I tiptoe Gingerly into Pyro's debate
After accidentally shaking up the whole blogosphere, Pyromaniac points out that he hasn't even blogged on his stance in the cessationism v continuationism debate. His blog actually does a great deal to clear the air after many of the knee-jerk responses that have flown from both sides of the debate after he mentioned it. He points out that his comments were directed toward the "prophetic-utterances-gone-bad" group (on this point I must link to videos that I personally find very hilarious and an illustration of what can happen when prophetic utterances go bad: Robert Tilton). He even makes the point (which I think is an understatement), "I think I have much more in common with my 'Reformed non-cessationist' brethren than I have with liberal cessationists." He summarizes what he has said into four statements:- There is a monstrous potential for evil in blithely assuming
that all your private imaginations are supernatural promptings that
come to you as divine revelations from the Holy Spirit.
- Those
who order their lives by such an assumption are being willfully
gullible and sinfully superstitious, and they have no biblical warrant
for the practice. In fact, such a mindset is hostile to the biblical
concept of discernment.
- Claiming God told you something
when in fact He did not is a profoundly wicked kind of presumption
whose fruits are always evil. In fact, it was a capital crime under
Moses' law.
- That kind of presumption, paired with a declining concern about biblical doctrine has unleashed an untold amount of mischief in the visible church over the past century.
The problem, it seems to me, is that the reformed noncessationalists (Possibly typified best by John Piper and CJ Mahaney) are responding to statements hopefully not made about them. And Pyro and many of the cessationists lump the failures of those who charismatically run, Biblically unchecked, to a disastrous end, and they project these failures on those who are undeserving of them. Pyro even states toward the end of his recent post, "I think it's fair to point out that the track record on these issues ought to be an embarrassment to my Reformed continuationist brethren." Arminiast could level similar attacks at Calvinists...Dave Hunt already has
. Cessationist could get
blown out the water if we show the complete emotionless, passionless,
orthodoxy of some of its followers. Yes a tree is known by it's fruit,
and there are surely some bad trees in both the cessationist orchard
and the continualist orchard. But we mustn't condemn the entire orchard
based on a few bad trees. Let's stop being reactionary on this point; let's stop building straw-man examples out of a few from each side. I am happy that in recent history the gospel has become center in so many peoples' minds. Cessationist and continualist brothers benefit much for the leaders on all sides; Together for the Gospel is a great example of this. Let's remember that in all of this, God's glory is at stake, and the Gospel must be central, guiding and tempering our responses to one another. Please let's not assume motives, let's not generalize, and let's keep the discussion as much as is possible either very specific to individuals (Pyro, since it has become obvious that in most people's minds Mahaney and Piper are the exemplars, if discussing this group in sweeping manner, make sure that comments apply to them as well and point that out) or to Scripture.
A few years ago I would have without hesitation described myself as a cessationist. Not even a pause or a second thought. That issue was settled. However, initially in response to the fruit of Sovereign Grace Ministries and based on relationships with members of the Sovereign Grace Churches who destroyed every preconceived notion I had about "charismatics," I have begun to rethink that position. My hesitancies to accept the possibility that miraculous gifts were not in use today were driven 100% by my experience; how inconsistent of me. In every other sphere of theology, even on the ones where I might look like I am flying in the face of experience like my belief in a 7-day creation, my belief flows from scripture, yet on this point I had reacted. I find myself in one of my few areas of theological indecision; therefore, I will keep my comments in this arena few. But I do know that I have been inconsistent on this point. I now believe that there is no exegetically-consistent reason God would not use miraculous gifts today. However, I recognize the pitfalls that Pyro has mentioned. Neither have I ever personally seen what I know is a manifestion of one of "the higher gifts." I hope that God will grant me a miraculous gift, but I will tread carefully if so. I am immediately skeptical when I hear of the use today of a miraculous gift, even when consistent with the Biblical warnings against their use. I wonder if that is a healthy skepticism or just another knee-jerk reaction. Basically my conclusion on this point is that I am ignorant, biased, and expose a great deal of faithlessness in God's power in the past when considering this area. I hope that this is an area that God brings clarity to both in my mind and in reformed evangelicalism in general.
Praise God for men like John Piper and CJ Mahaney! Praise God for men like John MacArthur and Phil Johnson! Praise God for the many others across cessationism-continuationism theological spectrum who are devoted to the glory of God through their life and theology! Let's just remember the grace that we've been shown and our own limitations when we humbly engage in this very necessary discussion.
By the way, having concluded my own lengthy study of the issue I am a committed cessationist whose biblical convictions run as deep as my dearest continuationist friends. We remain equally concerned about eachother’s discernment and the soundness of our respective conclusions. They, however, have never wondered about my passion for Christ.
Thanks Phil for your ever-lucid posts.