Enjoying God
The Case for Continuationism
Apr 30, 2007I just returned from the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit at
The Case for Continuationism
12 Bad Reasons for Being a Cessationist
(1) The first bad reason for being a Cessationist is an appeal to 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 on the assumption that the “perfect” is something other or less than the fullness of the eternal state ushered in at the second coming of Jesus Christ.
(2) Another bad or illegitimate reason for being a Cessationist is the belief that signs and wonders as well as certain spiritual gifts served only to confirm or authenticate the original company of apostles and that when the apostles passed away so also did the gifts.
a) No biblical text ever says that signs and wonders or spiritual gifts of a particular sort authenticated the apostles. Signs and wonders authenticated Jesus and the apostolic message about him. If signs and wonders were designed exclusively to authenticate apostles, why were non-apostolic believers (such as Philip and Stephen) empowered to perform them?
b) This is a good reason for being a Cessationist only if you can demonstrate that authentication or attestation of the apostolic message was the sole and exclusive purpose of such displays of divine power. However, nowhere in the NT is the purpose/function of the miraculous or the charismata reduced to that of attestation.
(3) A third bad reason for being a Cessationist is the belief that since we now have the completed canon of Scripture we no longer need the operation of so-called miraculous gifts.
(4) A fourth bad reason for being a Cessationist is the belief that to embrace the validity of all spiritual gifts today requires that one embrace classical Pentecostalism and its belief in Spirit-baptism as separate from and subsequent to conversion, as well as their doctrine that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of having experienced this Spirit-baptism.
(5) Another bad reason for being a Cessationist is the idea that if one spiritual gift, such as apostleship, has ceased to be operative in the church that other, and perhaps all, miraculous gifts have ceased to be operative in the church.
(6) A sixth bad reason for being a Cessationist is the fear that to acknowledge the validity today of revelatory gifts such as prophecy and word of knowledge would necessarily undermine the finality and sufficiency of Holy Scripture.
(7) A seventh bad reason for being a Cessationist is the appeal to Ephesians 2:20 on the assumption that revelatory gifts such as prophecy were uniquely linked to the apostles and therefore designed to function only during the so-called foundational period in the early church.
(8) An eighth bad reason for being a Cessationist is the argument that since we typically don’t see today miracles or gifts equal in quality/intensity to those in the ministries of Jesus and the Apostles, God doesn’t intend for any miraculous gifts of a lesser quality/intensity to operate in the church among ordinary Christians (but cf. 1 Cor. 12-14; Rom. 12; 1 Thess. 5:19-22; James 5).
(9) A ninth bad reason for being a Cessationist is the so-called “cluster” argument.
(10) A tenth bad reason for being a Cessationist is the appeal to the alleged absence of miraculous gifts in church history subsequent to the first century.
(11) Eleventh, it is a bad reason to be a Cessationist because of the absence of good experiences with spiritual gifts and the often fanatical excess of certain TV evangelists and some of those involved in the Word of Faith or Prosperity Gospel movements (as well as the anti-intellectualism often found in those movements).
(12) Finally, a twelfth bad reason for being a Cessationist is fear of what embracing Continuationism might entail for your life personally and the well-being of your church corporately.
12 Good Reasons for Being a Continuationist
(1) The first good reason for being a Continuationist is the 12 bad reasons for being a Cessationist.
(2) A second good reason for being a Continuationist is the consistent, indeed pervasive, and altogether positive presence throughout the NT of all spiritual gifts.
(3) A third good reason for being a Continuationist is the extensive NT evidence of the operation of so-called miraculous gifts among Christians who are not apostles. In other words, numerous non-apostolic men and women, young and old, across the breadth of the
(4) A fourth good reason for being a Continuationist is the explicit and oft-repeated purpose of the charismata: namely, the edification of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:7; 14:3,26).
(5) The fifth good reason for being a Continuationist is the fundamental continuity or spiritually organic relationship between the church in Acts and the church in subsequent centuries.
(6) Very much related to the fifth point, a sixth good reason for being a Continuationist is because of what Peter (Luke) says in Acts 2 concerning the operation of so-called miraculous gifts as characteristic of the New Covenant age of the Church.
(7) The seventh good reason for being a Continuationist is 1 Corinthians 13:8-12.
(8) The eighth good reason for being a Continuationist is Ephesians 4:11-13.
(9) A ninth good reason for being a Continuationist is the description in Revelation 11 of the ministry of the Two Witnesses.
(10) A tenth good reason for being a Continuationist is because the Holy Spirit in Christ is the Holy Spirit in Christians. We are indwelt, anointed, filled, and empowered by the same Spirit as was Jesus. His ministry is (with certain obvious limitations) the model for our ministry (cf. Acts 10:38).
(11) An eleventh reason to be a Continuationist is the absence of any explicit or implicit notion that we should view spiritual gifts any differently than we do other NT practices and ministries that are portrayed as essential for the life and well-being of the Church.
(12) The twelfth and final good reason for being a Continuationist is the testimony throughout most of church history concerning the operation of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit.
[Although it is technically not a reason or argument for being a Continuationist like the previous twelve, I cannot ignore personal experience. The fact is that I’ve seen all spiritual gifts in operation, tested and confirmed them, and experienced them first-hand on countless occasions. As stated, this is less a reason to become a Continuationist and more a confirmation (although not an infallible one) of the validity of that decision. Experience, in isolation from the biblical text, proves little. But experience must be noted, especially if it illustrates or embodies what we see in the biblical text.]
Robert Webber (1933-2007)
Apr 30, 2007I was shocked and deeply saddened to hear that Robert Webber, former professor of theology at Wheaton College, passed away on Friday. Whether or not one agreed with everything Bob believed, it is impossible to deny his massive and widespread influence on evangelicalism and, in particular, its concept and practice of worship. I was profoundly influenced by his book, "Signs of Wonder," in which he articulated the notion of a convergence of various worship styles and traditions.
Bob resigned from Wheaton in the spring of 2000. In the fall of 2000, when I took a position teaching theology at Wheaton College, I was assigned one of Bob's most popular classes, Christian Traditions. In fact, it is doubtful that there would have been a position available for me had Bob not decided to leave Wheaton and join the faculty at Northern Baptist Seminary in nearby Lombard, Illinois. I felt hopelessly inadequate to fill his shoes in this course, but thoroughly enjoyed giving it my best shot.
Bob was a frequent visitor on the Wheaton campus following his departure. He was often seen in Saga (the college cafeteria), sharing a meal with students or former colleagues. It was always a blessing when he showed up at some of our department social gatherings. I didn't get to know him extremely well, but always enjoyed his vibrant approach to life and theology. No, I didn't agree with everything he taught, but that didn't prevent me from learning much from him.
Perhaps the most surprising thing about Bob was his age. Those who met him for the first time were often asked how old they thought he was. Typically they would say, "Probably mid-fifties." Bob was 74 when he passed away! He was one of the most youthful and energetic men you'd ever want to meet. Yes, he was controversial and provocative, but his love for God, the Church, and the academy can never be questioned. I will miss him.
A new planet! Want to go there?
Apr 25, 2007Astronomers are giddy about the discovery of a planet outside our solar system that appears to have Earth-like qualities and thus may be capable of sustaining life. The planet orbits a red dwarf star called Gliese 581 in the constellation Libra.
I suspect some people may get really excited when they hear that this planet is comparatively close to the Earth, a mere 20.5 light years away. However, if you’re thinking about booking a flight to Gliese 581 c (which is what astronomers are calling it, for the time being), I’ve got bad news for you. Although 20.5 light years doesn’t sound very far, it comes out at approximately 120,000,000,000,000 miles (that’s 120 trillion miles)!
How far is that, you ask? Well, if you were inclined to travel non-stop (24 hours a day, 365 days a year) in a normal jet airliner at about 500 mph, it would only take 30,000,000 years until you arrived. That’s right, 30 million years! Even if you could book passage on the space shuttle and travel at 15,000 mph it would still take 1,000,000 years to get there.
One more thing to remember is that this planet orbits its star every 13 days (not 365 days like we do our Sun) and its gravity is 1.6x more than that of Earth. So, assuming you could last long enough to reach your destination you would get old and obese really fast! In fact, a 150 lb. individual would feel as if he were 240 lb. on this “habitable” planet. I can’t speak for you, but I think I’ll stay put!
Happy traveling!
Sam
N. T. Wright and Penal Substitution
Apr 25, 2007I've not yet read N. T. Wright's response to the new book, "Pierced for our Transgressions," but hope to do so soon. It has obviously caused quite a stir, leading many to conclude he denies (or seriously misunderstands, perhaps even caricatures) penal substitutionary atonement. I'll try to address that once I've read his article. In the meantime, I came across an interesting defense of Wright by Trevin Wax. You can find it at www.trevinwax.wordpress.com/ The title to the article is "Don't Tell Me N. T. Wright Denies 'Penal Substitution.'"
Penal Substitution (1)
Apr 23, 2007The subject of the nature of Christ’s atoning death is once again making headlines and filling blogs. I had long ago intended to write some brief observations on the topic, but then got busy with other matters. However, I’d like now to begin addressing this point that will no doubt be sporadic and spread out over the next few weeks.
“But why give yourself to yet another controversy, Sam?” Good question. Let’s remember that the church has never been without controversy. Throughout its history, virtually every tenet of faith, regardless of importance, has come under attack. Some of these theological battles were not worth fighting, while others demanded immediate and decisive attention.
Make no mistake: beliefs matter. “Bad theology,” said J. I. Packer, “hurts people.” It is also true that some beliefs matter more than others. Some doctrines, such as that of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the nature of salvation are worthy of debate and precise thinking. Heresy is not always a bad word, for it identifies what is false that we might see and embrace what is true.
But sometimes some beliefs matter too much. The disturbing thing about studying church history is the revelation of how Christians have done un-Christian things to each other in defense of doctrines that, in the ultimate scheme of things, don’t matter all that much.
We’ve witnessed several theological controversies in the past decade that were more than deserving of our careful and devoted attention. The debate over Open Theism is a case in point. I’m convinced that the discussion over the nature of Christ’s sacrifice is even more crucial and can be ignored only to the serious detriment of the Church. This is an issue that threatens the integrity and substance of the gospel itself and thus puts the souls of men and women in eternal danger. I know that sounds alarmist and extreme, but I still believe it’s true.
Needless to say, I’m deeply disturbed by the increasing trend among those who claim to be evangelical Christians of denying, indeed mocking, the doctrine of the penal substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
These folk are not denying that Jesus died on a cross. Nor are they suggesting that the gospel can exist apart from what Jesus did on behalf of sinners in his life, death, and resurrection. What they are denying, with ever-increasing frequency and fervency, is that in his death he was a vicarious substitute for sinners, personally bearing and exhausting in himself the punishment warranted by our transgressions. What they are denying is that he endured the wrath of God and thereby satisfied the demands of divine justice on behalf of those for whom he suffered.
Numerous books are taking up this denial that Christ endured and satisfied the wrath of God against sin, but the one that seems to have provoked the debate and is most often cited as a source for those who embrace its perspective is the volume by Joel B. Greene and Mark D. Baker, “Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament & Contemporary Contexts” (IVP, 2000, 232pp.).
One of the more puzzling things is that InterVarsity Press chose to publish this book. IVP has for years been viewed as a standard-bearer for evangelical publishing. It’s unsettling to me that they have lent the otherwise long-standing credibility of their name to a book of such horrendous theological content.
In the next installment I want to provide a brief summary of the book so that you can see what is being said concerning the death of Christ. I will also make reference, when appropriate, to other books that have followed the lead of Greene and Baker in their denial of penal substitutionary atonement (hereafter PSA). Then, secondly, I’ll work progressively through the book, The Nature of the Atonement (also published by IVP) in which Gregory Boyd, Tom Schreiner, Joel Greene, and Bruce Reichenbach address our theme.