Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 1 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 1
David Bercot insists the continuation of miraculous gifts after the apostles is “not a theological issue” but “an historical issue”; what would it change in today’s debates if Christians treated the question primarily as a matter of historical evidence instead of proof-texting, and what might we lose by doing that?
Another way to ask: Bercot says the question of miracles after the apostles is mainly about history, not theology. How would today’s debates change if Christians looked first at historical evidence instead of Bible “proof texts,” and what might we miss if we did that?

Direct Answer If Christians treated this mainly as an historical question, it would cool down proof-text battles and force people to deal honestly with what early Christians claimed they saw—without pretending that history automatically settles today’s controversies. But we might lose the sense that Scripture is the final authority for testing modern claims, since Bercot’s point is that history can report “what happened,” not guarantee what should happen now.

Support from Transcript:

  • Bercot says it’s “not a theological issue. It’s an historical issue… either they did continue or they didn’t… look at the record of history.”
  • He compares proof-texting this question to arguing whether persecution continued—“that’s silly. Just go look at the record of history.”
  • He warns the result doesn’t directly decide modern disputes: if gifts ceased in the 2nd century, it “wouldn’t prove” there can’t be “a new outpouring today”; if they continued, that doesn’t prove modern claims are “authentic.”
  • He urges honesty: “We shouldn’t try to fudge… the record of history to fit our point of view.”
  • He still insists discernment and Jesus’ warnings matter for today (Matthew 7:22–23), showing history isn’t the only lens.
Discussion Follow-ups How can a church use early-church history as a reality check without treating it as a new authority equal to Scripture?