Spiritual Gifts: What they Are and Why they Matter - review by Tim Challies

Found here. My comments in bold.
------------

Yes, I'm reviewing the reviewer's review.
-----------------

The movement called the New Calvinism has been around for quite a long time now, but still hasn’t solved one of its most basic questions: Do the miraculous or revelatory gifts of the Holy Spirit continue to the present time or have they ceased (positions that are generally labeled “continuationism” and “cessationism” respectively)? (If we are to be honest, cessationism also has not solved the problem. Their case is particularly weak, as I've noted many times before. In fact, prominent cessationist Tom Pennington admits their case isn't definitive:

First of all, they’ll (continuationists) say the New Testament nowhere directly states that the miraculous gifts will cease during the church age. But that argument cuts both ways because the New Testament doesn’t directly say they will continue either.

That is, Mr. Pennington concedes that neither side gets to claim a definitive solution.)

And is there room within the movement for people who hold to opposite positions? At the beginning of 2018 I suggested this would be one of the themes of the year and I continue to believe this will prove to be the case. My cause is helped by Tom Schreiner’s new defense of cessationism, Spiritual Gifts: What they Are and Why they Matter. (I critique one of Mr. Schreiner's articles here. Interestingly, that article opens with, 

I am not writing on this topic because I have the final answer on spiritual gifts, for the matter is difficult and Christians who love God and the Bible disagree.

So Mr. Schreiner is no more certain than Mr. Pennington.)

Schreiner sets the book’s tone in its dedication: “To Wayne Grudem, John Piper, and Sam Storms. Beloved friends and coworkers in the gospel of Christ.” These men are among the leading Reformed, continuationist theologians, and this dedication proves that Schreiner means to speak as a friend to friends. An eminently gentle man, he never comes close to being harsh or offensive. He very much wants to position this as a discussion between friends on a matter of secondary importance.

(...)

In chapter six he defines the gift of prophecy. He denies the views that it is either charismatic exegesis of existing revelation or simple preaching of the Scriptures. Rather, a prophecy is a spontaneous message from God delivered through a human being that is meant to instruct, encourage, or warn God’s people. “Those who prophesy bring to light what is hidden and reveal what isn’t accessible to ordinary human beings.” In the chapter that follows he looks at the view held by leading continuationists like Wayne Grudem and Sam Storms who insist that New Testament prophecy differs from its Old Testament counterpart in that it may now err. Where Old Testament prophecy was inerrant and demanded immediate obedience, New Testament prophecy is potentially-flawed and demands discernment, evaluation, and sometimes rejection. He insists, though, this position is wrong and that the New Testament standard for prophecy is no different: It is equally inerrant and authoritative as it was before Christ.

Key to his argument here is the role prophecy played in the New Testament. Ephesians 2:20 says the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” There is an important implication: “The foundational role of the apostles and prophets points to the authority of their words, suggesting that prophecy in the New Testament has the same authority as prophecy in the Old Testament. (Relying on an implication to arrive at an assumption which in turn suggests something. Hmmm.)

If prophecy still exists today, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the foundation established by the apostles and prophets hasn’t been completed, and that the New Testament prophets are still adding to the foundation of apostolic teaching.” (We easily acknowledge the existence of both apostles and prophets in the early church. However, while we can read the results of the apostles' efforts [particularly Paul's] from the letters they wrote, there are no recorded "foundational" prophecies from "foundational" first century prophets apart from the apostles. For example, Agabus had a couple of prophecies written down, but there is no book in the NT called, "The Prophecies of Agabus."

There were foundational apostles, and there were foundational prophets. We cannot so glibly assert that Paul meant those prophets who were his contemporaries. We would prefer to assent to the idea that Paul more likely was referring to OT prophets.

For example, 

Ac. 3:21 He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

Ac. 10:43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

Ro. 3:21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

1Pe. 1:10-11 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.

2Pe. 3:2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

That last one is interesting. Peter appeals to the teachings of the apostles, but also to the prophets of the past. This is why I believe the foundation of the church is 

1) The apostles, representing the new covenant

2) The prophets, representing the old covenant, and

3) Jesus as cornerstone, speaking to both the fulfillment of the old and the manifestation of the new.

The problem here is to assume that all prophetic expressions in the Bible are of the same kind. But we also know the primary reason for the GIFT of prophecy, in contradistinction to the OT prophet, is to build up and encourage the body to maturity [Eph. 4:11-13]. These two are quite different.

So it seems that there are at least three different kinds of prophetic expressions, the OT prophets, who were very rare and spoke directly the Word of God; the NT prophets like Agabus, Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, Saul, Judas, Silas, and Philip's four daughters, who were much more common; and those who have the gift of prophecy, which is the general and widespread gift of the Holy Spirit.

This is an admittedly loose explanation, but I am not a theologian. However, we must account for the way the growth of the prophetic manifests. Peter quoted Joel: 

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. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. Ac. 2:17-18

If this is true, if the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in these last days is real, then we should expect to see a supernatural church moving in all the gifts of the Spirit.) 

He also shows that it is a mistake to distinguish between the prophet and his prophecy as if a true prophet can bring a false prophecy—something continuationists must permit.

So what is it that continuationists are doing when they claim to be prophesying? He believes they are sharing mere impressions. Schreiner takes an unexpected turn here when he affirms that God often impresses matters on our hearts that may be true and beneficial to others. “God may lay something on someone’s heart, and it may be exactly right and exactly what a person needs to hear. Sometimes the impression may be astonishing and clearly miraculous, though this is quite rare.” To be clear, “God can use impressions for our good, but they aren’t the same thing as prophecy and need to be distinguished from prophecy. They can’t be of great importance because Scripture doesn’t address them.” What perplexes me here is that he does not turn to the Bible to prove the existence, value, or definition of such impressions. It’s not that I necessarily disagree with him, but that biblical support is suddenly conspicuous by its absence. This is especially noteworthy since all through the book he has gone to great lengths to prove every point through Scripture. How can we know what impressions are, or that they are divine, or that they may be true and beneficial? We are never told. (Indeed, Mr. Challies is correct, but not for the reasons he thinks. 

Crucially, there is no difference at all between "impressions" and prophetic utterance in the gathering of the saints. Both are revelatory. Both need to be weighed. If we accept "impressions," the argument opposing the prophetic has been ceded!)

He turns next to the matter of tongues and defines them as languages spoken by and understandable to human beings. In other words, tongues never differ from what is described at Pentecost, where people spoke in intelligible languages they themselves did not understand. (This is incorrect. The tongues at Pentecost and all through Acts needed no interpretation. They were real human languages supernaturally bestowed. But Paul brings something different. In the church, tongues are different because tongues need to be interpreted. 

Notice that the word is not "translated." Real languages are translated. Tongues in the church are interpreted. It is critical we understand this if we are to accurately express the gits in the church.)

This leads to an inevitable conclusion: “Contemporaries who say they speak in tongues—like those who say they have the gift of prophecy—aren’t actually practicing the biblical gift. Those who think they are prophesying are actually sharing impressions, and those who claim to have the biblical gift of tongues aren’t speaking in other languages but in ecstatic utterances. It doesn’t follow that what they are doing is necessarily evil, but neither is it the same thing as the gift we find in the Scriptures.” (As we just learned, this is incorrect.)

The next chapter looks at the significance of the gift of tongues and shows that, like all gifts, it was meant particularly for serving brothers and sisters in Christ.

After putting aside what he considers a couple of uncompelling defenses of cessationism, Schreiner finally makes his case. “The basis for cessationism is the claim that the church was ‘built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets’.” Because the foundation of the church has now been laid and the authority of the apostles enshrined in Scripture, we have no need for apostles. As for prophets, they spoke infallibly and authoritatively until that foundation had been laid. But with the foundation complete, they are no longer needed. In fact, any contemporary claim to prophecy is nothing short of dangerous since any true prophet must speak infallibly and authoritatively. “If such authoritative apostles don’t exist today (and many continuationists agree on this point), and if prophets spoke infallible words like the apostles, and if the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, then there are good grounds to conclude that the gift of prophecy has ceased as well.” This is a position he considers “nuanced cessationism.” It’s nuanced because he keeps open the possibility that God may continue to grant great signs and wonders in certain “cutting edge missionary situations.” (We just explored the idea of foundational prophets above. Thus this conclusion is wrong.)

What about healing and miracles? We pray for miracles, knowing that it is sometimes (though rarely) God’s will to do what cannot be explained in any other way. As for the gift of healing or working other miracles, a continuationist must grapple with the vast difference between what is claimed as a miracle today and what was displayed in the early church. “If a continuationist says that the gifts are operating today but to a far inferior degree than what we see in the New Testament, then they seem to be saying that the gifts aren’t operating as they did in the New Testament. But how do they know that? The argument actually sounds like a form of cessationism to me.” (This is not a biblical argument, it is an argument from contemporary experience.)

So, acknowledging there are still significant differences between close brothers and sisters, what do we do? We continue to pursue the truth and we continue to pursue love. To expand on the Apostle Paul’s great “love” text, “If I have the right view of spiritual gifts, but don’t have love, then I am nothing.”

What do I, as a convinced cessationist, make of Schreiner’s position? I very much enjoyed reading it and want to continue to consider it. I suppose I had been hoping he would make a slam-dunk case for cessationism, but I don’t think he did (and neither do I think he would make such a claim). Such a hope was probably naive. The reason this is a debate at all is that it is much tougher to prove that something has ceased than to assume it has continued. This is what cessationists have to prove and it is no small task. Yet the challenge for continuationists is just as daunting. They need to prove that what they count as tongues and prophecy carry even the least association to what we see modeled in the New Testament. I appreciate Dr. Schreiner’s argument and find it compelling, but know we wouldn’t be having this discussion if our continuationist friends would simply (and verifiably) speak in a real but unknown language or heal more than a backache, case of depression, or the always-popular slightly shorter leg. (The author is apparently unacquainted with documented raisings from the dead or the healings from AIDS, among other things.)

Continuationists begin their case with Scripture, but offer unconvincing real-world evidence of the operation of the gifts; cessationists acknowledge that unconvincing real-world evidence of the operation of the gifts, then turn to Scripture for an explanation.

As for the near future of the New Calvinism, I continue to be convinced of cessationism and concerned about continuationism, though I find my cessationism becoming increasingly nuanced (though not in the same way as Schreiner’s). I don’t think the differences between the two as they work out in the life of the local church and the faith of individuals are as insignificant as perhaps Schreiner suggests. To this point in time, Reformed continuationist practice has been almost indistinguishable from Reformed cessationist practice. To be a continuationist has meant being “open but cautious,” which has essentially equalled “functionally cessationist.” Yet a movement is afoot to remedy this and to begin to “practice the power,” to borrow the title of a recent work from Sam Storms. Storms is taking the lead in teaching other church leaders how to implement and practice the gifts in the local church through prophetic words, healing ministries, casting out demons, and so on. His recent Convergence conference meant to instruct Reformed folk in the spiritual benefit of practicing the gifts and his forthcoming workshop event is meant to tease out its implications through seminars dedicated to dream interpretation, prophetic evangelism, and equipping children to be active in prophetic ministry. I don’t think we’ve yet seen Reformed continuationism at its full bloom. Frankly, I hope we never do.

What makes Dr. Schreiner an ideal candidate to write this work is not only his understanding of the key biblical texts and his long labor to arrive at a firm position, but also his kind character. His affection for his continuationist friends is a regular theme in the book and he gladly offers them every benefit of the doubt. The combination makes for a solid book and an important contribution to a discussion that shows few signs of being solved any time soon.