Comments on: Book Review – Convergence (Sam Storms)

By: Mark Heath

Mark Heath — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 08:25:11 +0000

I agree that “continuationist” is a fairly bland term, although “open but cautious” is hardly much better! The trouble is, these words stop becoming just theological labels and align you with particular groups of people. The range of people calling themselves “charismatic” is becoming extremely broad.

So if John MacArthur were ever to change his mind on the cessation of the givts I wouldn’t begrudge him calling himself a “continuiationist” as for him, “charismatic” seems to imply that you agree with Kenneth Copeland.

Another example would be “restorationist”. No one calls themselves that now, probably because many people think that it means you are a Jehovah’s Witness.

So as you said, more important to eagerly desire the gifts than to label ourselves with the right label. After all, didn’t Paul chastise the Corinthians for their labels and “Apollostolic” / “Peteristic” / “Paulitical” etc (1 Cor 1:12)?

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 21:23:25 +0000

I totally agree with your comments on “Convergance” but I have to register a complaint and step on some corns probably. I don’t like the term “Continuationist”. I think it’s a cop-out for former charismatics who are disenchanted with what they have seen and maybe disappointed by the promises of the 70′s not coming to pass.

What does “Continuationist” actually imply? Why simply that you accept that the gifts of the Spirit “continue” today! It doesn’t suggest at all that the Bible commands us to actively pursue them ESPECIALLY prophecy (1 Cor 14:1). It doesn’t give any hint as to the fact that they are desirable and essential for church life if we are to function properly as New Covenant people.

Is it just an attempt to placate people who don’t think the gifts continue? For the sake of some kind of ecumenical unity? I’m not sure how effective a term it is. I’m open to be proved wrong but it doesn’t strike me as very useful.