| Author | Message | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1779 Registered: 10-2002  |
Note: This writing began as a response to something about modern-day prophets that was posted in the Members' area, and I'd intended it only as a short post with the first "Agabus" scripture. However, it just got bigger and bigger, and incorporated things I've learned and observed here at the forum over the last six years or so, and that I've poured over in prayer -- and grieved over. I pray you are blessed as you read this, and that you find rest in Jesus Christ Himself, in Him alone! Bless you in Jesus! Ramone What Cessationalism Shares with the Adventist State of the Dead Doctrine People of the "cessationist" persuasion (and sometimes Christians who come out of Adventism) tend to think that now that we have Jesus, we don't need prophets. In a sense, it's true that we don't need prophets... We don't need another "Moses", another person interceding between us and God. We don't need to look to someone else to hear from God, because He wants to communicate directly to us now (mind you, many people limit that communication to "Bible study", however). But the example of Agabus tells us that yes, even in the New Covenant era after "we have Jesus", He still sends prophets. In Agabus's case, it is to warn them of a coming famine. What is interesting is that the disicples didn't suddenly start hoarding up food & supplies for themselves all Waco-style (especially not hoarding up guns! Worldly weapons were not part of the kingdom arsenal)... instead, they were concerned with the welfare of others. They weren't thinking about preserving their own lives, but rather they were thinking about blessing the lives of others who might suffer under the famine without their help. How incredible! If a prophet today told us that a famine or disaster were coming, how many of us would think of providing help for other people? Wouldn't we rather do the Waco thing? Wouldn't we get outta Dodge City quickly? Wouldn't we do like the rich man in Jesus's parable and store up supplies for ourselves? Wouldn't whole churches do this, too? (Haven't churches done this in the past?!) This kind of prophecy was (and is) something that God gave (and gives) so that we may reach out in His love to others -- so that we may spread His blessing, grace and love to them. He doesn't send this kind of warning so that we'll be fearful, worried, or try to protect ourselves. Because in Him we have nothing to be afraid of. We may be bruised, beaten, burned at the stake or beheaded like the apostles, but our inheritance is sure in Christ. Today, however, we store up things for ourselves because we are attached to the present world and are afraid of parting with it. That is why when we hear this kind of warning prophecy, we get fearful. Or, going to the other extreme, we reject the sheer possibility that God can speak this way (though He certainly can and does). At the root of it is a misunderstanding of the purposes of "prophecy" in the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. God spoke prophetically so that His people would be moved to action. Repentance, extending His love, His blessing, His word of salvation. God gives warnings so that people will be saved eternally, not merely temporarily. Sometimes the short-term result is temporary avoidance of death, but the ultimate goal is eternal salvation. Not "freak out and run to the hills". The fact that what Agabus said came true shows that God was speaking prophetically. The way that the church handled it (as an opportunity to share His love) shows that it was not a mere "sign" thing intended just to witness the reality of Jesus Christ, and then "ceased" after the closure of the canon. The punchline of the story is spreading God's love, not only His word. They go together. And God speaks prophetically through people to spread both -- His word and His love. The fact that the apostles believed what Agabus said tells us a lot, as well. The apostles taught that we must test the spirits, and that we must be filled with the Spirit ourselves. What this means is that the apostles did not merely accept what Agabus said because Agabus spoke in God's name. Nor did they accept it simply because he was a brother in Jesus Christ. Rather, they accepted it because the Holy Spirit witnessed inside their spirits that what Agabus was saying was true. This wasn't the last time Agabus would be seen in the New Testament, either: This is interesting, and could go off into a whole 'nuther discussion, but what I wrote earlier is also apparent here. Firstly, that Paul was not worried about losing his life. Second, that God was letting him know what was ahead of him. What is also interesting is where this happened-- the place that they were at when Agabus came and delivered this message from God: They were staying at Philip's house. Besides the fact that Philip had to raise four daughters (which I know nothing about, but sounds quite the amazing feat!), we hear here that these four daughters PROPHESIED. Whoa. I wonder, why didn't God speak the message to Paul through one of Philip's daughters? I don't know. A lot of possible answers, but ultimately we trust God's sovereign ways. The people present felt enough of God's personal Holy-Spirit-witness in their spirits that they agreed with God (speaking through Agabus) rather than question the manner of how and whom God spoke through. More interestingly, however, we don't have any record of WHAT the daughters of Philip said in their "prophesying". This, above all, means that God did not think it as necessary for us to hear. What they spoke prophetically from God was intended for the ears of the people to whom it was spoken -- it was not meant for all ages. Yes, it was God Himself speaking through them, but it was not meant for us, and God knew we would be better off without it. In the same way, What Jesus "wrote on the ground with His finger" in John 8 is not recorded... perhaps for any number of reasons, but ultimately because it was not intended for us to know on this side of eternity. This tells us something very, very important: NOT ALL PROPHECY IS INTENDED FOR CANONIZATION! Now usually, the moment we hear that someone claims to or is said to have "prophesied", our guard goes up and our warning bells go on. We think that if it's true that the person prophesied, then we are bound to obey God speaking through that person like the Israelites followed Moses! Heck no. That's not how New Testament prophecy works, because God speaks firstly to us through our spirits, and anything that comes "from outside" us needs to resonate in our spirits. But then, if we hear that someone claims to or is said to have "prophesied", we often immediately reject it on the grounds that "the canon is completed." We think that if anything is truly a "prophecy", that it must become canonical. We seem to think that is the purpose of prophecy itself -- to be canonized! What then happens is that honest people go get a-fightin' because they think "the Bible" as the ultimate authority is being threatened! But the Bible itself shows several instances of "prophecy" not being recorded. The book of Nathan the prophet, the words King Saul said when he prophesied twice, the daughters of Philip, what Paul said was prophesied about Timothy, and what was said prophetically among the churches (such as at Corinth)... all these things and more were not recorded. Therefore, just because something is a true "prophecy" does not mean it is intended for all people. But do we "need" prophecy? It's not a question that the Bible asks. The Bible simply has prophecy there as a matter-of-fact thing. As an established way that God has communicated and will continue to communicate until Christ returns to earth for good. However, as mentioned earlier, its role has been subjected in the New Covenant because of the coming of the Holy Spirit into His people. The validity of a prophecy must be confirmed by the Holy Spirit inside of us. This is crucial. In fact, even if a prophecy turns out to be true but in the process we bypass the internal witness, there is danger for us. God's goal with us is relationship so that we hear Him for ourselves. If we learn to accept a prophecy or prophet (even if it is truly God's speaking) without the internal confirming witness, what happens is that our relationship with God becomes distanced, necessitating the third person between God and I. And that's not good because firstly it's not what God had intended, and secondly because it puts distance between us, and thirdly because it builds our faith in the prophet or in "prophecy" itself instead of in "Christ in us, the hope of glory". And of course, there are also false prophets. Putting faith in them is a big, big problem -- we all know about that here! But the existence of "false prophets" does not mean that all "prophecy" is unnecessary or false. God still desires to use that means as He always has and always will until the very end. Goodness! Doesn't the book of Revelation have "two prophets" in it?!!! How can anyone think real prophecy doesn't happen anymore unless they are strict preterist-cessationists? Rejecting "prophecy" is simply the opposite error of believing everything that comes with a "prophetic" label attached to it. Both are errors that result from not exercising discernment. Rejecting "prophecy" itself is a quick-fix, an apparent safeguard, we think. It's a sort of "insurance" against being deceived. It arises from fear in the same way that the SDA doctrine of the State of the Dead is based on the fear of being deceived by foul spirits. The SOTD doctrine roots in peoples' fear of being deceived, and rather than believe what the Bible clearly says about the SOTD, Adventism offers an apparent safeguard. The existence of consciousness after death appears dangerous. What's to protect us against being tricked by dark spirits masquerading as angels of light? The Bible's answer is the Gospel. But because the early Adventists didn't know the security of the Gospel, they had no way of knowing how safe they were from being deceived. (That, and I believe that at some point they also accepted/formed the SOTD belief simply to promote the Sanctuary/IJ teaching and make it more valid -- in other words, they knowingly preyed upon peoples' fear of being lost in order to justify their own errors and keep their members' loyalty & obedience). Cessationism often shares (or taps into) the same spiritual foothold or root as that of the SDA State of the Dead doctrine: our natural fear of being deceived and lost. Both Cessationism and SDA's SOTD doctrine offer apparent security, but are really false insurances, false protections. The truth always sets us free. How many of us were blessed and felt set free in some way when we learned the truth about the SOTD? How awesome was that!! In the same way, there is also blessing when we accept the Word at its word in regard to the existence of prophecy. Interesting... the SOTD claimed that there was no conscious life after death, and Cessationism claims that there is no prophecy after the canon! What a parallel! Cessationism sees the Canon as the "death" of prophecy, in a sense. And if "prophecy" does exist, than suddenly our personal safety from deception is thrown into chaos. Just like the existence of consciousness after death throws Adventists into incredible chaotic fear of being deceived. In both cases, security is placed in a doctrine instead of in Jesus Christ and in His ability to protect us. Just as surely as the Spirit lights His fire in people, it is possible to quench it. Just as surely as it is possible to treat "prophecy" with contempt, it is also sure that God prophesies. And just as surely as God prophesies, He wants us to "test everything" and "hold onto the good." The goal is relationship with God and growing in discerning His voice for ourselves. You know how we rightfully say that you shouldn't depend on the preacher to "feed" you every Sunday, but rather you should study for yourself and get to know the Word for yourself? Well folks, it's the same with hearing God's voice personally, and also with prophecy or other Spiritual gifts. Just like studying the scriptures, hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit is something God wants us to grow in for ourselves -- not depending on others, and not bending the Scriptures in order to erect doctrines that act as false securities against deception (those actually stunt our spiritual growth instead of protect it!). Don't close the door to the Holy Spirit and His ways, but rather grow in Him. He is strong enough to protect us and He is THE awesome Teacher who will teach us how to hear Him and know His voice. And we can rest assured that we know His voice and will not follow "the voice of another" -- just like Jesus said in John 10. The irony is that Adventism held on so tightly to the erroneous SOTD doctrine for protection against deceiving spirits -- and swallowed the "camel" that was working through Ellen White! The SOTD offered no safeguard against the deception that that enemy wielded through her ministry & writings. In the same way, neither will Cessationism offer protection against being deceived. It is like removing sections of a fortifying wall in order to strengthen another part of the wall. Or erecting a strong wall on just one side of a four-sided city. In doing this you may be protected from one kind of attack on that one side, but you're left open to attack on the other three sides. The wall must go all around. Cessationism & the Adventist SOTD both stretch the Scriptures for the sake of strengthening protection against deception. But doing this actually removes sections of the protective "wall" and leaves us equally vulnerable to the enemy's attack. What kind of attacks does Cessationalism open Christians up to? Namely, trust in doctrines instead of in the living God. Trust in intellectual systems instead of in Jesus Christ Himself. Relationship with knowledge instead of the real Person of Jesus. Knowing the Word of God but not the God of the Word. Not everyone falls into this (by no means!), but it is a real danger. "The Spirit is life." God's Spirit is His life put inside of us. Jesus said that "The words I speak to you are Spirit and life." This includes the words He speaks to us now, not just the Scriptures. While the Scriptures are all given to us, He is not always speaking through every part of it to us at this moment. That is why in a moment of need we all know that He strengthens us with a certain word from Scripture... it had to be that scripture, that very one that He used. Another would not have sufficed at that moment. The geneology of Nimrod in Genesis wouldn't have cut it for us then. Although it might in another case! So as Luther said, The point is that we need the Spirit! Even when we read and study the Scriptures! And further, as the Scriptures show, He does not always limit Himself to speaking through Scripture. While Scripture is the bedrock of His speaking, Scripture itself clearly shows that He can and does speak apart from Scripture, even in the New Testament, in the book of Revelation, and up to the very end of this age. Blessings in Jesus! Ramone P.S. I wrote about the purpose of "prophecy" in the New Testament here: http://art-for-jesus.blogspot.com/2007/09/prophecy-is.html P.P.S. There are two other pictures (http://art-for-jesus.blogspot.com/2008/02/leaving-my-building.html) which I saw and painted at the time that God was bringing me out of the fear behind the SOTD belief... I realized it was a sort of "protective building" that I had dwelt in for safety from deception. God was now leading me out of it, trusting in Him for my safety, instead of in my doctrinal protection. I wrote words in the building to symbolize this, because it is not just about the SOTD, but about all the times when Christians flee to things for safety instead of to Christ, and end up bending the Scriptures in order to do so. The words on the building are, top to bottom: Protection, Reasonings, Systematic, Theology, Formulas, Proof Texts. And left to right: Doctored Doctrines, Afraid, Fears, Knowledge, Information. These things may not necessarily be "bad", but they are not intended as a fortress for our protection. Christ is our strong fortress! | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 343 Registered: 2-2003  |
Hello Ramone, You make some interesting points. I wrote a study on spiritual gifts, including a section on the cessationist view, quite a while ago now, and never ended up doing anything with it. If you are interested, I can send you the files if you get in touch here: athb4hu@yahoo.co.uk God bless, Adrian | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4426 Registered: 9-2006  |
Good post Ramone. What? I said that? I got to go back over that post and find something to argue about, I'm losing my touch Tater.  | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1792 Registered: 10-2002 |
Thank'ee, Sir River. I ended up resorting to a few linguistic River-isms in the post and got a chuckle out of it as I did so. Hope it made'ya proud, hehe. Enjoy your tater. | ||
| Jody Registered user Username: Jody Post Number: 78 Registered: 7-2007 |
Ramone, I tend to disagree with cessasionists and lean towards a more charismatic understanding.Most of what i believe about the Holy Spirit and the spiritual gifts i learned reading Martyn-Lloyd Jones.I agree with most of what u r saying and have been contemplating the whole idea of the gift of prophecy lately.i have thought often that former SDA's may be throwing out the baby with the bath water so to speak when it comes to this whole idea. The points u made were good ,however a cessassionist would argue that this example in Acts was legitimate but was before the canonization of scripture.Most cessasionists do not believe that the gifts failed to operate until AFTER the canon was completed.Is it possible to prove that the gifts are operational not only after Jesus ascended into heaven but after the Canon was completed.? | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1810 Registered: 10-2002 |
I don't know about PROVING... proving things in matters of faith will always have doubters, critics, and "faithful" that will believe anything and everything. So anything with the Holy Spirit must firstly and foremost be personal. Our own heart has to be opened up to Him and seeking Him. Otherwise it's just academics, theoretical and hypothetical arguments -- which are very often spiritually dead. Not always, but a lot more often than they should be. The argument that "gifts" ceased after Acts is beyond being a straw-man argument. Firstly, most people who argue it can't even say exactly when the canon was completed. Further, they haven't read the early Christian history examples of spiritual gifts being active in the church. And still further, they won't acknowledge examples still occuring today. Most obviously, however, there is nothing in Scripture that exegetically suggests a cessation of the gifts. The verse in 1st Corinthians 13 that is used contextually refers to Christ's second coming. One must take things out of context complete in order to arrive at cessationism. Cessationism makes Christianity an intellectual pursuit, inadvertantly leaving the illiterate and mentally handicapped out in the cold with a sort of "lesser" salvation. I wrote about this a little here: http://www.formeradventist.com/discus/messages/11/8536.html?1238393950#POST112926 We know that we must have our lives founded on faith, not on feeling. On what Christ has done for us, not on our experiences. At times our experiences and feelings will come as confirmation of our faith, but feelings and experiences are not our rock, not our foundation. The cessationist may say words similar to these in defending cessationism, but ironically, cessationism itself has also fallen into the same trap of being founded more on peoples' experiences rather than on faith. The cessationist doesn't "see" the gifts around him or her, doesn't "see" proof, and therefore concludes that the gifts do not exist today. And worse, the cessationist then supports his/her argument by taking Scriptures out of context and altering their meaning to prove something (cessationism) that they do not say. The bottom line of this is that God is who He is, and He does not change. Before there was "scripture", He communicated with people. While scripture was being written, He communicated with people. And the New Testament shows that even after the Word (Christ) ascended to heaven, He still communicated with people. There is no word in "His word" about Him ever ceasing to communicate with people as He has always done. To suggest that He has stopped doing this (and only visits now to those who are able to read and have a certain IQ level) is to alter and change His character, who He is. In a way, it is like SDA in proclaiming its "soul sleep" -- the death of the spirit after physical death. SDA says that the soul & spirit do not live on anymore but have in effect "ceased to exist", at least until the second coming. Cessationism effectively says that the Holy Spirit's acting as He did in Scripture is now "ceased"... the Spirit's gifts have "ceased to exist", just like the SDA's "soul" at death. In the "soul sleep" belief, we have ceased to exist but during that "interim time", we live on in God's memory. In the same way, in Cessationism, now that the Spirit's gifts are "ceased", where is the Spirit? In Scripture, they say. Therefore, the Spirit has functionally "ceased" to exit except in our memory of scripture. But then when Christ comes finally, we can resume "talking" to one another again... communication will "come back to life" again after it's period of "soul sleep", so to speak. I think I'll sum it up like this: Cessationism basically says that the Holy Spirit is effectively in "soul sleep"... but He lives "in our memory" of Scripture! I need to confess I don't like writing this or dwelling on it. It is agonizing in my spirit. But it is more agonizing in His Spirit. |
