Much
of our lifestyle; much of what we hold dear to our hearts is cultural
and traditional — things we never question. But God may be calling us
to choose between our old traditions (old wine) and His way (new
wine).
“I am Italian.” “I’m Native
American.” “I am a Methodist.” “I’m Baptist.” “I am a Democrat.” “I’m a
conservative.” “I am a Texan.” “I’m a mid-westerner.” We say these things with
pride and confidence, and there is nothing wrong with that, until God tells us
to choose between our old traditions and His way. Christ does not conform to our
culture. We must conform to Him and the culture of His Kingdom.
Our belief that God does or does
not speak to us today is — more often than not — a comfortable tradition that we
grew up with and never questioned. Such views were birthed out of our
experience (or lack of it), matured into our tradition,
and instituted as our doctrine, thereby becoming our
lifestyle.
We Evangelicals —and Pentecostals
are Evangelical— like to think that the Scriptures must make a clear statement
about an issue before we can take a dogmatic, doctrinal stand on it. Here is an
analogy to help explain:
Conventional wisdom has always functioned on belief rather than fact. Belief
will always win out in an argument, as it requires no proof, and it is immune to
disproof. Although science clearly demonstrated that the earth is round, the
belief that it is flat held sway for centuries, and those who threatened to
upset the status quo were often jailed and tortured.
Nowhere is the dichotomy between
belief and truth more evident than in medicine — and in theology. Hungarian
obstetrician Ignaz Semmelweis’ insistence 150 years ago that physicians wash
their hands before assisting women in labor to avoid the spread of “childbirth
fever” was met with scorn and derision. Years later the medical establishment
initially banned Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine.
AVAILABLE BUT
UNKNOWN
When Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
developed antiseptic surgery, many surgeons were deeply offended by Pasteur’s
so-called proof that they were doing something wrong. These doctors were not
stupid, and they were doing all they believed there was to do. It was just that
Pasteur found a new medical procedure that was also an ancient truth begging to
be put into practice.
The
truth is . . . one will not practice truth until one first believes truth.
Of course, God foreordained the
invention of antiseptic surgery eons before He formed the earth. So this was
nothing new and controversial to God, just to the doctors of Pasteur’s
generation.
However, since surgeons had
practiced for centuries without antiseptics, experience (or tradition) dictated
to them that the use of antiseptics was medical quackery. They might have said
to themselves, “We don’t use antiseptics because we have never used antiseptics,
and if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.”
Likewise, this analogy applies to
a large number of Christians today. Many devout Christians have carried forth
the Great Commission quite successfully — thank you — by using Scripture alone.
Therefore, their experience and tradition dictate to them that the notion of God
speaking to His people today is religious quackery.
Actually, these Christians are not
deliberately practicing error. They just aren’t aware of —or don’t believe—
all of the truth that God has made available to them (Mark 13:11).
Those nineteenth-century surgeons
felt they had high-minded reasons why they should rejected Pasteur’s research,
but their reasons were not scientific. They just sounded
scientific.
Likewise, these well-meaning
Christians have reasons that sound scriptural as to why they
believe that God doesn’t speak outside of the Bible today. Actually their
reasons, like those surgeons of Pasteur’s day, come from tradition and
experience, and not from the Bible. Eventually, Pasteur’s newly discovered truth
won out over a long-held medical tradition — and so will God’s voice.
THE CESSATIONIST VIEW
If
you believe that God speaks to His own today (John 10:27) then you
probably are not a cessationist, and vice-versa. A person who is not a
cessationist is usually referred to as a continuationist, or
non-cessationist.
The
view that I am presenting here states that “the Holy Spirit era” (or
church age) started on the day of Pentecost and will continue without
change until the Second Coming of Jesus. In the upcoming chapter
titled, Peter’s Definition of the Last Days, I will prove to
you—conclusively—that we are in the Holy Spirit era.
The
cessationist view states that God became silent and all miracles
ceased when the last apostle died, and that we are now in “the Bible
era” (so to speak). This view says: “Scripture alone speaks to us
today.”
I am
sure that there are fine Christians on both sides of this issue.
However, I feel that many have accepted the “cessationist” view simply
because the “Holy Spirit era” teaching has not been presented in the
way it is presented here. And, if you already believe as I do, the
following presentation will arm you with a scriptural basis for your
faith.
John
W. Kennedy presents the cessationist view eloquently in his excellent
book on church history “The Torch of the Testimony.”2 This is his
entire statement:
“The
Church and the Scriptures developed together, and the church
ultimately recognized in the truth of the written revelation her
complete foundation. The Bible [I think he means the New Testament] is
the expression of the divine Word, at one time spoken directly from
the lips of Christ, and then through the apostles. The New Testament
embodies the continuance of the apostolic ministry, the revelation of
Christ that was completed with the committal to Paul of the mystery of
the church (Col. 1:24-27). From this, it follows that the ministry of
apostleship and prophecy as embodied in particular people was but a
temporary expedient. It was vitally necessary during the transition
period when the written Word was being formulated and was gaining
acceptance among believers, but when the written Word was completed,
the particular ministry of the apostle and the prophet became
redundant, just as the observation of the Old Testament sacrifices had
to give way to their fulfillment in Christ. The principle came into
operation, “But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in
part shall be done away” (1 Cor. 13:10). The function of the apostle
and the prophet still exist, but embodied in the written Word, not in
any man.”
■
Although John Kennedy inferred that miracles and prophecy disappeared
along with the apostles and prophets, he didn’t say it specifically,
as most cessationists do. However, Dr. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Th.D.,
Ph.D., does in his Bible commentary. Here is his commentary on 1
Corinthians 13:11.
“After the church began, there was a period of immaturity, during
which spectacular gifts were needed for growth and authentication
(Heb. 2:3-4). With the completion of the New Testament and the growing
maturity of the church, the need for such gifts disappeared.”
■
When
Dr. Ryrie speaks of a period of immaturity, he is referring to the
high water mark, the glory days of the church. To refer to this period
as “immature” is to insinuate that the apostles and the authors of the
New Testament were immature. Dr. Ryrie catches himself in a
contradiction. By this logic, he should be able to pen for us a much
more mature Scripture and doctrine than the writers of the New
Testament gave us.
I
ask a rhetorical question: Could the mature New Testament come out of
an immature church?
In a
coming chapter, Surprising Bible Manuscript History, we will dig
deeper into this intriguing subject of “the completion of the New
Testament” Dr. Ryrie spoke of.
This
chapter has stated the cessationist view by quoting two notable
authors who champion this view. Many books have been written promoting
this view, but enough has been presented here to give a fair
understanding of the cessationist view.
If
you are interested in hearing an equally academic, and equally
gracious (but opposing) discourse on what I call the continuationist
view, please read the next chapter.
