HAVE THE SPIRITUAL (MIRACULOUS?) GIFTS CEASED?

Recently I was asked to respond to an essay prepared by Prof. Frank Pack, chairman of the religion department, Pepperdine University, on the cessation of the miraculous gifts. This article is not that response, but it does grow out of the study that I devoted to the subject, and it consequently reaches some of the conclusions set forth in the response. It does more in that it states my own personal viewpoint, which is not usually the purpose of a paper designed primarily to evaluate the thesis of someone else.

The manner of entitling this article has some significance, for "the spiritual gifts" are usually equated with miraculous gifts, an assumption that I must question at the outset. Or if not question, I must ask for a definition of miraculous. If we follow Webster and say that a miracle is that which "apparently contradicts known scientific laws and is hence thought to be due to supernatural causes," then much of one's life in God is shrouded in miracle. Whether the experience is baptism, the Lord's Supper, prayer, or a life of trust, it reaches beyond scientific law and touches the supernatural. Indeed, the supernatural is what religion is all about.

If we follow Rudolf Bultmann and insist that a miracle is not only something that "falls outside the frame of the usual course of things in nature and history and thus becomes a problem for human reflection," but is also an observable event, then we have a different starting point. If Bultmann is right, then God might send a thousand angels to rescue you from an impending disaster without working a miracle. No one would see the angels and you yourself might be unaware of God's act in your behalf, and while this would be supernatural it would not be miraculous in that it was not observable by man. And so Bultmann distinguishes between providence and miracle.

And Bultmann might well be right. If so, a miracle is not for the purpose of ministering to God's people as much as it is for witness and confirmation to the world. God might well care for His children, ministering to all their needs in His gracious providence, without ever performing "an observable event." So a miracle is a sign or wonder, something seen by men to cause them to marvel.

When this view of miracle is applied to the lists of spiritual gifts in the scriptures, one cannot be so sure as to which are miraculous and which are merely providential. Tongues would surely be miraculous, especially if they are publicly demonstrated. But what of one who quietly uses the gift in his own devotions, without anyone else even knowing of it? This would hardly be a wonder.

The gift of healing might well amaze observers, especially if the healing is sudden, such as one taking up his pallet and walking. And so we would have a miracle. But might not one have the gift of healing in a different form, in that his prayers so impress God that a slower process of healing is set in motion, and so a man with incurable cancer is made well after a few weeks. This would not be an observable wonder, or at least not as much so, in that what happened could be accounted for on other than supernatural grounds. And yet it was God's act, through a believer with the gift of healing.

Take a gift like prophecy, which is listed with the nine "miraculous gifts" of 1 Cor. 12. It is also among the gifts (charismata, same word as in 1 Cor. 12) of Rom. 12:6, which are generally recognized as not miraculous, for here are such plain Jane gifts as teaching, exhorting, giving, leadership, and acts of mercy. How can prophecy be miraculous in 1 Cor. 12 and not miraculous in Rom. 12? So with the gift of teaching (which must be different from prophecy in that both appear in the same lists), which is listed in both the so-called "miraculous gifts" of 1 Cor. 12 and the nonmiraculous of Rom. 12.

I conclude, therefore, that it is just as well to drop the term miracle in reference to the gifts under discussion. The scriptures simply describe them as spiritual gifts, charismata, to be distinguished from doma (gift), such as in Eph. 4:11. The idea of charismata is that the Spirit gives one the ability to serve in some particular way in building up the Body. It is not a residual gift, but a functioning one. Its source is the Spirit; its purpose is ministry; its power is the dynamic of God within the person.

So let us forget the idea of "miracle" in reference to these gifts. They are simply the work of God in men's lives, whether observable by the world or not. Our folk have a way of going bananas when they hear the term miracle. You can talk about providence. You can say "God be with you" or "The Lord's will be done" and even "May God overrule," but never Expect a miracle! God may move heaven and hell in being with us, in doing His will, and in overruling, all of which is all right so long as He stays out of the business of performing miracles — today, that is!

All agree that these gifts were present and enjoyed some prominence in the life of the early church. The question is whether they in the meantime have ceased and are therefore not applicable to believers today.

My position is that there is no proof in the scriptures that these gifts ceased or that it was intended that they cease, short of the consummation of all things in end-time. This does not obligate me to say that the gifts are consequently present in any particular age of the church, now or in past generations. One might even argue that for some reason God has brought these special gifts to an end. I am only saying that one cannot take the Bible and prove the cessation of the gifts. He can theorize. He can draw deductions from history. But when he is through he will be short of proof. The Bible simply does not teach that the gifts were given to the church, only to be taken from it at sometime in the future.

The passage that has become a proof text for this claim among our people is 1 Cor. 13:8-10: "As for prophecy, it will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away."

I say our people because this is only a Church of Christ prooftext. One will be hard put to find even one recognized scholar who will interpret verse 10 to be a reference to the completion of scriptural revelation, which would mean that when God's revelation to man is consummated through the completion of the Bible that the special gifts will then cease.

Why this view has no scholarly support is plain enough. Is is a deduction rather than an induction. If one assumes the gifts have ceased and is in search of a prooftext, this will satisfy him. But if he draws no conclusion from this text but what the context allows, which is the inductive method, he will reach a conclusion similar to the consensus of scholarship. I believe in what Alexander Campbell called consensus fidelium, which is the faithful conclusion of the majority of dedicated minds to a common problem. And he insisted that everything he was working for in the reformation of the church, whether immersion or the nature of the church, was supported by the consensus fidelium.

I also agree with Reuel Lemmons, who, in an editorial in the Firm Foundation wrote: "Every doctrine, whatever it may be, of every church in the world, that is peculiar to itself cannot be in the Bible."

Then we should drop this novel interpretation of 1 Cor. 13, and argue from some other basis the cessation of the gifts, if indeed we must so argue.

A careful reading of the verses in question will make it clear that the apostle is talking about knowledge. In verse 9 he says "our knowledge is imperfect," then in verse 10 he says, "When the perfect comes," that is perfect knowledge or understanding, "that which is in part," that is, partial or imperfect understanding, "will be done away." He goes on to compare this with a child's grasp of things over against an adult's understanding. He further likens it to looking at a reflection in a mirror (or polished metal), which is but a hazy grasp of reality, over against "face to face" understanding which he will some day realize. "Now I know in part," he adds, "but then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood."

The then — the time of "face to face" comprehension — clearly refers to a time beyond our present limitations, whether first or twentieth century. This obvious truth has led James MacKnight to render the passage, "When the perfect gift of complete illumination is bestowed on all in heaven, then that which is partial, namely the present gifts of knowledge and prophecy, shall be abolished as useless."

It is surprising that our folk could ever take this passage and come up with the idea that when the church had received all of the scriptures through the apostles, then the gifts referred to would cease. One can have all the Bible and even have it committed to memory, and still not "know fully even as I am fully known." The apostle is not talking about the capacity to know fully (assuming now that the Bible has in it all that God wants us to know for eternity) or the potential for such understanding. When "the perfect" comes we shall know fully. Who dares to say that he knows fully? But I can see this as a promise of God for all believers in end-time, whether they know the Bible well or not.

So, where are we? That the Bible does not prove the gifts have ceased. Neither can one prove they have not ceased. Some take a try at history, but if anything history only substantiates what we already have in scripture: that these gifts prevailed among a minority of believers all through the centuries. No less an authority than Hans Lietzmann finds evidence of the spiritual gifts all through the history of the church. This is corroborated by the likes of Harnack and Mosheim.

So if scripture does not dispose of the gifts, history does less so. This means that we should leave the question open and be as wise as old Gamaliel, who has long been admired for his wisdom: "If this understanding is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might be found opposing God!"

This does not satisfy a lot of my brothers, who are about as eager to rip the gifts away from all those who make such claims as are some of those who have the gifts to impose them on all others. I like the way Pat Boone puts it: "Seek the Giver, not the gifts." But these brothers will not accept Pat, no matter how he says it.

With such ones it is a losing game to try to persuade them to a more moderate position, for they assume that all those who "claim" to speak in tongues have some hangup that demands such phenomenon. So, if one begins to speak in tongues, they say, "That was to be expected, his problems being what they are." Of those who want all God's gifts, but who do not speak in tongues, they say, "Of course not. They're normal." So, if you start speaking in tongues, you are then and there adjudged as abnormal all along.

The trouble with this kind of evaluation is that it simply will not hold-up in the light of the facts. Some of the best oriented minds among us, the ones most unlikely to come up with a subjective experience, are some of the ones who speak in tongues. I know people in sound health, happily married, financially secure, blessed with happy children, gainfully employed — people who would need some strange, subjective experience about like they would need a hole in the head — who are speaking in tongues. And yet I know folk who I supposed would surely join the "fad" and come up rolling and barking as well as speaking in tongues, being as erratic and as unpredictable as they are, who do not speak in tongues, even though they are infatuated with the notion.

I probably qualify as well as anyone as a voice of moderation between these extremes. One brother in California writes me that if I were not so "intellectual" I would receive the gifts available to me. Others have long since predicted that I would be speaking in tongues being the "sentimentalist" that I am.

The truth is that in my own personal life the gift of tongues is a non-issue. I don't even think about it. I have along the way referred to such in praying to the Father, assuring him that I want Jesus enthroned as Lord in my life, and for Him to give me whatever blessings that will more deeply sanctify Christ in my heart. If that calls for tongues, glory be! But I do not conclude, since God has not given me such a gift, that such a gift is not for anyone in the church today.

Paul spoke in tongues, though Jesus probably did not (even though he had the Spirit more than any human being ever). Some in the Corinthian congregation spoke in tongues and a few here and there in other places. Paul blesses tongues as a gift, even saying that he would have all to so speak, and yet he does not emphasize it as a supreme spiritual experience. This he gives to the dynamic of love, while tongues remains a subordinate experience, both in the number it touches and in quality. But still it was of God. It was genuine and useful.

Recently I have heard several tapes by Oral Roberts on tongues, sent to me by a dear sister who realizes my need for education along these lines. Oral impresses me with his fair manner of handling the question. Free of dogmatism, he weighs each reference carefully, leaving the impression that he has nothing to lose in searching for truth. When he comes to Acts 2, he takes the time to read the entire chapter slowly and carefully.

His conclusion, or one of them, surprised me, and I find myself in agreement. Tongues are valid for some people today, yes, but it is a private experience between a man and God. Accept the gift of tongues, count it a blessing for yourself, but don't try to impose it upon others.

But neither should non-tongue speakers impose their non-speaking upon others. The rule of love works both ways.

And let us have a broader view of the gifts, for they include charity and acts of mercy as well as tongues; and there is service and administration as well as healing. Teaching, wisdom, knowledge, and discerning of spirits are all part of the charismata. Surely all of us are "charismatic" in one way or another, and they all stand or fall together. It seems amiss that these gifts, given to enhance Body ministry, should have no relevance to our time. It is one thing to say that the special "signs of an apostle" given to the Christ's ambassadors are not relevant to all either then or now, and another thing to say that these gifts, the purpose of which was service to believers, have no place in our lives. —the Editor