i) I notice that members of the MacArthur circle frame the issue in terms of "sign-gifts." I'm struck by their unquestioned reliance on this category. Let's compare that with some charismatic phenomena in the NT:
26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. 27 And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot” (Acts 8:26-29).
9 The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat” (Acts 10:9-13).
9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them (Acts 16:9-10).
9 And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, 10 for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people” (Acts 18:9-10).
ii) These are revelatory or "prophetic" phenomena. It's the kind of charismatic phenomena that cessationists tell us petered out with the death of the apostles or apostolic generation.
iii) Yet in what sense are these instances of the "sign-gifts"? Signs for whom? These are private revelations, not public revelations. Revelatory dreams and visions are psychological experiences, not public events. Likewise, an angel or the Spirit speaking to Philip.
Cessationists pride themselves in their strict adherence to Scripture, yet they frame the issue in categories ("sign-gifts") that are not a close fit with all of the relevant Biblical data.
iv) However, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all the charismata were "sign-gifts." How would that identification imply their termination at the end of the apostolic era? For instance, I don't think John Wimber (a la Power Evangelism) would object to classifying miracles a sign-gifts. And he would say that if these were needed to attest the Gospel message in the first Christian generation, there's continuous need of that inasmuch as Christianity is always new to the up-and-coming generation.
Now, we might debate the merits of that contention, but my immediate point is that classifying miracles a sign-gifts doesn't logically suggest an expiration date.
Did you read my article on this subject: http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/wonder-working-power/
ReplyDeleteThey are sign gifts because they gave authentication to the ministry of Christ and His apostles. It is the consistent use of the Greek word semeion in these contexts.
Fred, no one is denying that NT miracles sometimes function to attest the message/messenger. The question at issue is whether that's their exclusive role. In the very post, I gave some examples to demonstrate how it's reductionistic to confine them to that role.
DeleteIn all the examples you give above, it was the apostles Peter and Paul who experienced the phenomena. The fact that they were apostles who had been specifically commissioned by the Lord Himself to take the new covenant message to the world indicates the "sign" nature of those miracles to not only direct the messengers and authenticate their message.
ReplyDeletei) Fred, it isn't just apostles. The examples include Philip.
Deleteii) The fact that Peter and Paul were apostles doesn't make these authenticating signs. Look at how they actually function in these passages.
You can try to argue that from other passages, but in these passages they serve a different purpose. Don't flatten everything out to make it agree with a general theory. We must respect the specific content of each passage.
Fred Butler
Delete"In all the examples you give above, it was the apostles Peter and Paul who experienced the phenomena."
I'm was just sampling the data for illustrative purposes. Actually, there are several nonapostolic examples in Acts: Ananias, Cornelius, Stephen, Philip, and his four daughters.
Phillip was commissioned by the apostles by the laying on of hands (Acts 6:5,6), so I don't see that as an example of a normative experience with the Holy Spirit that should happen with all Christians in our modern day. Honestly, I'm not seeing what you are attempting to defend.
ReplyDeleteFred, you're shadowboxing with a position I didn't advance. I didn't cite the case of Philip "as an example of a normative experience with the Holy Spirit that should happen with all Christians in our modern day. " It needn't be universal (or even general) to be a counterexample to your claim that the purpose of sign-gifts was to legitimate the apostolic vocation.
DeleteYou have a theory that oversimplifies the data. You're attempting to shoehorn the data into a single explanatory principle. That conclusion doesn't arise from the data. Rather, that's imposed on the data, despite the data, which are more varied.
Fred Butler
Delete"Phillip was commissioned by the apostles by the laying on of hands (Acts 6:5,6), so I don't see that as an example of a normative experience with the Holy Spirit that should happen with all Christians in our modern day."
i) That wasn't my argument. If, however, that's the argument you use against continuationism (or at least one of your arguments), then that creates a problem for your own position. For it would be easy to construct a parallel argument: elders were appointed by the apostles (Acts 14:23), so I don't see that as setting a normative precedent. If the charismata lapsed with the death of the apostles, so did church office. If the charismata was contingent on direct apostolic action, so was eldership.
Hence, your objection, carried to its logical conclusion, would extend cessationism to pastors and elders, as well as healers, prophets, &c.
ii) I hope you're not suggesting that Philip's possession of the charismata (Acts 8:6-7) was the result of the apostolic imposition of hands. For one thing, fullness of the Spirit was a prerequisite for the imposition of hands in the case of Philip and Stephen (Acts 6:3,5), and not a result thereof.
iii) Also, I trust you're not suggesting that Philip's ministry to the Ethiopian eunuch was dependent on apostolic sanction. It's not the apostles who sent him to evangelize the Ethiopian. Rather, he was tasked by an angel of God (Acts 8:26), in conjunction with the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:29). He acted at God's direct instigation. There was no apostolic approval process.
Fred Butler
Delete"Phillip was commissioned by the apostles by the laying on of hands (Acts 6:5,6), so I don't see that as an example of a normative experience with the Holy Spirit that should happen with all Christians in our modern day."
I didn't cite the case of Philip as normative for every Christian today. If, however, I were attempting to argue for a normative position, the logical point of departure would be the programmatic statement in Acts 2:17ff. The case of Philip is one illustrative instance of that normative principle.
Mind you , I think Joel's sweeping language is hyperbolic and representative rather than truly universal in scope. But his language is by no means confined to the Apostles. And, in Peter's quotation, this marks a epochal turning-point in redemptive history. This is the new status quo of the new covenant era. It's something we'd expect to continue for the duration of the church age–not lapse after a single generation.