-------------------
We would hope to find thoughtful, considered arguments in favor of cessationism. But too often we find analyses that are sloppy, disingenuous, or plain old wrong.
Such is the case with this quote from Chris Rosebrough, who apparently thinks he has "continuationists" dead to rights. He thinks this is a devastating argument, sealing the deal for all time.
Let's consider this amazingly puerile argument.
-------------------
On his latest YouTube episode, Ps. Chris Rosebrough brings forward the compelling argument that Charismatics and Pentecostals are in fact ‘restorationists’ (This link is regarding the development of 19th century cults like Jehovah's Witness.)
On his latest YouTube episode, Ps. Chris Rosebrough brings forward the compelling argument that Charismatics and Pentecostals are in fact ‘restorationists’ (This link is regarding the development of 19th century cults like Jehovah's Witness.)
and not the ‘continuationists’ they claim to be.
Ps. Rosebrough states:
We hope the reader carefully reads the above paragraph.
First, Rosebrough is not making a biblical argument. No Scriptures are quoted. Nor is it a doctrinal argument. It's not even an argument at all.
Second, we do not know any charismatics who describe themselves as continuationists. This mouthful of a word first came into use via men like John Piper and Wayne Grudem, who believe in the "supernatural" gifts of the Spirit but actually want to distance themselves from what they perceived as charismatic kookiness.
This means, of course, that there is a divide between charismatics and continuationists. The terms are not synonymous.
Third, continuationists do not claim that cessationists are bad and continuationists are good, unlike cessationists do. Continuationists seem to be particularly concerned with maintaining their connections to cessationists by attempting to demonstrate their doctrines are reasonable and should be tolerated. In other words, continuationists are separating from these "bad" charismatics and attempting to stay close to "good" cessationists! This means there is no false narrative.
Fourth, Mr. Rosebrough cites a personal anecdote from decades before as the central evidence his proposition is true. He says he was told by "latter rain" believers that God was restoring prophets and apostles. Now perhaps someone did tell him that. And perhaps there are latter rain people who believe that. And we are even willing to accept that some charismatics teach it. And finally, it might even be possible there are continuationists who advocate this.
The key word is "restoration." Supposedly prophets and apostles ceased for hundreds of years but are now being restored to the church. This is the basis for his claim that continuationists are actually cessationists.
However, our experience is that most charismatics actually believe in reform, not restoration. A favorite bogeyman of Doctrinal Police is a loose association of charismatics called the NAR. This stands for New Apostolic Reformation. Hmm. The name itself contradicts Mr. Rosebrough's assertion.
Reformation is not restoration. Reformation is the change of existing practices and structures into what is viewed as the proper arrangement. A typical NAR charismatic would probably suggest that there always have been prophets and apostles, though not identified or recognized. Apostles and prophets, then, are not being restored to the church, they are part of the result of reforming the church.
If apostles and prophets have always been in the church, charismatics are not former cessationists.
Fifth, even if charismatics were in fact restorationists, that would still not make them cessationists. Charismatics believe in the "supernatural" gifts of the Spirit. The issue of apostles and prophets does not come to bear on this.
For an in-depth biblical of cessationism, the reader is directed to our cessationism series.
Ps. Rosebrough states:
“Have you ever heard the major claim of Charismatics and Pentecostals that they are ‘continuationists’, while people who are Reformed or Lutheran or whatever, believe that the Apostolic sign gifts have ceased? That they are ‘cessationists’ and ‘cessationist’ equals bad and unbiblical while ‘continuationists’ equals good and biblical? That’s all part of a false narrative. Now a little bit of a note here, I’ve said it before and I will reiterate – I used to be a charismatic. Yes, 30 years ago my wife and I were caught up in the ‘Latter Rain’ movement, part of the third wave of the charismatic movement. And in the Latter Rain we were told about how God was restoring, and had restored, prophets to the earth and that God was going to be restoring, in the near future, apostles to the earth and to the church. In fact, when you do your historical work, you’re going to note that Charismatics and Pentecostals historically have been ‘cessationists’ who believe that God has restored certain things like the charismata, prophets and evangelists and apostles. Yes that’s what they actually believe. So what we are going to do is, we are going to blow this up – this will be an academic lesson of ‘Fighting For The Faith’.***
We hope the reader carefully reads the above paragraph.
First, Rosebrough is not making a biblical argument. No Scriptures are quoted. Nor is it a doctrinal argument. It's not even an argument at all.
Second, we do not know any charismatics who describe themselves as continuationists. This mouthful of a word first came into use via men like John Piper and Wayne Grudem, who believe in the "supernatural" gifts of the Spirit but actually want to distance themselves from what they perceived as charismatic kookiness.
This means, of course, that there is a divide between charismatics and continuationists. The terms are not synonymous.
Third, continuationists do not claim that cessationists are bad and continuationists are good, unlike cessationists do. Continuationists seem to be particularly concerned with maintaining their connections to cessationists by attempting to demonstrate their doctrines are reasonable and should be tolerated. In other words, continuationists are separating from these "bad" charismatics and attempting to stay close to "good" cessationists! This means there is no false narrative.
Fourth, Mr. Rosebrough cites a personal anecdote from decades before as the central evidence his proposition is true. He says he was told by "latter rain" believers that God was restoring prophets and apostles. Now perhaps someone did tell him that. And perhaps there are latter rain people who believe that. And we are even willing to accept that some charismatics teach it. And finally, it might even be possible there are continuationists who advocate this.
The key word is "restoration." Supposedly prophets and apostles ceased for hundreds of years but are now being restored to the church. This is the basis for his claim that continuationists are actually cessationists.
However, our experience is that most charismatics actually believe in reform, not restoration. A favorite bogeyman of Doctrinal Police is a loose association of charismatics called the NAR. This stands for New Apostolic Reformation. Hmm. The name itself contradicts Mr. Rosebrough's assertion.
Reformation is not restoration. Reformation is the change of existing practices and structures into what is viewed as the proper arrangement. A typical NAR charismatic would probably suggest that there always have been prophets and apostles, though not identified or recognized. Apostles and prophets, then, are not being restored to the church, they are part of the result of reforming the church.
If apostles and prophets have always been in the church, charismatics are not former cessationists.
Fifth, even if charismatics were in fact restorationists, that would still not make them cessationists. Charismatics believe in the "supernatural" gifts of the Spirit. The issue of apostles and prophets does not come to bear on this.
For an in-depth biblical of cessationism, the reader is directed to our cessationism series.
Greetings Rich.
ReplyDelete"Continuationists are particularly concerned with maintaining their connections to cessationists by attempting to demonstrate their doctrines are reasonable and should be tolerated."
Just because a claim is "reasonable" does not make it correct or tolerable. Absurd claims no matter how "reasonable" should not be entertained. Tolerating absurd claims has left us dealing with a multitude of silly ideas today, i.e. space aliens, flat earthers and fake moon landings.
The claims of New Age or Charismatic groups are no different. Claims of ongoing physical events based on non-physical evidence and an appeal to history/tradition is absurd.
David J. Smith
I see I must undertake to educate you yet again. This is unfortunate.
ReplyDeleteFirst, in this particular post I made no claim as to the reasonableness of continuationist claims. I simply said that continuationists were “attempting to demonstrate” this.
Second, the possibility of reasonableness logically excludes that these claims are absurd. For this is the very matter under discussion. Which means you do not get to wander in and pronounce verdict as if the discussion isn’t happening.
Third, I have dedicated many posts to analyzing various doctrines. My documentation is extensive. Therefore, to dismiss the thoughtful discussion of these doctrines with a wave of the hand is itself absurd.
Fourth, because this detailed examination exists, it is again absurd for you to equate them with space aliens. That is insulting and puerile. Especially since you have yet to make any biblical defense of your beliefs at all. In fact, you have yet to make any sort of defense. This astounds me.
Fifth, it is cessationists that appeal to history, not continuationists. You apparently don’t understand the phrase. When a cessationist says that something ceased, and then presents as evidence what did or did not happen since that time, that is an appeal to history.
Last, The Bible is loaded with physical events based on non-physical evidence. So you find yourself in a conundrum, sir. If the criterion is this, then the Bible itself is absurd.
Sir, my tolerance for your shenanigans is limited. Should you reply, you shall address the substance of my arguments with explanations derived from Bible verses. I will not post any other thing from you.