Responding to Cessationism Comments Pt. 1
Comment. I have some concerns about the categories utilized by Timothy Dane in distinguishing between various spiritual gifts. First, I am not sure who Thomas is, since his full name is not mentioned. Given this fact, it is hard to consider the reasoning behind his use of the four categories of spiritual gifts which have been cited. If in fact Timothy Dane is building his case (at least in part) upon Thomas’ four categories, it is appropriate for us to question whether or not these categories are in fact biblically accurate. It is not enough to simply note that somebody has used such a categorization in the past. If we do so we risk building a biblical case upon extra-biblical categories.
Response. I appreciate the comments and interaction to my writing given by Mr. Wismer. Though we have not yet met personally, I can see that he is a serious student of the Bible and values the importance of careful study. In my interaction with him here, I will preface my comments with a few thoughts that may help him to see more clearly the important “hows” and “whys” of this present theological discussion.
The first issue that I would raise to Mr. Wismer is the reality that all theology has gone through phases of historical development. Mr. Wismer makes several comments that seem to suggest in some way that my exposition on this topic is introducing a new twist that is suspect simply because it is new, or perhaps, may be new for Mr. Wismer. For this reason, I respectfully ask Mr. Wismer (who has not yet read this paper in its entirety) to set aside his present presuppositions in this matter and look with openness at a theological position that he may not yet be well acquainted with.
Secondly, in terms of methodology, I will reiterate upfront some points about foundational points of methodology, since Mr. Wismer raises this objection at several points throughout his comments. For the Christian, a sound methodology is one which must begin at the exegetical level (exegesis that produces direct, biblical theology). This paper has been driven by a preliminary exegesis of all the relevant biblical texts. Secondly, a sound methodology is one which must go beyond exegesis and advance to the theological level (i.e., systematic harmonization of all that the Scripture teaches). This paper has done just that by taking all relevant exegetical observations and then bringing them together to form theological positions. Thirdly, a sound methodology is one which must constantly submit one’s theological declarations to careful scrutiny. This scrutiny must have Scripture itself as the highest authority, but there are other factors that come into theological articulation: (1) Is one’s position internally consistent? That is, if one finds internal contradiction in his own views, something needs to change. (2) Second, one’s theology must be comprehensive in the handling of biblical data. That is, are we taking into account all the relevant data? (3) Third, does the theological position present a coherent system in which all the relevant data has a proper relationship with the other data? Does it all fit together. (4) Fourth, does the theological position actually match up with the real world? To be precise, does the claim of cessationism that is taken up in this paper match up with the real world? History shows us the obvious fact that good theologians do not always agree at every point. This paper has been written with a sound methodological approach. It is now up to the reader to set aside presuppositions and analyze each view according to its merits.
With reference to the issue of cessationism, here are a couple of considerations for the reader to consider? (1) Does orthodox Christianity now hold to the position (or has it throughout history) that there are apostles in the church today such as one sees in the apostles of Christ in the New Testament? That is, do we have people like Peter and John and Paul in the church today? Has the church had such people since the close of the apostolic age? Very few (including even many theologians from the Charismatic or Pentecostal circles) would be willing to make such an affirmation. I assume Mr. Wismer would deny that this spiritual gift is present today. For this reason I would simply point out that Mr. Wismer is by definition a cessationist to a certain extent. (2) Going hand in hand with this last point, Does orthodox Christianity now hold to the position (or has it throughout history) that God is still performing miracles through specifically gifted individuals such as took place in the apostolic age? This question is not to doubt the fact that God can and does still perform miracles according to His sovereign will, and many times in response to the prayers of His children (a position that most cessationists affirm). The point, though, is that even among many Pentecostal and Charismatic writers, there is the honest recognition that we do not see today the kinds of miraculous activity that was seen in the NT era (cf. statements by non-cessationists in Four Views of Miraculous Gifts, ed. Wayne Grudem). Something is different today from the apostolic age. (3) Thirdly, does orthodox Christianity now hold to the position (or has it throughout history) that the Bible is only a portion of God’s revelation for the church age? That is, has historic Christian orthodoxy held the position that God is continuing to give prophetic revelation beyond the close of the canon? The answer is “no.” The 20th century, however, has brought in yet another kind of attack on the sufficiency Scripture, and this consists in the claim that God is giving ongoing prophetic revelation to the church today. Historic orthodox Christianity has affirmed a closed canon.
This brings us to a very crucial issue: can we affirm the sufficiency of the Scripture or are we going to adopt the new, 20th century concept that God is giving ongoing prophetic revelation? It was the outbreak of the Pentecostal movement in the early 20th century and its subsequent spread beyond the Pentecostal denominations that brought this kind of thinking to evangelical Christianity in the broad sense. What has happened over the past several decades is that this new challenge to the sufficiency of Scripture has begun to undermine a full commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture. This in fact is the practical reality of what takes place, and those who have personal experience in dealing with these issues can attest to the way that feelings and experiences often operate under the guise of “God told me.”
With reference to the preceding issues, the reader is well served by recognizing that the church has always had to deal with theological articulation on a progressive basis. In other words, theology has developed according to the needs of the age. Several examples illustrate this fact. (1) For example, the church spent some four centuries hammering out its theological articulation of the hypostatic union, and it had to do so because of the fact that challenges forced them to do so. (2) In the 16th century the church was forced to deal afresh with its theological articulation of justification by faith. Circumstances forced it to do so. (3) The articulation of Dispensational truths took place in this post-reformation era as Bible students and theologians began to look afresh at what the Bible really does teach about eschatology and ecclesiology. The church came to recognize certain key facts that for many centuries had been overlooked and ignored: a. the church (i.e., the body of Christ) which came into existence at Pentecost is not Israel, a new Israel or a spiritual Israel, b. God’s promises to national Israel are to be held as literal promises that are yet to be fulfilled and not seen as being fulfilled by the church. The church did not invent these truths, rather it recognized them and articulated them when it had to deal with certain issues.
My point for the reader is that we need to understand how theological issues have been dealt with throughout church history. Theological utopia did not arrive at the close of the biblical canon, nor did it arrive with theological greats like Augustine, Calvin or . . . (plug in your favorite contemporary preacher). We should not deceive ourselves with a complacent naivety that says “we have arrived” and there is nothing more to add to it.
In terms of the doctrine of cessationism, the reader needs to recognize that the necessity for dealing with it in a comprehensive and systematic fashion has arisen at this time due to the fact that it was not until the mid to late 20th century that this became a problem to deal with. As noted above, it is the incursion of Pentecostal thinking (post 1906) and its subsequent spread into broader evangelicalism that has made this an issue to be dealt with in detail form. The point is this: the time to address these trends is now in such a way that has not been true in former centuries.
Thus, the issues that my paper has dealt with are by no means secondary or tangential to the Christian faith. They are absolutely fundamental. They must be dealt with and they must be dealt with in a way that allows the Bible to have priority in theological articulation.
Mr. Wismer asked about the citation from Robert L. Thomas. With reference to the identity of Robert Thomas, professor Thomas is a professor of New Testament at The Master’s Seminary. He holds a Th.M. and Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary and has been teaching at the seminary level since 1959. His teaching ministry at Talbot Theological Seminary was from 1959 through 1986 (having taught Greek to John MacArthur whom Mr. Wismer cites at various points). He has been in teaching in this same capacity at The Master’s Seminary since 1986. He is a Greek scholar of the highest caliber and has been training men for ministry for over 50 years, including men like John MacArthur who studied under Thomas at Talbot Theological Seminary in the mid 60s. Thomas has written extensively on the subject of spiritual gifts and is one of the most highly regarded authorities in these areas.
My citations from the work of Thomas are due to the fact that he has done very thorough exegetical ground work on a most challenging topic, a topic that must be approached first and foremost from the exegetical level. Too often error arises because of the failure to base theological assertions on thorough exegetical foundations.
The case for cessationism as presented does not rest upon four categories of gifts as Mr. Wismer has suggested. The case for cessationism, as articulated throughout the paper, is based upon four main issues (some of which Mr. Wismer may not have already read and studied). A categorization of gifts is not unique, for many theologians who have written on this topic have recognized that all gifts cannot be lumped together. Differences in the nature of the gifts become apparent from the study of the text. Furthermore, what this writer did was demonstrate that there is a textual justification (in both 1 Cor. 12-14 and Pet. 4:10-11) for seeing distinctions in gifts. The concept is not new as noted by writers like Hodge who were writing almost a century ago. In his comments Mr. Wismer gave no interaction to the exegetical details that the paper cites in support of these issues. Perhaps he had not yet gotten to those portions of the paper in his reading.
As this writer noted in the discussion, one should be cautious about hard distinctions in how one might classify the gifts, for the biblical data on the distinctiveness of gifts is not always clear (e.g., the distinction between the Word of Wisdom and the Word of Knowledge). Nevertheless, to the extent that writers like Paul actually used distinctive terms to distinguish the gifts (i.e., in 1 Cor. 12:8ff.), to this extent it is entirely correct to recognize such distinctions.
Dr. Thomas’ book “Evangelical Hermeneutics” was recommended to me several years ago by my former pastor and is nothing less than fantastic. “Brilliant and Biblical” were Macarthur’s words.
I appreciate your tone here Professor Dane. These are difficult issues that become clear when analyzed Biblically. You have addressed error clearly and accurately, just as the Church has done out of necessity for centuries.
Josh, JD, and Mr. Dane,
I’ve been following this discussion between you guys and my husband, and it has been very interesting! I understand Mr. Dane is probably not following this blog closely, but I’m particularly interested in one portion of his response, as follows…
“My point for the reader is that we need to understand how theological issues have been dealt with throughout church history. Theological utopia did not arrive at the close of the biblical canon, nor did it arrive with theological greats like Augustine, Calvin or . . . (plug in your favorite contemporary preacher). We should not deceive ourselves with a complacent naivety that says “we have arrived” and there is nothing more to add to it.”
Tim and I have been chatting over these issues lately, so I feel free to ask a question here. I don’t understand the meaning of this paragraph. It seems there is a distinction being drawn here between theology and truth, whether that is right, I don’t know… but how can it be? If, theologically, we have not arrived, how can we be sure what the truth really is? Are we, theologically, not ready to say the final word, so to speak? When I have a question, and I go to the scripture, can I be sure that I’m getting the solid, whole truth? Or do I have to wait for a Greek scholar to show me? What is the role of the Holy Spirit in all of this?
I realize that I am questioning people who have thought through these things in much more depth and detail than I have, so I hope you will not take my questioning as arrogant or presumptuous. I sincerely wish to know the answer.
Can I read the Bible and get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thanks!
Tiffany
Mr. Dane,
Having just read your comments I have found many points that I concur with. However, I cannot help but feel that your response has addressed concerns other than those which I have raised in my original comments and clarified in the conversation with Josh which followed. I suspect that at this point our dialogue is no longer beneficial to either one of us or to the readers of Truth Crossing, and I will therefore refrain from any further comment.
Your brother in Christ,
Tim Wismer
Hello Tiffany,
Assuming you read your Bible in English, you already depend on Greek scholars for every word you’ve ever read. And the people who translated or interpreted your Bible (like Dr. Thomas did the NASB) depended on the scholars before them. You could attempt to lock yourself in a room with nothing but the original manuscripts and try to figure out “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” all by your lonesome, but why? God gave us Church leaders for a reason (Ephesians 4 is a good example of this).
And I’d wager that what you, or me, or anyone else that attempted this lone-ranger-systematic-theology two thousand years later, on the other side of the planet, in a very different culture, and with very different presuppositions than what the original, Holy Spirit inspired authors wrote with would end up with nothing more than some kind of a weird cult. (Kind of reminds me of Joseph Smith)
It is important, especially on difficult issues such as the one at hand, to look at how the Church has dealt with the issue over thousands of years. Chances are, we won’t be able to come up with something new all by ourselves. If you do manage to come across someone who is not Jesus that claims to have “arrived theologically,” and have the “whole truth,” all figured out, I’d walk quickly in the other direction.
JD
Hey Tim Wismer,
Part 2 is posted responding to your comments. I hope that you will not quit on this discussion so early. You have keen insight on this matter and I had looked forward to reading your comments, along with many other readers I am sure. Allow Mr. Dane to at-least respond in the format he has chosen, you may find that he indeed does respond in a more direct fashion later in the posts. Also, if you think Mr. Dane has not responded directly, then you post what specifically he is missing out on. In Mr. Dane’s defense, I think he was just trying to defend himself based upon your comments regarding theological conclusions, though I agree that he spent too much time communicating that, but hey, he is a teacher that is what we should expect.
Mr. Dane,
In deference to Josh’s request, I have reconsidered and will include a response.
First, my comments were based upon my concerns with your methodology, not Cessationism itself. Multiple of your statements (I have quoted two such statements at the bottom), along with the fact that much of your response to my comments is a further argument for Cessationism, imply that my original comments were an argument against Cessationism. I am not, in fact, against Cessationism. This should be clear from the following statement in my comments on Part 2 (repeated twice in my Part 3 comments): “My point is not to argue for or against cessationism.” In point of fact, I attend a confessedly Cessationist church and I am concerned that Truth Crossing’s readers (some of whom may attend my church) may take your response as an indication that I am Pentecostal in my theology.
Second, my point in referencing the citation of Thomas’ four categories was not that I reject his categories (hence my comment in Part 2, “My point is not to argue . . . for or against Thomas’ four categories”), but rather was that “Thomas’ himself is not authoritative” (quoted from the end of my comments on Part 2). Specifically, Thomas’ credentials as a reputable Bible scholar do not in themselves demonstrate the truth of his conclusions (regarding his four categories, for e.g.). The Bible is our only authority for truth, and we therefore cannot assume the veracity of his conclusion without examining the process by which he arrived at this conclusion (i.e. the argument itself must be shown to be faithful to Scripture). It may well have been impractical to include Thomas’ full argument in your brief paper. However, I commented that since your final conclusion is based in part on these categories, the exclusion of Thomas’ argument leaves a logical gap in your reasoning.
You dispute this comment in your response to me: “the case for cessationism as presented does not rest upon four categories of gifts”. However, your case for the cessation of CERTAIN gifts IS dependent on the four categories, as seen from your conclusion in the Part 4 summary: “God’s design included a point of cessation for . . . . the revelatory gifts [Group 1] . . . and the companion confirmatory gifts [Group 2]”. When we consider that a number of the gifts which Thomas attributes to these two categories (e.g. Tongues and the gift of Faith) were not specifically addressed anywhere in your paper, we see that your argument for their cessation is essentially the following: 1) Confirmatory Gifts ceased; 2) Thomas identifies Tongues and Faith (for e.g.) as Confirmatory Gifts; 3) Therefore Tongues and Faith ceased.
In other words, since nowhere in your paper do you discuss Tongues or Faith, and since nowhere in the Bible do we have a list labeled “Confirmatory Gifts”, your argument for the cessation of Tongues and Faith hinges on the assumption that Thomas’ four categories are accurate, and that he has correctly assigned each gift to its proper category. I admit that this may well be the case, but the absence of any demonstration to this effect within your paper leaves a hole in the logical progression of your argument. This is part of what I was referring to when I mentioned your “methodology.”
My overall point was that no matter how solid a person’s spiritual or academic credentials are, their arguments cannot be accepted simply by virtue of who is proposing them, unless that person is God Himself (i.e. in the Bible). A person’s individual positions become authoritative only when (and insofar) they are shown to conform to the Bible.
I expect that you agree with me on this last point and so I am not trying to suggest to the readers of Truth Crossing that you do not. I merely desired to point out a weakness in the method of your argument, and to voice concerns over the potential implications of this gap on the issue of authority.
Referenced Quotes:
“for this reason, I respectfully ask Mr. Wismer . . . to set aside his present presuppositions in this matter and look with openness at a theological position that he may not yet be well acquainted with”,
“The case for cessationism, as articulated throughout the paper, is based upon four main issues (some of which Mr. Wismer may not have already read and studied)”
Hey JD,
Are you enjoying the CDs? Hope so.
I do read my Bible in English, and I certainly would not attempt to translate it from the Greek on my own, or to trust someone who did make that attempt. (Forget Joseph Smith. Let’s talk about Eugene Petersen.)
I love theology, don’t get me wrong. I believe theology preserves truth and the unified solidarity of believers BY that truth. Unfortunately, one of two things often happens…
a.) not everyone is amenable to submitting to truth, and so we have unavoidable divisions.
b.) certain aspects of truth are difficult to understand and can be interpreted in different ways and so we have spirited debates.
That’s not to say we should just give up and get along. Rather, I understand unity (and the Apostle Paul’s pleas for unity) to mean that all must submit as much as possible to the truth according to the mind of Christ.
Anyway, the truth is preserved by theologians and because of this, theologians deserve hot, freshly baked cookies every single day.
All that said, I agree that we should faithfully look to the ways the church has handled Biblical issues over the centuries if we want to get wisdom on difficult questions. Also we are in agreement that scholarship is important in the translating and passing down of faithfully-handled truth.
My concern is that sometimes truth (defined as: that which comes from God, and is what saves us, moves us, gives us life) gets confused with theology (defined as: protector of that truth) with disastrous results. For example, I have a co-worker who consistently gets up on a soapbox about how bad he thinks legalists are. And what he means by “legalists” are “all those people who speak about truth using propositional statements”. Yes, that means you and I. But don’t be offended: he just doesn’t get it. Somewhere along the line, somebody told him that he needs to put aside his Bible and listen to God speaking to him personally if he wants to REALLY know what the truth is. Now, what does this have to do with theology? Everything. My friend is no longer “dialed in” to the conversation between God and man (which is read in Scripture and understood by the Holy Spirit) because theologians (bad ones that don’t deserve cookies at all) have led him away from Scripture and taught him to rely on a little voice in his mind that he takes to be God. This is a sad case.
But we conservatives don’t do this kind of thing to the people we minister to. Or do we?
If I, Tiffany, am reading along in one of the epistles and I come across a passage I don’t understand, what do I do? Pray for understanding? I confess I don’t. I immediately flip open my MacArthur study Bible, and implicitly trust what I read there, thinking “Ah, now I get it. Now the truth is clear to me. MacArthur, sighhh!” Sometimes this is necessary, like when I read through Ezekiel that one time. But sometimes it is just lazy. If I’m not walking in the Spirit, hey! No problem. I can just lean on MacArthur. I don’t need the Spirit to reveal truth to me anymore, because Greek scholarship has already done that.
This is what I’m worried might be happening to more than just me. It’s the antithesis of what happened to my co-worker. He thinks he only needs the Spirit to show him the truth, without the Bible. I think I only need the Bible, without the Spirit. And if I become entrenched in that mindset, the idea of finding new meanings in those old Greek words becomes very appealing.
I’m not saying we just rest on our laurels thinking we know everything there is to know. But I think it is important to recognize that we are all susceptible to the “horror of the same old thing” as Lewis put it. I believe that we’ll never know the depth of God. In fact, I believe that we’ll spend eternity learning of Him and will never “arrive” at a full understanding of Him. But what HAS been revealed to us on earth in Scripture is finite – not finite in its application to our spirits by His Holy Spirit, but in its words and the meanings of those words. Words are earthly things – they reach their limit. There are a finite number of them in the Bible. Each word has its proper interpretation. And though we may argue about what that proper interpretation is, based on the finite nature of words, I don’t believe there is room for new revelation on the word level… yet some would argue that the there are words in the Bible that we are just now interpreting correctly. It’s ironic to think that cessationists can espouse such an idea, actually.
One final thought: we’ve sent hundreds of Bibles overseas to Africa and China, among other places, that do not contain footnotes. And yet, the churches there thrive. Truth is preserved by theology and scholarship, but the Holy Spirit is the one that really teaches humanity, using the Bible, the meaning of the truth in a way that changes hearts and grows the church. Theological scholarship, though useful and valuable and necessary, can never do that. When handled faithfully, it makes the window between us and God spotlessly clear, but it can neither make the light shine nor open the eye.
I am enjoying the CDs! Thank you.
JD
Glad to hear it!
Tiffany