On the issue of dreams and visions in the mission field

The second evasion—and this one is increasingly popular—is that God speaks today to unevangelized heathen (especially, it would appear, to Muslims) by dreams or visions. A number of former Muslims have said that Christ appeared to them in their Islamic lands in a dream or vision and told them to go to such and such a place to hear God’s Word from such and such a church or person. [Angus Stewart, "Charismatism (IV): Ongoing Prophecy," Salt Shakers 38, 8]

John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. (Mk. 9:38-40)

I seriously cannot believe I am doing this — defending "ongoing prophecy" against a Reformed minister. But of course, I am not defending ongoing prophecy, but rather the viewpoint that God could very well grant dreams and visions to lead people to Christ.

One may be a cessationist or a continuationist, but the reason why and how one is a cessationist or a continuationist is just as important. The cessationism that I am promoting is similar to that by Dr. Richard Gaffin, but not the same. True biblical cessationism has to do with the telos, or the purpose or end, of the gifts. It is not an arbitrary drawing of the line between "this is the period when the gifts are functioning," and "this is the post-apostolic era when the sign gifts have ceased." Such a thinking is not defensible by any means, and tying them to the apostles as people (instead of their telos within the apostolic era) (1) elevates the significance of the gifts into special "superpowers" instead of gifts given for a purpose, (2) breaks the continuity of the giving of gifts between the Old and New covenant administrations, (3) goes against the biblical data where the gifts were given to other people besides the apostles including women. Ironically, this version of cessationism pushes people uncommitted to either view into the charismatic camp because of their unbiblical view of the gifts, and making the gifts into superpowers invite curiosity and desire for them.

Taking a telic understanding of the gifts means that one does not start with some desire to draw a line between the "era of the functioning of the gifts" and the "era where gifts have ceased." There is definitely a difference between the apostolic and the post-apostolic eras, and a difference between the kingdom inauguration and the kingdom established, but that is not where we should be starting. If we understand the telic nature of the gifts, then we know that the presence or absence of a gift is defined not by the "era," but whether there is a need for the gift to function. For the sign and revelatory gifts in general, God's purposes of giving them have been fulfilled, and therefore they are not given today to believers and to the church.

But since our view of the gifts start with God's intended purposes and not some temporal limitations, therefore we do not have an idea of cessation limited to time but rather limited by God's purposes. This plays out in how we are to think of dreams and visions reported in closed countries that lead people to Christ. Can God give those dreams and visions? Of course He can. Did He? Perhaps, perhaps not. We know that God's revelation is always true, therefore any dreams and visions that lead people to cults are by definition not from God. So the question then becomes: Does God give dreams and visions, that lead people to true Christianity, especially to those in closed countries?

It is here that the telic idea of the gifts come into play. Since dreams and visions has its telos in revealing God's truth, therefore the question then becomes whether there is a need in those contexts where dreams and visions can operate, and we should affirm there is such a need. In those closed countries, those people do not have the remotest chance to hear the Gospel, such that God if He wants them to be saved must either lead an evangelist or a Christian to them, or lead them to an evangelist or any Christian. God obviously does the former, and God does the latter too through providence. Since God works according as He pleases, and dreams and visions have the telos of communicating God's revelation in a more direct manner, it is not inconceivable that God may use them to lead those in close countries to the Gospel message so that they may turn to Christ for salvation. We must note that it is precisely the close nature of these societies that cause these nations and societies to more closely resemble the apostolic era than the post-apostolic era, and therefore the notions of dreams and visions being given to lead them to the place when they can hear the Gospel message is a fitting use of God's communication through the use of these supernatural means. We further note that, with their purposes being fulfilled, God would no more communicate in dreams and visions to these new converts, since post-conversion, they would now be in a situation that resembles the post-apostolic era.

Pastor Stewart therefore is in error when he thinks that those dreams and visions are false. In fact, if at least some of them lead people to true Christianity, Stewart is taking the position that the Devil uses false dreams and visions to lead people to true Christianity, a strange (and ridiculously false) position to take. Or Stewart can bite the bullet and asserts that anyone who is led by dreams and visions must necessarily be a false Christian, a truly horrible and judgmental position to take.

Steward compounds his error by stating that "We do this because receiving a revelatory dream or vision from God, especially one that does not declare divine judgment upon the recipient (cf. Daniel 2; 4), constitutes a person as a prophet" (Steward, "Charismatism," 8). This is so obviously erroneous that one does not know where to even start. Was Abimelech, a pagan king, a prophet (Gen. 20:3-7)? Was Nebuchadnezzar a prophet (e.g. Dan. 4:4-18)? Yes, Nebuchadnezzar's dreams were ones that have the element of judgment in it, but he does not hold the office of a prophet, ever. The Old Testament narrates other episodes where those who do not have the office of prophets receive dreams and visions, so Stewart's assertion is just plain wrong. Those who have the office of prophets especially in the Old covenant economy obviously receive dreams and visions (c.f. Num. 12:6-8), but the mere receiving of dreams and visions does not constitute a prophet (If p,q does not imply If q, p). Stewart did not defend his assertion in this article, but a possible defence based on the fact that those with the office of prophet receive dreams and visions unto revelation, therefore dreams and visions mark the office of a prophet, commits a major logical fallacy.

In conclusion, while I agree that continuationism in any sense is an error, I cannot agree with errant arguments that imply that anyone who turned to Christ because of a dream or a vision must not be a believer. While I hold that sign and revelatory gifts have ceased in general, to make that into a general prohibition based upon a difference in epochs is unhelpful and leads to wrong conclusions regarding how God works in the former times and in the present.

Contra Don Codling: Refutation and Conclusion

Final refutation

After his attempts to refute cessationist arguments, Codling tried to put forward a positive case for the modern exercise of charismatic gifts. Here, we see how he fails to take into account the difference between the history of salvation (historia salutis) and the order of salvation (ordo salutis), thinking that Pentecost, while not repeated in full, should be a pattern to be repeated in some manner in the lives of believers (p. 106). Also, he operates from a view that the gifts are there and then presumed they should continue unless otherwise stated (p. 115). But how we should deal with the gifts is to inquire into why they were given in the first place. Their gift was an "exception," not the norm, which is why they are called extraordinary and miracles, instead of ordinary and providence!

Conclusion

Don Codling in his book has tried to prove that the revelatory gifts at least, with an eye to all of the gifts, are present today and can coexist with a high view of the sole authority of Scripture. It is my contention that he has failed. We note that he fails to take into account the church's catholic nature through time in his appeal to the edification of prophecy and thus he fails to show how continual prophecy does not undermine the sufficiency of Scripture. Codling also fails to note that a completed revelation is much more of a blessing than having the revelatory gifts, thus reversing the priority of blessing as if incomplete revelation is better than complete revelation. We further note that he fails to take properly into account the focal point of the revelation of Christ in Hebrews 1:1-2 which points to its definite, non-continuous nature, following which we looked at how non-canonical special revelation fits into the biblical paradigm. Lastly, we have seen how Codling confuses the work of the Spirit in preparing the final revelation with foundational work, noting that not everything has to be foundational work in order for it to be necessary for the final revelation.

We ought to go about the topic of spiritual gifts by looking at their purposes first. God is not a God who just does magic tricks to excite and inspire people, or for no reason at all, but He does anything and everything for a reason. Since these sign and revelatory gifts are extraordinary, it should hint to us that they are a dated occurrence. While God does work miracles, let us not be too enamored of the "supernatural" that we become dissatisfied with creation and providence, and look for God and His works in all the wrong places.

Contra Don Codling: Apostles and Redemptive History

Are revelatory gifts signs of the Apostles?

Codling continues with his third rebuttal, against the argument that revelatory gits are the signs of the apostles. I do not particularly find this cessationist argument persuasive, since it focuses the attention on the apostles instead of on the apostolic era, on men instead of God. Regardless, I find Codling's attempted rebuttal weak. First, Codling thinks that the cessationist view is that revelatory gifts were given through impartation from the apostles (p. 81). While that is true, that is only part of the argument, which states that the revelatory gifts were given through the ministry of the Holy Spirit through the apostles, not necessarily by the Apostles meting it out as if they decide who to give and who not to give the Holy Spirit. Second, Codling raised the example of Paul's reception of the Holy Spirit directly from God as a counter-example (p. 82). But this ignores the fact that Paul is called to be an apostle so obviously he received the gifts directly from God the Holy Spirit.

Besides this, Codling did score some hits against sloppy argumentation in his response to the use of Hebrews 2:1-4 (pp. 84-5) among others, but this cessationist argument is not a strong one anyway.

Finality of the revelation of Christ

The cessationist argument that is being responded here is that Scripture teaches the finality of special revelation, therefore there is to be no more special revelation today, and thus no more revelatory gifts. Codling attempts to refute this argument by looking at the texts that have been adduced to promote this position. First, he looks at Hebrews 1:1-2. In a startling piece of eisegesis Codling claims that Hebrews 1:1-2 just teach a division between the Old Covenant revelation and New Covenant revelation, and charge that the traditional way of interpretation of this text creates "a new dispensation with an apostolic and a post-apostolic dispensation in place of the new covenant period" (p. 87). But note what the texts actually is saying. Yes, it contrast the former times with the last days. But the former times consist of all the period before Christ, while the last days here has is focused on Christ. Is Christ a definitive revelation, or a continuous revelation? That is the issue which Codling does not address, the quality of that revelation not the seeming duration. It is the revelation of Christ that is definitive and therefore fixed, which militates against continual revelation today. Christ as the Incarnate Word has fully revealed Himself in the Inscripturated, Breathed-out Word, and thus Hebrews 1:1-2 teaches the finality of revelation because Christ's revelation is final in the canon.

Codling next deals with Galatians 1:6, which is a puzzle since it does not deal with cessationism at all. He next touches Revelations 22:18-19, but his argument here is a mess. The point of Revelations 22:18-19 is to prohibit adding to said revelation, so how does that reconcile with the assertion that "this does not preclude direct communication between God and his people" (p. 89)? If there is personal direct communication between God and man today, why should we not add that to the canon as an addition to the Scriptures? One could raise the issue of non-canonical special revelation during the apostolic era, but, since these are the revelation of the later days, their focus is on Christ and partake of the finality of canonical revelation, and thus have ceased according to Hebrews 1:1-2.

Excursus: Non-canonical special revelation

At this point, I would like to deal with the issue of non-canonical special revelation. We know that not all prophecies by New Testament prophets made it into the canon of Scripture, like the prophecies of Philip's four unmarried daughters (Acts 21:9). Codling utilizes these non-canonical prophecies to undermine the finality of revelation, for by decoupling revelation from canon, he can advocate for the continuous presence of the revelatory gifts.

How should we understand these special revelation? We are to understand them like scaffolding, with the canon being the structure. Both structure and scaffold are geared towards one purpose, the revelation of Christ in the later days as what Hebrews 1:1-2 states. But with the completion of the canon and the transition to the post-apostolic era, God's revelation is finalized and thus the scaffolding is dissolved. Was the scaffolding necessary during the inaugurating phase of the New Covenant? Yes, it was. But just as surely, these special revelation are tied to the structure and therefore they have served their purpose. To desire non-canonical special revelation is to ask for the scaffold, which is the same as asking for baby things. We have the final revelation, so why do we need the scaffold that helps to build it?

Revelatory gifts and redemptive history

The last argument that Codling will address is that the revelatory gifts are tied to the initiation of the kingdom of God, which is essentially Richard Gaffin's argument. While Codling has many parts in his argument, he has one main point that I would like to interact with.

Codling's main point is that not all the work of the church is foundational work (pp. 97-8). The problem with this is that it confuses the work of the Spirit in preparing the finality of revelation with the gifts being used explicitly for the foundation of the church. The Spirit gives gifts which manifest in various ways. Some may not be foundational in the strict sense, but they are all needed to create the environment and church life for the revelation of Christ to be written down. Codling is in error here because he takes a too narrow view of what the initiation of the kingdom actually means. Along these lines, Codling's assertions of restriction on the exercise of the gifts at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 14:26 (p. 99) fails because not all revelatory gifts are for the foundation of the revelation of Christ, but they are all required for the kingdom to be inaugurated.

[to be continued]

Contra Don Codling on spiritual gifts: Spiritual gifts and edification

On the topic of the spiritual gifts, I was informed that Don Codling has written the best book on the topic from a continuationist perspective. His book is entitled Sola Scriptura and the Revelatory Gifts: How should Christians Deal with Present Day Prophecy? (Rice, WA: Sentinel Press, 2005). The book is an apology for the continuationist position that present-day revelatory gifts are still present in the church today, and the author claims in the foreward that "no one has made any visible attempt" to respond to his argument (p. 11). I suspect part of the reason why that is the case is less about how sound his arguments are and more about how little known this booklet is and how little effort has been put into trying to refute it. Since he asserts the invincibility of his position, I would think he would certainly welcome anyone taking a shot at his arguments.

This book by Codling sets forward his position that special revelation is still present in the church today but it is non canonical. Codling does a decent job summarizing the current cessationist arguments (pp. 49-60), then the rest of his book he goes around trying to refute those cessationist arguments. The first rebuttal is to an argument that all special revelation is canonical, which is fine since we don't hold to that position. But we will look at the other arguments because that is where he stumbles.

Spiritual gits and edification

The second cessationist argument that Codling would like to address is "Scripture is sufficient for our needs," and he does this with the title "Grace beyond what is sufficient." Codling expresses his main objection to this argument as follows:

If the gifts are for edification ..., then the church which lacks them is impoverished by that lack. To deny this is to presuppose that the gifts have no value. Assertion of the sufficiency of Scripture does not demonstrate that the gifts have no value, because there was a sufficient Scripture in Paul's day, but the gifts abounded for edification. The point can be illustrated in terms of the sacraments. The church which has the Bible, studies it diligently and applies it, but does not celebrate the sacraments, is an impoverished church. Yet it has the sufficient Scriptures. The point is that while the Bible is sufficient, that church's application of the Bible is not sufficient. The sufficiency of the Bible does not deny the place of the sacraments, rather it established their place. Similarly, the sufficiency of the Bible does not deny a place to the revelatory gifts. (pp. 73-4)

What should we make of this argument? First of all, the analogy with the sacraments is invalid. The sacraments are not word-revelation, but word-act drama. Sacraments do reveal God and the Gospel, BUT only in conjunction with the Word. The sacraments do not work ex opere operato, as what Rome believes. Sacraments are divine sanctioned holy acts, not word-revelation, and thus the analogy does not work.

Secondly, there was NOT a sufficient Scripture in Paul's day. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not speaking just about the Old Testament Scripture, as Codling thinks (p. 75), but rather everything that is Scripture (πασα γραφη). It is not a quantifiable term, but a qualifiable term, viz, everything that fits the genus "Scripture." At the coming of the New Covenant, the current Old Testament revelation is insufficient, thus the creating of a new covenant necessitates a new canon.

The main error of Codling here, which is a common one among charismatics, is that he assumes that no prophecy given today means that there are no prophecies for the edification of the church. We need to take a step back and ask ourselves what era we are living in, and we are living in the New Covenant era. Therefore, the treasures of the apostolic church are ours, for our edification. Therefore, is there any church that lacks the apostolic spiritual gifts for edification? NO, for we have the fruit of their prophecies — the Scriptures. We who are cessationist have the spiritual gift of prophecy, in the apostolic church, for our benefit. We have the spiritual gift of tongues, in the apostolic church, for our benefit, and so on. The church is one and apostolic, and we partake of the benefits of the apostolic church, which are the fruit of the revelatory and sign gifts in the covenant making period of the apostolic church.

Codling follows us with a charge that God withdrawing the gifts because Scripture is sufficient is an act of stinginess, but God is a God of over-abundant blessing (p. 76). That would be true if the sign and revelatory gifts are meant to edify us in the same way as it edifies the apostolic church, but they do not. These gifts edify us best by giving us the fruit of their workings — the Scriptures. So the counter question ought to be: Why should God give us baby gifts when He has already produced from these the complete and mature gift of the New Testament Scriptures for us?

[to be continued]

Ephesians 4:11 and gifts to the church

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says,

“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”

(In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.(Eph, 4:1-16 ESV)

καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους, (Eph. 4:11 SBL GNT)

While growing up, I have heard Ephesians 4:11 stated to be one of the passages discussing spiritual gifts, alongside other passages like 1 Corinthians 12. Over time, I have felt uneasy with the categorization of this verse as one speaking of spiritual gifts, as if there were the gift of apostleship, the gift of prophet (not necessarily the same as the gift of prophecy), the gift of an evangelist, and the gift of shepherd and teacher, or pastor-teacher. The passage interpreted as such contributes categories into the mixture of gifts that are supposedly available to believers, and each Christian was to discern his or her spiritual giftings (usually involving some form of personality testing or something to that effect), and then operate and serve in the church with the gifts they have. After all, Ephesians 4: 12 speaks of "every member ministry" for building up the body of Christ, or so they interpret that verse.

The context of Ephesians 4:1-16 is that of the Body Life of the Church. It speaks about Christ giving gifts to His people. In this passage, Paul in verse 8 cites Psalms 68:18, but switches the verb from one of receiving (לָקַ֣חְתָּ)to one of giving (ἔδωκεν). Instead of the King ascending and receiving gifts among men, Christ the King ascends and gave gifts to Man. The switch speaks of the change in the stage of redemptive history, plus it gives us the context. Christ give gifts to His people as a result of His conquest over sin and death, and His ascension procured all the benefits He is giving His Church.

It must be noted here that the context is the Body of Christ, the Church, not just individual Christians. In verses 4 and 5, we see emphasized the oneness of the Church, having one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Christ is thus giving gifts to His Church. The purpose of the gifts are for building her up (vv. 12-16), not some idea of personal edification however important that might be.

The focus on the Church implies that the gifts are not given to individuals per se, but to the Church. Such is clearly seen in verse 11 itself. God in Christ gave the apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor-teachers. Note that those officers are the direct object of the verb of giving. So Christ gave the apostles etc. He did not give the gifts to the apostles and other officers of the church , which would require rendering the officers as the indirect objects. No, Christ gave the officers, to... the Church, for that is what the entire context is speaking of. In other words, it is not that Christ give, for example, Paul the gift of apostleship so that he might be an apostle. Rather, Christ gave Paul the Apostle to the Church.

Ephesians 4:11 therefore is not about individual spiritual gifts. In fact, since "spiritual gifts" is normally seen to be various individual believers, Ephesians 4:11 is not speaking of "spiritual gifts" at all. Both the context of Ephesians 4: 1-16 and the grammar of the text militates against that common Evangelical interpretation. Christ gives officers to His Church. Therefore it implies that officers are not something one grows into, but a special calling by God. It implies that ordination is required for officers, since it is not a mere role someone takes up when one has the "appropriate gift."

Just to show that this is not a novel interpretation, I post here from two commentaries:

Note, The great gift that Christ gave to the church at his ascension was that of the ministry of peace and reconciliation. The gift of the ministry is the fruit of Christ’s ascension. And ministers have their various gifts, which are all given them by the Lord Jesus. The officers which Christ gave to his church were of two sorts—extraordinary ones advanced to a higher office in the church: such were apostles, prophets, and evangelists. The apostles were chief. [Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: Complete and unabridged in one volume (2313). Peabody: Hendrickson. Logos]

The first gift is, his apostles. It is not meant that he gave to some the gifts needed to constitute them apostles, though that is true; but that, having qualified some to be apostles, he gave them to the Church.[Ephesians. 1909 (H. D. M. Spence-Jones, Ed.). The Pulpit Commentary (148). London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company. Logos]

It is noted here that both writers do not dispute the fact that God give gifts to office bearers, but that the focus is God giving officers to His Church. Here is where I would like to be more precise, for the passage does not speak of gifts to the officers of the Church. Therefore, while they would certainly possess gifts, the gifts and the officers are distinct. In other words, one might have various gifts which would qualify one to be an apostle, but there is no particular "gift," for example, of "apostleship." "Apostleship" demarcates an office, not a gift. The office is the gift to the Church, not one particular gift for the office.

Christ gave gifts to His Church for her benefit. The Church is to receive them as good things from her Lord, and receive them with joy, for if they labor with groaning, "that would be of no advantage to you" (Heb. 13: 17ff).

Debate of Micheal Brown and Sam Waldron over the continuation and cessation of the sign-gifts

Some time back, Dr. James White moderated an online Skype-facilitated debate between the Charismatic Dr. Micheal Brown, and the Reformed Baptist Dr. Sam Waldron. The debate can be seen as follows:

It seems to me that there is a much better way to deal with the issue of tongues and prophecy — return back to the Old Testament. What is the biblical theological understanding of language, and what is the biblical theological understanding of prophecy? Far too often, Charismatics think they know what tongues is, and what prophecy is, without any idea of how the themes are developed in the Scriptures. God does not just do the miraculous for a capricious show of power, but everything is done for a reason. Instead of challenging the Charismatics using various proof texts, the better way IMO is to show that the Charismatic idea of tongues and prophecy are not biblical. Tongues did not just leap out de novo on the Day of Pentecost, neither did prophecy begin in the book of Acts.

DL: Dr. James White on cessation of the extraordinary charismata

In today's Dividing Line (Oct 24, 2013), Dr. James White helpfully interacted with the contents of the conversation of a caller calling in to Michael Brown on his Line of Fire show, as it deals with the issue of the Charismatic movement and John MacArthur's recently concluded Strange Fire conference.

Dr. White's manner of dealing with the sign gifts is definitely the way to go about doing it. More often than not, Charismatic (reformed or otherwise) treat the subject of the gifts atomistically, which is to say they isolate the question of the continuation of the gifts and deal with that question without situating the question within the larger context of redemptive history; within the whole issue of the purpose behind and function of the gifts. Those questions are not addressed holistically with the issue of the continuation of the gifts, but rather the Bible is treated ahistorically like a Systematics textbook just on THIS issue. It would really advance the argument if Charismatics can began to actually start addressing the Reformed Cessationist arguments instead of trotting out the same old rationale of there being no explicit mention of the cessation of the (extraordinary) charismata (I do note that some have tried, just not the rank and file "apologists").

Book Review: We are Called for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit

A Tanzanian pastor has asked me to review his latest book, which is entitled We are Called for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I thought it would be something interesting to do, so anyway, here is my review of his book.

This book by Dr. Norman A.S. King, a Tanzanian pastor, is written with the intent to help Christians grow in Christ, which to him is through what he calls the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

[more]

Peter Masters: Proving that Spiritual Gifts have ceased

Dr. Peter Masters has written an interesting article in the Sword and Trowel on the cessation of the sign gifts, and addresses some of the popular arguments used against Cessationism in the process. While not necessarily agreeing with everything, I do think most of the arguments are valid. An excerpt:

Does the Bible teach definitively that the charismatic gifts have ceased? Can cessationism (the view that they have ended) be proved? Some say that the cessation of the gifts cannot be conclusively proved from Scripture.

We believe, however, that the ceasing of revelatory and sign-gifts in the time of the apostles is very plainly taught in God’s Word, so plainly, in fact, that the opposite view has only seriously appeared in the last 100 years or so.

The term cessationism comes from the great 17th-century confessions of faith, such as the Westminster and Baptist confessions. These both use the same word. Speaking about how God has revealed his will and committed it to the Scriptures, the confessions say, ‘Former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased’. This word does not actually come from the Bible, but the doctrine does.

Not only has revelation been completed and ceased, but so have the signs that revelation is in progress. Here is a brief summary of six biblical proofs that the revelatory gifts have ceased (visions, words of knowledge, words of wisdom, and prophecies), and also the sign-gifts (healings and speaking in tongues). God still heals, of course, but in answer to prayer, and not through the hands of a gifted healer.

[more]

Book Review: The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation

I have recently read a very interesting historical theology book on the views of the Westminster Confession and the Westminster divines with regards to the issue of the Gifts of the Spirit, with an eye to that of prophecy. Seeing that this is indeed an important topic, I have done a review of the book here. An excerpt:

What was the view of the Westminster divines with regards to the continuation or cessation of the sign gifts, and especially the gift of prophecy? As the Charismatic movement continues on unabated, such questions with regards to the continuation or cessation of the sign gifts throughout history are looked at. The traditional view has been that the sign-gifts have ceased after the time of the Apostles. Charismatics who insist on the continuation of the sign gifts have to address this historical view. Either they agree that the sign-gifts have ceased in history but blame the cessation on the apostasy of the church, or they must try to find continuation of the sign gifts throughout history and as such dispute the traditional position that the gifts have indeed ceased. In this light, this reviewer has heard both arguments attempted. The first one however does not seem plausible in light of Jesus' promise that the gates of hell with not prevail against the Church (Mt. 16:18). True, the Reformation did happen, but the Reformation was the attempted reformation of the church not its revolution. The Reformers were totally unlike the Radical Anabaptists who insist on overthrowing the Church entirely to create a new one altogether. Only after Trent anathemized the Gospel did the Roman Catholic Church officially cut themselves off from Christ, for as we see from Scriptures, wickedness while serious does not immediately destroy the church (as in the case of the Corinthians, although persistent unrepentance does) but heresy immediately does (as in the case of the Galatians).

In his book, Garnet Howard Milne focused on the narrower scope of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), the Westminster Divines and their view(s) concerning special revelation and prophecy. The book thus is a historical study of the primary sources, being mustered to show forth that the majority view of the Westminster Divines and the Puritans after them was that Special Revelation and thus prophecy has ceased.

[continue]

Mark Driscoll and one practical problem with continuationism

Mark Driscoll's recent hack job on cessationists have seen his pronouncements on the topic scrutinized to a greater degree. Over at Pyromanics, Phil Johnson has written an excellent post on this very troubling aspect of Driscoll's ministry.

The Charismatic misue of 1 Cor. 14:1

[continued from here]

Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy (1 Cor. 14:1)

In the argument for some form of continuationism, Charismatics have insisted that their view is the "natural" reading of the biblical texts. They point to texts such as 1 Cor. 14:1 and assert that the cessationist reading of the text would negate its meaning to "not desire the spiritual gifts." However, is that really the case?

The cessationist counter-argument is that texts must be read in context. When read in context, cessationists CAN and DO indeed agree that we should earnestly desire the spiritual gifts. In this light, does Paul's exhortation to desire the spiritual gifts lead one to conclude that one must desire the gift of tongues, of foretelling prophecy, miracles and others like them? I would contend not.

HERMENEUTICS

There are many ways to arrange and understand the biblical material, many of which are not legitimate. For example, one can create the idea of a "central dogma" and assert that all the biblical material must be interpreted through such a controlling dogma. Non-reformed biblical theologians tend towards atomism, as texts from various authors are read in isolation and interpreted according to perceived deconstructed and reconstructed interests of the authors, perhaps based upon new findings in secular fields like Second Temple Judaism for example. Thus, such "biblical theologians" have many disparate and even contradictory "biblical theologies," where the "theology of Paul" is one thing, and the "theology of Peter" another, which are all of course different from the "theology of Q."

When it comes to reading texts, cessationists and continuationists differ. Continuationists tend to read the biblical text as a flat immanent text. Therefore, they demand biblical proofs for the cessation of the sign-gifts since it is obvious that the text of Scripture teaches the existence of the sign-gifts. There are of course many shades of cessationists around, but my position is that reading Scripture redemptive-historically would show the fallacy of the basic continuationist premise that places the burden of proof on cessationists to prove the continuation of the sign-gifts.

Reading the Scriptures redemptive-historically means we read the Scriptures as the story of God's progressive revelation of Himself and His works. It presupposes, as Reformed biblical theology does, that Scripture is a contiguous whole and is not actually disparate works of Man. In other words, systematics in the area of prolegomena is the basis for proper reading of the Scriptures. This should not surprise us since the manner of reading the Scriptures are to be derived from the Scriptures themselves. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states,

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (2 Peter 1:20-21, Acts 15:15-16).

—WCF, Paragraph 1, Section IX

When we read the Scriptures redemptive-historically, we recognize that the Spirit works differently in different times according to how God desires to reveal Himself at that period of redemptive history. For example, God did not appear as a cloud by day and and a pillar of fire by night to anyone else in history except the Israelites during their 40 years in the wilderness. While God appeared as a man to many people in history like Abraham, Jacob, Gideon etc, God did not do so to Isaiah or Ezekiel or to any of the Israelites during that time. Instead, Isaiah and Ezekiel saw theophanies of God; visions of God in His glory at a level tolerable for finite sinners without killing them.

THE TEXT

As Heb. 1:1-2 teaches, revelation can be roughly divided into two periods: the period before Christ, and the period pertaining to Christ. In former times, God has revealed Himself in various ways, but now God reveals Himself in His Son, and thus the Eternal Word codified His revelation to us in the Scriptures, the enscripturated Logos.

It has been mentioned that the New Testament era, while indeed differing in how God works, do teach the presence and practice of the sign-gifts. That, however, is not a problem for us. For when we read Scriptures redemptive-historically, we realize that the revelation and gifts of God are always given for a purpose and a time. With the final revelation of Christ, that period of redemptive-history has passed with the establishment of the Church as the Apostles passed away. Now 2000 years later, we live in another period of redemptive-history and we are to take that into account as we exegete the passages of Scripture for contemporary applications on our part.

Therefore, how should we interpret 1 Cor. 14:1? We can see that Paul's first letter to the Corinthians deal with the mess that the Corinthians have created. The immature Corinthians have caused no end of problems for Paul to address. In 1 Cor. 12-14, Paul's addresses the Corinthian believers' abuse of their spiritual gifts in much detail. After establishing the primacy of faith, hope and love, and chief among them love, Paul goes on to use these as criteria to evaluate and establish the ways of how the Corinthians' spiritual gifts should be publicly used in the church.

In asking the Corinthians to "earnestly desire the spiritual gifts," Paul therefore is calling on the Corinthians to desire the spiritual gifts for the sake of proper usage in the building up of the church. As he remarks later, "since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church" (1 Cor. 14:12). The thrust of Paul's teaching here therefore is for the Corinthian believers to re-direct their desire for greater gift and manifestations of the Spirit into those gifts which are in fact actually greater and which benefits the church, instead of their carnal desire for an appearance of power.

Thus, the text in its context teaches us that the Corinthians are to desire the greater gifts which edify the church, especially the gifts of prophecy which was especially needed in the Corinthian church at that time. Such is the plain teaching of the text of Scripture. But for us in our contemporary context we will have to translate the teaching of the text from their time to ours. The principle of course remains the same. In their period of redemptive history, the greater gifts are those like prophecy and, to a lesser extent, tongues, and the other sign gifts. In our period of redemptive history however, things have changed. We are not in the same position as the Corinthian church. We have the complete Word of God in the Scriptures and the establishment of the foundations of the church (Eph. 2:20). Therefore, the spiritual gifts that are greater which we are to desire are similarly different. For example, one very important spiritual gift that the Church currently needs is the gift of discernment. Therefore, we should earnestly desire this gift for the edification of the Church.

Cessationists therefore do believe, teach and preach the text of 1 Cor. 14, without altering the text of Scripture. We do believe that Christians are to earnestly desire the spiritual gifts. Where we differ from the Continuationists is that we believe that (1) the Holy Spirit gives gifts as He wishes for His purposes — a certain gift does not always continue being given throughout time (i.e. nobody has Samson's gift of extreme strength now), and (2) we are not in the same period of redemptive history as the apostolic church was. Therefore, keeping in mind the place we occupy in redemptive history, and knowing the purposes of God in the giving of gifts, we apply this text analogously and ask for the spiritual gifts that are required to edify the Church for our time.

1 Cor. 14:1 therefore is NOT a charismatic proof-text. It does not prove continuationism, neither does it prove that we should seek the sign-gifts. When we read the verse using biblical redemptive-historical hermeneutics, we understand the text in context and learn how to apply it properly to our context. 1 Cor. 14:1 thus is a cessationist verse so to speak, which is misused by Charismatics with faulty hermeneutics and a deficient understanding of redemptive history. May we stand firm in the biblical truths which is held by the majority of the Church and not capitulate to the lights and sounds of the Charismatic shows, of which many are in the same state as the Corinthian believers who desire the mere appearance of power more than the reality of true power given by the Spirit, seen in events such as the so-called Toronto Blessing of John Wimber and the Lakeland "revival" by Todd Bentley.

Heb. 1 and the cessation of signs and revelation

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world (Heb. 1:1-2)

Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας (Heb 1:1-2 BGT)

Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased (Heb. 1:1-2). — The Westminster Confession of Faith 1646, Chapter I, Paragraph I

Cessationism has fallen on hard times in many areas of the church. This is very unfortunate however, as the very basics of the Reformed faith is predicated on an important truth taught by Scripture itself - the cessation of extra-biblical revelation itself.

Heb. 1:1-2 is probably the strongest passage on the issue, which is incidentally also the proof-text for the last part of the Westminster Confession Chapter I, Paragraph I. As Heb. 1:1-2 states, God has spoken to us now in His Son. God's revelation in Christ is the final revelation which abrogates all previous means of revelation which includes dreams, visions, revelation through the mouths of prophets etc. All of the diverse means of revelation found in the Old Testament have now disappeared with the revelation in God's Son Jesus Christ.

Therefore, all such "sign-gifts" have ceased, having being part of the inferior things that are passing away. No more should we expect God to communicate His will to us through dreams and visions and signs. The Son has come, so why should we go back to the types and shadows of the Old Covenant?

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Heb. 8:13)

The Charismatics by their lust after signs and wonders and the sign-gifts are turning towards these things that are passing away. Instead of seeing the sign gifts as those given for a season, they assume that they know why the Spirit gives the gifts He does give, instead of seeking the wisdom of the Spirit in knowing why He gives what He gives when He does give them. They turn the Holy Spirit into a spiritual vending machine where we are warned not to "grieve the Spirit" and thus "seek the greater gifts," yet all of such is done with no concern at all over the true intent and purposes of the Holy Spirit, as if the Holy Spirit must work the same way as He did worked in Corinth 2000 years ago.

Scripture however has the final say. In THESE LAST DAYS, God has spoken to us in His Son. NOT in dreams and visions and prophecies falsely-called. Not in "words of knowledge," "impressions from the Spirit," or the latest "apostle" in town. We would do well to heed the final Word of Scripture than to pay heed to the wisdom of the "spiritual men" with their "words from God."

So why do I call myself a Cessationist? I do so because it is better to obey God than the subjective claims of men. As Luther said about the Anabaptist Thomas Müntzer, we shouldn't trust such men even if they have swallowed the Holy Spirit "feathers and all." Let God be true, and every man a liar. Amen.

A Reply to Vincent Cheung on Cessationism

Pastor-theologican Vincent Cheung has an article on Cessationism. Coupled together with this section on Cessationism and Rebellon, adapted from his Commentary on 1 & 2 Thess, this makes for an interesting read.

While this is interesting in and of itself, it seems that Cheung does not seem to understand the view of classical Cessationism and does not present it properly. Disagreement is one thing, but strawman argumentation coupled with overly polemical reasoning on less major doctrines is not right. The least Cheung should have done is interact with the biblical texts and arguments for Cessationism, not use specious philosophical argumentation which are based on false axioms, ad hominem and special pleading.

For example, Cheung is on record in saying that Cessationists in general do not make "petitions that ask God to heal the sick person" as if he knows the practice of all Cessationists. It may well be true, but Cheung is not God and he thus not know if such is the case. This is a logically fallacious inference which further constitutes an ad-hominem attack on Cessationism, as if attacking the error committed by Cessationists has even touched on the rightness and wrongness of [Classical] CessationISM.

Similarly, Cheung commits the ad-hominem fallacy again in discussing the "ulterior motives beyond this doctrine [of Cessationism]". What he says may be true of certain Cessationists, but as usual it does not have any implications on Cesationism, which must be evaluated according to its own merit not on the merits of its adherents!

In section 3, Cheung commits a category error and enact a strawman. He attacks [classical] Cessationism by saying that it would turn ' "Do not forbid speaking in tongues" to "Always forbid speaking in tongues" '. While an attempt could be made to say that this is what Cessationism leads to practically, it is another thing to say as Cheung did that Cessationism contradicts Scripture. Cheung reasoned as follows:

Let me first apply my simple argument against cessationism to speaking in tongues. Paul writes, "Do not forbid speaking in tongues" (1 Corinthians 14:39). But if all supernatural gifts have ceased, then tongues have ceased. And if tongues have ceased, then all claims to speaking in tongues today are false. If all claims to speaking in tongues today are false, then we must forbid speaking in tongues. In other words, if cessationism is correct, then we are obligated to do exactly the opposite of what Paul commands in this verse on the basis that the situation has changed, so that the same apostolic concern would require us to forbid all speaking in tongues.

This is a logically fallacious argument, for the simple reason that if tongues have ceased, then there are no tongues to be forbidden to speak of! Cheung here smuggles his continuationist presuppositions into the argument, and then forces an obvious contradiction as if [classical] cessationists ought to own it.

In conclusion, Cheung here disappoints by utilizing shoddy logical thinking on this particular issue. For someone who publishes quite a number of theological books and engages in the office of a pastor/elder, much more is expected (Jn. 3:1). Since classical Cessationists have lots of published works, isn't it too much to ask for their arguments to be properly presented, instead of shoddy fallacious argumentation?

[HT: Joel Tay]

NOTE: I am not a classical Cessationist, so don't ask me to defend their positions.

Book Review: Convergence

I have prepared a short review of this interesting book by Sam Storms entitled Convergence: The Spiritual Journey of a Charismatic Calvinist on my website here. I think this is an interesting book for those who are Reformed with experential and Charismatic sympathies (ie John Piper).

Review of article on Concentric Cessationism

Here is an article by conservative Christian professor Dr. Daniel B. Wallace promoting the view of Concentric Cessaionism. In fact, he may be the one who first coined the term. That said, I would not agree totally with the concept as defined in the article, which is

... That is, rather than taking a chronologically linear approach, this kind of cessationism affirms that as the gospel moves, like the rippling effect of a stone dropping into a pond, in a space-time expanding circle away from first century Jerusalem, the sign gifts will still exist on the cutting edge of that circle. Thus, for example, in third world countries at the time when the gospel is first proclaimed, the sign gifts would be present. This view, then, would allow for these gifts to exist on the frontiers of Christianity, but would be more skeptical of them in the 'worked over' areas. (Footnote 1)

The view that Scripture teaches in my opinion does not so readily differentiate between evangelized and unevangelized areas. Instead, it correlates the appearance and giving of these gifts with any possible neccessity of its required manifestations as directed by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, I think it is erroneous to conclude that we must or are more likely to see the Sign-gifts in Third world countries, or that we will never see such gifts in the developed Christianized countries like America for example. Rather, they are more of an aid given under the wisdom of God in situations that demand it; more of supernatural help to babes in Christ and immature churches which will be mostly denied to mature Christians who should by then learn how to walk by faith (and not by sight) in the promises of God. After all, since Christians ARE growing towards perfection as defined in 1 Cor. 13:10, the Sign-gifts would decrease in proportion to our maturation in Christ.

That said, let us look more into Wallace's article.

The first we would look at is Wallace's testimony. The good and the bad of the Charismatic movement practically speaking in the lives of Christians can be seen here, which I have experienced it for myself also. The life and vibrancy always stands in contrast to the deadness of Traditionalism within the conservative churches. In fact, I would even say that Traditionalism is one of the reasons why the conservatives struggle to hold on to their youth, nevermind evangelize the lost. I was one of those also who was not saved under the dead formalism within the churches, as manifested in those who refuse to examine their lithurgy according to Scripture and worst of all, do not preach doctrine.

But just as the passion in Charismatism drives true evangelism which results in the salvation of the lost, and its vibrancy show us the way of true Christian living, the shallowness and error within it slowly destroys the life and faith it once nurtured. Wallace left because the Charismatic group with its error of the Second Baptism of the Spirit and the necessity of speaking in tongues resulted in the resident 'apostle' to question his salvation when he couldn't speak in tongues even after prayer.

Year later, after seminary education and embracing the Cessationist view, a crisis lead him to seriously reconsider his position on this, and thus this lead him to attempt to formulate a third way, which I think is good since neither position (Cessationism as traditionally postulated and Continuationism) is totally satisfactory according to the Scriptures.

Before we look at the 11 theses Wallace has came up with, I would just like to note something mentioned in his personal testimony in this message of his. Wallace dichotomizes a "passion for Jesus" with a "passion for the Bible". If that was his former position, then I think that was sad that he thought such was the case. Perhaps certain Cessationists do try to dichotomize between Jesus and the Word of God, but I for one do not see this in Scripture and I have never held this to be true. Sure, theological, they are two different concepts which are discussed separately (Christology and Bibliology), yet ontologically, there is an insoluble bond between them which cannot and should not be broken. The Word Incarnate (Jesus) and the revealed Word (Scripture) are not two different 'Words', but one (Scripture) is a perfect 'reflection' of the other (Jesus) and therefore share the attributes of the other. We can read in Scripture that Scripture is perfect (Ps. 19:7), it is our delight (Ps. 119:77) and it is forever fixed in the heavens (Ps. 119:89) — attributes that only God should have. God alone is perfect/holy/good (i.e. Mk. 10:18), only He should be our delight and only He is eternally present (after all, nobody except God was around before the Creation). Therefore, the pre-inscripturated Scriptures or Graphe (Γραφε) has the attributes of God, though it does so because it ontologically proceeds out of God. Put is another way, the Graphe come epistemologically before God, but God comes ontologically before the Graphe.

Therefore, it is unfortunate that Wallace has made such a dichotomization between Jesus and Scripture. Though they are people who seem to choose one and not the other, what actually occurs is that they chooose neither but the shell of the one they claim to embrace. For example, Neo-Orthodoxy makes much of Jesus but not Scripture, yet by jetissoning Scripture, it loses Jesus and substitute Him for one of their own reasoning based upon their subjective "interpretation" of the biblical texts and of course their own experiences. The opposite extreme of for example unbelieving Bible scholars treat Scripture as academic texts and reject Jesus and therefore have only the shell of the words written down. And sometimes believing Bible scholars also behave functionally the same way as their secular counterparts. It's like the husband who treasures the words and character and actions of his wife but not his wife herself — a totally schizophreniac way of living. Rephrasing it, such is analogous to saying that a husband loves everything about his wife but not his wife herself. The Neo-Orthodox position is of course similarly nonsensical, for it is analogous to the opposite example of a husband loving his wife but not loving anything about his wife.

What makes Wallace's confusion particularly worrying is the statement he made in the second last paragraph before the presentation of his theses. In his own words:

Through this experience [cancer and near death of his son] I found that the Bible was not adequate. I needed God in a personal way--not as an object of my study, but as friend, guide, comforter. I needed an existential experience of the Holy One. Quite frankly, I found that the Bible was not the answer. I found the scriptures to be helpful — even authoritatively helpful — as a guide. But without feeling God, the Bible gave little solace. In the midst of this "summer from hell," I began to examine what had become of my faith. I found a longing to get closer to God, but found myself unable to do so through my normal means: exegesis, scripture reading, more exegesis. I believe that I had depersonalized God so much that when I really needed him I didn't know how to relate. I longed for him, but found many community-wide restrictions in my cessationist environment. I found a suffocation of the Spirit in my evangelical tradition as well as in my own heart. (Bold added)

Well, I guess perhaps if he equates naked scholarship with knowing God, then perhaps this is what happens. Nevertheless, we can see the worrying language being used. I hope this is indeed careless utilization of language due to his previously mistaken view of Christianity as being purely intellectual. Yet it truly is serious. What does he mean by saying that the Bible was not adequate? Or about the Bible is not the answer? It sure sounds like denying the Sufficiency of Scripture to me. If he wants to say that 'mere head knowledge scholarship' is not adequate, by all means state that truth, but it is hoped that we do not utilize such careless language, nor even believe such falsehood as 'the Bible is not adequate'. Scripture by the way is not just the physical words of the Bible, and neither is it only about analysis and exegesis, though most definitely it includes that. Wallace mentions that there is a suffocation of the Spirit "in my evangelical tradition as well as in my own heart." Perhaps in the latter, and if the former of evangelical tradition has truly contributed to that, I wold be glad to see it go also.

Let's now look at the eleven theses he penned.

(1) Although the sign gifts died in the first century, the Holy Spirit did not.

I agree with this. If 'evangelical tradition' behaves as if there isn't an experiential side to Christianity, then good riddance to it. We don't need dead churches here.

(2) Although charismatics have given a higher priority to experience than to relationship, rationalistic evangelicals have given a higher priority to knowledge than to relationship.

Perhaps so.

(3) This emphasis on knowledge over relationship has produced in us a bibliolatry Since the text is our task, we have made it our God. It has become our idol. Let me state this bluntly: The Bible is not a member of the Trinity. One lady in my church facetiously told me, "I believe in the Trinity: the Father, Son, and Holy Bible."

One of the great legacies Karl Barth left behind was his strong Christocentric focus. It is a shame that too many of us have reacted so strongly to Barth, for in our zeal to show his bibliological deficiencies we have become biblioters in the process. Barth and Calvin share a lot in common: there is a warmth, a piety, a devotion, an awe in the presence of God that is lacking in too many theological tomes generated from our circles.

This irks me, because it is the wrong word and wrong charge to use. It plays into the hands of our Neo-Orthodox enemies, not to mention the Liberals too. The emphasis on knowledge over relationship produces Intellectualism and Rationalism, NOT bibliolatry. Since we deny any functional separation between Jesus and the Word, any attempted emphasis on the Word while denigrating a relatonship with Jesus the incarnated Word is just plainly impossible. It is only possible if the emphasis is NOT on the Word but on the shell or form of the Word; an appearance of it. So therefore theologians who 'know the Bible' but are not having a real relationship with God do not truly know their Bible, only the shell of it; like corpses without life in them.

And no, looking at Karl Barth is not the right way to go. It's like saying that since Hyper-Calvinism is heresy, therefore we should look at what Arminius teaches. Or since Arius was wrong, we should turn to Apolliniarism. Turning fom one heresy to another is never right.

(4) The net effect of such bibliolatry is a depersonalization of God. Eventually, we no longer relate to him. He becomes the object of our investigation rather than the Lord to whom we are subject. The vitality of our religion gets sucked out. As God gets dissected and trisected (in the case of you trichotomists), our stance changes from "I trust in" to "I believe that."

Same answer as the response to point 3.

(5) Part of the motivation for this depersonalization of God is our increasing craving for control. What we despise most about charismatics is their loss of control, their emotionalism. We fear that. We take comfort in the fact that part of the fruit of the Spirit is "self-control." But by this we mean "do all things in moderation"--including worshipping God. But should we not have a reckless abandon in our devotion to him? Should we not throw ourselves on him, knowing that apart from him we can do nothing?

If this truly is 'Evangelical' and 'conservative', even 'reformed' tradition, let it be gone. I add my agreement to getting rid of such Traditionalism. Though I disagree with Piper on various issues, he IS right when he talks about the supermacy of Christ in the life of a Christian, and his whole concept of "Christian Hedonism' is correct, but I detest the term itself (Really, is there such a paucity of words in the English vocabulary such that we cannot use better terms to describe the concept of being totally satisfied in the wonder of the person of our Lord Jesus Christ?)

(6) God is still a God of healing and miracles

Amen. That doesn't make me a Charismatic or a Continuationist in any shape reformed though.

(7) Evangelical rationalism can lead to spiritual defection.

Agreed. And if seminary does not teach that faith is essential, then it is not doing its job.

(8) The power brokers of rational evangelicalism, since the turn of the century, have been white, obsessive-compulsive males.

Perhaps. So what? I thought our obedience was to Scripture, so whose fault is it that a person chose to follow a wrong direction any so-called "power brokers" took?

I am also uneasy over all the talk about listening to the women. Yes, we need to listen to them, but we must caution against over-correction into the feminist heresy. Again, the yardstick should be Scripture, not to focus on correcting a wrong but instead to follow the right path.

9) The Holy Spirit's guidance is still needed in discerning the will of God. The rationalism in our circles makes decision-making a purely cognitive exercise. There is no place for prayer. There is no room for the Spirit. ...

Of course the Holy Spirit's guidance is needed. As stated, if this is conservative, evangelical tradition, may it be abadoned.

(10) In the midst of seeking out the power of the Spirit, we must not avoid the sufferings of Christ.

Amen.

(11) Finally, a question: To what does the Spirit bear witness? Certainly the resurrection of Christ. How about the scriptures? A particular interpretation perhaps? Eschatological issues? Exegetical issues? Don't be too quick to answer. Some of this needs rethinking . . . In fact, my challenge to each of you is this: reexamine the New Testament teaching about the Holy Spirit. Don't gloss over the passages, but wrestle with what they mean. If the Spirit did not die in the first century, then what is he doing today?

Good question. May I suggest a partial answer? The Holy Spirit's job is to be with us and comfort us (Jn. 14:17). He will tell us what is the true and absolute Truth about the Faith (Jn. 14:26; 16:13), bears witness for Christ (Jn. 15:26), convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment (Jn. 16:8), glorify Christ (Jn. 16:14), regenerates and creates faith in the elect (Eze. 37:9, 14; Jn. 3:5-8), and of course help us in our praying (Rom. 9:26-27).

As it can be seen, Wallace's message does have some good points in it. Sterile purely cognitive Christianity is no Christianity at all. However, I am afraid that Wallace's reaction to Intellectualism and Rationalism would swing to the position of the the Barthians. May we therefore come to a better appreciation of the what the orthodox teaching of Sola Scriptura teaches, instead of thinking it teaches that Christianity is only cognitive being no different from rationalistic intellectualism.

Mid-way compilation of articles on Charismatism and the Gift of the Spirit

The number of articles in the series on the topic of Charismatism and the Gifts of the Spirit have been growing, so here is a partial compilation for easier reference later:

• On Charismatism: Delineating the various subjects involved
• On Charismatism: Delineating the contents involved
• On Charismatism: Scripture, Experience and the Issue of Ultimate Authority
• On Charismatism: Word-faith — Health and Wealth non Gospel part 1
• On Charismatism: Word-faith — Health and Wealth non Gospel part 2
• On Charismatism: Word-faith — Gutting the Centrality of the Gospel
• On Charismatism: Second Baptism of the Spirit?
• On Charismatism: The Gifts of the Spirit
• The Gifts of the Spirit: The Gift of Tongues (part 1)
• The Gifts of the Spirit: The Gift of Tongues (part 2)
• The Gifts of the Spirit: The Gift of Tongues (part 3)
• The Gifts of the Spirit: The Gift of Tongues (part 4)
• The Gifts of the Spirit: The Gift of Tongues (part 5)
• The Gifts of the Spirit: The Gift of Tongues (part 6)

Hope this would be helpful. Oh, and I would need to make a change in the terms; should be continuationist not continualist.

The Gifts of the Spirit: The Gift of Tongues (part 6)

[continued from here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here]

ARE THE GIFTS OF TONGUES FOR TODAY? (cont')

We have looked at the Gift of tongues from many angles to determine what it is, how it should function in the apostolic times, and the purpose of which it was sent. Also, it has been seen how Scripture itself is not explicit on whether the Gift of Tongues (or any Gift in fact) continues into our non-apostolic age or it has ceases and therefore the question must be answered through deduction from various parts of Scripture and Systematic Theology, not just by demanding a specific text to settle the question once and for all. We have also looked at 1 Cor. 13 and see that the text cannot bear the burden of the Cessationist argument on the topic, though it must be stated that the "leaky canon" charge must be answered for nothing must be allowed to undermine the explicit teaching of the sufficiency of Scripture.

Looking though all the facts, descriptions of the Gift, and the Scriptural evidences, I am of the opinion that neither the Classical Cessationist case nor the Continuationist case is proven. Scripture does not state that the Gifts and the Gift of Tongues would cease as Cessationists typically think that 1 Cor. 13:8-13 teaches. Yet the Continuationists are not better off however.

Knowing the purpose of the Gift of Tongues, that they are to function as a sign for unbelievers to show the global scope of the Kingdom of God in reaching rapidly across languages and cultures, the purpose of the Gift of Tongues have been fulfiled for the most part already during the apostolic times. Also, the knowledge of languages have progressed to such a stage that we can just learn the language without the need of tongues, and God will most definitely not reward laziness on our part. And no, the Bible does not differentiate between different groups of Gentiles in its missiology, so there is no neccessity for God to manifest tongues to show the global scope of His Kingdom to unreached people groups. A related issue is that with the progress in the knowledge of languages, speaing in tongues cannot exactly function as a sign to unbelievers nowdays since people will think you have learned the language and that you have lied if you claim otherwise. So for all these reasons, it can be seen that the purpose of the Gift of Tongues seem to be fulfilled already, and God does not give a Gift just to satisfy our curiosity over the Gift.

Having shown the weakness of both sides, what then should be the biblical answer to the question of the cessation or continuation of the Gift of Tongues? I am of the opinion that the biblical answer is that the Gift of Tongues has by far fulfilled its purpose and therefore is generally not present today. Yet there are still situations whereby the Gifts still retain their purposes, for example an in-promptu evangelistic conversation with a foreigner, especially when they come from one of the unreached people groups. My view therefore can be called the Concentric Cessationist view, which is defined as

Miraculous gifts have indeed ceased in the mainstream church and evangelized areas, but appear in unreached areas as an aid to spreading the Gospel. (Source)

This view therefore is consistent with the text of Scripture as it relates to the purpose of the Sign-Gift, and especially the Gift of Tongues. As it will be seen later, this is my view for all the Sign-Gifts, and therefore it is to be expected that such Gifts are much more operational in the mission field; in places such as the 10/40 window than in 'Christianized' areas. Note that although such gifts are more common in those areas, they still must abide by the biblical definition of the Gifts like tongues, and not just refer to any ecstatic gibberish even in such areas. Also, since the Sign-Gifts are an aid in such regions, they would diminish in frequency and magnitude as the Gospel progresses through the region and people's lives are transformed, and thus not to be celebrated as superior permanant Gifts. (In fact, this could very well explain the decrease in the frequency of such Sign-Gifts during the history of the early Church.) As always, God is supreme in giving the Gifts and we are not to seek such Sign-Gifts, which God will give when they are required.

With the question of tongues answered, let us continue on in looking at the other gifts.

[to be continued]

The Gifts of the Spirit: The Gift of Tongues (part 5)

[continued from here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here]

ARE THE GIFT OF TONGUES FOR TODAY?

As we close on the final question as to whether the Gifts of Tongues are truly for today, we must need address two issues; namely the method of answering and the text of 1 Cor. 13.

To Answer the Question

Many charismatics and other sincere "literalists", when apporaching this subject with an 'open mind', would state that proof-texts from the Scriptre are required to show that tongues (and any Gift for that matter) have ceased. After all, since tongues ARE mentioned in Scripture in the New Testament era, and we are still living in this New Covenant era, shouldn't the Gifts carry on unless the Scripture show otherwise? While the user of this approach seeks to be true to Scripture, this approach is NOT the biblical way of answering the question, for this question has already assumed that any of the Gifts of the Spirit are by default permenant for the Church to begin with; it begs the question. After all, although there are some people who believe this, are there any charismtics or 'literalists' who advocate living in community where all believers have everything in common, selling everything they have to give to those in need (Acts 2:44-45)? Just because something is mentioned/described in Scripture does not necesarily mean that such is a permenant arrangement, more so since they are a Gift/Ministry issue and not a theology proper issue. As an aside, there are no proof-texts for the continuation of the Gift of the Spirit either, so the request for proof-texts can run both ways.

In addressing the topic of the Charismata, we must first realize what they are and what are their purposes — why they were given to the Church at that time before answering whether they are for today. For since God gives everything for a purpose, the question of whether the Gifts are for today must need be answered according to the entire Bible (tota Scriptura) and the entire scheme of the Salvation story. The whole idea of treating the question of whether they have ceased as an issue in isolation is not the biblical way to answer the question, as all truths are linked to each other ultimately in Christ. As an example of what is meant, the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated explicitly in Scripture (and no, I am skeptical of the legimtimacy of the Johannine Comma), and therefore we deduce it from multiple texts of Scripture. In the same way, we cannot treat the issue of the Gifts as if they are a single verse/proof-text question. The question must rather therefore be answered according to the entirety of Scripture and its application to our times rather than just demanding one proof-text as if that proves or disproves anything.

THE QUESTION OF 1 Cor. 13

1 Cor. 13 is a favorite passage of Cessaionists, an amazing proof-text they use to slam the charismatic position, which unfortunately cannot bear the weight the Cessationists place on it.

In 1 Cor. 13, it is written:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

We have previously partially exegeted the texts of 1 Cor. 12-14, on the issue of the Gift of Tongues — its nature and its exercise, glossing over the text of 1 Cor. 13 in the process. As this text is used so many times in an attempt to prove Cessationism, it is imperative that we look at it.

1 Cor. 13 starts off with the hypothetical and hyperbolic arguments arguing for the centrality and necessity of love in verses 1-3, to make the argument that without love being the motivation for everything we do, no amount of exercise of the Gifts in its most "powerful" form will avail us any good. Verse 4 to 7 goes on to define what agape love is biblically, which many people, espeically couples on their marriage day, like.

Verses 8 to 13 is the passage in which Cessationists base their arguments. It is first stated that love never ends, and then it is stated that 1) prophecies will pass away, 2) tongues would cease, and 3) knowledge will pass away. And all three of such occurances will happen when 'the perfect comes' (v. 10), with all of these 3 being stated as being partial. Verse 11 then uses the analogy of a child for this partial state, and that of a man for the perfect state, who gives up the childish state. Verse 13 refocus on what is important, which is faith, hope and most importantly love, as compared to the spiritual gifts.

A key issue here is when will this perfection comes. Cessationists typically points to the closing of the Canon of Scripture as that perfection which comes, while Continuationists argue that the perfect is when the Lord Jesus comes again. Cessationists typically argue that such sign-Gifts such as Prophecy, Tongues and Word of Knowledge are referred here as being that of the partial, which we shall do away with when we are a man, which hereby refers to the maturation of the Church now with its complete Bible. To the continuationist charge that knowledge has not gone away, Cessationists reply by stating that this is not referring to knowledge per se, but the Spiritual Gift of the Word of Knowledge (1 Cor. 12:8).

Seen within the context, Paul uses this argument that the Gifts will one day cease to emphasize that the fruits of which he gave 3 examples: faith, hope and love, are the most important, following on after his exposition on the necessity of serving within the Body of Christ and his rejection of the idea that one gift is superior to the other leading to discrimination within the Corinthian Church in 1 Cor. 12: 12-31, his emphasis on love over and above glorifying in the exercise of the Charismata in 1 Cor. 13:1-3 and the description of love in 1 Cor. 13:4-7. After all this emphasis on the importance of love, Paul then addresses the misuse of the Gifts in 1 Cor. 14, and most especially the Gift of Tongues.

It must be noted here that both the Cessationist and Continuationist interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:8-13 makes sense within the larger context of 1 Cor. 12-14. The key question of when the perfect comes still is still not resolved. Earlier on, one Continuationist objection is shown to be false. And now, we shall see that the Cessationist position is not so strong either. For the entire interpretation that the prefect here refers to the completion of the Canon is not found in Scripture either. Is there any correlation between the completion of the Canon and the maturity of the Christian Church? Surely not, for the Visible Church is still as riddled with all manners of problems and plagued with heretics and apostates as were the early church, in fact even more so. So why the linkage with the completion of the Canon?

Appeal may be made to the language of 2 Tim. 3:16-17, especially verse 17 which states

... that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:17)

The word translated 'competent' here is also translated 'perfect' in the KJV, and therefore it may be said that the 2 Tim. 3:17 informs our understanding of what it means to be perfect in 1 Cor. 13:10, which is to say that when we have all the Scriptures making us perfect to do good works as per 2 Tim. 3:16-17. However, there is a problem with this interpretation. Barring the KJVOnly schismatics, the Greek word translated 'perfect' in 1 Cor. 13:10 is teleion (τελειον), while the Greek word translated 'competent' in 2 Tim. 3:17 in the ESV and 'perfect' in the KJV is artios (αρτιος) and the two are obviously not equal. Teleios refers more to the end (result) while artios refers more to capability, and therefore the Cessationist interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:10 as the 'perfect' referring to the perfection created by the closing of the Canon of Scripture is in error, since the closing of the Canon would make us artios not teleios.

This most definitely strikes a blow at the Cessationist camp who utilizes this passage to support its theory. Nevertheless, Cessaionists hit back with the charge of the leaky canon, which is truly potent. For since the Scriptures have made us artios, to believe in the Gifts giving us new revelation is to undermine the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. Undoubtably, there are Charismatics going around making a complete fool of themselves and blaspheming the Word of God while claiming they have certain Gifts like prophecy and tongues and words of knowledge, like the ones on TBN (The Blasphemous Network Trinity Broadcasting Network). But abuse does not mean that the Continuationist position is in error, which must be clearly and carefully examined before such a judgment may be made. As one looks at the charge, the basic question for Continuationists is whether the Gifts can exist and exercised in such a way that is biblical yet without undermining the sufficiency of Scripture. And this we will look at later when discussing the various gifts separately.

So therefore, considering all that we have seen so far, which interpretation of 1 Cor. 13 is more consistent with the text and the context? It can be seen that the difference in both views can be narrowed to when the 'perfect' in 1 Cor. 13:10 occurs. Looking at the Greek, the Cessationist interpretation is not supported and even opposed. Yet the continuationist interpretation is not yet proved, as of yet.

The reason why I am convinced that the Continuationists are right in their interpretation of 1 Cor. 13, besides the Greek word teleois indicating an end perfection, is verse 12 of 1 Cor. 13, which I have ommitted discussing until now. For it is written that now we see in a mirror dimly, but [when the perfect comes] we shall see face to face. What are we said to see dimly, yet later we see face to face, but Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Furthermore, such a clear seeing of face to face can only come about at His Second Coming, never while we are still in this present body of sin on this earth. As Calvin commented:

Our faith, therefore, at present beholds God as absent. How so? Because it sees not his face, but rests satisfied with the image in the mirror; but when we shall have left the world, and gone to him, it will behold him as near and before its eyes.

Hence we must understand it in this manner — that the knowledge of God, which we now have from his word, is indeed certain and true, and has nothing in it that is confused, or perplexed, or dark, but is spoken of as comparatively obscure, because it comes far short of that clear manifestation to which we look forward; for then we shall see face to face. Thus this passage is not at all at variance with other passages, which speak of the clearness, at one time, of the law, at another time, of the entire Scripture, but more especially of the gospel. For we have in the word (in so far as is expedient for us) a naked and open revelation of God, and it has nothing intricate in it, to hold us in suspense, as wicked persons imagine; but how small a proportion does this bear to that vision, which we have in our eye! Hence it is only in a comparative sense, that it is termed obscure. (John Calvin, Commentary on Corinthians - Volume 1 - 1 Cor. 13:12. Bold added. As accessed here at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39.xx.iii.html

Therefore from this passage, it can be seen that the passage of Scripture in 1 Cor. 13 does not teach that the Gifts have ceased.

With all that, let us tackle the original question, which is: Are the Gifts of Tongues for us today?

[to be continued]

The Gifts of the Spirit: The Gift of Tongues (part 4)

[continued from here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here]

After writing for some time on this topic, I have found out that there is an issue which I have overlooked, and therefore let us turn back to it before answering the "million dollar question".

When defining the Gift of Tongues, there seems to be the argument that tongues could also refer to a private prayer tongue — a tongue for the expression of intimacy between the believer and God, and therefore different from the other "public tongues"; a second class of 'tongues'. Related to that of course is that the purpose of such tongues are for self-edification, and thus do not function as biblical signs like the other tongues mentioned in ie Acts 2.

The primary proof-text for this is 1 Cor. 14: 2-4, which is as follows:

For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. (1 Cor. 14:2-4)

Certainly, a surface level reading seems to suggest what the Charismatics are saying; that there are tongues which are private prayer languages meant for self-edification. Another such proof-text for the private prayer language is Rom. 8:26-27:

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (Rom. 8:26-27)

However, is that what those two verses actually teach, or is this just another case of eisegesis; reading one's own interpretation into the text?

Let us start by looking at 1 Cor. 14:2-4, and this time let us interpret the verses in light of their context.

The arena upon which 1 Cor. 14 plays out is in the Church, or more specifically the Body Life of the Church; to edify the Church. Paul is here exhorting the Corinthians to focus on the Gift of Prophecy rather than to focus on their boasting in Tongues, which they are abusing. Paul therefore utilizes the language of contrasts here, contrasting the Gift of Prophecy with the Gift of Tongues in their usefulness in the life of a Church.

It is in this context that we come to verse 2 of 1 Cor. 14. Verse 2 and 3 form a pair of contrasts, and therefore inform us as to what Paul was getting at in verse 2. As it can be seen, verse 3 mentions the utility of the Gift of Prophecy in upbuilding, encouragement and consolation within the Church of Christ. Verse 2 therefore speaks similarly about the utility of the Gift of Tongues within the Body Life of the Church of God. Thus, when it is stated that the 'one who speaks not to men but to God', this is contrasted with the fact that Prophecy speaks to Man. The phrase 'No one understands him' is contrasted with the fact that all would understand prophecy (we will get to prophecy later), and 'utters mysteries' is contrasted with Prophecy uttering clear and coherent words. Similarly, a pair of contrast exists between verse 4a and verse 4b, with Tongues said to edify oneself contrasted with Prophecy edifying the Church. From all this therefore, 1 Cor. 14:2-4 can be seen to be not promoting a private prayer language after all, but is actually stating that the Gift of Tongues in the Body Life of the Church only edifies the speaker. This is because in general during normal Sunday services, no one except God can understand what they are saying and therefore they are uttering mysteries by the power of the Holy Spirit. Barring the situation which truly warrents it, ie when a person possibly a foreigner who knows the likely obscure language comes thus giving the Tongue-speaker a chance for their tongues to be ueful as a sign, speaking in Tongues during services will only edify oneself and not others.

1 Cor. 14:2-4 has therefore be shown within its proper context to be not promoting or describing a private prayer language after all, but rather the non-utility of Tongues in the Church's Life. So what about Rom. 8:26-27?

Rom. 8:26-27 is talking about the topic of prayer, or rather how the Spirit helps us when we find it difficult to pray. All of us have our points and times of weaknesses, and even when we are stronger does not mean we are actually strong. So in our times of weakness, God has promised to help us by the 'Spirit Himself interceding for us with groanings too deep for words'. Verse 27 is the rationale describing why the Spirit can so help us, where it is stated that he (Jesus cf Jer. 17:10; Rev. 2:23) who searches the heart know the mind of the Spirit and the reason for that is that 'the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God'. But what does this all mean?

We must always remember that the topic here is on prayer, and how God can help us in prayer despite our weaknesses. In verse 27, the Holy Spirit is said to intercede for the saints according to the will of God, and because the Holy Spirit does that, Jesus who searches the heart knows the mind of the Spirit. The mind of the Spirit refers to the intercession of the saints according to the will of God, so when Jesus searches the heart of the believer who prays, he sees His own will on the matter there. But how can this be unless the Spirit puts the will of God on the matter onto our hearts, since Jesus is here searching the heart of believers, not the heart of the Holy Spirit? Verse 27 therefore states that Jesus who searches the heart of believers will find there the exact will of God, the mind of the Spirit, which is placed there by the Holy Spirit. Together with verse 26, the Spirit is therefore stated as interceding for us by showing us the will of God for that matter so that we will pray God's will.

This of course leaves the phrase "groanings too deep for words", which doesn't seem to fit in. This could however be describing our experience in travailing in prayer, for such describes the emotional state of those who have wept and pleaded for God mightily in prayer, who do not know how to pray as they ought to and therefore seek God to help them even though they do not know how to ask God for aid. This therefore shows also that praying according to the will of God, which is promised here in this passage of two verses, can only be done through serious seeking after God and much hardship even. Do we wonder why sometimes it seems as if prayer is so dry and that nothing happens? Is it because we are not travailing mightily in prayer with groanings too deep for words? (This is a rebuke for me also btw).

As it can be seen, both 1 Cor. 14:2-4 and Rom. 8:26-27 do not in fact support the position of a class of tongues being private prayer languages, when interpreted correctly within its contexts. There is therefore only one type of tongue in the whole of Scripture — the biblical Gift of Tongues, and it is only of known human languages and does not function as a private prayer language.

[to be continued]