--------------------------
Most of these arguments have been dealt with elsewhere on this blog, so rather than rehashing all that, we will simply deal with some of the more novel statements made by the author.
------------------------
I am not writing on this topic because I have the final answer on spiritual gifts, (Except that he does, as you will read below.)
for the matter is difficult and Christians who love God and the Bible disagree. Readers should know that Sam Storms and I are friends. We love one another, even though we differ on a secondary or tertiary issue, while at the same time upholding the importance of truth. Over the years I've become convinced that some of the so-called charismatic gifts are no longer given and that they aren't a regular feature of life in the church. I am thinking particularly of the the gifts of apostleship, prophecy, tongues, healing, and miracles (and perhaps discernment of spirits).
Why would anyone think that some of the gifts have been withdrawn? I will argue that such a reading fits best with Scripture and experience. Scripture takes priority over experience, for it is the final authority, but Scripture must also correlate with life, and our experiences should provoke us to re-examine afresh whether we've read the Bible rightly. (We would reject this presumption. Our experience is useful in guiding us in general issues of life, but cannot be used to interpret doctrine. The Bible is the only authority for matters of doctrine.)
None of us reads the Bible in a vacuum, and hence we must return to the Scriptures repeatedly to ensure we've read them faithfully. (The author is more charitable than some others cessationists, who view charismatics as heretics or worse.
The author's assertion that his experience must be considered as a reference is an astounding claim. Experience is usually a cause for suspicion for cessationists. They don't like evidence from any other source than the Bible. Except we guess when it's convenient to their case.
Experience is a context for understanding, a result of the culture one finds one's self in. Whatever environment you've grown up in helps create your biases. Which is why we've persistently and adamantly restricted the debate to Scripture and Scripture alone.)
Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets
Paul says the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets” (Eph. 2:20). I conclude that all we need to know for salvation and sanctification has been given to us through the teaching of the apostles and prophets, and that this teaching is now found in the Scriptures. (A claim that few charismatics would dispute. Which of course has nothing to do with the matter and hand.
Curious that the ministries of the apostles and prophets were spectacularly supernatural, but for some reason, what is to be built on that foundation cannot be,. The author never explains this conclusion in the context of this verse.
Also curious is the marked tendency for cessationists to not quote the Scriptures cited, or in this case, to quote only a part. Here is the broader context:
Notice also that it is the Church built upon this foundation, not doctrine, not Scripture, not the faith. The author presumes that this foundation is revelation, but the passage does not say this.)
Now that God has spoken in the last days through his Son (Heb. 1:2), we don't need further words from him (???? "God, just be quiet. We don't need any more from you" is a horrifying and arrogant assertion.
Paul says the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets” (Eph. 2:20). I conclude that all we need to know for salvation and sanctification has been given to us through the teaching of the apostles and prophets, and that this teaching is now found in the Scriptures. (A claim that few charismatics would dispute. Which of course has nothing to do with the matter and hand.
Curious that the ministries of the apostles and prophets were spectacularly supernatural, but for some reason, what is to be built on that foundation cannot be,. The author never explains this conclusion in the context of this verse.
Also curious is the marked tendency for cessationists to not quote the Scriptures cited, or in this case, to quote only a part. Here is the broader context:
Ep. 2:18-22 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. 19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow-citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.So we find that Paul is talking about the spiritual dwelling place of God, which is the body of believers, built upon the apostles and prophets. Notice the many references to the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, conveniently left out of the author's quote. Clearly the "building" is a supernatural one, constructed and occupied by the Holy Spirit.
Notice also that it is the Church built upon this foundation, not doctrine, not Scripture, not the faith. The author presumes that this foundation is revelation, but the passage does not say this.)
Now that God has spoken in the last days through his Son (Heb. 1:2), we don't need further words from him (???? "God, just be quiet. We don't need any more from you" is a horrifying and arrogant assertion.
Let's quote the passage.
He. 1:1-4 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
What is the writer of Hebrews discussing here? Well, the superiority of the Son over the prophets and the angels. His speaking is higher than others who speak. In fact, it is so high that this Speaker now sits at the right hand of the Majesty.)
to explain what Jesus Christ has accomplished in his ministry, death, and resurrection. (Hmmm. We don't need Jesus speaking, but we do continue to need pastors to preach to us, we guess.
We'll leave it to the reader to judge if the author's assertion is in any way contained in the passage referenced. But dear reader, before you render your judgment, consider that the passage refers to "these last days." Are we no longer in the last days? When Peter quoted Joel in Ac. 2:17 [In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams], was Peter talking about some other last days? Is our contemporary experience not "last days" as well?
The writer of Hebrews continues: "...how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will." He. 2:3-4
God testified to "it," that is, this "great salvation," which was first "confirmed to us by those who heard him." The writer continues by saying "God also testified to it" (salvation) by miracles, and "gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed..." So not only did God testify to this salvation by signs and wonders, He *also* confirmed it by widely distributed spiritual gifts.
This passage has nothing to do with the Scriptures. We conclude that the writer is attempting to negate something in everyday occurrence in the early Church to make his case.)
Instead, we are “to contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all” through the apostles and prophets (Jude 3).
To put it another way, we don't have apostles like Paul and Peter and John anymore. (The author offers his conclusion as evidence?)
They gave us the authoritative teaching by which the church continues to live to this day, and that is the only teaching we will need until Jesus returns. (Then why do pastors preach?)
We know that new apostles won't appear since Paul specifically says he was the last apostle (1 Cor. 15:8). (*Sigh* Paul is not saying he's the last apostle. This is clear again when the extended passage is considered, and is likely why the author failed once again to quote it.
1Co. 15:4-8: "...that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."Paul is listing the appearances of Jesus after he rose from the grave. This is not a passage about apostleship at all, for it also mentions 500 in the list.
His reference to one abnormally born clarifies. He includes himself in with the "super apostles" (2Co. 12:11), but acknowledges that he came to apostleship in an unusual way, not like the original 12.
Paul was not the last apostle. You can read our explanation here.)
And when James the brother of John died (Acts 12:2), he wasn't replaced. (Once again we offer the actual verse, which does not say James wasn't replaced: "He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword." There is no comment about James not being replaced.
Indeed, they found it necessary to replace Judas Iscariot. Why would they not replace James? The author argues from silence.)
Apostles, in the technical sense, are restricted to those who have seen the risen Lord and have been commissioned by him, and no one since apostolic times fits such criteria. (Whaa? The author, for what increasingly seems to be devious reasons, misstates this requirement:
Paul seems to reference this requirement in 1Co. 9:1: "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" Interesting. We know Paul was not a part of those "who have been with us the whole time..." Yet he was still an apostle. And so was Barnabas [Acts 14:14], for whom apostolic qualifications are unknown.
And we must ask, what about those who were the apostles appointed in the church, listed along with prophets, teachers, workers of miracles, gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues [Co. 12:28]? Were they only the Twelve [or up to 19, by our count]?
And why are there now no more apostles, but there are teachers, evangelists, pastors, administrators, and those who can help? How does the author draw that line, and why?)
The apostles were uniquely appointed for the early days of the church to establish orthodox doctrine. There is no warrant, then, for saying there are still apostles today. (Scripture reference?)
Indeed, if anyone claims to be an apostle today we should be concerned, for such a claim opens the door to false teaching and to abuse of authority.
If the gift of apostleship has ended, then other gifts may have ceased as well, (That is, if the author is right about apostles, he will extend his shaky supposition to other things.)
since the foundation has been laid by the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20). I conclude from this point that the gift of prophecy has ended also, for the prophets identified here are the same sort mentioned elsewhere (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 3:5; 4:11). The early churches didn't have the complete canon of Scripture for some time, and hence an authoritative and infallible prophetic ministry was needed to lay the foundation for the church in those early days. (The author builds on his false premise, without supplying any sort of Scriptural basis. He doesn't make the necessary connection, even if there are no apostles today. We're beginning to suspect the author has impaired reasoning skills.)
The most significant biblical argument against what I'm saying is the claim that New Testament (NT) prophecy differs from Old Testament (OT) prophecy, for some say OT prophecy is flawless but NT prophecy is mixed with error. But the idea that NT prophets could make mistakes isn't persuasive for several reasons. (We discuss prophecy here, so we will not rehash those arguments.)
Apostles, in the technical sense, are restricted to those who have seen the risen Lord and have been commissioned by him, and no one since apostolic times fits such criteria. (Whaa? The author, for what increasingly seems to be devious reasons, misstates this requirement:
"Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” Ac. 1:21-22That is, the remaining apostles were setting for their criteria for replacing Judas Iscariot. We would assert the apostles were not attempting to create a template.
Paul seems to reference this requirement in 1Co. 9:1: "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" Interesting. We know Paul was not a part of those "who have been with us the whole time..." Yet he was still an apostle. And so was Barnabas [Acts 14:14], for whom apostolic qualifications are unknown.
And we must ask, what about those who were the apostles appointed in the church, listed along with prophets, teachers, workers of miracles, gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues [Co. 12:28]? Were they only the Twelve [or up to 19, by our count]?
And why are there now no more apostles, but there are teachers, evangelists, pastors, administrators, and those who can help? How does the author draw that line, and why?)
The apostles were uniquely appointed for the early days of the church to establish orthodox doctrine. There is no warrant, then, for saying there are still apostles today. (Scripture reference?)
Indeed, if anyone claims to be an apostle today we should be concerned, for such a claim opens the door to false teaching and to abuse of authority.
If the gift of apostleship has ended, then other gifts may have ceased as well, (That is, if the author is right about apostles, he will extend his shaky supposition to other things.)
since the foundation has been laid by the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20). I conclude from this point that the gift of prophecy has ended also, for the prophets identified here are the same sort mentioned elsewhere (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 3:5; 4:11). The early churches didn't have the complete canon of Scripture for some time, and hence an authoritative and infallible prophetic ministry was needed to lay the foundation for the church in those early days. (The author builds on his false premise, without supplying any sort of Scriptural basis. He doesn't make the necessary connection, even if there are no apostles today. We're beginning to suspect the author has impaired reasoning skills.)
The most significant biblical argument against what I'm saying is the claim that New Testament (NT) prophecy differs from Old Testament (OT) prophecy, for some say OT prophecy is flawless but NT prophecy is mixed with error. But the idea that NT prophets could make mistakes isn't persuasive for several reasons. (We discuss prophecy here, so we will not rehash those arguments.)
1.) The burden of proof is on those who say prophecy in the NT is of a different nature than prophecy in the OT. Prophets in the OT were only considered prophets of God if they were infallible (Deut. 18:15-22), and the same is almost certainly true in the NT. ("Almost certainly?" What might be that sliver of uncertainty? And we know that NT prophecy must be different today, because we do not put to death mistaken prophets.)
2.) The admonition to judge ("Weigh.") prophecies instead of prophets (1 Cor. 14:29-32; 1 Thess. 5:19-20) is often adduced to show that the gift is different in the NT. But this argument is not convincing, for the only way to judge prophets in both Testaments is by their prophecies. (Where is the N.T. reference that tells us to judge prophets? Indeed, if we were to judge prophets, we would be required to put false ones to death.) We only know prophets aren't from God if their prophecies are false or if their words contradict scriptural teaching.
3.) We have no example of a NT prophet who erred. Agabus didn't make a mistake in prophesying that Paul would be bound by the Jews and handed over to the Romans (Acts 21:10-11). To say he erred demands more precision than prophecies warrant. (Whaaa? The author gives Agabus a break for not getting 100%, but we don't get that break?)
Furthermore, after Paul was arrested he appealed to the words of Agabus, saying he was handed over to the Romans by the Jews (Acts 28:17), so it's clear he didn't think Agabus made a mistake. (There is no need for Paul to repudiate Agabus' inaccuracy, for Paul clearly did not embrace the author's 100% requirement. Paul accepted Agabus' prophecy, even with its error. This is a significant point against the author.) Agabus spoke the words of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:28; 21:11), so we have no example in the NT of prophets whose prophecies were mixed with error. (Except we do, revealed by the author's tepid defense.)
Some object that my view of prophecy is off target since there were hundreds and thousands of prophecies in NT times that never made it into the canon. That objection doesn't convince, however, for the same was true in the OT. Most of the prophecies of Elijah and Elisha were never written down or inscripturated. Or we can think of the 100 prophets spared by Obadiah (1 Kings 18:4). Apparently none of their prophecies was inscripurated. Nevertheless, the prophecies were all completely true and unmixed with error, for otherwise they wouldn't have been prophets (Deut. 18:15-22). The same principle applies to the prophecies of NT prophets. Their words aren't recorded for us, but if they were truly prophets then their words were infallible. (Which we know is false, since the author admits Agabus' error to a degree.)
What some people today call “prophecies” are actually impressions from God. He can use impressions to guide and lead us, but they aren't infallible and must always be tested by Scripture. (Whoa, Nellie. The author just walked back his claims entirely. For if the Holy Spirit is revealing things to people in impressions, that is prophetic, supernatural revelation. Thus, according to the author's prescription, they must be branded as false.)
We should also consult with wise counselors before acting on such impressions. I love my charismatic brothers and sisters, but what they call “prophecy” today isn't actually the biblical gift of prophecy. God-given impressions aren't the same thing as prophecies. (That's quite an undocumented assertion. And it changes the whole equation. The author just ceded his case.)
What some people today call “prophecies” are actually impressions from God. He can use impressions to guide and lead us, but they aren't infallible and must always be tested by Scripture. (Whoa, Nellie. The author just walked back his claims entirely. For if the Holy Spirit is revealing things to people in impressions, that is prophetic, supernatural revelation. Thus, according to the author's prescription, they must be branded as false.)
We should also consult with wise counselors before acting on such impressions. I love my charismatic brothers and sisters, but what they call “prophecy” today isn't actually the biblical gift of prophecy. God-given impressions aren't the same thing as prophecies. (That's quite an undocumented assertion. And it changes the whole equation. The author just ceded his case.)
What About Tongues? (We cover tongues here.)
The gift of tongues is a more difficult issue. In Acts (2:1-4; 10:44-48; 19:1-7) this gift signifies that the age of fulfillment has arrived where God's covenant promises are being realized. First Corinthians 14:1-5 and Acts 2:17-18 also suggest that interpreted (or understood) tongues are equivalent to prophecy. It seems, then, that prophecy and tongues are closely related. If prophecy has passed away, then tongues have likely ended as well. Further, it's clear from Acts that the gift involves speaking in foreign languages (Acts 2), and Peter emphasizes in the case of Cornelius and his friends that the Gentiles received the same gift as the Jews (Acts 11:16-17).
Nor is it persuasive to say the gift in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is of a different nature (i.e., ecstatic utterances). The word tongues (glōssa) denotes a linguistic code, a structured language, not random and free vocalization. When Paul says no one understands those speaking in tongues because they utter mysteries (1 Cor. 14:2), he isn't suggesting that the gift is different from what we find in Acts. Those hearing the tongues in Acts understood what was being said because they knew the languages the apostles were speaking. If no one knows the language, then the tongue speaker utters mysteries. Nor does 1 Corinthians 13:1 (tongues of angels) support the notion that the gift of tongues consists of ecstatic utterances. Paul engages in hyperbole in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3. He's clearly exaggerating when referring to the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 13:2), for no one who prophesies knows “all mysteries and all knowledge.”
I believe what's happening in charismatic circles today regarding tongues is similar to what we saw with prophecy. The gift is redefined to include free vocalization, and then people claim to have the gift described in Scripture. In doing so they redefine the gift to accommodate contemporary experience. So are contemporary tongues demonic, then? I don't think so. I agree with J. I. Packer that the experience is more a form of psychological relaxation.
Doesn't 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 Contradict Your View?
Let's consider an objection to the notion that some of the gifts have ceased. Doesn't 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 teach that the gifts last until Jesus comes again? Certainly this text teaches that the gifts could last until Jesus returns. There's no definitive teaching in the Bible that they've ceased. (It takes the author to get near the end in order for him to admit the Bible does not teach what he wants it to.)
We might even expect them to last until the second coming. But we see hints from Ephesians 2:20 and other texts that the gifts played a foundational role. I conclude, then, that 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 permits but doesn't require the gifts to continue until the second coming. And the gifts as they are practiced today don't fit with the biblical description of these gifts. (Irrelevant, as we have noted.)
For reasons like these the Reformers and most of the Protestant tradition until the 20th century believed the gifts had ceased. I conclude that both Scripture and experience verify their judgment on the matter.
The gift of tongues is a more difficult issue. In Acts (2:1-4; 10:44-48; 19:1-7) this gift signifies that the age of fulfillment has arrived where God's covenant promises are being realized. First Corinthians 14:1-5 and Acts 2:17-18 also suggest that interpreted (or understood) tongues are equivalent to prophecy. It seems, then, that prophecy and tongues are closely related. If prophecy has passed away, then tongues have likely ended as well. Further, it's clear from Acts that the gift involves speaking in foreign languages (Acts 2), and Peter emphasizes in the case of Cornelius and his friends that the Gentiles received the same gift as the Jews (Acts 11:16-17).
Nor is it persuasive to say the gift in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is of a different nature (i.e., ecstatic utterances). The word tongues (glōssa) denotes a linguistic code, a structured language, not random and free vocalization. When Paul says no one understands those speaking in tongues because they utter mysteries (1 Cor. 14:2), he isn't suggesting that the gift is different from what we find in Acts. Those hearing the tongues in Acts understood what was being said because they knew the languages the apostles were speaking. If no one knows the language, then the tongue speaker utters mysteries. Nor does 1 Corinthians 13:1 (tongues of angels) support the notion that the gift of tongues consists of ecstatic utterances. Paul engages in hyperbole in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3. He's clearly exaggerating when referring to the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 13:2), for no one who prophesies knows “all mysteries and all knowledge.”
I believe what's happening in charismatic circles today regarding tongues is similar to what we saw with prophecy. The gift is redefined to include free vocalization, and then people claim to have the gift described in Scripture. In doing so they redefine the gift to accommodate contemporary experience. So are contemporary tongues demonic, then? I don't think so. I agree with J. I. Packer that the experience is more a form of psychological relaxation.
Miracles and Healings
What about miracles and healings? First, I believe God still heals and does miraculous things today, and we should pray for such. Scripture isn't as clear on this matter, (Hmm. The author admits the matter isn't clear, yet that will not stop him from trying to refute the charismatic [and Scriptural] position.)
and thus these gifts could exist today. Still, the primary function of these gifts was to accredit the gospel message, confirming that Jesus was both Lord and Christ. I doubt the gift of miracles and healings exists today, for it isn't evident that men and women in our churches have such gifts. (An appeal to contemporary expression, which does not come to bear on the Scriptural case.)
Certainly God can and does heal at times, but where are the people with these gifts? Claims for miracles and healings must be verified, just as the people verified the blind man's healing in John 9. There is a kind of biblically warranted skepticism.
Now, could God in cutting-edge missionary situations grant miracles and signs and wonders to accredit the gospel as he did in apostolic times? Yes. But that's not the same thing as having these gifts as a regular feature in the ongoing life of the church. (Why? How? What is the scriptural basis for this undocumented claim?)
If the signs and wonders of the apostles have returned, we should see the blind receiving their sight, the lame walking, and the dead being raised. (Appeal to Contemporary Experience, not the Bible.)
God heals today (sometimes dramatically), but the healing of colds, the flu, TMJ, stomach, and back problems, and so forth aren't in the same category as the healings found in the Scriptures. If people truly have the gift of healing and miracles today, they need to demonstrate such by performing the kinds of healings and miracles found in the Bible.
What about miracles and healings? First, I believe God still heals and does miraculous things today, and we should pray for such. Scripture isn't as clear on this matter, (Hmm. The author admits the matter isn't clear, yet that will not stop him from trying to refute the charismatic [and Scriptural] position.)
and thus these gifts could exist today. Still, the primary function of these gifts was to accredit the gospel message, confirming that Jesus was both Lord and Christ. I doubt the gift of miracles and healings exists today, for it isn't evident that men and women in our churches have such gifts. (An appeal to contemporary expression, which does not come to bear on the Scriptural case.)
Certainly God can and does heal at times, but where are the people with these gifts? Claims for miracles and healings must be verified, just as the people verified the blind man's healing in John 9. There is a kind of biblically warranted skepticism.
Now, could God in cutting-edge missionary situations grant miracles and signs and wonders to accredit the gospel as he did in apostolic times? Yes. But that's not the same thing as having these gifts as a regular feature in the ongoing life of the church. (Why? How? What is the scriptural basis for this undocumented claim?)
If the signs and wonders of the apostles have returned, we should see the blind receiving their sight, the lame walking, and the dead being raised. (Appeal to Contemporary Experience, not the Bible.)
God heals today (sometimes dramatically), but the healing of colds, the flu, TMJ, stomach, and back problems, and so forth aren't in the same category as the healings found in the Scriptures. If people truly have the gift of healing and miracles today, they need to demonstrate such by performing the kinds of healings and miracles found in the Bible.
Doesn't 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 Contradict Your View?
Let's consider an objection to the notion that some of the gifts have ceased. Doesn't 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 teach that the gifts last until Jesus comes again? Certainly this text teaches that the gifts could last until Jesus returns. There's no definitive teaching in the Bible that they've ceased. (It takes the author to get near the end in order for him to admit the Bible does not teach what he wants it to.)
We might even expect them to last until the second coming. But we see hints from Ephesians 2:20 and other texts that the gifts played a foundational role. I conclude, then, that 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 permits but doesn't require the gifts to continue until the second coming. And the gifts as they are practiced today don't fit with the biblical description of these gifts. (Irrelevant, as we have noted.)
For reasons like these the Reformers and most of the Protestant tradition until the 20th century believed the gifts had ceased. I conclude that both Scripture and experience verify their judgment on the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment