Cessationism and Pentecostalism (Introduction)

 

This work is the beginning of a series that I intend to continue until I am satisfied I have said all I know to say. I have touched on this subject before, but I feel a need for a more comprehensive explanation to be offered. Several reasons are setting forth this effort. One is simply a need to put my thoughts down in writing for my own organization.  Another is my family, this has been something that has touched us all personally, so I want to get my thoughts down for them so they can understand the what and why of our religious thought throughout the years. Also, there are still family members as well as dear friends who continue to believe things I consider harmful to both our families and churches in general. I certainly intend to be as gracious and kind as I am able, yet because I do love them dearly, I must be straightforward to avoid any ambiguity. I am posting it here publicly because I am sure we are not the only ones who have been touched by these aberrant teachings that have moved through communities in recent decades. 

I will be presenting my thoughts from my own experiences while relying upon scripture as the basis for my arguments. I intend to appeal to both reason and logic, not so much to win an argument, but more to defend and promote a more true understanding of the Gospel and the Christian life. I believe most all those who believe these aberrant teachings do so in all sincerity with a love toward God. They defend them because they have become convinced it is an accurate understanding of the Gospel, and therefore, great respect and honor are due to them though we may hold the doctrines they believe in disrepute. 

What we are talking about is Pentecostalism and the many forms it has taken throughout the previous century. Whatever branches we may be talking about in this series, most will likely be traced back to California and the so-called revival that began in 1906 at the Azusa Street Mission. There were some small isolated groups holding meetings prior to that event, but generally, most Pentecostals point to Azusa as their roots. Historically speaking, this is relatively a new movement in Christianity. Back up 150 years and Pentecostalism does not exist nor had it existed within the Church for the previous 2000 years. Many Pentecostals refer to the movement as the Apostolic Renewal because it had not existed within the Church since the Apostolic era. 

As we consider these groups we need not question their sincerity nor their love for God; but we must question the doctrines they have embraced and induced into the Christian world as a new way of viewing God and understanding the Gospel. That in itself is no small matter and it should even provoke them to take a serious look at their history. Out of this one mission gathering in 1906 sprung over 800 new and varying belief systems that have brought division and confusion to the Christian world. I understand their zeal, I was one of them, and for over 25 years of my life, I gave time, money, and effort to its promotion. I educated my children in their doctrines and lived my life based upon their beliefs, at least to my particular branch, for their beliefs differ greatly from group to group. 

In its many forms, Pentecostalism is the fastest-growing sect of Christianity today. My first appeal in logic is whether we should accept a belief inserted into Christianity that fundamentally changes the way we view God and understand the Gospel when that belief has only been around 150 years? It is a great question, but it does not go without an answer, for I was told time and time again, "God is doing a new thing!" In my naive state of Christianity that was enough to stop my thinking and continue to confine me within the belief system. There are many forms of deception, methods that are used to stop you from thinking outside a particular range of beliefs or keep you from questioning certain behaviors. How do these things come about? 

Philosopher Neil Van Leeuwen suggests that "Once there is a desire to believe the metaphysical doctrines of the religion, the mind is ripe for self-deception. Self-deception has essentially two components. First, a person forms a belief in violation of his usual standards of evidence and judgment, what philosophers call epistemic norms. Second, a desire for content related to the content of the belief causes the deviation from the healthy belief formation process. Because vilification, fear, and desire bring about the religious credence, while that credence is at odds with usual standards of judgment, the process by which religious beliefs come about is one of self-deception." - Neil Van Leeuwen (adishakti.org)

In our thought processing, factors induced through rhetoric and or emotional experiences produce a desire to believe certain things. When strong enough, it seems we are tempted to override logic or rational thinking in favor of accepting that belief. In most cases, there are multiple factors at work influencing that thought process. "2Ti_3:13  But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." "Jas_1:22  But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves" These scriptures caution us about deception, both from others and our own selves.

Looking back some 35 years now it is difficult for me to recall all that produced Pentecostal beliefs as desirable to my thinking. There was the influence of friends and family, which always play a huge part. The idea also was that there was more to be experienced in my religious faith than I had previously known. A desire to please God and the idea there was more to know and experience worked together to form a working desire in my mind to believe. Once we reach that point, we move from a state of resistance to a state of looking for reasons to believe a certain thing. Once affirmed, we are hooked. When questions do arrive, there are many thought-stopping processes that are able to keep you within the desired parameters. 

The degree of damage that is done through aberrant religious beliefs varies greatly. Some simply leave you in a state of error of a minor sort, if you can accept any error as acceptable. Others can take you so off track that you can find yourself in a cult or a system so unorthodox even one's salvation could be in question. A problem with this is, the one in the cult is no more aware of his state of deception than the one in a minor error. That should emphasize in our mind the importance of examining what it is we believe and why? In our Christian faith, that examination should be conducted through the lens of Scripture and sound Christian doctrine. Sound doctrine is that which has been received and believed throughout the centuries. If someone is teaching you something that has not been taught before in historic Christianity, they are probably not teaching you true Christian doctrine.  

How is it that we get drawn away into these different beliefs, one philosopher supposes, "A belief about reality is not reality itself. Furthermore, a belief is something that results from inferences drawn from the evidence/facts. That means a belief is person-related and is only true to the degree that it properly expresses the way things really are. Evidence/facts are not self-interpreting. Two people can examine the same evidence and draw different inferences from the evidence, leading to differing claims."

In other words, just because I may believe it is true, doesn't make it true. I may have examined the evidence and analyzed the facts, which has convinced me of what I believe. However, the evidence/facts don't interpret themselves, and we may view them for various reasons differently thereby coming to different conclusions which lead to different beliefs. And yes, we do this while looking at the same evidence/facts, all while the actual reality is escaping our understanding. 

One example is the Grand Canyon, an archeologist examining the fact there is a very large Canyon in front of him, if he is educated in the theory of evolution, will interpret the evidence/facts in a way that supports his understanding. 

Another archeologist educated in the Creation model will examine the same evidence/facts and interpret them in a way that supports his understanding. Then they both are engaged in the work of persuading others of their particular beliefs based upon the same evidence/facts using their various interpretations. Their success greatly depends not so much upon the evidence/facts as it does the persuasive qualities they possess. Many cult leaders are able to gain a large following simply by their charismatic personalities. 

The same philosopher suggests, "A belief is something that happens to us as information that we think to be credible exerts some influence on our mental complex, causing us to think in a certain way." All that has to be done for someone to misdirect us is to present the evidence/facts in such a way our minds are deceived into its credibility. How easily that is done depends on many variables within the personage themselves. 

Our philosopher would continue saying, "Belief formation, as indicated by the term ‘formation’, requires something from which a belief arises. This something is information or evidence, something on which or from which to construct a belief. The information can come in different ways. It can come by way of personal experience, through the senses, by rational thought process or by any combination of these." That explanation is certainly oversimplifying the complicated processes of our mind and the way we form our ideas. If the desire already exists for the belief, very little evidence/facts need to be presented before a belief is securely formed. However, it serves as an example as to why we are cautioned in scripture constantly to not be deceived. Next time we may look at some of the ideas that are presented in these groups and how persuasive they can be on our minds.   

David

"Space, Time, God and the Universe"

 

Some friends were texting each other one day, Greg was making his way back home from a long trip. Gene had cautioned him to be careful, as most accidents happen within 5 miles of home. To which Greg replied with something like this, "Good thing I had God as a copilot". Gene, not being a believer, jokingly replied, "I want pictures of your copilot." Then I got involved and replied, "If you could take a picture, he wouldn't be God!" As the friendly conversation proceeded, needless to say, various questions arose. I got to thinking about that conversation later and thought it might make a good blog subject, so why can't you take a picture of God? Before we get into what we can't comprehend, let's talk about a few things we do know a little about. 

As a Trekkie and a faithful fan of Star Trek from the original series as a child, I enjoy learning about the universe. Any good Trekkie is familiar with the Scientific term Space-Time or the fabric of space. We may not know what it is, but we like it when Captain Kirk or Spock talk about it. 

A working definition would be something like, "The fabric of space-time is a conceptual model combining the three dimensions of space with the fourth dimension of time. According to the best of current physical theories, space-time explains the unusual relativistic effects that arise from traveling near the speed of light as well as the motion of massive objects in the universe." - livescience.com  Hermann Minkowski, stated in 1908 "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." I don't understand all the ramifications of that statement, If I were to postulate, if one has space, he must have time, which would be necessary to travel from one place to another. I suppose if you had time and no space, time would be irrelevant, it couldn't move. I suspect a non-believer would conclude it has something to do with a Big Bang, which seems to be to most current accepted understanding. However, my mind goes to Genesis 1:3 which I see as a possible beginning of space-time, for the Sun was not created until the 4th day.  

Genesis 1:3 ESV

(3)  And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Genesis 1:5 ESV

(5)  God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

I said, in the beginning, we would talk about what we knew a little about first, and it is very little compared to the vast mystery of space and time. Most people today talk about it as a rubber-like fabric,  but it remains difficult for most people to wrap their heads around. Although we can discuss space-time as being similar to a sheet of rubber, the analogy eventually breaks down. A rubber sheet is two-dimensional, while space-time is four-dimensional. It's not just warps in space that the sheet represents, but also warps in time. The complex equations used to account for all of this are tricky for even physicists to work with. As you can see, it gets really deep really quick, it's the same for the theologian when he is contemplating the nature of God, it gets really tricky very quickly. Nevertheless, man finds himself intrigued, and as the Athiest must try and wrap his mind around the understanding of the universe, the Christian tries to do the same with God.

The questions that arise from both contemplations are somewhat similar. If space-time is a fabric, where did it come from? For we are almost certain it had a beginning, if so, what was there before it existed? What could possibly be where there is no space or time? One might say nothing, but for goodness' sake, what's that? For that matter, (matter being a pun) what is outside of space-time?  One  Professor of physics, Ali Abdulla stated, "Nobody knows!! We are still trying to understand what is within space-time. All we are observing in this gigantic universe is only 5%, the illuminated part, and 24% is dark matter, and its structure is not well known, but it is recognized by the due suggested effect on the galaxies. 71% is dark energy, also because the accelerated expansion of the universe was proposed in 1998, we are still involved within space-time. The out-of-space-time in my own opinion is the eternal creator of the universe, which is too difficult for some cosmologists to understand."

Well, what about that picture of God? I must admit, the pictures of the universe, though not really pictures of the universe, just only what is visible to us, at least present a consistent view of reality. Pictures of God are nothing more than mere imaginations of the mind, and they vary with the proportion of those imaginations. They range from angry old men or a kind sweet Jesus to strange ladies with snakes or multiple arms. Man's view or understanding of God if he is religious takes on many forms and is presented in some of the most strange images. Most presentations of God abandon all concepts of logic, however, the descriptions of the God of the Bible actually invite you to apply logic by the mere nature by which God describes himself. 

Though there are in many churches various paintings of Jesus, I would not support the practice. The scripture in Leviticus 26:1 ESV seems it would forbid it stating, “You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to it, for I am the Lord your God" I know surely no one in our Christian churches is bowing down to their paintings of Jesus, but it just seems to me something we would do well to leave alone. One reason for this seems to stem from the fact the God of the Bible has no form, therefore, any representations of him would logically be false. Deuteronomy 4:15-18 ESV “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth." It is interesting in the movie "The Rob" the actor who portrayed Jesus in the movie was never allowed to show his face as a result of these warnings. 

There is no form to represent because God is spirit, John 4:24 ESV "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”  Theologians speak of God as a simple being. An explanation of that distinction would require more space than we have here in this blog post. Hopefully, not to oversimplify, basically, it is stating God has no parts. He is pure Being, pure Spirit. He is spoken of anthropomorphically in scripture. That is, he is assigned human features as descriptive images to aid in explaining His acts and works. For example,  Proverbs 15:3 ESV states, "The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good." He is also spoken of as having arms and hands, but He has none of these features, for He is Spirit. He is incorporeal, having no material body or form. Spirit has no form, no density, and no measurement, therefore, God is seen as being everywhere at once.  Jeremiah 23:24 ESV (24)  "Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the LORD." Of His essence, His being is his seeing. 

Yet, He is still so much more, for He is not only present everywhere, He is present in time; past, present, and future, observing all in a single thought. Time has no construct upon Him, for He exists outside of time. Isaiah 57:15 KJV (15)  For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. It would logically follow if time and space had a beginning, and God inhabits eternity, he is outside of all that exists as well as everywhere in all that exists, all time and all space.

When the Bible speaks of God's eternity, it speaks of Him as the only eternal being, He alone is eternal. Some suggest the universe is perhaps eternal, meaning it has always been and always will be. However, that is not how the Bible speaks of God's eternality. MALACHI 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Another attribute of God that theologians speak of is Immutability. His Immutability is directly tied to His Eternality.  Everything in the universe is in flux, it is changing as time itself changes. Nothing remains the same. So logically speaking, nothing is eternal, even though it should exist forever, as it changes it becomes something else other than what it was before. Even time, if it had no beginning, and were to continue as to have no end, would not be eternal. Yesterday is not today, and tomorrow is another time. Yesterday is gone, today is leaving, tomorrow is yet to come and all will pass into another time. Eternity is an ever-present immutable existence. Even the saints and angels in heaven do not possess eternality, for they all had a beginning and their existence depends upon another.  God alone is eternal, he cannot go anywhere, for there is no place he is not. He cannot learn something he does not know, for he knows all that can be known. If He were to learn something He did not know, that in itself would be a change and He would not be eternal, and if He is not eternal, then He is not the God of the Bible, for he cannot change in his eternity. I would suggest God is not a copilot, He alone is pilot!

I hope you enjoyed the read,

David