An Argument For Cessationism

Inasmuch as we do not want to derive our theology from experience, we need to ask what direct evidence there is from Scripture to support our beliefs. With this in mind we now turn to one of the main passages which is purported to support the Cessationist position.

Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for languages, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when the perfect comes, the partial will come to an end. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put aside childish things. For now we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known. Now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1 Co. 13:8-13 HCSB)

This is one of the most important passages in the discussion regarding cessationism since it addresses a time when gifts will "come to an end," or "cease". No one, to my knowledge, denies that there will come a time when the gifts are to cease operating within the believing community. The real question is just when this is supposed to happen, according to Scripture.

This passage tells us that the gifts of tongues (languages), prophecy, and knowledge will cease when the perfect comes. It is important to note that it is only these three which are mentioned. One of the criticisms of the cessationist position is that it is inconsistent; it allows that a gift of administration or teaching might still be operative, but not tongues or prophecy. In the above passage we see a warrant for this position; if the time of the perfect's arrival is already come, then, according to this passage, we should expect that those gifts specifically mentioned should have indeed ceased. Church history then would seem to support that conclusion. However using church history in that fashion is arguably logically fallacious, using post hoc reasoning.

Crucial at this point is the identification of "the perfect." If we are to say that certain Gifts of the Spirit have ceased, then we must be able to determine what the perfect is that has supplanted them. To attempt to argue that the gifts have ceased without such an identification is to beg the question. To the best of my knowledge the only identification that is put forward is that "the perfect" refers to the canon of Scripture.

Let me clear here: by "the canon of Scripture" I am not referring to the list of books that we recognize today, but rather the books themselves. Canonicity is a function of inspiration; only those writings God inspired can be called canonical. This means the extent of the canon is determined by the number of writings that God inspired. The moment the last document was completed, the canon was closed; it remained only for the Body of Christ to recognize the Voice of God in them.

This is all well and good. The problem is that there is nothing in the context of 1Co. 13 that leads one to expect or suspect that a canon, open or closed is in view. More common is the idea that "the perfect" is the completed Kingdom of God, or even Christ Himself. In either case, it is not possible to say that it has come already, relative to the present day. The conclusion that we are forced to then is that Scripture does not teach, in this passage at least, that we should expect any Gifts of the Spirit to have already ceased.

Some might want to argue that this conclusion should mean that we be able to see the Gifts at work, all of them, uniformly throughout history. But this denies a basic teaching of the New Testament about the Gifts, namely that they are given according to the sovereign will of God the Holy Spirit (1 Co. 12:11). To say that the Gifts have not ceased does not obligate God to provide them in a particular way.

At least, we ought not think in such a way; we want to avoid presumption either way.

More On Cessationism

One of the criticisms that is leveled against those who insist that the more conspicuous are or at least can be operative today is that they allow themselves, at least on that topic, to be normed more by experience than by Scripture. That is, they think that their experience tells them what is right and wrong instead of Scripture.

It works this way:

People who have had a positive charismatic experience are likely to read the Bible in such a way that validates their experience.

Really it is an accusation of bias, nothing more. The argument really ought to be dismissed, if for no other reason than it can be turned against those who oppose the charismata as well. Cessationists can be accused of letting their experience of no charismata in their life or tradition or a negative experience, determine what they think the Bible says.

But the simple accusation of bias is a poor and lazy argument. Poor because, as noted, it cuts both ways, and lazy since it tends to distract from a more pertinent question: What does the Bible say?

It is a question that needs to be addressed in a way different from what is typically the case on the subject of charismatic gifts. Usually you see to sides lobbing proof texts at one another, without any serious dialogue or interaction. Sometimes things get a bit better; there is the lobbing of competing interpretations of larger texts. Still though interaction with those interpretations, is rare.

That's a shame, because it means that the two sides have already lost sight of something vital: Charismatics and non-charismatics, while maintaining different positions, have he same priorities. Both want to glorify God. Both want to be obedient disciples of Christ Jesus. Both want to be submissive to God's Word.

The fact is that this ought to be an intramural debate. But both sides build such high walls around their positions that it has become in many quarters an inter-mural debate. Both sides need to step back from their positions and reach out to one another on the basis of shared priorities, then move forward.

Practically speaking, moving forward will mean be willing to give in a little. Not compromise truth, but to give where appropriate, such as admitting that difficult or unclear passages are just that, or admitting that an interpretation is not so clearly or directly derived from the text of Scripture as we might like.

That takes humility, and a willingness to see that truth is better served by seeing the best in those with whom we disagree. Too often both of these are lacking.

Next time I'll take a look at a couple of passages which are at the heart of the debate.

One more thing

I don't believe that "cessationism or non-cessationism (continuationism)?" is the right question. It is a question of authority--biblical authority, not just do certain gifts exist or don't exist today.

Source

This is exactly right. It is also exactly right to say that, as long as charismatics maintain the willingness to allow all things that claim to be manifestations of the Holy Spirit to be scrutinxed bythe Word of God, then they are maintaining a properly biblical approach to authority.

A Note On Cessationism.

Definitions are important when you get into some discussions. Ok, all discussions, but some more than others.

The reason I note this now is because of a blog called Pyromaniac . In a post labeled "You're probably a cessationist, too" the author essentially concludes that even a charismatic is a cessationist under the right conditions. The relevant paragraph states

Again, consider the implications of that claim: Deere and Grudem have, in effect, conceded the entire cessationist argument. They have admitted that they are themselves cessationists of sorts. They believe that the true apostolic gifts and miracles have ceased, and they are admitting that what they are claiming today is not the same as the charismata described in the New Testament.

Now this seems entirely reasonable until you go back tot eh beginning of the topic and see what the author's operative definition of a cessationist is:

If you believe any of the miraculous spiritual gifts were operative in the apostolic era only, and that some or all of those gifts gradually ceased before the end of the first century, you are a cessationist.

The problem is that this is not a true definition. Cessationism isn't merely the descriptive position that the author takes, but also a theological/exegetical position that states that in fact there can be no gifts operative outside the apostolic era.

This foundational flaw leads to a series of comments about how charismatics are in fact cessationists to some degree, all based on the descriptive definition. Of course the descriptive is the very thing that many cessationists decry in charismatics: an argument from experience.

I find this to be an equivocation on the author's part, possibly to make whatever position he takes later (there are more installments planned I think), possibly out of honest oversight.

At any rate it is an error that wants correcting. Consider it done.

Just when I thought it was getting dull around here

I tend to ignore local politicians, except inasmuch as they might be able to impact broader policy. That would be why I like to have candidates who are good cabinet material.

But I already talked about that, and some folks thought I was being negative.

Well.

Let's just stick to some facts then. Here are a couple that I found very interesting.

Bob Speller, local Liberal candidate is very proud of his links to agriculture in this riding. Rightly so. Agriculture is very important around here, particularly tobacco.

However that doesn't seem to be enough to win the election. According to this site Bob will likely lose by an even bigger margin than last time.

Maybe that's why Bob is doing so much to convince people that not only is Bob a great guy for agriculture locally, he is a potent force nationally. He features quotes that say as much on his website.

The problem is that some of the quotes are bogus. Not that they are fabricated, but that they are planted. As Greg Weston of the Ottawa Sun reports:

The endorsement, first published in Speller's local newspaper and since featured prominently on his official website, begins: "As Western Canadian farmers ... who have endless respect for Bob Speller and the job he did as our agriculture minister during difficult times, we are writing to the residents of Haldimand-Norfolk (riding) in support of Bob."

Turns out, the three "farmers" who signed the endorsement happen to be a Manitoba Liberal candidate, campaign manager and riding vice-president.

I find this sort of thing hilarious. How are we to take endorsements seriously when they are clearly manufactured for partisan purposes?

I am sure this sort of thing won't help Bob.

Which is too bad, because he is a really nice guy. On the plus side, as long as the NDP and Christian Heritage Party are around, he is one nice guy who won't finish last.

Less than two weeks to go

Praise God!

I am something of a politicval junkie, and I know something of how the system works, both theoretically (politial science in university) and practically (some political organising back in the early 90s). Even I however can say "enough."

And I am getting very near to that.

Why? I believe we have hit the wall in terms of getting anything productive done in this campaign.

The Liberals have given their entire platform already. No one cares though. There is too much focus being given to scandals, accusations of Chretien/Martin faction infighting, and over the top negative ads. From the LIberals' perspective it might be best to stop while they are only stabbing themselves in the back and shooting themselves in the foot (nevermind sticking that foot in thier mouth). You might not think it could get worse for them. You might think thigns can improve. I don't know; Murphy's Law seems to be throwing the book at the Liberals big time.

The NDP may or may not have given their whole platform. No one seems to care except insofar as they might be an alterntive for people who don't want to vote Liberal but can't hold their nose tightly enough to vote Conservative.

I don't bother with the Bloc or the Green.

The Conservatives haven't given their whole platform yet. I don't think it matters. They got the sexiest ones out already, like money for child care, cash for commuters, and a reduction in the GST. They have also already exceeded expectations in Quebec. Frankly it may not be possible for them to do better. Better to quit while you're ahead.

So let's vote already!

He Loves You, He Loves you Not

Dear Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

I just wanted to write to encourage you in these difficult days. I understand that you are feeling hurt and confused. Used, even. You are not sure how your main defender (P.M. the PM) really feels.

Let's try to lay aside feelings for a moment. I am sure that if we take a step back and look at your defender's actions then you'll beable to see how he has been very consistent and constant in his love and concern for you.

Several months ago he was talking about how important you are to protecting religious freedom rights. That has to make you feel good. And when recently he spoke with such passion about he was going to stand by you and defend you... that had to fill your mind's eye with visions of a White Knight on his charger.

And look what he said next. He loves you so much that he is going to defend and protect you by changing you. He is going to feature you on Extreme Makeover: Constitution Edition. Nothing says love like "you gotta change".

Um, not really eh? Well maybe we shold think about it this way: Paul wants to make you better by removing the power of politicians to overrule the Supreme Court. Ok, so it would only apply to federal politicians. Ok, so it really sounds like jhe's trying to defend the Supreme Court more than you. Ok, so it looks like he is just trying to use you to attract the attention of other women.

Um, actually it does look like he is using you, abusing you and confusing you...

Maybe we should look at somethign else.

A Pair of Post-Mortems

Post Mortem #1: The New Approach

Well, my best guess at the moment was that the new approach worked well. Time was prety well perfect. Response was very positive. I had more fun as well. I found that I was more focussed.

The reasons as near as I can tell have to do with different purposes. Typically when I write a sermon I am looking for memorable lines and what not. When doing a lesson I am less concerned with being memorable as being clear and focussed. Approaching the sermon more like a lesson may have resulted in something that was clearer and, oddly, more memorable.

Post Mortem #2: The Debate

Paul Martin either hit an in the park home run last night or he hit into a fielder's choice.

I say an in the park home run because if Martin's ploy to start a constitutional debate (which he obviosuly thinks he can win) does work, then it will take some time to cash in the runs, and it will be dramatic to watch.

Frankly I don't think Martin can get around the bases.

Two reasons. First, Harper responded in a way that was reasonable. He spoke of the need to embrace dialogue and strike a balance between our institutions, rather than taking the bait and responding to a specific case. The other opposition parties helped Harper by essentially agreeing with him. Harper can hardly be painted as a radical to be feared for his stance on minority rights on account fo his response to Martin's proposal when that response is echoed by Jack Layton and the NDP.

The second reason is that Martin has a bit of a credibility problem that he is opening himself to on the question. Consider that Harper has said explicitly that he would not use the notwithstanding clause on the issue of same sex marriage. Then consider that Martin himself said he would invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect clergy from being forced to perform same sex marriages. Certainly Martin might wish to argue that his suggestion on that score was as much in defense of minorty rights as the one he made last night. Yet we should ask Martin: If the notwithstanding clause is a valuable tool in prtoecting minority rights (as he must certainly believe) then why get rid of it?

Perhaps most telling is that post debate analysis seems more focussed on what Martin's proposal says about him and his campaign than what it says about Harper and the Conservatives.

On the whole, Harper needed only to continue to be reasonable, not scary, and calm. That he did, and probably went a way in solidifying his newly-acquired support. For his part, Martin di not accomplish what he needed to really. There is hope for Martin, but that's all, and it isn't immediately apparant that it is all that much.

Jack Layton? Well he is in a tough spot. If he demonises the Conservatives too much, he ends up losing votes to the Liberals. In reality he has to pick his poison. He may not want a Conservative government, but to avoid it he will have to do things that will hurt his own party's electoral prospects. If he wants electoral success for himself and his party, he will likely have to accpet that he will end up helping the Conservatives in that regard as well.

A Humbling Example

John Piper and Cancer

With Friends Like These

Pat Robertson is an embarrassment.

Robertson has taken upon himself the responsibility to point the finger directly at God for what has occurred recently to Ariel Sharon. It seems that Robertson is a prophet from God who knows that God does not want any peace that involves giving up land.

Now, if I decide its worthwhile, I may go into some of the theological reasons why Robertson is to Christianity what "Klinger" is to the U.S. Army. For now though its enough to say that the man does more harm to the cause of God and of peace than good.

For information go here.

I am trying something different for Sunday's message.

I am a guy that likes to experiment. I don't mind trying things. I trust my congregation to be understanding if it doesn't work, and I trust them to lovingly tell me when it doesn't and why it doesn't.

So what am I doing differently?

Well actually just my approach to the preparation. The reason is that it seems to make a difference in my delivery. When I am teaching a lesson, I am (so I am told) animated and excited. When I am preaching I am relatively monotone.

I actually do more preparation for a bible study than for a mesage, because I can get into more depth with a study. I also pay less attention to catchy phrases and alliterative lists when I prepare for a study.

I gues I just "get into " a study more than a sermon.

So we'll try approaching the sermon more like a lesson and see if it impacts the delivery at all.

WorldNetDaily: 'Brokeback Mountain': Rape of the Marlboro Man

WorldNetDaily: 'Brokeback Mountain': Rape of the Marlboro Man

Respect Beliefs or Believers?

I was pondering things while drifting off to sleep and the question occurred to me:

Ought we to show respect for beliefs or for the people who hold them?

Having thought this through only a bit, I expect some will see great gaps in the following logic. If so, feel free to point them out.

I tend to see respect as something you give to something or someone you esteem. I esteem people, regardless of who they are or what they think. I do this simply because of the fundamental equality of people. All are created by God in His image. Christ died to assume the sin of all people without exception.

Ideas though are not all fundamentally equal. Some are good. Some are excellent. Some are just dumb. You cannot give respect to all ideas equally. The same I think can be said for beliefs. While I can therefore see fit to respect all persons, I cannot respect all beliefs.

I think the rest of the world can understand and agree with this; there is by and large no problem with dismissing the belief that the Holocaust never happened, for example. That however is because the general consensus (in the global context) holds that such a belief is irrational and unfounded. Were I to use as an example something with no such consensus though, what might happen?

If I were to argue say that Christianity is the only ultimately true religion, I would be well received in my faith community, because that proposition is part of my faith community's consensus. I would be affirmed.

In the rest of the world though, which does not share my faith community's consensus, I would be told I am disrespectful of believers in other religions. I might be called archaic, a bigot or have my intellectual capacity dismissed, and by the same people who would be hailing me for comments I might make against the notion that the Holocaust is a myth.

This leads me to think that in some ways respect really means to fall into line with the governing consensus on an issue.

But if I voice my dissent in a way that speaks unequivocally to my belief while nevertheless affirming the worth of the person holding the opposing belief, am I really being disrespectful? I don't think so.

Perhaps then we should look at respect for what it is: code for "agree" or at least "don't disagree".

One wonders what kind of respect that shows for people...

Patronage and Patronising

We are all well aware of the problems withthe governing Liberal Pary when it comes to political patronage. They took what is a well established practice and made it into an art form with the whole AdScam affair.

What folks may not recognise is that the Liberals are also developing the art of being patronising.

The Liberals scream that a Conservative Government would be a disaster for National Unity, claiming that the Conservatives, unlikely as they are to win even a single seat in Quebec, cannot hope to be a truly national governing party. The Liberals insist that this is an ideal condition for a Quebec Sovereignty Referendum. Yet it is arguable that no one has done more to support the recent surge in Quebec Sovereignty support than the Liberals.

The AdScam affair has come to be seen as a blatant attempt to bribe Quebecers into staying in Canada. The result is that the people of Quebec are feeling justifiable rage at being so patronised. Quebecers are rpepared to all but eliminate the Liberals from the federal political landscape for that reason, replacing them withthe Bloc Quebecois. Surely such a large presence of the BQ is more of a ideal condition than a Conservative Government.

Whiel that is somethign we can quibble over, here is somethign I don't think is: AdScam is aresult of incompetence and corruption at the highest levels. AdScam was only made possible because of a program that was initiated because of the result of the last referendum which Canada almost lost because of incompetence at the highest level of the Liberal Government's campaign.

In other words, Liberal incompetence in the Referendum begat incompetence and corruption in AdScam. Yet the Liberals claim that they can make it all better.

Forgive me, but I just don't see how the Liberal track record leads to that conclusion. The fact that they obviosuly think they can convince us it does is just more Liberal patronising.

Speaking of which, I have rarely felt so patronised as this week with Liberal comments about the Conservative child care strategy. It began with Ken Dryden's assertion that staying home to care for your child is not in fact providing child care. The worst however was the complaint of a top Liberal that Canadians would spend any money we receive on popcorn and beer.

I see. The Liberals, who completely mismanaged AdScam, think they know how to spend money better than we do. Not only that, they seem to think we are unfit parents, preferring popcorn and beer over adequate childcare.

If that's what they think they better call the Children's Aid Society on us all.

'Tis the Season to Bash Christians

An intersting column on hw bashing Christians is a seasonal affiar, this year with the added bonus of the first of the Narnia series can be found here.

Inversion of Tyrannies

An intersting article that mixes politics and religion an be found here.

There are a couple of comments I can make on this:

1) Our so-called Christian Prime Minister is really more f a political pragmatist. Rather than be what he is supposed to be, a Christian buying something for his family's Christmas clebrations, he did a wild jig. Did he really think that peple wuld be offended if he persnally celebrated Christmas?

2) The notion of the inversion of tyrannies is quite something. At frst blush, I agree with it. It deserves more thought though.

CANOE -- JAM! Movies - The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe Review - 'Narnia' movie is pure 'childlike' magic

CANOE -- JAM! Movies - The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe Review - 'Narnia' movie is pure 'childlike' magic: "Through her, we accept that Narnia has been caught in the icy grip of
the villainous White Queen (Tilda Swinton unleashed and loving the
evil) and that it is populated by giants and dwarfs, by elfs and fauns
and by centaurs, satyrs, minotaurs, minoboars and a woodland of talking
animals."

Does God have a Party?

Well sure, Heaven is going to be the most wonderful party imaginable and then some!

But does God have a particular political party?

No.

God has priorities, and principles, and these are refelcted in varying degrees in each political party. For example the Green Party certainly has the idea of stewarship of the environment ( a Christian principle). The NDP are concerned about social justice. The Conservative major on moral issues. The Liberals have a bit of all of these.

But these parties also fail to reflect God's priorities to varying degrees as well. The NDP fail on moral issues, as do the Liberals. The Green Party simply has little to say about God's other priorities. The Conservatives are not known for compassion, and IMO fail to take into account the fallen nature of humanity in certain social areas.

You will also find that Christians can be found in all the parties. Contrary to what some columnists might say, Conservative Christians have about the same level of particpation in the LIberal and Conservative parties.

So God may have politics, and He may love a good party, but He does not have a particular political party.

Happy voting (in about 7 weeks)!

All I want for Christmas is a new Government

Here in Canada we are in the midst of an election campaign that will not end until January 23rd. I of course have my convictions about who the governing party should be. I am a Conservative to the bone, and will almost certainly vote for them in any election.

Once in my life I voted NDP. That time around Bob Rae became Premier of Ontario, and it may be that we are still dealing withthe imapct of that. Never agani will I vote NDP.

Once I voted Liberal. I really didn't want NAFTA. That didn't accomplish anything. Mulroney still won and as it turns out NAFTA has been good for the country on balance.

This time around, with AdScam, the same-sex marriage issue, and the fact that the Conservatives have managed to put out policies which are easy for average canadians to relate to, I fully expect a Conservative government.

But for the moment I want to turn my attention to the local riding. The incumbent is a Conservative, the first federal conservative in a very long time for this area. The Liberal challenger is the guy who was the MP for many years. Clearly he is counting on the riding going back to its traditional colors.

But there are good reasons to keep Diane Finley as our MP.

I think we all know that the real power in government is in the Cabinet. Being out of the cabinet, even if in government, doesn't count for much. Whoever your MP is, you want that person to be in the Cabinet. That being the case, we can see that Diane Finley is the person to elect over Liberal Bob Speller. Why?

The Liberals are not a slam dunk to form the next government. Even if they do, Speller is not liekly to be in cabinet. Yes, he was a cabinet minister the last time he was an MP, but that had little to do with Speller's ability. PM Martin chose Speller because he needed to create a cabinet that was not a Chretien cabinet. Speller had been an MP for many years under Chretien, but never considered for a cabinet post. Speller then was chosen less for what he is than for what he never was.

Finley on the other hand in her first term as an MP has been a member of the shadow cabinet as the Agriculture critic. It is not uncommon for MPs to assume a cabinet post in the same area in which they were the critic while in Opposition. Unlike Martin, who had relatively few chices from which to make his "not-Chretien Cabinet", Conservative Leader Stephen Harper had many choices. He could have overlooked Finley altogether but did not do so.

In short then, Finley is more likely cabinet material than Speller, meaning she is more likely to be able to represent this riding at the highest level.

In terms of voting strategically, and in the interest of this riding, that should speak volumes.

So Today I got "The Question"

It is now the advent season, and we have a pair of advent calendars hanging in the hallway. They are made by a friend of ours, entirely of flannel, with little pockets for each day below a flannel nativity scene. (Incidentally I am putting the kids halloween candy in the pockets- an easy and organised way to ge them to consume it.)

We play up Jesus for the holiday saeson, and take somethign of a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to Santa Claus. The boys will at times speak their minds about Santa, but we don't make much of it. My oldest has decided that he doesn't beleive in Santa, while my youngest is pretty sure he doesn't exist, but is willing to "believe in him" anyway. Being quite the pragmatists, he is just covering his bases, in case not believing means no presents.

But siblings being what they are the two are arguing about whether Santa Claus is real. I decided to stick my nose in between them (lest someone else's nose get too far out of joint). I thought to make peace, but instead got myself "the question: Daddy, do YOU believe in Santa Claus?"

I hate it when I have to answer a direct question that I am unprepared for. I told them it was a personal question (yes I know, bad cop out). But I said I would get back to them.

Since them I have been researching the actual Saint Nicholas. I intend to expalin to them the "hisotircal Saint Nicholas" and the development of the Santa Claus story (in an age appropriate manner of course).

My point? Well actually I just wanted to pass along a link that I am finding useful for information. I went here.