So, I realize that this method of breaking up my critique of Storms' book into small, brief sections lends itself to the suspicion that I'm just taking cheap pot shots.  But I hope the reader will understand that I'm simply doing this for practical reasons, mostly relating to time (and besides, you don't want to read a 1500 word blog post anyway!).

In Are Miraculous Gifts For Today?: 4 Views, Storms gives two suggestions to explain the "dormant" periods in history, where the Spirit was not ubiquitously and supernaturally active among the people of God.  The first is sin and apostasy, the second is Biblical ignorance.  The first suggestion is meant for Old Testament history, the idea being that Israel's constant sin and rebellion against God caused the quenching of the Spirit's power.  But as Dr. Robert Saucy points out in his response to Storms, this suggestion can hardly be taken seriously, since one of the most active periods of supernatural power in Israel's history is the time of Elijah and Elisha, and this is arguably one of the worst times of apostasy, at least in the Northern Kingdom.

The second suggestion is meant for the early medieval period.  Rampant Biblical ignorance, primarily due to illiteracy, is a primary reason that the Spirit was not working miraculously in the same way that He was in the 1st century.  My question is, does Storms extend this charge to his contemporary cessationist (or even open-but-cautious) brothers?  I would think not, since Storms praises cessationists for being word-centered and having a high view of doctrine, etc.  And yet, the only other option Storms has left us with is sin and apostasy.  One of these two things must be true, or, according to Storms, cessationists should be experiencing the power of the Spirit on a regular basis.  He might want to suggest that some cessationists do in fact experience the power of the Spirit, but dismiss or rationalize it.  But this seems unlikely on any large scale, especially when it comes to things like speaking in tongues.  It could also be argued that cessationists don't experience such things beacuse they don't believe in them.  This seems problematic for two reasons.  First, it seems to adopt the "if it didn't happen, then you just didn't have enough faith" mentality that is antithetical to a true Christian worldview.  Second, according to Stroms, one of the primary purposes of the spiritual gifts is to engender and strengthen faith, so it would be odd to argue simultaneously that faith must preceed them (with the possible exception of initial, regenerating faith). 

The fairly obviously conclusion, that Storms and others seem stubbornly unwilling to accept (and I'm really not sure why), is that it is God who ultiamtely determines when and where (and how) the Spirit works, not just on any given Sunday morning, but within history as a whole.  I personally don't see how this conclusion is harmful to the Third Wave position, and I see no reason why Storms must attempt to rationalize the Spirit's "dormant" periods by appeals to apostasy or ignorance. 

In Convergence: Spiritual Journeys Of A Charismatic Calvinist, Sam Storms lays out a solid case for the continuation of spiritual gifts in the church today, and argues that "charismatics" need not be anti-intellectual or anti-doctrine.  He believes that cessationists have historically done a wonderful job developing doctrine and what we might call the "life of the mind" in the church, and he admits that charismatics have often ignored the life of the mind in favor of spiritual experiences.  But he does not believe that this divide is a necessary one, and takes his own story to be evidence that one can be both charismatic and a "Word-centered" Calvinist.

I found the majority of the book to be both helpful and informative.  I was a cessationist not too long ago, but now I would consider myself in the broad middle category of "open but cautious" (in part due to Storms' arguments against cessationism).  But I found several of Storms' arguments to be inadequate, and at times even ad hoc.  I wish to address these concerns in a series of posts.  This first post will deal with just one of the arguments.

Storms argues that Charismatics don't put immediate Spiritual guidance ahead of guidance found in the Word.  Why not?  Because, says Storms, every prophetic word or dream or vision that is received is immediately and meticulously weighed against Scripture.  Scripture, then, is the final authority. 

That answer sounds good, but it actually dodges the question.  Notice that, while the Bible may act as a rubber stamp that will allow a certain bit of direct Spiritual guidance to pass, it is still the direct guidance itself that remains central.  It is not Scripture that is actively guiding a person, Scripture merely allows (most often by its silence) someone to be guided by other means.

This is no knock-down, drag-out rebuttle, but it does seem that Storms' attempt to show that the Bible remains just as central to daily guidance for the charismatic as for the cessationist mostly fails.  The difference between "active guidance" and "passive allowance" is a big one, and one that Storms cannot ignore.