2 comments

1. Thank you for the time and effort you put into this series, Dr Clark. I found it very informative and helpful in understanding not only the apostolic gifts but also the overall thrust of what Paul is teaching in 1 Corinthians.
   When I became convicted of Reformed teaching some years ago, I had to re-evaluate my continuationist beliefs. The only resources on cessationism I came across readily online were from Particular Baptists. I am glad you have addressed this matter from a properly Reformed perspective.
   Combating continuationism based on exposing the outrageous antics and teachings of many of the high-profile personalities and leaders in the charismatic and “New Apostolic” movements seems to have become something of a “cottage industry” on the internet. As much as these “exposés” have value in drawing attention to the theological errors and spiritual dangers of these movements, they tend not to address the central issue, which is whether these practices have Scriptural warrant. That people mis-use or abuse the gifts does not necessarily mean the gifts ceased after the Apostolic period. Doctrines taught in Scripture are frequently twisted or abused by false teachers, but that is not a reason to dismiss these teachings outright.
   When I was a member of continuationist churches, we were aware of the over-the-top and ridiculous things being said and done by well-known charismatic leaders. But the view was that these people were abusing the gifts and their authority, but we were not, so continuationism was correct.
   In this regard, it is my observation that those who, correctly, teach against continuationism miss one of the main reasons professing Christians adhere to continuationism, which is their desire to uphold the inerrancy of Scripture. There is a fear or concern that if Paul’s teachings on the gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 are “re-interpreted” as applying only to the apostolic church, then one accepts the view of the liberal theologians that there are teachings in Scripture that can be disregarded today because they no longer apply. This is particularly a concern when liberal theologians’ arguments against aspects of the moral law or gender roles are often based on the idea that Paul’s teachings must be understood as valid only in the context of what people knew or thought and did in the first century.
   As my understanding of Reformed theology has deepened (in no small measure thanks to the Heidelblog), I have come to realise that we should read Scripture as the Apostles intended us to read it. The Reformed hermeneutic is Biblical, but not Biblicist. There is a way of reading Scripture in its context that does not undermine its inerrancy and infallibility or its authority. In my view, unless more Christians come to realise and accept this, it will be difficult for them to let go of their continuationist beliefs.
   I realise that how we should read Scripture is a much bigger, and perhaps more complex, issue than “continuationism versus cessationism”. However, I think it is an important aspect of it. Perhaps you will consider devoting a Heidelcast series to how the Reformed read Scripture at some stage.

   Reply ↓

   • Thank you Mark for your thoughtful encouragement.

     I’ve been thinking a little about what to do next, after the upcoming series (The Comfort of the Covenant, beginning in Aug).

     Yours is an excellent idea.

     Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.