in 1 Cor. 12. So, I do not want to build a parapet around the exercise of the gifts of the Spirit that come from God just because some abuse them and make them a mark of spirituality. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you against that practice.

As far as looking for evidence of the continuation of the gifts before you will believe that they are happening today, like I said, I have seen and experienced such evidence. I have met many who have seen the same thing. But, I have also taken my experiences back to God's Word and have been shaped by that on this issue. That has even meant that I have had to reinterpret some of my experiences and look at them in different ways. I think that this is true in all of our Christian life. How do you know what is happening all over the world? Do you discount all the testimonies of miracles that we hear today only because you have not experienced them? I would not be so presumptuous, because my experience is VERY limited in comparison to all that is happening. I can tell you that I've seen demons cast out of people, I've seen people miraculously healed, I've heard people prophesy and it come to pass, and I have seen miracles happen. Not all of these things were on the scale of what happened in Jesus' day, but some of them were. But, I don't talk about these things because I KNOW that people will not believe me and will discount my experiences and what I have seen with my own eyes. I go to the Word and say that we should all stand on that. Does the fact that I have experienced these things make me more spiritual? Absolutely not! Often, I just happened to be in the right place at the right time. But again, my experience is insufficient. I must submit my experience, or the lack thereof, to God's Word. That is why I can tell a Pentecostal who claims a second blessing of the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues as the sign, that while they may have had an experience, their interpretation of that experience does not line up with God's Word.

Will you agree with me, Bart, that we should not base our interpretation of the Bible on our experiences, or our lack thereof? That faith comes by hearing the Word and it precedes our experiences? This is why we are people of the Word and why inerrancy is so important. This is why it was worth fighting for and why I stand with those of the Resurgence who fought so hard for this precious doctrine. Otherwise, we are only left to our experiences, or our lack of them.

Alan,

Yes, I agree with you that experience must be interpreted by exegesis and not vice-versa. We are in accord there.

Also, I agree that I do not know what is happening all over the world. I will acknowledge the work of the Spirit where I see it. I do suggest that it is not fair to refuse to give evidence on the assumption that it will not be received...that people will not believe you. People do not believe me when I speak of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, but that is no suitable reason to remain silent.

I typed a lengthy reiteration of some things I've already written, then I deleted it...no need to go there again.

This morning I prayed for your son. If nothing else has come out of this dialogue, at least I have become aware of that need. Both of our adoptions came with the threat of major childhood medical problems hanging over them, but in both cases what the doctors predicted did not come to pass. Talk about miracles! I'm praying for one for you, too.

Thank you, Bart. My family appreciates your prayers more than we can tell you.

I have also appreciated this dialogue and the tone in which it was engaged. Hopefully, we can continue to discuss these things in the future in constructive ways. My last post on the subject is coming up soon, and then, I'll be finished as well, having said all that I feel I need to on a secondary issue.

May our focus always be on Christ alone!

Perhaps it would be helpful to consider a different teaching/interpretation of "gifts" of the Spirit. An alternative view is that a "gift" is not (necessarily) given to an individual to be "his" for life, but that the BODY is given a "gift" --- a blessing-- THROUGH a believer. The gift is not "owned" by the individual,the individual is simply a conduit of something God has already decided to do. You can read "gift" verses through this lens and it and aids the understanding that a person may be involved in a healing act of God, without being, necessarily, a life-long "healer." My own (previous)pastor at FBC Shreveport had an experience on the mission field of being used by God to heal in an Elijah-Baal type showdown (though not quite as dramatic!), and he obeyed God's direction to him, even though he was skeptical himself. God, of course, came through, as He had already informed my pastor in no uncertain terms what He was about to do. My pastor never healed again (and didn't the first time--God did), nor sought to, but if God directed him, he would act.

To say "call the healers up and send them over" reminds me immensely of Matt 28:17 when followers had seen with their own eyes the risen Christ, "but some doubted." Do you think yourself less doubtful, that if you HAD seen a miracle, you would not later dismiss it? Can you be certain that you have actually never witnessed a supernatural miracle, and dismissed it with an a priori bent to rationalism--the car wreck that was certain, but found yourself on the other side of the road unharmed, the child whose fever evaporated after the desperate prayer of a mother whose husband was deployed, the unexplained distress noise that drew her to her infant's room to discover a blanket dropped on a furnace? Do you have "eyes to see and ears to hear?" Blessed are those who do not see, and yet believe . . .

How much of a miracle would it take to make a believer out of us? More than those who saw the risen Christ, yet doubted? Doesn't God calls us to a faith that is not dependent on what we see (which faith is, by definition)? What if faith, is in the end,the point? And what if the deceiver seeks those who have never had the luxury of participating first-hand in a specific kind of miracle, with attendant proof and medical documentation and lie-detector tests (and our own estimation of the story-teller) to limit God, and limit the sending of missionaries who are open to God being God? How he would rejoice to snooker one of America's biggest "sending" churches into sending handicapped and SBC-fearing missionaries to the field, trusting more in the BFM than the priesthood of the believer, more in Talmud than the Living Word.

It is serious business. Do not draw boundaries beyond God's own.