I have a confession to make. A few years ago, I nearly became somewhat of a Hyper-Calvinist. Now I don't know if I would have gone all the way with it and denied the necessity of the universal gospel call, or that all Arminians are among the reprobate, but I was well on my way to at least one distinct Hyper-Calvinist doctrine; namely that God hates the finally reprobate. Basically, I was starting to believe that there were people in the world that God had absolutely nothing but hate and loathing for.
Thankfully, I no longer believe that. Please do not misunderstand me, I am still a supralapsarian High Calvinist. I do believe in double predestination, though I am not sure how I feel about equal ultimacy. On the other hand (said Christian mentally mimicking Topol from Fiddler on the Roof), I actually do think it is possible for God to elect some to life and some to eternal death and still maintain a certain kind of love for all mankind.
Put briefly, it was Genesis 1:26 and the doctrine of the image of God in the creation of man that led me to understand God's universal love for all mankind. Genesis 1:26 reads as follows:
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” NKJV
I came across this Scripture and its application to this issue by going through part of a teaching by Vineyard pastor Bill Jackson called "Nothins Gonna Stop It" [sic]. Borrowing partially from Daniel Fuller's work The Unity of the Bible: Unfolding God's Plan for Humanity, Jackson posits that God created Man, male and female, in order to reflect Him back to Himself. As I reflected on this, it became reasonable to me to assume that human beings, in the garden, looked like God, acted like God, and did many of the things that God Himself did. God has dominion. God gave Man dominion over creation. God creates. Man is endowed by God to be creative. That, to me anyway, explains the Arts and entrepreneurship - creating something that did not exist before. Marriage is an expression of the image of God in that a man enters into a covenant with his wife just as God covenants with His people - the Church.
Of course, the fall into sin has marred that image, but has not completely destroyed it. This explains why murder is such a serious - in fact, capital - offense (Genesis 9:5,6). To murder a human being is to literally deface the image of God and pour contempt on it. In a similar vein, for God to actually "hate" a sinful human being, He would actually be hating Himself.
So what of some of the Psalms that declare that God does, in fact, "hate" evildoers (Psalm 5:5; 11:5)? I don't have a complete answer for that other than to suggest possibly poetic embellishment. Imprecations in the Psalms have long vexed interpreters. Only God knows, but maybe there are rare cases of God actually hating someone (like David's enemies, who would typologically represent Christ's enemies). But even if so, I suspect these would be exceptions rather than the rule.
In short, even the most sinful and evil person bears the divine image and redemption is largely for the purpose of restoring that fallen image to Mankind so that we will again reflect God perfectly back to Himself. To summarize then, I believe that God has a general love for all people everywhere (because of the image of God in them), and a stronger, covenant love for His elect whom He chose to give to the Son of God before time began (John 17:1,2); those to whom God has sovereignly and unconditionally chosen to be the recipients of the restored image.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Monday, December 16, 2013
I Kinda Sorta Understand Where John MacArthur is Coming From
It has been two months since John MacArthur's controversial "Strange Fire" Conference and about a month since the eponymous book was released, which has caused no small storm in the larger evangelical community, at least in the Western world. Indeed, Dr. Michael Brown's response "Authentic Fire" has already been published and R.T. Kendall's book "Holy Fire" is being published in January 2014.
Much has been made of the tone of Dr. MacArthur himself and his comrades (and rightfully so), but after thinking about it some, I have come to the conclusion that, while John MacArthur's hermeneutics and exegesis are seriously flawed when it comes to spiritual gifts, he is nevertheless doing at least one thing right.
Now before the reader goes into apoplexy over the fact that a reformed charismatic believer is kinda sorta rushing to MacArthur's defense, please note a few things. Firstly, John MacArthur would have absolutely no interest in anything I have to say. I am quite certain he hasn't the slightest care that I either defend him or attack him. Secondly, I am only kind of defending him. I am certainly not endorsing his views on spiritual gifts and their supposed cessation, nor am I saying he is without fault here. Thirdly, Dr. MacArthur has undeniably been a benefit to the Church at large and has left a legacy that believers of all persuasions should honor. I have benefited greatly, like many others, from Dr. MacArthur's expository preaching ministry.
What I am doing is simply pointing out that, at least from my perspective (limited as it is), John MacArthur is only following the logical conclusions from his presuppositions. In fact, if I were him, I would almost certainly be doing the exact same things he has been doing. If I honestly believed in cessation and had that kind of platform, I too would have had that conference and published that book.
Why is that? I am glad you asked! Simply put, the main reason is that, by gifting, John MacArthur is a teacher. I too, consider teaching to be my primary spiritual gift (though I think I may have at least one other). Teachers care about truth.....a....lot. For teachers, truth matters, virtually over everything else. That is how I feel for certain. Teachers often have strong convictions. I have very strong beliefs and convictions about several topics that the Bible teaches on. My convictions that the miraculous gifts continue is no less strong than Dr. MacArthur's that they have ceased.
Of course, there is just one problem with the above statement. Both of us can't be right! Either spiritual gifts like prophecy and healing have continued or they have not. Pretensions of a middle ground simply won't do. Also, the truth or fallacy of cessation is true for all people, in all places, in all times, and in all circumstances. We can't afford any postmodern ambiguity here. Either John MacArthur or I am preaching falsehood. While this is not a gospel primary issue, it is nevertheless of extreme importance in the ministry of the Church; and her vitality and effectiveness is at stake in this debate. All that to say is that Dr. MacArthur is only doing what would be the logical thing to do if his thesis is correct. It is in this way, that I kinda sorta don't fault him for his activities over the last several months. Of course, I do in fact, fault him for his theology of spiritual gifts, but even the best of us is prone to errors of this kind.
Much has been made of the tone of Dr. MacArthur himself and his comrades (and rightfully so), but after thinking about it some, I have come to the conclusion that, while John MacArthur's hermeneutics and exegesis are seriously flawed when it comes to spiritual gifts, he is nevertheless doing at least one thing right.
Now before the reader goes into apoplexy over the fact that a reformed charismatic believer is kinda sorta rushing to MacArthur's defense, please note a few things. Firstly, John MacArthur would have absolutely no interest in anything I have to say. I am quite certain he hasn't the slightest care that I either defend him or attack him. Secondly, I am only kind of defending him. I am certainly not endorsing his views on spiritual gifts and their supposed cessation, nor am I saying he is without fault here. Thirdly, Dr. MacArthur has undeniably been a benefit to the Church at large and has left a legacy that believers of all persuasions should honor. I have benefited greatly, like many others, from Dr. MacArthur's expository preaching ministry.
What I am doing is simply pointing out that, at least from my perspective (limited as it is), John MacArthur is only following the logical conclusions from his presuppositions. In fact, if I were him, I would almost certainly be doing the exact same things he has been doing. If I honestly believed in cessation and had that kind of platform, I too would have had that conference and published that book.
Why is that? I am glad you asked! Simply put, the main reason is that, by gifting, John MacArthur is a teacher. I too, consider teaching to be my primary spiritual gift (though I think I may have at least one other). Teachers care about truth.....a....lot. For teachers, truth matters, virtually over everything else. That is how I feel for certain. Teachers often have strong convictions. I have very strong beliefs and convictions about several topics that the Bible teaches on. My convictions that the miraculous gifts continue is no less strong than Dr. MacArthur's that they have ceased.
Of course, there is just one problem with the above statement. Both of us can't be right! Either spiritual gifts like prophecy and healing have continued or they have not. Pretensions of a middle ground simply won't do. Also, the truth or fallacy of cessation is true for all people, in all places, in all times, and in all circumstances. We can't afford any postmodern ambiguity here. Either John MacArthur or I am preaching falsehood. While this is not a gospel primary issue, it is nevertheless of extreme importance in the ministry of the Church; and her vitality and effectiveness is at stake in this debate. All that to say is that Dr. MacArthur is only doing what would be the logical thing to do if his thesis is correct. It is in this way, that I kinda sorta don't fault him for his activities over the last several months. Of course, I do in fact, fault him for his theology of spiritual gifts, but even the best of us is prone to errors of this kind.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
A Nobody Responds to Tom Pennington's Case for Cessationism, Part 3
In this edition, I would like to respond to points 4-7 from Tom Pennington's case for cessationism at the recently concluded "Strange Fire" Conference.
Rebuttal to Argument #4: The Nature of Miraculous Gifts
Pastor Pennington attempts here to demonstrate that the contemporary phenomena associated with miraculous gifts bear no resemblance to what we read about in the New Testament. He cites the common cessationist belief that tongues were always known human languages and not the gibberish of many charismatic expressions for example and that charismatics (even reformed ones) always wrongly differentiate Old Testament prophecy from New Testament prophecy.
In response I will say several things. Firstly it appears to me (though I may be wrong) that this assumption betrays certain Western biases. Now I have always believed that this kind of accusation is somewhat overstated, but in this case the shoe fits. That miraculous events are, in fact, often occurring on many foreign mission fields is well attested (for example, I own a first-hand account of miraculous events that occurred in Indonesia during a revival in the last century).
Secondly, this is an argument from experience (or lack of it). The double standard is astonishing. If I were to claim a miraculous healing as verification that healing is for today, I would be rebuked strongly by cessationists for basing my theology on experience. Yet this is exactly what Tom Pennington would ask us to do - base a theology of cessation, at least partially, on lack of experience.
Thirdly, Pennington's thesis is easily falsifiable. In addition to the account I own of events in Indonesia, I also own first-hand experience myself, as well as the first-hand accounts of others, of miracles in here in the United States. To give one very personal example, I nearly died nine years ago when visiting South Dakota. At some point during the trip, in the middle of the night, my windpipe closed up almost entirely and I literally could not breathe. Yet it was through the immediate prayers of a Nazarene pastor (an Arminian!) that led to my windpipe opening back up immediately.
Fourthly, let's consider the gift of tongues. Space prevents me from going too deeply into it, but I will state that I believe that while the gift of tongues can be real human languages, they may not always be. A good example of contemporary tongues as real languages is found in the late Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel (another Arminian!), who tells of a story in his book Charisma Vs. Charismania (pages 107-109) of a Jewish girl saved during the early days of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa through the use of tongues and interpretation which were spoken in a very rare dialect of French. The girl had recently lived in France and knew this dialect, but also that very few outside of France could use it. She became a Christian that day.
However, that tongues must always be human languages is debatable. Sam Storms puts forth some very good arguments that tongues can also, in addition to real human languages, be angelic or heavenly languages (see, The Beginner's Guide to Spiritual Gifts, pages 141-144).
Fifthly, Pennington wrongly equates OT prophets with NT prophets. Yet Hebrews 1:1 explicitly tells us that the OT Prophetic ministry was only for the OT period and finds its fulfillment in God's Son Jesus Christ. Yet, some kind of prophetic ministry exists during the NT period. So if OT prophets are obsolete with the coming of the Messiah, yet there exists NT prophets, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a distinction between OT prophets and NT prophets.
Rebuttal to Argument #5:The Testimony of Church History
At this point, Tom Pennington marshals several quotations from church history to show that the miraculous gifts, did in fact, cease. However, this is a knife that cuts both ways. There are also accounts of miracles throughout church history as well as respected theologians who explicitly affirm their continuation. Rather than produce them myself, here is a link to Sam Storms' article on miraculous gifts in church history.
See also chapter 5 in Jack Deere's Surprised by the Voice of God titled "Presbyterian Prophets?".
Pennington also attempts to show that because miraculous gifts are mentioned early in the New Testament (1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians), but then are scarcely mentioned in the later New Testament (the Pastoral Epistles for example), it shows that miraculous gifts were already on their way out, so to speak. In response, this is a classic example of both a non sequitur and an argument from silence. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Simply because tongues, for example, are taught on early, but not later does not prove that tongues were already ceasing. There is no mention of the Lord's Supper after 1 Corinthians. Should we then conclude that the early Church stopped taking communion later in the NT era? Of course not! Likewise, we should not conclude that miraculous gifts were already ceasing by the time of the later New Testament books. Besides, the New Testament is not written to be redundant! If God the Holy Spirit only inspires the New Testament authors to teach on something once, than that is enough.
Furthermore, the thesis is false! There is later New Testament mention of miraculous gifts. For example, particular prophecies are alluded to in the Pastoral Epistles regarding Timothy (1 Timothy 1:18; 4:14), the Apostle John gives instruction on dealing with distinguishing true prophetic ministry from false prophetic ministry (1 John 4:1-6), and the church in Ephesus was testing apostolic credentials (Revelation 2:2), implying they believed apostolic ministry was still functioning in their time.
Rebuttal to Argument #6: The Sufficiency of Scripture
This is another very common cessationist argument, and another one that has been refuted often. In short, the argument is that since we have the closed revelation in Scripture, we do not need any kind of revelation in the form of prophecies, dreams, and visions for example. To allow for contemporary prophecy would threaten Scripture's finality and sufficiency, so we are told. Pennington cites 2 Timothy 3:16,17:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. NKJV
My response to this is quite simply that prophecy can, but only if we let it. Any good thing can functionally overtake Scripture's authority like creeds and confessions for example. However, it is a total misapplication of the sufficiency of Scripture to claim that contemporary prophecy will always threaten Scripture's sufficiency. As a Reformed Charismatic, I affirm fully the sufficiency of the Bible and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Pennington (and other cessationists) miss something key in their application of 2 Timothy 3:16,17. Here, Paul tells Timothy that the Scriptures make the man of God complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work. So far, I and cessationists agree. But the Bible teaches me about spiritual gifts and tells me what they are for and how long they are to last. So then I conclude that among the "good works" that the Scriptures are sufficient to "thoroughly equip" me for is how to understand and use spiritual gifts, including prophecy. The claim that continuationism is a threat to Sola Scriptura is therefore false.
Pastor Pennington then quotes Martin Luther who said "Let the man who would hear God speak read Holy Scripture". All I can say to that is amen! In my reading of Holy Scripture, I hear God speaking through His Word concerning spiritual gifts, giving both teaching and example of how and how not to use spiritual gifts.
Rebuttal to Argument #7: The New Testament Rules Laid Down for the Miraculous Gifts
Tom Pennington's final argument is that the New Testament lays down several rules for how spiritual gifts were to have been practiced while they were still around, but that modern charismatic practice is at clear variance with that teaching.
Truthfully, I agree with just about everything he said at this point. Much charismatic and Pentecostal practice is at variance with New Testament teaching. I myself have witnessed many travesties of supposed gifts; or gifts that were used contrary to the teaching of the Bible. But it is a baffling application and conclusion that Pennington reaches and a total non sequitur. Simply because there is a lot of fake, doesn't mean the real doesn't exist. At my job, I sometimes deal with counterfeit money. Does that mean there is no real money? I have heard a lot of bad preaching. Does that invalidate true, biblical preaching?
The answers to these questions are of course not. Similarly, simply because many charismatics do not practice the gifts biblically does not mean that there aren't others who do. And to argue for the cessation of the charismata on this point is terrible logic!
Conclusion
I had never heard of Tom Pennington prior to the Strange Fire conference so I know very little of him beyond what he himself believes about miraculous gifts. I am sure he is a godly man who loves Jesus and seeks to please him. Truth be told, he does understand several things that are encouraging. For example, he does, toward the end, acknowledge that there are different kinds of continuationists - from the outright heretical to the biblically sound. Secondly, he does not soft-peddle the differences between cessationists and continuationists. He realizes that they are deep.
Finally, I wish to reiterate that I realize that my very small contributions are not going to change the landscape of evangelical Christianity in the West. Tom Pennington is very unlikely to read nor care about what I have to say. The reason I have undertaken to write my critique, is because his critique is aimed at people like me - ordinary believers who embrace all of the Holy Spirit's miraculous charismata. I feel it is within my rights to respond biblically and graciously. It is my hope that whoever does read (and care) about what I have written may be spurred on to think more biblically about this very important issue.
Rebuttal to Argument #4: The Nature of Miraculous Gifts
Pastor Pennington attempts here to demonstrate that the contemporary phenomena associated with miraculous gifts bear no resemblance to what we read about in the New Testament. He cites the common cessationist belief that tongues were always known human languages and not the gibberish of many charismatic expressions for example and that charismatics (even reformed ones) always wrongly differentiate Old Testament prophecy from New Testament prophecy.
In response I will say several things. Firstly it appears to me (though I may be wrong) that this assumption betrays certain Western biases. Now I have always believed that this kind of accusation is somewhat overstated, but in this case the shoe fits. That miraculous events are, in fact, often occurring on many foreign mission fields is well attested (for example, I own a first-hand account of miraculous events that occurred in Indonesia during a revival in the last century).
Secondly, this is an argument from experience (or lack of it). The double standard is astonishing. If I were to claim a miraculous healing as verification that healing is for today, I would be rebuked strongly by cessationists for basing my theology on experience. Yet this is exactly what Tom Pennington would ask us to do - base a theology of cessation, at least partially, on lack of experience.
Thirdly, Pennington's thesis is easily falsifiable. In addition to the account I own of events in Indonesia, I also own first-hand experience myself, as well as the first-hand accounts of others, of miracles in here in the United States. To give one very personal example, I nearly died nine years ago when visiting South Dakota. At some point during the trip, in the middle of the night, my windpipe closed up almost entirely and I literally could not breathe. Yet it was through the immediate prayers of a Nazarene pastor (an Arminian!) that led to my windpipe opening back up immediately.
Fourthly, let's consider the gift of tongues. Space prevents me from going too deeply into it, but I will state that I believe that while the gift of tongues can be real human languages, they may not always be. A good example of contemporary tongues as real languages is found in the late Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel (another Arminian!), who tells of a story in his book Charisma Vs. Charismania (pages 107-109) of a Jewish girl saved during the early days of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa through the use of tongues and interpretation which were spoken in a very rare dialect of French. The girl had recently lived in France and knew this dialect, but also that very few outside of France could use it. She became a Christian that day.
However, that tongues must always be human languages is debatable. Sam Storms puts forth some very good arguments that tongues can also, in addition to real human languages, be angelic or heavenly languages (see, The Beginner's Guide to Spiritual Gifts, pages 141-144).
Fifthly, Pennington wrongly equates OT prophets with NT prophets. Yet Hebrews 1:1 explicitly tells us that the OT Prophetic ministry was only for the OT period and finds its fulfillment in God's Son Jesus Christ. Yet, some kind of prophetic ministry exists during the NT period. So if OT prophets are obsolete with the coming of the Messiah, yet there exists NT prophets, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a distinction between OT prophets and NT prophets.
Rebuttal to Argument #5:The Testimony of Church History
At this point, Tom Pennington marshals several quotations from church history to show that the miraculous gifts, did in fact, cease. However, this is a knife that cuts both ways. There are also accounts of miracles throughout church history as well as respected theologians who explicitly affirm their continuation. Rather than produce them myself, here is a link to Sam Storms' article on miraculous gifts in church history.
See also chapter 5 in Jack Deere's Surprised by the Voice of God titled "Presbyterian Prophets?".
Pennington also attempts to show that because miraculous gifts are mentioned early in the New Testament (1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians), but then are scarcely mentioned in the later New Testament (the Pastoral Epistles for example), it shows that miraculous gifts were already on their way out, so to speak. In response, this is a classic example of both a non sequitur and an argument from silence. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Simply because tongues, for example, are taught on early, but not later does not prove that tongues were already ceasing. There is no mention of the Lord's Supper after 1 Corinthians. Should we then conclude that the early Church stopped taking communion later in the NT era? Of course not! Likewise, we should not conclude that miraculous gifts were already ceasing by the time of the later New Testament books. Besides, the New Testament is not written to be redundant! If God the Holy Spirit only inspires the New Testament authors to teach on something once, than that is enough.
Furthermore, the thesis is false! There is later New Testament mention of miraculous gifts. For example, particular prophecies are alluded to in the Pastoral Epistles regarding Timothy (1 Timothy 1:18; 4:14), the Apostle John gives instruction on dealing with distinguishing true prophetic ministry from false prophetic ministry (1 John 4:1-6), and the church in Ephesus was testing apostolic credentials (Revelation 2:2), implying they believed apostolic ministry was still functioning in their time.
Rebuttal to Argument #6: The Sufficiency of Scripture
This is another very common cessationist argument, and another one that has been refuted often. In short, the argument is that since we have the closed revelation in Scripture, we do not need any kind of revelation in the form of prophecies, dreams, and visions for example. To allow for contemporary prophecy would threaten Scripture's finality and sufficiency, so we are told. Pennington cites 2 Timothy 3:16,17:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. NKJV
My response to this is quite simply that prophecy can, but only if we let it. Any good thing can functionally overtake Scripture's authority like creeds and confessions for example. However, it is a total misapplication of the sufficiency of Scripture to claim that contemporary prophecy will always threaten Scripture's sufficiency. As a Reformed Charismatic, I affirm fully the sufficiency of the Bible and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Pennington (and other cessationists) miss something key in their application of 2 Timothy 3:16,17. Here, Paul tells Timothy that the Scriptures make the man of God complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work. So far, I and cessationists agree. But the Bible teaches me about spiritual gifts and tells me what they are for and how long they are to last. So then I conclude that among the "good works" that the Scriptures are sufficient to "thoroughly equip" me for is how to understand and use spiritual gifts, including prophecy. The claim that continuationism is a threat to Sola Scriptura is therefore false.
Pastor Pennington then quotes Martin Luther who said "Let the man who would hear God speak read Holy Scripture". All I can say to that is amen! In my reading of Holy Scripture, I hear God speaking through His Word concerning spiritual gifts, giving both teaching and example of how and how not to use spiritual gifts.
Rebuttal to Argument #7: The New Testament Rules Laid Down for the Miraculous Gifts
Tom Pennington's final argument is that the New Testament lays down several rules for how spiritual gifts were to have been practiced while they were still around, but that modern charismatic practice is at clear variance with that teaching.
Truthfully, I agree with just about everything he said at this point. Much charismatic and Pentecostal practice is at variance with New Testament teaching. I myself have witnessed many travesties of supposed gifts; or gifts that were used contrary to the teaching of the Bible. But it is a baffling application and conclusion that Pennington reaches and a total non sequitur. Simply because there is a lot of fake, doesn't mean the real doesn't exist. At my job, I sometimes deal with counterfeit money. Does that mean there is no real money? I have heard a lot of bad preaching. Does that invalidate true, biblical preaching?
The answers to these questions are of course not. Similarly, simply because many charismatics do not practice the gifts biblically does not mean that there aren't others who do. And to argue for the cessation of the charismata on this point is terrible logic!
Conclusion
I had never heard of Tom Pennington prior to the Strange Fire conference so I know very little of him beyond what he himself believes about miraculous gifts. I am sure he is a godly man who loves Jesus and seeks to please him. Truth be told, he does understand several things that are encouraging. For example, he does, toward the end, acknowledge that there are different kinds of continuationists - from the outright heretical to the biblically sound. Secondly, he does not soft-peddle the differences between cessationists and continuationists. He realizes that they are deep.
Finally, I wish to reiterate that I realize that my very small contributions are not going to change the landscape of evangelical Christianity in the West. Tom Pennington is very unlikely to read nor care about what I have to say. The reason I have undertaken to write my critique, is because his critique is aimed at people like me - ordinary believers who embrace all of the Holy Spirit's miraculous charismata. I feel it is within my rights to respond biblically and graciously. It is my hope that whoever does read (and care) about what I have written may be spurred on to think more biblically about this very important issue.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
A Nobody Responds to Tom Pennington's Case for Cessationism, Part 2
In part 1 of my 3-part series, I took issue with Pastor Tom Pennington's critiques of certain continuationist arguments. In this section, I will take a look at the first three points of his sevenfold case for cessationism.
Rebuttal to Argument #1: The Unique Roll of Miracles
Pastor Pennington's first argument is centered around the proposition that there were only three periods in biblical history where miracles were prevalent: The Exodus and Conquest period, the ministries of Elijah and Elisha, and that of Christ and the Apostles. It is implied that outside these periods, miracles were either very scarce or non-existent. This is a very old and common argument and, in fact, one that has been refuted many times over and so I'll not spend too much time on it.
Firstly, this argument fails to account for the numerous biblical examples of miraculous and prophetic activity outside these time periods. Jack Deere in his excellent book Surprised by the Power of the Spirit uses an illustrative table in Appendix C (pages 253-266) to show this very fact. I won't reproduce that table, but only point out a small handful of obvious examples of miracles outside the aforementioned time periods:
-The prophetic ministry and rapture of Enoch (Genesis 5:24; Jude 14,15)
-The Flood
-The Lord's appearances to Abraham and the plagues upon Pharaoh's house and his subsequent dream after he attempted to take Sarah as his wife.
-The destruction of Sodom and Gommorah
-The miraculous conception of Isaac
-Joseph's dreams
-The miracles performed by, in, and through the Judges, including Gideon and Samson
-Hannah's womb is miraculously opened to conceive Samuel
-None of Samuel's words would fall to the ground (1 Samuel 3:19-21)
-The tumors that strike the Philistines
-God's presence in the Temple (1 Kings 8:10)
-Hezekiah's life is extended (2 Kings 20:5)
-The miracles and prophecies involving Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
This is only a sampling that Deere produces to maintain that many miraculous signs occurred throughout OT history, thus contradicting Pennington's thesis. Jack Deere also points out two other Scriptures in the OT that point to miraculous intervention throughout the period of the OT. First, we are brought to Jeremiah 32:20:
You have set signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, to this day, and in Israel and among other men; and You have made Yourself a Name, as it is this day.
NKJV
This passage explicitly tells us that miraculous signs had occurred at least from the time of the Exodus to at least the time of Jeremiah's prophetic ministry.
Secondly, consider Psalm 74:9. Here, the psalmist writes, We do not see our signs; there is no longer any prophet; nor is there any among us who knows how long. For whatever reason, signs and wonders were not all the prevalent, but instead of seeing this as God's normal way of dealing with His people, the Psalmist laments this fact as something abnormal. The context of Psalm 74 is dealing with the anger of God against the sheep of His pasture (v. 1) and in the face of defeat from God's enemies. Clearly the absence of signs and wonders is seen as an unusual occurrence owing to divine displeasure rather than the usual program of God in periods of giving revelation. This would imply that signs and wonders were a regular part of God's gracious activities among His people, and thus not exclusively a means of authenticating His special messengers.
None of this is to deny that one purpose of miracles is authentication. Of course it is. However, there are other reasons miracles are done such as bringing glory to God and as an act of compassion. Consider the account of Jesus raising up the son of the widow of Nain:
Now it happened, the day after, that He went into a city called Nain; and many of His disciples went with Him, and a large crowd. And when He came near the gate of the city, behold, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother; and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the city was with her. When the Lord saw her, He had compassion on her and said to her, “Do not weep.” Then He came and touched the open coffin, and those who carried him stood still. And He said, “Young man, I say to you, arise.” So he who was dead sat up and began to speak. And He presented him to his mother. Then fear came upon all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has risen up among us”; and, “God has visited His people.” And this report about Him went throughout all Judea and all the surrounding region. (Luke 7:11-17 NKJV)
Here, in this passage, in addition to calling attention to Jesus' identity, this miracle also served a powerful doxological purpose (v 16) and as an expression of God's heart of compassion for a widow who would otherwise have been left in extreme poverty. I conclude then, that miracles had and still have other purposes that are just as relevant today as they were then.
Rebuttal to Argument #2:The End of the Gift of Apostleship
In part 1, I kind of already tackled this one, so I'll only point out one thing. Pastor Pennington asserts with all cessationists and even some continuationists (Wayne Grudem for example), that we cannot have apostles today because to be an apostle one had to meet three requirements: (1) You had to be an eyewitness to the resurrection of Christ, (2) you needed a personal commission from Christ, and (3) You had to be able to work miracles.
However, this fails on several levels. Working in reverse order, number 3 is patently false. The ability to work miracles did not and does not make one an apostle. It is true that the apostles worked miracles, but so did many others. Stephen and Philip worked miracles and neither were apostles. First Corinthians 12 lists workings of miracles as one of the charismata being given to the church at large, not just the apostles. Lastly, there is John 14:12, Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. Even a casual glance at the context will show that the works being referenced by our Lord are His miracles which He did while on earth. Amazingly, Christ is saying that believers will be empowered to perform miraculous signs because of His soon departure to the Father and the resultant sending of the Holy Spirit. Everywhere else in John's gospel, the phrase "he who believes in Me" refers to all believers everywhere.
Point 2, is also false. While most of the Twelve and Paul did receive a personal commission from Christ, one of the Twelve did not, namely Matthias. Certainly God, in His sovereignty chose him through casting lots to replace Judas, but that's not the same as a personal commission from the resurrected Lord. If one, needed a commission from Jesus in person, one might assume Matthias would have been chosen to replace Judas prior to Jesus' ascension.
Relatedly, is point three; that one must have been a witness to Christ's resurrection to be commissioned an apostle. This one is the strongest point, but also fails to take into account all of the data. First, it should be noted that Matthias was replacing Judas among the Twelve Apostles whose names are written on the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem, but in Ephesians 4:11, Paul lists the gifting of apostleship among the gifts of Christ's ascension. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that to be one of the Twelve, one needed to have been an eyewitness to the resurrection, but to be an apostle of the ascension, spoken of in Ephesians, obviously one does not.
Rebuttal to Argument #3:The Foundational Nature of the New Testament Apostles and Prophets
This one is related to point 2 above and I have already somewhat addressed this issue already so I'll not belabor the point. However I will spend some time refuting another common cessationist argument. Ephesians 2:20 is a favorite passage among cessationists of both the reformed and dispensational stripes. They believe the argument is bulletproof. The argument goes like this; in context, Paul is laying out the nature of the Church as the union of Jews and gentiles in one body. The apostles and prophets laid the foundation of the NT church. Since you only lay a foundation once, there would be no more need of apostles and prophets subsequent to laying this foundation.
In reply, it could be argued that this passage, being written to a specific local church is applicable at the local level. It could then follow that all local churches should be built on apostolic and prophetic foundations. I think there is some merit to this idea, but I wouldn't die on a hill for it, and even if it does refer to the Church universal, I will only draw attention to the verb tenses in verses 20-22. Verse 20 uses the past tense, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while verses 21 and 22 use the present tense.
In other words, by the time Paul wrote Ephesians, the once-for-all foundation for the Church was already fully laid and the superstructure already underway, yet apostolic ministry was still occurring and was even occurring past the time Paul wrote. Apostles and Prophets form the superstructure just as much as the foundation. How do I know this? After Paul's ministry, we know the apostle John ministered in Ephesus where he likely wrote his gospel and epistles and even after John was exiled to Patmos and was receiving Revelation, the Ephesians were testing apostles (though in this case, finding them liars; but if apostles would have ceased after laying the foundation, then the Ephesians wouldn't have needed to test apostles; they would have known not to expect anymore). Clearly, the Ephesians themselves didn't take Paul's words in Eph. 2:20 as implying the cessation of the apostolate and, in fact, Paul tells them (and us) to expect more apostles (4:11-16).
That concludes Part 2. Soon, I hope to respond to arguments 4-7 of Tom Pennington's presentation.
-Christian
Rebuttal to Argument #1: The Unique Roll of Miracles
Pastor Pennington's first argument is centered around the proposition that there were only three periods in biblical history where miracles were prevalent: The Exodus and Conquest period, the ministries of Elijah and Elisha, and that of Christ and the Apostles. It is implied that outside these periods, miracles were either very scarce or non-existent. This is a very old and common argument and, in fact, one that has been refuted many times over and so I'll not spend too much time on it.
Firstly, this argument fails to account for the numerous biblical examples of miraculous and prophetic activity outside these time periods. Jack Deere in his excellent book Surprised by the Power of the Spirit uses an illustrative table in Appendix C (pages 253-266) to show this very fact. I won't reproduce that table, but only point out a small handful of obvious examples of miracles outside the aforementioned time periods:
-The prophetic ministry and rapture of Enoch (Genesis 5:24; Jude 14,15)
-The Flood
-The Lord's appearances to Abraham and the plagues upon Pharaoh's house and his subsequent dream after he attempted to take Sarah as his wife.
-The destruction of Sodom and Gommorah
-The miraculous conception of Isaac
-Joseph's dreams
-The miracles performed by, in, and through the Judges, including Gideon and Samson
-Hannah's womb is miraculously opened to conceive Samuel
-None of Samuel's words would fall to the ground (1 Samuel 3:19-21)
-The tumors that strike the Philistines
-God's presence in the Temple (1 Kings 8:10)
-Hezekiah's life is extended (2 Kings 20:5)
-The miracles and prophecies involving Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
This is only a sampling that Deere produces to maintain that many miraculous signs occurred throughout OT history, thus contradicting Pennington's thesis. Jack Deere also points out two other Scriptures in the OT that point to miraculous intervention throughout the period of the OT. First, we are brought to Jeremiah 32:20:
You have set signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, to this day, and in Israel and among other men; and You have made Yourself a Name, as it is this day.
NKJV
This passage explicitly tells us that miraculous signs had occurred at least from the time of the Exodus to at least the time of Jeremiah's prophetic ministry.
Secondly, consider Psalm 74:9. Here, the psalmist writes, We do not see our signs; there is no longer any prophet; nor is there any among us who knows how long. For whatever reason, signs and wonders were not all the prevalent, but instead of seeing this as God's normal way of dealing with His people, the Psalmist laments this fact as something abnormal. The context of Psalm 74 is dealing with the anger of God against the sheep of His pasture (v. 1) and in the face of defeat from God's enemies. Clearly the absence of signs and wonders is seen as an unusual occurrence owing to divine displeasure rather than the usual program of God in periods of giving revelation. This would imply that signs and wonders were a regular part of God's gracious activities among His people, and thus not exclusively a means of authenticating His special messengers.
None of this is to deny that one purpose of miracles is authentication. Of course it is. However, there are other reasons miracles are done such as bringing glory to God and as an act of compassion. Consider the account of Jesus raising up the son of the widow of Nain:
Now it happened, the day after, that He went into a city called Nain; and many of His disciples went with Him, and a large crowd. And when He came near the gate of the city, behold, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother; and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the city was with her. When the Lord saw her, He had compassion on her and said to her, “Do not weep.” Then He came and touched the open coffin, and those who carried him stood still. And He said, “Young man, I say to you, arise.” So he who was dead sat up and began to speak. And He presented him to his mother. Then fear came upon all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has risen up among us”; and, “God has visited His people.” And this report about Him went throughout all Judea and all the surrounding region. (Luke 7:11-17 NKJV)
Here, in this passage, in addition to calling attention to Jesus' identity, this miracle also served a powerful doxological purpose (v 16) and as an expression of God's heart of compassion for a widow who would otherwise have been left in extreme poverty. I conclude then, that miracles had and still have other purposes that are just as relevant today as they were then.
Rebuttal to Argument #2:The End of the Gift of Apostleship
In part 1, I kind of already tackled this one, so I'll only point out one thing. Pastor Pennington asserts with all cessationists and even some continuationists (Wayne Grudem for example), that we cannot have apostles today because to be an apostle one had to meet three requirements: (1) You had to be an eyewitness to the resurrection of Christ, (2) you needed a personal commission from Christ, and (3) You had to be able to work miracles.
However, this fails on several levels. Working in reverse order, number 3 is patently false. The ability to work miracles did not and does not make one an apostle. It is true that the apostles worked miracles, but so did many others. Stephen and Philip worked miracles and neither were apostles. First Corinthians 12 lists workings of miracles as one of the charismata being given to the church at large, not just the apostles. Lastly, there is John 14:12, Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. Even a casual glance at the context will show that the works being referenced by our Lord are His miracles which He did while on earth. Amazingly, Christ is saying that believers will be empowered to perform miraculous signs because of His soon departure to the Father and the resultant sending of the Holy Spirit. Everywhere else in John's gospel, the phrase "he who believes in Me" refers to all believers everywhere.
Point 2, is also false. While most of the Twelve and Paul did receive a personal commission from Christ, one of the Twelve did not, namely Matthias. Certainly God, in His sovereignty chose him through casting lots to replace Judas, but that's not the same as a personal commission from the resurrected Lord. If one, needed a commission from Jesus in person, one might assume Matthias would have been chosen to replace Judas prior to Jesus' ascension.
Relatedly, is point three; that one must have been a witness to Christ's resurrection to be commissioned an apostle. This one is the strongest point, but also fails to take into account all of the data. First, it should be noted that Matthias was replacing Judas among the Twelve Apostles whose names are written on the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem, but in Ephesians 4:11, Paul lists the gifting of apostleship among the gifts of Christ's ascension. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that to be one of the Twelve, one needed to have been an eyewitness to the resurrection, but to be an apostle of the ascension, spoken of in Ephesians, obviously one does not.
Rebuttal to Argument #3:The Foundational Nature of the New Testament Apostles and Prophets
This one is related to point 2 above and I have already somewhat addressed this issue already so I'll not belabor the point. However I will spend some time refuting another common cessationist argument. Ephesians 2:20 is a favorite passage among cessationists of both the reformed and dispensational stripes. They believe the argument is bulletproof. The argument goes like this; in context, Paul is laying out the nature of the Church as the union of Jews and gentiles in one body. The apostles and prophets laid the foundation of the NT church. Since you only lay a foundation once, there would be no more need of apostles and prophets subsequent to laying this foundation.
In reply, it could be argued that this passage, being written to a specific local church is applicable at the local level. It could then follow that all local churches should be built on apostolic and prophetic foundations. I think there is some merit to this idea, but I wouldn't die on a hill for it, and even if it does refer to the Church universal, I will only draw attention to the verb tenses in verses 20-22. Verse 20 uses the past tense, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while verses 21 and 22 use the present tense.
In other words, by the time Paul wrote Ephesians, the once-for-all foundation for the Church was already fully laid and the superstructure already underway, yet apostolic ministry was still occurring and was even occurring past the time Paul wrote. Apostles and Prophets form the superstructure just as much as the foundation. How do I know this? After Paul's ministry, we know the apostle John ministered in Ephesus where he likely wrote his gospel and epistles and even after John was exiled to Patmos and was receiving Revelation, the Ephesians were testing apostles (though in this case, finding them liars; but if apostles would have ceased after laying the foundation, then the Ephesians wouldn't have needed to test apostles; they would have known not to expect anymore). Clearly, the Ephesians themselves didn't take Paul's words in Eph. 2:20 as implying the cessation of the apostolate and, in fact, Paul tells them (and us) to expect more apostles (4:11-16).
That concludes Part 2. Soon, I hope to respond to arguments 4-7 of Tom Pennington's presentation.
-Christian
Monday, October 21, 2013
A Nobody Responds to Tom Pennington's Case for Cessationism, Part 1
Okay, I'll admit it - I'm a nobody. Not in the absolute sense, but in the grand scheme of things sense of the Christian blogosphere. The reality is, my opinion counts for squat as far as most people are concerned and I have no illusions that my critique will be seen (or cared about) by any important people in the larger evangelical world. The truth is, that's fine with me. I'll blog anyway!
In that spirit, I hope to respond briefly to Pastor Tom Pennington's talk during the recently concluded "Strange Fire" Conference titled appropriately, "A Case for Cessationism" Pennington first attempts to refute several of what he believes are popular continuationist arguments and then positively presents seven arguments for the cessation of the "sign gifts" (his term, not the Bible's) toward the end of the first century. I plan to go into these arguments in turn with my rebuttals.
Pennington's Critique of Popular Continuationist Arguments
Pastor Pennington first argues that while the New Testament nowhere asserts the cessation of the gifts, it also never asserts their continuance. He anticipates the charismatic appeal to 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 and attempts to deflect the force of the argument by stating that this is a highly disputed passage open to a number of different interpretations and that it has also been marshaled in defense of cessationism.
In reply, it must be stated that the NT simply tells us that certain gifts of the Spirit exist and we must assume their continuation unless we are explicitly told otherwise. Using a parallel. Take the doctrine of the Lord's Supper also conveniently taught about in 1 Corinthians. We are told we must celebrate the Lord's Table and why, namely to proclaim Christ's death. In fact, we are told we should do this, until He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26). Since we lack a clear statement to stop taking the Lord's Supper and also having a clear statement as to its duration, we should continue to take the Lord's Supper. Similarly, we are told to practice spiritual gifts and are explicitly told their duration in chapter 13 (and elsewhere).
Baptism is another example. We know from Matthew 28:19-20 and Romans 6:1-4 that baptism is a sacrament of the Church. We are never told to cease the practice, so we must then assume we will continue to baptize until presumably the eschaton when Jesus comes again. The burden of proof would have to be on the one telling us not to baptize anymore (some brands of hyper-dispensationalism will argue this). Similarly, absent a clear statement of early cessation, we must assume continuance.
Another point is Pennington's argument that 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 cannot be mustered to support continuance because that passage is disputed. It is well known that John MacArthur and company are staunchly premillennial in their eschatology. But Revelation 20 is also a very highly disputed passage, even more so than the Corinthian passages on spiritual gifts. So should we not come to convictions on the millennium simply because the passage is disputed? I think not.
Pennington then attempts to parry the argument that the NT only speaks of the church age as a unit and that divisions of the Church Age into apostolic and post-apostolic periods are artificial. Since most charismatics don't believe in a continuing apostolate, there is precedent for the cessation of at least one of the charismata. It would follow then that other charismata might have ceased as well, even sans a clear statement of cessation.
In response, it should be stated that I do not share the belief that apostles have ceased. Consider the following passage:
Therefore He says:
Ephesians 4:8-16 (NKJV)
This passage indicates that the gifts listed are to function as means of building up the Church until unity in the faith and full maturity in Christ occurs. Clearly we are not there yet. Tellingly, the first two ministries listed are those of apostles and prophets. Therefore, I conclude that apostles and prophets have continued to function within the Body of Christ (though I am getting a little ahead of myself). Since I cannot concede the point that apostles have ceased, I cannot concede that other gifts might have ceased. If I should be challenged on whether I believe modern apostles are as great as Peter, John, or Paul; I would say no. These men were great because they were the first apostles, not because they were apostles. Also, using a parallel from the business world, Sam Walton was a great retailer, virtually without peer. However, others continue to envision and run Walmart even more than 20 years after his death. So then, simply because the greatest apostles have died, doesn't mean no more apostles have come since, in fact Ephesians tells me to expect they will.
"By far the most common argument", says Pennington is that 500 million professing Christians who claim charismatic experiences can't all be wrong. He then points to the fact that there are about 1 billion Roman Catholics who have an even longer history of purported miracles. He concludes that 500 million people can be wrong.
In response, amen! Sheer numbers of people tell us absolutely nothing whether in favor of continuance or cessation. This is a totally irrelevant point to the discussion, so by all means, Pennington is right to refute it; but the weakness of this argument does, in no way, either weaken the continuationist argument, or establish the cessationist one.
That does it for part 1. Soon, I hope to move into a thorough critique of Pennington's sevenfold positive case for cessationism, while at the same time arguing that continuationism is the more biblical position. Blessings.
In that spirit, I hope to respond briefly to Pastor Tom Pennington's talk during the recently concluded "Strange Fire" Conference titled appropriately, "A Case for Cessationism" Pennington first attempts to refute several of what he believes are popular continuationist arguments and then positively presents seven arguments for the cessation of the "sign gifts" (his term, not the Bible's) toward the end of the first century. I plan to go into these arguments in turn with my rebuttals.
Pennington's Critique of Popular Continuationist Arguments
Pastor Pennington first argues that while the New Testament nowhere asserts the cessation of the gifts, it also never asserts their continuance. He anticipates the charismatic appeal to 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 and attempts to deflect the force of the argument by stating that this is a highly disputed passage open to a number of different interpretations and that it has also been marshaled in defense of cessationism.
In reply, it must be stated that the NT simply tells us that certain gifts of the Spirit exist and we must assume their continuation unless we are explicitly told otherwise. Using a parallel. Take the doctrine of the Lord's Supper also conveniently taught about in 1 Corinthians. We are told we must celebrate the Lord's Table and why, namely to proclaim Christ's death. In fact, we are told we should do this, until He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26). Since we lack a clear statement to stop taking the Lord's Supper and also having a clear statement as to its duration, we should continue to take the Lord's Supper. Similarly, we are told to practice spiritual gifts and are explicitly told their duration in chapter 13 (and elsewhere).
Baptism is another example. We know from Matthew 28:19-20 and Romans 6:1-4 that baptism is a sacrament of the Church. We are never told to cease the practice, so we must then assume we will continue to baptize until presumably the eschaton when Jesus comes again. The burden of proof would have to be on the one telling us not to baptize anymore (some brands of hyper-dispensationalism will argue this). Similarly, absent a clear statement of early cessation, we must assume continuance.
Another point is Pennington's argument that 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 cannot be mustered to support continuance because that passage is disputed. It is well known that John MacArthur and company are staunchly premillennial in their eschatology. But Revelation 20 is also a very highly disputed passage, even more so than the Corinthian passages on spiritual gifts. So should we not come to convictions on the millennium simply because the passage is disputed? I think not.
Pennington then attempts to parry the argument that the NT only speaks of the church age as a unit and that divisions of the Church Age into apostolic and post-apostolic periods are artificial. Since most charismatics don't believe in a continuing apostolate, there is precedent for the cessation of at least one of the charismata. It would follow then that other charismata might have ceased as well, even sans a clear statement of cessation.
In response, it should be stated that I do not share the belief that apostles have ceased. Consider the following passage:
Therefore He says:
“When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”
(Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. Ephesians 4:8-16 (NKJV)
This passage indicates that the gifts listed are to function as means of building up the Church until unity in the faith and full maturity in Christ occurs. Clearly we are not there yet. Tellingly, the first two ministries listed are those of apostles and prophets. Therefore, I conclude that apostles and prophets have continued to function within the Body of Christ (though I am getting a little ahead of myself). Since I cannot concede the point that apostles have ceased, I cannot concede that other gifts might have ceased. If I should be challenged on whether I believe modern apostles are as great as Peter, John, or Paul; I would say no. These men were great because they were the first apostles, not because they were apostles. Also, using a parallel from the business world, Sam Walton was a great retailer, virtually without peer. However, others continue to envision and run Walmart even more than 20 years after his death. So then, simply because the greatest apostles have died, doesn't mean no more apostles have come since, in fact Ephesians tells me to expect they will.
"By far the most common argument", says Pennington is that 500 million professing Christians who claim charismatic experiences can't all be wrong. He then points to the fact that there are about 1 billion Roman Catholics who have an even longer history of purported miracles. He concludes that 500 million people can be wrong.
In response, amen! Sheer numbers of people tell us absolutely nothing whether in favor of continuance or cessation. This is a totally irrelevant point to the discussion, so by all means, Pennington is right to refute it; but the weakness of this argument does, in no way, either weaken the continuationist argument, or establish the cessationist one.
That does it for part 1. Soon, I hope to move into a thorough critique of Pennington's sevenfold positive case for cessationism, while at the same time arguing that continuationism is the more biblical position. Blessings.
Friday, October 18, 2013
The "Strange Fire" Conference and the Charismatic Response
If you're an evangelical Christian in the West, chances are you may have heard of the Strange Fire Conference which is wrapping up tonight in Southern California at Grace Community Church where Dr. John MacArthur has been senior pastor since 1969. The lead up to this conference and the forthcoming book of the same name have generated no small controversy, which only the conference itself has been able to eclipse. Evidently even Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll "crashed" the conference to hand out copies of his new book.
Interestingly, and perhaps encouragingly, this conference has caught the attention of not only the evangelical reformed community, but also much of the charismatic wing of the church as well. Before the conference even started, charismatic theologian Dr. Michael L. Brown appealed to MacArthur to reconsider his position. I have also seen some responses from other charismatic sources including prophetic pastor R. Loren Sandford.
While the reactions of Brown and Sandford have been vigorous, they have also been mostly charitable. However, that has not been the case across the charismatic board. Sadly many of the responses to MacArthur from the "rank and file" of charismatic Christians has been in a very familiar pattern. A pattern that I often encountered when I moved in more explicitly charismatic circles. Make no mistake, this conference and the rhetoric that has emanated from it deserve a very thoroughgoing rebuttal and response, but the nature and tone of the reactions I have been getting from many, but not all charismatics is troubling.
In a nutshell, one of the greatest critiques of the charismatic movement broadly and the prophetic streams particularly is that they are very much guilt manipulation based. Despite waxing greatly about God's unconditional love and the Father's heart, they nevertheless have a real penchant for dismissing the legitimate concerns and critiques of those who disagree with certain manifestations or just aren't there yet. Evidently, because someone isn't convinced of the phenomenon of being "drunk in the Spirit", for example, it is entirely because he/she either haven't experienced it, or possesses a "religious" or "pharisaical" spirit. Nevermind whether or not the Bible supports this experience or not, it must be a critical, religious spirit. All this serves to do is make others feel small and feeds the pride of those who make others small.
While this conference and the related book will no doubt continue to feed the debate over miraculous gifts and hopefully cause many cessationists to reconsider their position, it would do many charismatic Christians well to reconsider their own attitudes toward those for whom the moving of the Spirit in tangible, miraculous gifts is not yet a functional reality and who are concerned over unbiblical excesses. Let us remember that Paul was not shy about correcting abuses, but neither did he command the Corinthians to declare a moratorium on spiritual gifts. Rather, he corrected their attitudes and instructed them to seek the more excellent way of love. I hope that all believers in this controversy would do the same.
Interestingly, and perhaps encouragingly, this conference has caught the attention of not only the evangelical reformed community, but also much of the charismatic wing of the church as well. Before the conference even started, charismatic theologian Dr. Michael L. Brown appealed to MacArthur to reconsider his position. I have also seen some responses from other charismatic sources including prophetic pastor R. Loren Sandford.
While the reactions of Brown and Sandford have been vigorous, they have also been mostly charitable. However, that has not been the case across the charismatic board. Sadly many of the responses to MacArthur from the "rank and file" of charismatic Christians has been in a very familiar pattern. A pattern that I often encountered when I moved in more explicitly charismatic circles. Make no mistake, this conference and the rhetoric that has emanated from it deserve a very thoroughgoing rebuttal and response, but the nature and tone of the reactions I have been getting from many, but not all charismatics is troubling.
In a nutshell, one of the greatest critiques of the charismatic movement broadly and the prophetic streams particularly is that they are very much guilt manipulation based. Despite waxing greatly about God's unconditional love and the Father's heart, they nevertheless have a real penchant for dismissing the legitimate concerns and critiques of those who disagree with certain manifestations or just aren't there yet. Evidently, because someone isn't convinced of the phenomenon of being "drunk in the Spirit", for example, it is entirely because he/she either haven't experienced it, or possesses a "religious" or "pharisaical" spirit. Nevermind whether or not the Bible supports this experience or not, it must be a critical, religious spirit. All this serves to do is make others feel small and feeds the pride of those who make others small.
While this conference and the related book will no doubt continue to feed the debate over miraculous gifts and hopefully cause many cessationists to reconsider their position, it would do many charismatic Christians well to reconsider their own attitudes toward those for whom the moving of the Spirit in tangible, miraculous gifts is not yet a functional reality and who are concerned over unbiblical excesses. Let us remember that Paul was not shy about correcting abuses, but neither did he command the Corinthians to declare a moratorium on spiritual gifts. Rather, he corrected their attitudes and instructed them to seek the more excellent way of love. I hope that all believers in this controversy would do the same.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
A Very Short Case for Limited Atonement
A topic like this deserves a much fuller treatment, but I thought it would be beneficial to put forth a short case for the third point of Calvinism called Limited Atonement (or better yet, particular atonement). Now I don't think this is a point to divide over on either a first or second level, but I do think it is a point that has far reaching implications. I'll confess, I don't understand how 4-point Calvinism works. The entire point of sovereign grace is particularity in whom God chooses to save and how He does it for His elect, but I digress.
Here are some Scriptures that I believe imply particularity in the matter of for whom Christ died. I'll admit, I could be wrong, but I am pretty confident in my understanding.
I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours...And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth (John 17:9, 19 NKJV)
In this, Jesus' High Priestly prayer, He specifically identifies those for whom He is praying and by implication, whom He is going to the cross for. Notice, in verse 9, Jesus specifically says He is not praying for the world, but for those who were given to Him by God the Father. In the immediate context, this means the Twelve apostles sans Judas, but then in verse 20, our Lord widens His prayer to include all believers everywhere.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Romans 5:12-21 NKJV)
This long section is Paul's classic statement of Federal Theology, the doctrine that both believers and unbelievers each have a representative who acted on their behalf. As for how it pertains to Definite Atonement, it seems clear that Adam's transgression actualized the condemnation of those whom he represented and conversely, Jesus Christ's obedience actualized the salvation of those He represented. Notice, that Jesus' obedience didn't make salvation possible - His death made it actual. Now certainly this couldn't pertain to all people without exception, or else all people everywhere would be saved and we would be left with Universalism. Therefore, I conclude that Romans 5 also indicates Particular Atonement.
For by one offering, He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:14 NKJV)
This one is my personal favorite. I believe this one verse could by itself affirm both Particular Atonement and Final Perseverance. Here's how. The writer of Hebrews states that Jesus' one offering of Himself on the cross by itself perfected - not every person without exception - but specifically those who are being sanctified. Jesus' death actually accomplished this perfecting of His people. His death certainly did not perfect the finally reprobate. But the writer goes even further by stating that Jesus' sacrifice of Himself also perfected His people forever! There is no possibility of falling away (and even the passage later in chapter 10 that seems to imply that they can rules out the possibility of that happening in verse 39). This establishes the Perseverance of the saints.
There is certainly much more that could be said. More passages that could be cited and more arguments that I could make, but I hope this short case is encouraging for those who hold to Particular Atonement and challenging for those who don't agree with me to reconsider their position.
Here are some Scriptures that I believe imply particularity in the matter of for whom Christ died. I'll admit, I could be wrong, but I am pretty confident in my understanding.
I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours...And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth (John 17:9, 19 NKJV)
In this, Jesus' High Priestly prayer, He specifically identifies those for whom He is praying and by implication, whom He is going to the cross for. Notice, in verse 9, Jesus specifically says He is not praying for the world, but for those who were given to Him by God the Father. In the immediate context, this means the Twelve apostles sans Judas, but then in verse 20, our Lord widens His prayer to include all believers everywhere.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Romans 5:12-21 NKJV)
This long section is Paul's classic statement of Federal Theology, the doctrine that both believers and unbelievers each have a representative who acted on their behalf. As for how it pertains to Definite Atonement, it seems clear that Adam's transgression actualized the condemnation of those whom he represented and conversely, Jesus Christ's obedience actualized the salvation of those He represented. Notice, that Jesus' obedience didn't make salvation possible - His death made it actual. Now certainly this couldn't pertain to all people without exception, or else all people everywhere would be saved and we would be left with Universalism. Therefore, I conclude that Romans 5 also indicates Particular Atonement.
For by one offering, He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:14 NKJV)
This one is my personal favorite. I believe this one verse could by itself affirm both Particular Atonement and Final Perseverance. Here's how. The writer of Hebrews states that Jesus' one offering of Himself on the cross by itself perfected - not every person without exception - but specifically those who are being sanctified. Jesus' death actually accomplished this perfecting of His people. His death certainly did not perfect the finally reprobate. But the writer goes even further by stating that Jesus' sacrifice of Himself also perfected His people forever! There is no possibility of falling away (and even the passage later in chapter 10 that seems to imply that they can rules out the possibility of that happening in verse 39). This establishes the Perseverance of the saints.
There is certainly much more that could be said. More passages that could be cited and more arguments that I could make, but I hope this short case is encouraging for those who hold to Particular Atonement and challenging for those who don't agree with me to reconsider their position.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Tota Scriptura: All of Scripture
I love the Bible. All believers do. I love to read it and study it. I haven't preached much, but the times when I have were exhilerating. I love to look into its formation and canon and wish I had the time, training, and resources necessary to go into the more complex questions of text and translation.
The biblical and ecclesiastical languages fascinate me too. I wish I had taken more Greek in college. I wish I was more proficient in Hebrew and I wish I could study Aramaic too. While I'm at it, I wish I could learn Latin also and read from the Vulgate!
Because I love the Bible so much, it frustrates me when I see the way it is often treated with glib disregard for its meaning and context. I hate it when it is treated functionally like it's not relevant to the problems at hand as if the writers of the Scripture didn't face the problems we face and as if God didn't address those issues.
But there's one way the Bible is often misused that is perhaps the worst of all because it is so subtle as to not always be recognizable. I refer to what can be called the "canon within the canon". That is the practice of pitting one part of Scripture against another as if the favored section is more relevant, or more inspired, or "for today".
I grew up within church contexts that were solidly evangelical and usually dispensational. Almost every pastor that I knew, although they were always good men of God, would tell you that you can't get doctrine or practice for the church from the Gospels or Acts as that era was for Israel, not the Church. Another common attitude was that the Gospels and Acts are narrative in nature, while the epistles (particularly of Paul) give us the doctrine of the church. The Gospels and Acts described a "transitional period" and are "descriptive and not prescriptive".
Interestingly, as I became more charismatic and entered that context, I found exactly the same phenomenon, albeit from the opposite end. There was such a slavish emphasis on the Gospels and Acts that the epistles (again, particularly of Paul) were basically ignored. Now no one would outright say that the Gospels are more inspired, but one was left to wonder why we never followed the example of Pauline churches who excommunicated a man who slept with his stepmother (in order to lead to his repentance), but rather juxtaposed that with Jesus who "hung out" with sinners (for exactly the same reason: to call them to repentance) as if there is some disconnect between Jesus and His hand-picked apostle to the gentiles. At least the dispensationalists could give you a coherent (albeit wrong) reason for their carving up of the Bible like a Thanksgiving turkey!
Okay, now that I've got that off my chest, what is the positive alternative? Well for starters, I would say that more churches should read, hear, teach, preach, and practice the entire Bible and not only the portions we like or are comfortable with. This by the way includes the Old Testament. Now certainly we must understand how the Bible fits together and that many commands and practices in the Old Testament don't directly apply today (like not wearing polyester, or sacrificing a lamb or a goat). Personally, I'm glad I don't have to travel to Jerusalem three times a year. But the Old Testament is just as much a part of our Christian heritage as the New. What does Jesus say? "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. (Matthew 5:17 NKJV). Or how about Paul (I am being a little tongue in cheek here)? For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope (Romans 15:4 NKJV).
But more than that, it is important also to see that Scripture interprets Scripture. While it is certain that we can learn important things from a single text, it is not true that any one text should be divorced from what the rest of the Bible teaches. Scripture is a whole and should be interpreted as such.
One of the most important needs of the hour, as in times past, is faithful men who will read, study, teach, preach, and live out the entire message of the Bible. I do not pretend that such men are not already among us, but I pray for even more men who will heed Paul's charge to Timothy: "Do your best to present
yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be
ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Why I Believe in Sola Scriptura
As all are undoubtedly aware, the last few weeks have seen the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, and the election and coronation of Pope Francis I, the first non-European pontiff in over a thousand years and the first from the Americas. While current events don't typically dictate my blogging topics, I thought Francis' inauguration presented a good opportunity to give a brief list of reasons why I am a Protestant and why I reject the system of Roman Catholicism. In this post, I want to enumerate the reasons why I believe in the historic Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone.
Firstly, it is good to state what Sola Scriptura is and is not. I would define Sola Scriptura as the belief that the Scriptures (which contain the 66 books of the Protestant canon) are the sole and only infallible and inerrant form of God's revelation to man.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) states it this way:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men...The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (Chapter I:VI, X)
This does not rule out the other forms of revelation to man, which include general revelation (in which God reveals His character and goodness through creation, providence, and conscience), tradition (which is the fallible summary of Scripture's teaching like the creeds for example), and the prophetic gifts (which do not threaten Scripture's sufficiency in any way, but that's another post).
Sola Scriptura simply states that the Bible is alone infallible, inspired, and inerrant. It is the final court of appeal in any theological dispute. Nothing at all is ever to be placed alongside or above the Scriptures.
However, this understanding has been misunderstood and misapplied by many individuals and groups since the Reformation. James White in his excellent book The Roman Catholic Controversy gives a helpful summary of what Sola Scriptura is not. Sola Scriptura is not a:
1. claim that the Bible contains all knowledge;
2. claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge;
3 denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth;
4. denial that God's Word has, at times, been spoken;
5. rejection of every kind or use of tradition
6. denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church. (page 59)
In contrast is the Roman Catholic position concerning the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (published after Vatican II incidently) states the official Roman dogma of two distinct modes of transmission this way:
"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching."
As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." (page 31; Emphasis mine)
In contrast, the Holy Scripture itself asserts its own supremacy in several places:
This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success (Joshua 1:8 NKJV)
Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You. (Psalm 119:11)
Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5,6 NKJV)
He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
(Mark 7:6-13 NKJV)
But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:14-17 NKJV)
That last Scripture in 2 Timothy is the clincher for me. Verse 17 says that the man of God will be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work by obeying the Scriptures. In other words, if the Bible makes me complete and thoroughly equips me, then by definition I need no other source for information on what to believe or how to live in order to please God. Scripture alone is sufficient to guide me in the truths of the Gospel and Christian living.
There is certainly much more that could be said, but I just wanted to give a brief listing and sampling of the reasons why I remain convinced of Sola Scriptura. I hope this brief explanation is beneficial to my readers.
Firstly, it is good to state what Sola Scriptura is and is not. I would define Sola Scriptura as the belief that the Scriptures (which contain the 66 books of the Protestant canon) are the sole and only infallible and inerrant form of God's revelation to man.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) states it this way:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men...The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (Chapter I:VI, X)
This does not rule out the other forms of revelation to man, which include general revelation (in which God reveals His character and goodness through creation, providence, and conscience), tradition (which is the fallible summary of Scripture's teaching like the creeds for example), and the prophetic gifts (which do not threaten Scripture's sufficiency in any way, but that's another post).
Sola Scriptura simply states that the Bible is alone infallible, inspired, and inerrant. It is the final court of appeal in any theological dispute. Nothing at all is ever to be placed alongside or above the Scriptures.
However, this understanding has been misunderstood and misapplied by many individuals and groups since the Reformation. James White in his excellent book The Roman Catholic Controversy gives a helpful summary of what Sola Scriptura is not. Sola Scriptura is not a:
1. claim that the Bible contains all knowledge;
2. claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge;
3 denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth;
4. denial that God's Word has, at times, been spoken;
5. rejection of every kind or use of tradition
6. denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church. (page 59)
In contrast is the Roman Catholic position concerning the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (published after Vatican II incidently) states the official Roman dogma of two distinct modes of transmission this way:
"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching."
As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." (page 31; Emphasis mine)
In contrast, the Holy Scripture itself asserts its own supremacy in several places:
This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success (Joshua 1:8 NKJV)
Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You. (Psalm 119:11)
Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5,6 NKJV)
He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men —the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
(Mark 7:6-13 NKJV)
But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:14-17 NKJV)
That last Scripture in 2 Timothy is the clincher for me. Verse 17 says that the man of God will be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work by obeying the Scriptures. In other words, if the Bible makes me complete and thoroughly equips me, then by definition I need no other source for information on what to believe or how to live in order to please God. Scripture alone is sufficient to guide me in the truths of the Gospel and Christian living.
There is certainly much more that could be said, but I just wanted to give a brief listing and sampling of the reasons why I remain convinced of Sola Scriptura. I hope this brief explanation is beneficial to my readers.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
ACRC South Central Regional Conference - The Gathered Church
If anyone reading my blog will be or can be in the Dallas, TX area this month, you should check out the ACRC South Central Regional conference entitled, "The Gathered Church". The conference will be held Monday March 18 through Wednesday March 20. I sadly won't be able to attend, but I will be there in spirit with my brothers, and I certainly will be downloading the messages afterward. Below is a link from the ACRC South Central website. Blessings.
http://www.acrcsouthcentral.org/ACRC-South_Central.html
http://www.acrcsouthcentral.org/ACRC-South_Central.html
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
My Vision for a Word and Power Church Plant, Part 2
In my last post I went into some detail concerning the vision that I have for planting a church that is committed to both Word and Power. While I have mentioned the wedding of Word and Power and what that might look like in the ministry I envision, I wanted to use this post to go into a little more detail about what I hope one aspect of the ministry of power will look like.
If I could be blunt, and I hope I do not sound unkind, my experience with what is broadly considered "Reformed Charismatics" are too light on the charismatic side. In fact, I think it would be better to classify them as "Reformed Continuationists". There are some notable exceptions of course, but in general, and I speak with very broad strokes, there seems to be a real hesitancy to fully embrace the dynamic and empowering ministries of the Holy Spirit that are available to us in the "now" of the Kingdom of God.
I refer primarily right now to really pursuing the prophetic ministry and the role of the prophet. While Reformed Continuationists believe in the continuing gift of prophecy; there is in my opinion, a fear of expanding our experience and embracing a robust prophetic ministry in the church. There are reasons I know. Possibly there is a fear of going too far and being labeled a "charismaniac". Perhaps it is the fear compromising the Reformed conviction regarding the sufficiency of the Bible and Sola Scriptura.
I certainly understand these fears and have actually seen the abuses mentioned above in practice. It's not pretty. But the reason I bring it up is because I really believe that the New Testament provides us with both example and precept regarding this vital function in the church (Acts 11:27-30; 13:1; 15:32; 1 Corinthians 12:28; 14:1; Ephesians 2:20; 4:11-16; 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22). If indeed the New Testament does indicate that the prophetic is a valuable and vital tool for building up the body, then perhaps it we should be willing to broaden our horizons a bit; going to prophetic conferences and opening ourselves up to ministries and individuals with whom we don't agree on other things.
All that just to say that if I could make this vision a reality, the prophetic ministry would receive the attention that I believe it deserves. I myself do not believe I possess a strong prophetic gifting or anointing, but that's part of the point of spiritual gifts in the church. Christians with different gifts and strengths coming together in one body to see Jesus glorified. I understand that we are all doing the best we can with what we've been given and some people are in different places, but I hope this small blog post gives my readers an idea as to where I am at this time on this particular subject.
If I could be blunt, and I hope I do not sound unkind, my experience with what is broadly considered "Reformed Charismatics" are too light on the charismatic side. In fact, I think it would be better to classify them as "Reformed Continuationists". There are some notable exceptions of course, but in general, and I speak with very broad strokes, there seems to be a real hesitancy to fully embrace the dynamic and empowering ministries of the Holy Spirit that are available to us in the "now" of the Kingdom of God.
I refer primarily right now to really pursuing the prophetic ministry and the role of the prophet. While Reformed Continuationists believe in the continuing gift of prophecy; there is in my opinion, a fear of expanding our experience and embracing a robust prophetic ministry in the church. There are reasons I know. Possibly there is a fear of going too far and being labeled a "charismaniac". Perhaps it is the fear compromising the Reformed conviction regarding the sufficiency of the Bible and Sola Scriptura.
I certainly understand these fears and have actually seen the abuses mentioned above in practice. It's not pretty. But the reason I bring it up is because I really believe that the New Testament provides us with both example and precept regarding this vital function in the church (Acts 11:27-30; 13:1; 15:32; 1 Corinthians 12:28; 14:1; Ephesians 2:20; 4:11-16; 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22). If indeed the New Testament does indicate that the prophetic is a valuable and vital tool for building up the body, then perhaps it we should be willing to broaden our horizons a bit; going to prophetic conferences and opening ourselves up to ministries and individuals with whom we don't agree on other things.
All that just to say that if I could make this vision a reality, the prophetic ministry would receive the attention that I believe it deserves. I myself do not believe I possess a strong prophetic gifting or anointing, but that's part of the point of spiritual gifts in the church. Christians with different gifts and strengths coming together in one body to see Jesus glorified. I understand that we are all doing the best we can with what we've been given and some people are in different places, but I hope this small blog post gives my readers an idea as to where I am at this time on this particular subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Does the Bible Demand Baptism Only by Immersion?: A Case for Sprinkling and Pouring Alongside Immersion
The doctrine of water baptism has sadly been a bitter source of division for Christians down through the centuries, especially since the tim...
%20(1).png)
-
It occurred to me recently that it was exactly 10 years ago that I made one of the most profound theological shifts in my life. Interesting...
-
Many Christian people do not like the biblical teachings on predestination and sovereign election, or Calvinism for short if you prefer. But...
-
What is the gospel? I cannot imagine a more important question than this. As Christians, we are convinced that the gospel is the good news o...