Sam Storms on Fallible Prophecy: Point 2

Second, a related point is found in Paul’s exhortation to the Thessalonians that they not “quench the Spirit” by “despising prophecies” (1 Thess. 5:19-20). Rather, they are to “test everything,” i.e., they are to weigh, judge, evaluate, or assess what purports to be a prophetic word and then “hold fast what is good” and “abstain from every form of evil” (vv. 21-22). -

See more at: http://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/why-nt-prophecy-does-not-result-in--scripture-quality--revelatory-words--a-response-to-the-most-frequently-cited-cessationist-argument-against-the-contemporary-validity-of-spiritual-gifts-#sthash.QLDzbSI0.dpuf

“A good part of the meaning of these five imperatives is lost if we do not first understand the relations between them. The first clear distinction is between the two negative commands of verses 19–20 and the positive commands of verse 21–22. In Greek the two groups are separated by an adversative “but” (omitted in many manuscripts, probably accidentally incorporated into the next word). Within each group, Paul moves from the generic to the specific; despising inspired messages is a special case of restraining the Holy Spirit. Keeping what is good and avoiding every kind of evil are the two consequences of putting all things to the test.”^[1]

With every text, there is a context. Storms seems to be looking at this text through the lens of the modern Pentecostal phenomenon of prophecy. But the text is a little more specific than Storms wants to acknowledge. The immediate context of these commands must be understood in light of v. 12 where Paul commands the Thessalonians to appreciate those that labor among them and have charge over them. As is typically the case with modern non-cessationists, the classification of prophecy is too narrowly defined. BDAG defines prophecy here as the gift of interpreting divine will or purpose. Storms assumes it is a reference to the very same phenomenon in which modern Charismatics and Pentecostals engage. There is no exegetical basis for this assumption.

Paul wrote the Thessalonian correspondence to (1) encourage the church during persecution; (2) defend the purity of his mission; (3) urge the church to live holy lives characterized by sexual purity; (4) define a Christian work ethic; (5) correct confusion around the coming of Christ; (6) prompt the church to respect its leaders. [Koestenberger, The Cross, The Cradle, and The Crown, 444] There are two basic areas that we must understand if we are to understand Paul’s command to the Thessalonians. The first one is in point (6) above, that the Thessalonians were having issues with respecting their leaders, those most likely to be the ones giving inspired utterances.

The word “despise” means to despise someone or something on the basis that it is worthless or of no value. This command and the challenge around respect for godly leaders must be viewed in light of the decrees of Caesar regarding prophetic utterances.

These decrees are actually used as the basis for the persecution of Paul and Jason in Acts 17:7. “Augustus decreed that the seers were forbidden to prophesy to any person alone or to prophesy regarding death even if others should be present. The emperor Tiberius gave another decree: But as for all the other astrologers and magicians and such as practiced divination in anyway whatsoever, he put to death those who were foreigners and banished all the citizens that were accused of still employing the art at this time after the previous decree [dogma] by which it had been forbidden to engage in any such business in the city.” [Burge, Cohick, & Green, The New Testament in Antiquity, 283] Caesar had issued a decree that forbad prophecy. From Acts 17, we know that the Thessalonians were deeply familiar with and had embraced the decree. That Paul was dealing with an element in the Church that had continued to embrace this ungodly decree must be given very serious consideration.  

Notice that immediately after Paul commands the Church not to quench the Spirit and not to despise prophecy, he immediately contrasts this command by issuing a second command. Rather than immediately despising prophecy itself, not the content of the prophecy, Paul says but examine everything carefully, hold fast to the good and abstain from every form of evil.

In summary then, it seems fairly obvious to me that Paul was not commanding the Thessalonians not to despise godly prophecy, but rather, to purge themselves of the decree of Caesar, which had led to an ungodly attitude toward the gift of prophecy and those that prophesy, namely, the leaders. In addition to purging themselves of this ungodly bias against this gift of God, they were also commanded not to be naïve to the content of prophecy and have the pendulum swing to the other extreme. On the one hand, the Thessalonians were commanded to abandon Caesar’s decree against the practice of prophecy, but to do so while making sure that everyone claiming to speak in the name of God was actually speaking in the name of God. They were to examine these claims by comparing and contrasting them with the divine truth that they had received from Paul and his associates. In light of the background of Paul’s commands to the Thessalonians, we can conclude that Paul was far more specific than Sam Storms has understood him to be.

---

^[1] Paul Ellingworth and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on Paul’s Letters to the Thessalonians, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1976), 123.

Sam Storms and Fallible Prophecy: A Critical Response

Back in November of 2013 Sam Storms came to the defense of the modern fallible prophecy movement in the charismatic churches. In that defense, he lists ten arguments that he is convinced refutes John MacArthur’s “Strange Fire” assessment of the practice and Doug Wilson’s criticism of it as well. I am going to provide some condensed posts in response to what I see as a surplus of fallacies in Storms’ arguments. You should keep in mind, however, that my criticism is not necessarily a defense of MacArthur and Wilson’s view as much as it is of my own, which may or may not be slightly nuanced in comparison to the former men.

 

Here is the link to Storms Defense

Mr. Storms begins with the following statement:

First, this view fails to reckon with what would undoubtedly have been thousands of prophetic words circulating in the first century, none of which are part of canonical Scripture and thus none of which are binding on the conscience of Christians throughout history.

Storms makes this statement in response to the view that such prophecies equal divine revelation and as such are the authoritative word of God and should be included in the canon. Storms takes the curious and fallacious position that there is a distinction in the authority of God’s word included in the canon and that word that never made it into the canon.

My mind travels back to that time when Moses was commanded by God to strike the rock once! This word was not part of the canon, the Torah, and yet Moses suffered the judgment of God for not obeying God’s personal word to Him. I am also reminded of Saul, whom Samuel told to destroy everything from the Amalekites. Saul disobeyed and lost the kingdom. These words were not part of the Torah nor were they given to everyone in Israel. They were given to Saul. God’s word is by nature authoritative. God’s word was just as authoritative prior to canonization as it is now that we have the canon. The canon does nothing to make God’s word more or less authoritative. In addition, putting God’s divine communication in writing does not add to its authority, nor does it diminish it in any way. God’s word is authoritative precisely because it is God’s word, not because it takes a particular form.

Since God’s word is by nature authoritative, it only follows that the recipient of that word is under absolute obligation to obey it. Refusal to obey God’s word, regardless of its form, is a serious sin. God’s word is not more or less authoritative depending on its form or its messenger. Storms makes no effort to demonstrate why anyone should think otherwise. He simply assumes we should take his point to be the gospel truth so to speak.

Finally, Storms makes a serious error in his presumption regarding the number and content of NT prophecies. Storms says, “there would undoubtedly have been thousands of prophetic words circulating in the first century.” This may or may not have been the case. The truth is that we do not know how often this gift was engaged in the ancient church. Nevertheless, even if Storms is right in his speculation on this point, he is likely wrong in his speculation on the latter one. Storms presumes that the content of these numerous prophecies during the ancient church never made its way into the canon. How does he know this? Indeed, how could he possibly know this to be the case? The fact of the matter is that he does not. The truth is that these prophecies could have very well been a combination of Old Testament and New Testament Scripture in prophetic form. The ancient church represents the most interesting transition periods in all of human history. That God would be doing unique work during such a unique period should not surprise us in the least.

In summary then, Storms basic presupposition is that canonical revelation is more authoritative and normative than personal, prophetic revelation. This point of view is completely lacking exegetical warrant. Second, Storms view that there were thousands of prophetic words in the NT is based upon sheer conjecture and speculation. Even if it was true, and it may be, it is entirely irrelevant to the argument. Third, Storms’ contention that these prophecies contained divine revelation that is not contained in the Scripture is without exegetical warrant. Moses and Saul were given direct personal revelations from God, they both disobeyed, and they both suffered grave consequences as a result. The fact that these NT prophecies could have contained OT revelation not previously disclosed to Gentile audiences or NT revelation that would eventually make it into the canon is enough to accuse Storms of fallacious reasoning.

I conclude that Storms then must be wrong about his view that these NT prophecies were on a different authority scale than the NT canon and that the content of these prophecies never made it into the canon. On the former there is exegetical proof that Storms is wrong. On the latter, it is far more congruent with Christian theology to presume that whatever these prophetic revelations were in this transition period, they were based on the very same principles and even content that did make it into the canon.

The Cessationist View of Scripture: Refuting the Unorthodox Views of Steve Hays

In my last post, I pointed out that all knowledge is revelational in nature. In addition, I made a distinction not only between natural revelation and special revelation, but also between how regenerate and unregenerate men receive natural revelation. I stated that the Christian teaching known as total depravity asserts that unregenerate men uniformly and without exception, willfully suppress the knowledge of God they have within and about them. Paul’s teaching on this subject is unencumbered. That some men hold to a different interpretation of that text is no proof that Paul was ambiguous. If that reasoning were employed consistently to the whole text, the entire doctrine of perspicuity would be eclipsed by postmodern agnosticism. Orthodoxy has always had competing interpretations and she always will. However, Christians can fully rely on the work of the Holy Spirit to guide them into the revealed truths of Scripture. That is a primary function of His work.

What is the nature of this book we have called the Bible? What is Scripture? Why do we have Scripture? How should we view Scripture? How should we see the historical events in Scripture? Is the Bible different? Are the acts of God as recorded in Scripture different? Was God acting in typical fashion or is there a sense in which the acts of God in Scripture were special? When God spoke to Moses, was it a special event? By special, I mean can we or should we expect God to do the same thing with us? According to bloggers like Adam Hays and others, the answer is no. The events we read about in Scripture are not special in any sense. We should all expect God to visit us the same way He visited the prophets, the disciples, and others in Scripture. What happens if we accept such postulations? Does it even matter? I think it does.

The Scripture and the Spirit

A primary role of the Holy Spirit is to apply the word of God to the human heart. He is the great Teacher. Jesus said He will teach you (the disciples) all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. (Jn. 14:26) Again, “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.” (Jn. 16:13-15) “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.” (1 Jn. 2:20) “As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.” (1 Jn. 2:27) Clearly there is a clear relationship between the Spirit and the Word. The Word is called truth in John 17:17. The Spirit is called the Spirit of truth in Jn. 16:13. The Spirit’s role is to take that which has already been given and to proclaim it to us. He did this with the disciples directly and He takes the same information given to the disciples, which has been encapsulated on the page, and illumines our understanding. The role of the Holy Spirit is indispensable to understanding Scripture. And the role of the Word is indispensable to discerning the spirits. They are inseparable. It is right to call Him the Spirit of the Word!

The Concept of A Sufficient Word from God

We toss around the phrase “sufficiency of Scripture” all the time and I fear without much regard for all that it implies. The view of that God has given us what is sufficient for faith, life, and godliness is as old as the Church. The Sacred Writings have always carried a prominent place in Christianity, at least until recently. In recent times many in the Church have felt quite at home handling the Scripture with no more fear than they do a pile of dung. There is no pause, no second or third thought about what it is they are actually touching. There is little to no consideration for the potential judgment they place themselves in when they take up the Holy Writ and mangle it to suit their own unbridled, undisciplined otiose speculations. We walk under the banner of a disfigured, manufactured, and humanistic view of grace and do as we please with the hallowed Documents. It as is if the Word of God was given to satisfy our intellectual lust for vain arguments designed to show off our debate skills rather than to transform our wicked hearts and lives into the image of the God we are sworn to serve! We smash the hearts of others without regard for the damage we do all in the name of “defending the faith” or of “doing apologetics.” The Word of God was given to change us, not so that we could have something to debate.

The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture means that we have all we need in Scripture in order to walk in the perfect will of God. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 could not be any clearer. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. The Greek word adequate means to be proficient and complete to perform some function. What function would that be? It would be the function of performing the good works of righteousness that result in the glory and honor of God the Father.

Now, let’s test this against the modern Pentecostal view. First of all, I am talking to the broad Pentecostal audience. This audience holds to a view known as the libertarian freedom of the will. The Pentecostal believes that God’s perfect will can be thwarted. The Pentecostal, for all intents and purpsoses, denies that God is absolutely sovereign over the state of affairs that have obtained. God has given to man the freedom to go his own way and to effectively resist His will. Moreover, men do this all the time according to the Pentecostal.

Now, to keep it simple, how does the Pentecostal idea of open revelation impugn the Sufficiency of Scripture? I am going to create a typical Pentecostal. Let’s call him Adam, well, because Adam is a common name. I have a son named Adam. I like that name. Let’s say that Adam, like nearly every other Pentecostal believes that God has a plan for his life. In fact, God has a perfect will for his life. If Adam could discover this perfect will for his life, this would mean he would be really doing more than the average Christian to honor and glorify God. He would be super close to God. He would be walking in nearly perfect obedience to God. When you reach this state in your Christian walk, God does special things in, through, and with you. But how can Adam get to that special place? How can Adam know the perfect will of God? Well, he has to pray, to fast, to give, and whatever else he can sacrifice to show God just how much he really loves him. God will help Adam get to this place by giving him dreams, visions, and prophecies and even speak to him directly.

Suppose Adam is thinking about getting married. Suppose he notices this very intelligent and attractive young lady that he thinks would make a great wife. Now suppose Adam wants to know if this is the woman God has for him. Adam will pray, and maybe even fast to get an answer. Adam may think that God has given him a dream that she is the one or not. Someone may prophesy that Adam should marry the girl. What happens if Adam does not marry the girl? What if Adam marries someone else? As far as the Pentecostal is concerned, God had another wife appointed for Adam, planned for Adam and now Adam has ruined God’s perfect plan. Adam is now not walking in God’s perfect will. In addition, what if God tells Adam that he is supposed to be a missionary but Adam refuses? Is Adam living in rebellion?

Pentecostal theology is based upon Arminianism theology. The reason the Pentecostal needs continued revelation is because they do not think the Bible in and of itself is enough. They need direction for their lives specifically that is not found in Scripture. It is not enough that God gave His word to the Church and therefore to us because we are the Church. The Pentecostal has an insatiable appetite to make everything about the individual. They want to know who to marry, where to live, which job to take. They believe that spiritual growth is based on experience. The closer they get to God, the more they will hear from Him outside of the Word. These ecstatic experiences will continually increase and this will show everyone else just how spiritual they are and how close to God they are, and how full of the Holy Spirit they are. They reject the orthodox teaching of sovereignty. They deny that God controls all things. They insist that man must find his way to God in addition to what Scripture teaches. The Bible is just the basics as far as the Pentecostal is concerned. It gets you moving toward a loftier goal. If you do things correctly (in the Spirit), God will talk to you directly, give you dreams, visions, and prophecies. You will find God’s perfect will and become a super saint.

In other words, since the Bible does not reveal to me God’s perfect will for my life, it isn’t enough. It isn’t sufficient to move me along to those deeper levels of walking in the Spirit. The Pentecostal may admit that the Bible is sufficient to save and maybe sufficient to get you into heaven. But the Bible, through these gifts, points one to a deeper, closer, more perfect walk with God. And this idea is a direct contradiction of 2 Tim. 3:16-17. The Scriptures are sufficient to bring the Christian to the place where they need to be spiritually. Nothing more is needed. Either the Scriptures adequately equip the believer to do all that God requires of them or they do not. Either God has revealed all we need to know in His word or He has not.

John Webster wrote, "What Scripture is as sanctified and inspired is a function of divine revelatory activity, and divine revelatory activity is God's triune being in its external orientation, its gracious and self-bestowing turn to the creation." [Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. 9]

As for bloggers like Steve Hays, perhaps he is struggling because he has fallen on his own sword of contradictions or maybe he just has a propensity to one up everyone else. That his arguments have become wildly incongruent is obvious for all but his most biased fans to see. Webster says it like this, "If the doctrine of revelation has stumbled and fallen, it has not only been because Christian theology was tongue-tied in trying to answer its critics to their satisfaction; it has also been because Christian theology found itself largely incapable of following and deploying the inner logic of Christian conviction in its apologetic and polemical undertakings." [Ibid. 11]

Finally, to end the post, one more excellent quote from Webster: "In these form, the argument to be out here may be stated thus: revelation is the self-presentation of the triune God, the free work of sovereign mercy in which God wills, establishes and perfects saving fellowship with himself in which humankind comes to know, love and fear him above all things." [Ibid. 13]

The Cessationist View of Scripture

There is an explicit relationship between one’s understanding of revelation and one’s view of Scripture. For the Christian, the state of affairs that has obtained in the created order is what God has revealed it to be in divine Scripture. This perspective is what a philosopher would designate a metaphysical presupposition. Moreover, we know this statement is true because God has revealed it to be true by the instrument of divine Scripture. This second statement reflects what a philosopher would designate an epistemological presupposition. Many naïve philosophers and even theologians have attempted to establish and defend epistemological presuppositions absent metaphysical presuppositions. In addition, others have endeavored to establish and defend metaphysical presuppositions absent epistemological presuppositions. The problem with both goals is that they fail to acknowledge the unavoidable and necessary relationship between the state of affairs, and our theory of knowledge.

For the Christian, the nature of the case is precisely as God reveals it to be in the divine Scripture. Metaphysically speaking, God is the source of all that has come to be. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth and all that is in it. The Christian recognizes that the nature of this statement is divine revelation. God has revealed to man that He is the Creator of all that is. This type of revelation is called “special” revelation. When God created man, He also created him with the imprint of the knowledge of God in him as created in God’s image. Man is also graciously given God’s revelation of Himself in the created order. This, we call “general” revelation. The Christian that fails to understand or formulate a solid understanding or philosophy of revelation is subject to manifold and avoidable perils.

In point of fact, before the eighteenth century the existence of a supranatural world, and the necessity, possibility, and reality of a special revelation, had never been seriously called into question. But Deism, springing up in England, emancipated the world from God, reason from revelation, the will from grace.^[1] 

More than any other movement, the enlightenment paved the way for all sorts of theories to emerge concerning religion and revelation. One may ask what English deism has to do with the current discussion we are having on the gifts. The answer is nothing, other than the fact that the enlightenment destroyed the notion of revelation in the minds of some, and in the minds of others it granted a new sense of permissiveness so that they could formulate all sorts of opinions on the subject absent any discipline whatever. The Christian must take special care in formulating his or her view on the subject of revelation. A thoroughly biblical philosophy of revelation is indispensable to one’s understanding of the nature and significance of Scripture.

The philosophy of revelation, just like that of history, art, and the rest, must take its start from its object, from revelation. Even its idea cannot be construed apriori. There is but one alternative: either there is no revelation, and then all speculation is idle; or else there comes to us out of history such a revelation, shining by its own light; and then it tells us, not only what its content is, but also how it comes into existence.^[2] 

Of His own initiative, God condescended in the person of Christ, and He is immanent in creation. Even in the garden, Adam was not left to guess about the things surrounding him or the source of all that he was and witnessed. God came to Him. God comes to us, to each of us, by way of revelation.

The revelation of God in nature, appearing in the conscience of man and the created order around him, witnesses to the Creator and signifies to the creature that God is marvelous, benevolent, mighty, and sovereign over all. In his original state, man had an unbroken communion with God. He walked and talked with God as a matter of routine. He was unimpeded in his relationship with his maker. The revelation of God was unencumbered, lavish, and unequivocal. But man became discontent with the state of affairs that God had created. He took all that was good, holy, and pure and exchanged it for the corruptible and contemptible. Man intentionally rejected his Creator and came immediately under the curse of God. He was cast out of the garden and cut off not only from his Maker, but also from that special form of revelation he once enjoyed. Man still had God’s gracious revelation in nature, but the special revelation by which God would condescend with him was lost! Cut off from special revelation with God, man’s knowledge of God was doomed to take on a totally different nature. If man were going to know God as before, it would be up to God. Man had become totally unable and even unwilling to know God intimately.

In His ST, Louis Berkhof informs provides an excellent assessment of the consequences of the first sin: 

“The immediate concomitant of the first sin, and therefore hardly a result of it in the strict sense of the word, was the total depravity of human nature. The contagion of his sin at once spread through the entire man, leaving no part of his nature untouched, but vitiating every power and faculty of body and soul. Immediately connected with the preceding was the loss of communion with God through the Holy Spirit.”[3] 

The effects of the first sin are far more devastating that most Churches care to know today. The truth is that modern Christianity spends very little time on the subject and consequences of original sin. This fact contributes, in no small way, to the kind of errors we are dealing with in the Strange Fire aftermath. I hope to help you connect the dots over the next few posts.

I have said that man has been deprived of the truly intimate knowledge of God he enjoyed in his original state. However, I have also said that man still retains his immediate knowledge of God, which we call general revelation. The knowledge of God that man possesses is sufficient to hold man culpable for his actions. Man knows God is His maker and he knows he owes God all that he is. In short, man knows he owes a debt that he should strive to pay. However, due to the curse of God and the subsequent intrusion of sin into the entire being of man, he seeks in every way to extricate himself from his miserable and pitiful circumstance. The knowledge of God that man has branded on his conscience, he seeks to remove, to hide, so that he can escape his state as the subject of God. This is to say that man willingly takes the revelation of God he has been graciously afforded and he corrupts it, suppressing it so that he can have his autonomy. In this state, man is doomed to divine wrath and justice. There is nothing he can do to escape the divine curse. There is nothing he can do to know God as he once in his original state. Unless God acts, man is doomed never to enjoy the intimate knowledge of God in special revelation again. Moreover, man is equally doomed to pervert and corrupt the revelation of God he does have by way of nature and conscience. Indeed, the circumstances of man are ominous.

But then we see Jesus, “But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.” (Heb. 2:9) And again John testifies, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” (John 1:18) The revelation of God that man so desperately requires comes to us in the pages of Scripture with Christ as their centerpiece. Without the revelation of God in Scripture, we are left to our own devices. The cessationist view of Scripture informs a philosophy of revelation, which in turns affects the position’s view of Scripture. The relationship is spherical in nature.

The Bible is exceptionally unique. No other document can even come close to the uniqueness of the Bible. They all pale in comparison. Jesus said in John 10:35 that the Scriptures cannot be broken. Again in Matt. 22:29, Jesus said that understanding Scripture guards one from error. Failure to understand Scripture is to error from the truth. Jesus said in John 17:17 that God’s word is truth. In John 1:1, 14 we are told that this word, God’s word, has become flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. Hence, what Jesus is, God’s word is and what God’s word is, Jesus is. We now return to John 1:18 which says, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” What we have in the incarnation of Christ, we have in the word of God: an explanation of who God really is. Without this explanation, the curse of total depravity continues to result in man’s inability and unwillingness to truly see God for Who He is. But through the gracious act of the condescension of God in the flesh, coupled with the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit on the human heart, man is able to receive this special revelation from God once more. The divine Scripture then contains very special works of God in the lives of human beings across the eons specifically designed to reveal God to us. The phenomena contained in Scripture did not take place randomly or arbitrarily and just happen to be recorded by a biblical writer. These phenomena took place in history for the overarching redemptive purpose and plan of God as part of His special revelation to His people. The deeds of Samson were not simply a collection of the history of specific events in this man’s life that just happened to be recorded in Scripture while other “Samson-types” were off doing the same things but were not recorded in Scripture. God providentially managed Samson, David, Moses, Elijah, and others in order to reveal things about Himself and for our benefit. Failure to approach Scripture with this presupposition firmly in place will surely lead to a most fallacious understanding of God’s workings then and now.

Because of original sin, man required special revelation in order to know and relate to God truly and rightly. Man is unable and unwilling to receive the revelation of God in nature without in one way or another perverting it. The story of redemption that we see from Genesis to Revelation is the majestic story of the grace of God. The Bible is a literary work that is by nature, written by God Himself through the hands of men preserved and protected for that end. As we approach the divine Scriptures, we must recognize that God was not just passing along historical accounts of how he worked with others so that we can expect Him to work with us in the same way. The document we call the Divine Text is given to us, with all its content, for a far greater purpose. Moses did not witness the burning bush simply for Moses. David did not commit adultery simply for David. These stories are part of the grandest story of them all! They are there for you and for me. The grace of God is far more remarkable than any of us could ever think or imagine. My next post will address the more specific aspects of the cessationist view of Scripture

---

^[1] Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation : The Stone Lectures for 1908-1909, Princeton Theological Seminary (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909), 7.

^[2] Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation : The Stone Lectures for 1908-1909, Princeton Theological Seminary (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909), 26.

[3] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1932), 225-26.

Cessationism, Miracles, and Atheism: Understanding the Difference

For what seems like dozens of posts at this point, Steve Hays has criticized John MacArthur, Fred Butler, others, and myself for rejecting the modern claims by Charismatics that miracles workers still exist in the Church today. Steve has accused us of adopting the very same presuppositions employed by naturalistic atheists and skeptics in our reasoning. Perhaps some readers actually think Hays has a good point. After all, I realize that many of the young men at Triablogue are simply eager to follow someone they think is really, really smart. And it appears that Steve Hays is really, really smart. Richard Dawkins is really, really smart too, but he constructs some of the dullest arguments I have ever read. What I want to do in this post is point one, once again, the extraordinary fallacious nature of Hays’ accusation by pointing out where the differences rest between our argument and the argument from skepticism.

In order to get started, I want to quickly look at the skepticism of the famous empiricist, David Hume. Hume argued that there are two kinds of propositions: Relation of Ideas or Matters of Fact. The first set of propositions would include things like math while the second set would include all empirical knowledge, things known through the senses. Hume was convinced that all empirical knowledge was based on the relation of cause and effect. Now, this is far more complex than it might appear. My challenge is to simplify it at the risk of oversimplification. Because Hume denied God as the cause of all things we witness in the universe, and because he was an empiricist, he was forced to conclude that the human mind could never find the cause behind the event. Hume believed that all inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of reasoning. Hence, we know that fire burns through custom, not reason. The empiricist is unable to account for the uniformity of nature based solely on his empiricism. He cannot provide an adequate account for why the universe exists, empirically speaking that is. This is why Hume concluded that we have no empirical basis to believe that the Sun will rise tomorrow. Empiricism, by its very nature, has no predictive power.

Empiricism can in no way predict natural phenomena because it denies that true knowledge of the relationship between the general and the particular exists. Because miracles are events that are highly improbable, no one should believe reports that they actually occur. The issue comes down to one’s procedure for how they reason from the particular facts of experience to general truths. This is called induction. Hume’s skepticism is anchored in his empiricism. Because sooner or later, every inductive generalization presupposes a proposition that can never be proved (empirically speaking), it follows that logical justification for induction is impossible. Of course Hume is engaging in inductive skepticism in order to attack the enterprise of induction. The problem with Hume’s skepticism is his epistemological presupposition that all knowledge comes through the senses. Why Steve Hays knowingly associates the cessation argument with skepticism on any level is curious to say the least. One can only conclude that Hays really doesn’t understand Hume or the role of such presuppositions in one’s worldview or he uses these tactics deliberately. The former would be an indictment of gross ignorance while the latter an indictment of malevolence.

A second form of skepticism is rational skepticism popularized by Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677). Within this scheme, the argument against miracles contends that miracles are violations of natural laws. But natural laws are immutable. It is impossible to violate immutable natural laws. Therefore, miracles are impossible. But that is not what Christian theism believes, is it? The truth is that Montaigne is correct in that true knowledge is impossible in a vacuous empiricism or rationalism. The Epicureans and the Stoics were both wrong. The answer to Spinoza’s argument is easily discovered. It is wrong to think of the uniformity of nature as impersonal, natural laws. Christian theism rejects the idea that there is anything impersonal involved in the ordering of the universe from its beginning to its future end. Because it rejects impersonal natural laws, Christian theism embraces the view that the most minute activities in the universe are ordered and held together continually by the power of the omnipotent God revealed in Scriptures.

I now want to pick up Hume’s argument where we leave Spinoza. Hume argues that we simply don’t have enough reliable witnesses, of good moral character, who testify to a miraculous event. Hume also noted that human beings love bizarre tales. Finally, Hume notices that miracles are usually reported among unenlightened people groups. Hume’s issue with miracles has nothing to do with this arrogant and obnoxious cloak. Hume denies not just miracles, but the miraculous. Because the miraculous cannot exist in empiricism, it is necessary to explain these so-called miracles. This is Hume’s way of maintaining his empiricism. It is Hume doing what Paul said all unbelievers do: they suppress the knowledge of God within and around them.

Now, what Steve Hays attempts to do is extend Hume’s argument against human testimony to the cessationist. Hume argues that the particular reports of miracles should not be believed because these men have questionable character, or, they love the bizarre, or they are simply unenlightened. The skeptic argues that enlightened men should not believe in the highly improbable. Miracles are highly improbable and therefore, enlightened men should not believe that miracles occur.

You may be asking where Hays is wrong in his accusation that cessationists are skeptics in sheep’s clothing. Hays is wrong on several accounts. First of all, cessationism does not deny the possibility of modern miracles. We believe God can perform miracles today. In fact, when presented with the right kind of evidence, rather than rejecting a miracle claim and resorting to some far-fetched naturalistic explanation, we will rejoice that God has performed a miracle. Suppose a person was cured of terminal cancer. The skeptic would conclude that mistake took place in the diagnosis or that something strange had indeed taken place but the cause must have been naturalistic even if we don’t understand it. The believer will not resort to such outlandish and foolish explanations. The cessationist will rejoice in the Lord. But there is quite a long distance between believing that God performs miracles and that miracle workers are still present in the Church today. Hays continues to forget this basic distinction.

The skeptics’ worldview and hence his presuppositions are antichrist. They are set in opposition to God at every junction. Miraculous causes and supernatural effects are precluded out of hand and exchanged in preference for outrageous naturalistic rationalizations of all varieties. The cessationist insistence that the modern claim of miracles be examined for validity has nothing to do with belief in the possibility of the miracle. Instead, it has everything to do with biblical discernment, with truth, and with the public testimony of the Christian community. In short, it has to do with the reputation of Christ Himself in the world. The fact that we witness thousands and even millions of false reports of miracles and miracle workers, in the name of Christ is sufficient cause for the Church to establish a protocol for validating when God has actually performed something extraordinary. It is a dishonor to the Christian community and to men like Steve Hays when we not only sanction, but facilitate hundreds of millions of Pentecostals and Charismatics making false and outrageous claims about the God of Scripture across the globe. False reports of miracle workers insult, defame, and scandalize the Christ we claim to know, to love, and to serve with all our heart, soul, mind, and body. What Steve Hays calls skeptics in sheep’s clothing, we call biblical discernment. 

Revelation and Canon: A Case for Cessationism

In this post I am going to argue that the non-cessation position has profound ramifications for the doctrines of special revelation and of a closed canon. In his debate with Mike Brown, Sam Waldron repeatedly asked Brown to discuss why believe in a closed canon. Brown never acknowledged Waldron’s question, let alone try to answer it. What was Waldron getting at with this line of questioning? I think he was hinting at what I will be discussing for the next few paragraphs: the inadvertent and adverse consequences that the doctrine of open revelation have on the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

The religion of the Bible is a frankly supernatural religion. It is meant that, according to it, God has intervened extraordinarily, in the course of the sinful world’s development, for the salvation of men otherwise lost.[1] 

The nature of divine revelation is fundamental to Christian theism. God condescends in order to interact with His creation, to disclose, to reveal, and to relate. Christian theism teaches that God reveals on two basic levels. First, as creatures in His image, God has etched Himself upon the human conscience so that His revelation is quite naturally within each of us. There is no escaping it. Paul said, “Because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.” No human being is capable of escaping this natural revelation of God within the human conscience. In addition, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” The revelation of God in nature is not only within the human being, it is all around them. The revelation of God is inescapable. Not only is that revelation clearly given, it is perceived without ambiguity. Humanity knows God is there. Indeed, according to the language of Romans 1, this revelation is sufficient to make human beings culpable for their wicked behavior. From this, we have no choice but to conclude that the revelation of God we see in nature is abundantly sufficient. Revelation that is sufficient is also without question, reliable, trustworthy in every sense of the word. God’s act of revealing could never be anything but sufficient and completely trustworthy.

While the natural revelation of God is sufficient for culpability, God has purposely ensured that it is not sufficient for salvation. For salvation, man must receive additional revelation from God. Due to his sin nature, man was cut off from God. Therefore, if man is to know God truly, intimately, and not at a distance, God must intrude, break in upon the human mind, darkened and enslaved to sinful desires, as it is want to be. Christian theism calls this revelation divine or special revelation. It is necessary for salvation. One of the most grievous effects of sin is the deformation of the image of God reflected in the human mind, and there can be no recovery from sin which does not bring with it the correction of this deformation and the reflection in the soul of man of the whole glory of the Lord God Almighty.[2]

Failure to consider the effects of sin in the area of divine communication and of God’s revelation can lead to significant error in one’s theology and understanding of divine communication. The propensity of human sinfulness to debase and distort the revelation of God has been made profusely clear throughout the long history of revelation. This points us to the serious need for a revelation from God that is beyond the reach of human sinfulness. It points us to the need for a revelation from God that is not only well-defined, but one that is entirely reliable. A revelation from God that is neither clear, nor reliable, nor sufficient is not something one would expect from the kind of God that appears in Scripture. Because we are sinful, a clear, sufficient, and reliable revelation from God is necessary or agnosticism wins the day. If the revelation of God is uncontrolled and open, it seems to me that reliability is unattainable.

The reformers saw Scripture as the Principium Cognescendi Theologiae. “Indeed, it is the unanimous declaration of the Protestant confessions that Scripture is the sole authoritative norm of saving knowledge of God. The Reformed confessions, moreover, tend to manifest this priority and normative character by placing it first in order of confession, as the explicit ground and foundation of all that follows.”[3] 

No revelation from God outside of Scripture could ever achieve the certainty of the revelation from God we have in Scripture itself. This means that only the revelation of God in Scripture is certain, is clear, and is wholly trustworthy. Due to the sin nature, it only stands to reason that God would lovingly and, graciously provide us with a revelation of Himself and His will that is beyond doubt, that is to say, a knowledge that we may hold with certainty.

The developing revelation of God, given to us over the history of God’s redemptive plan, and only recorded in the Divine Writings, has a very conspicuous purpose, and serves an extremely significant function in the history of redemption. The historical events of revelation are necessarily unique to any other kind of history. It is fascinating to me that bloggers like Steve Hays repeatedly fail to address this uniqueness appropriately. In fact, if one reads enough of Steve Hays, they are left to wonder if he considers any event recorded in Scripture any differently than any other event. It would seem not to this writer.

Of all the attributes of canonicity, the divine qualities of Scripture are the least discussed.[4] 

Not for nothing, but why is it that scholars seem to be more fascinated with the least fascinating thing about Scripture and least interested in the most interesting thing about Scripture? The Scripture is the Holy Spirit speaking to the Church. When the Scriptures speak, God speaks. When God speaks, Scripture speaks. Is it possible that some men love to spend their time intellectual disputations rather than getting lost in those matters that are clearly revealed to the Church and simply expending their energy in application as opposed to speculation?

The self-witness of Scripture has been for centuries the cornerstone of the orthodox Christian argument for biblical authority.[5] 

Before I go any farther, it is worthwhile to say something about the authority of Scripture, not only to prepare our hearts to reverence it, but to banish all doubt. When that which is set forth is acknowledged to be the Word of God, there is no one so deplorably insolent – unless devoid also both of common sense and of humanity itself – as to dare impugn the credibility of Him who speaks.[6] 

The canon then is not just the record of some interesting historical events and teachings that are on par with events of our own. The documents of the canon represent a collection of the Divine Revelation of God Himself to His creation. God has not left us to guess if He has spoken. We can know with certainty that God has in fact spoken.

Hence the Scriptures obtain full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living words of God were heard.[7] 

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone. (Eph. 2:19-20) The point that Waldron was getting at with his question regarding the purpose of the canon is really quite simple. The purpose of a canon was to be able to distinguish truth from error, true prophecy from false prophecy, godly teachers from wolves. The Christian documents are the standard by which the Christian knows, believes, and acts upon the truth that God has revealed to His Church. By nature, it is clear, authoritative, sufficient, and reliable. What the canon teaches and records, the Holy Spirit teaches and records.

To summarize then, the sin nature has made it necessary for God to provide man with a self-attesting, fully sufficient, clear, and reliable revelation of Himself. That revelation has been given once for all to the saints. The shape of that revelation is nothing less than the Divine Writings themselves. These writings are necessary, self-attesting, fully sufficient, clear, and unquestionably reliable. God speaks to the Church through the pages of Scripture. We have His sure word delivered to us once and for all, preserved providentially in accurate copies of His Holy Documents.

Now, what is the impact of the position of men like Steve Hays on this age-old position of orthodoxy? If Hays is right that there is nothing unique about what God did in the divine revelation, then it follows that the nature of Scripture as we have come to know it is significantly diminished. The awe inspired by God speaking to Moses or Jesus appearing to Paul is reduced by the phenomena of God speaking to Benny Hinn and Jesus appearing to Muslims. According to some, this happens all the time, and it really isn’t nearly as rare and therefore as special as orthodoxy claims it is. In this view, there is nothing unique about the record of Scripture. How God interacts with us is no different from how He interacted with Israel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Peter, or Paul. The result of Steve Hays’ argument is a massive downgrading of the revelation of Scripture. This is unavoidable. Hays has said as much himself. He has repeatedly insisted that we are wrong to claim that Scripture is different, it is unique, that what God has given us in Scripture is nothing more than He gives some today. I contend that when God revealed to Moses, He also revealed to me that He revealed to Moses. This indicates that God has more than Moses in mind when He revealed things to Him. In fact, there is no revelation of God in Scripture that was given only to one person and not the rest of us. Even John shared the fact that God had revealed things to him that he could not tell us about, but he nonetheless revealed to us that God had shown him things. Moreover, God had a reason for revealing that much to us. God always has a reason.

Finally, the idea of an authoritative canon, a standard by which all truth could be known is completely obliterated by the idea of an open revelation. The point and purpose of a closed canon was the final sealing off of what is self-authoritative, clear, sufficient, and reliable from what is subjective, ambiguous, and questionable. You see, if the canon is closed, all God had to say, needed to say, wanted to say and all we needed to hear and know, we have in the canon of Scripture. However, if revelation is open and prophets continue, the canon cannot be closed. Either prophets are repeating what is in Scripture making their words not the product of immediate divine initiative, or they are actually the product of immediate divine initiative, which means the canon cannot be closed. God does not reveal nor speak without authority, clarity, self-attestation, or reliability.

According to the non-cessation argument, revelation and prophecy continue. This revelation and prophecy are genuinely new disclosures from God. The question we have then is related to faith and reliability. How can we know for sure that God has spoken when this speaking is not on par with Scripture? We know that Matthew’s gospel is self-attesting, reliable, and authoritative. It is binding because it is the word of God. We know this by the witness and testimony of the Holy Spirit Himself. However, I do not have the same witness about modern claims of revelations and dreams and prophecies. Indeed, I cannot have the same level of confidence.

If Scripture is sufficient for all things pertaining to life and godliness, what need do we have for additional revelation and dreams from God? Jude referred to it as τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει. The once for all handed down to the saints faith. This once for all occurrence is a single occurrence to the exclusion of any other similar occurrences.

The problem with Hays and quite frankly, other continuation views is that they fail to preserve the uniqueness of the phenomena revealed in Scripture. God had a reason for revealing to us that He revealed to Moses, or to David, or to Daniel. Scripture is not just a record that God revealed something to someone else; it is God’s revelation to us as well. In addition, Hays’ view on prophets and prophecy violently contradicts not only the reliability and self-attesting nature of divine revelation, but also the doctrine of a closed canon. The whole point of closing the canon was fixing the divine standard by which all claims to truth and knowledge would be measured. If the canon is in fact closed, and divine revelation is fixed and sufficient as well as clear, then whatever these moderns are claiming is unnecessary. We simply don’t need it. However, one has to ask if God is in the habit of giving us revelation and dreams and prophecies we don’t need. And if we do need them, then one has to justify why we have closed the canon. If we do need them, then Scripture is not sufficient. Furthermore, someone is going to have to come up with a way for arguing how on earth it is remotely possible to defend these new prophecies as fully reliable, totally clear, self-attesting, and authoritative.

In the end, the doctrines of Scripture that have been handed down for centuries by orthodoxy are swallowed up by the modern claims of non-cessationism. The Scripture is no longer unique, it is no longer sufficient, it is no longer the fixed standard by which all other claims are tested. And if it is true that modern men can err in their revelations and prophecies, why can’t it also be true for the biblical authors. After all, is that not the basic claim of liberal theologians and has it not been their claim for a couple of centuries now? If Scripture is sufficient, then modern claims of God-speaking are superfluous at best. If modern claims are legitimate, then Scripture is not sufficient. Either Scripture gives us all we need for our spiritual growth and well-being or it does not. If it does, then we don’t need modern revelation. If we do need modern revelation, then Scripture does not give us all we need for spiritual growth and well-being. If only we invested as much energy proclaiming and applying Scripture as we do speculating about argument forms we could grow spiritually and learn a little humility for a change.

---

[1] B.B. Warfield, Revelation & Inspiration (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1932), 3.

[2] Ibid., 13.

[3] Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 151.

[4] Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012), 125.

[5] John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2010), 440.

[6] John Calvin, Institutues of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Know Press, 1960), 1:74.

[7] Ibid.

The Argument for Cessationism from Scripture, Reason, and Science

Recently, James White hosted a debate between Michael Brown and Sam Waldron. During that debate two things stood out to me: first, Michael Brown’s view that “this is that” in Peter’s sermon reference to Joel’s prophecy was an allusion to the miraculous and Dr. Waldron’s focus on the meaning and purpose of a closed canon. While I may refer to the latter in this post, much of my time will be spent on the questions raised by Michael Brown’s assertions.

The most basic assertion that Brown made was that Peter’s sermon at Pentecost indicated that the “age of the miraculous” had begun. Having been saved in a Pentecostal church, and having spent nearly 20 years in that movement, I am very familiar with Brown’s argument. Brown equates the outpouring of God’s Spirit on all flesh with miracles, revelations, tongues, and prophecies. In Brown’s view, when Peter said, “this is that” he was saying that the “that” is the miraculous. Why is Brown’s interpretation of Peter’s sermon on Pentecost incorrect? Brown’s interpretation rests on his faulty use of grammar. Let’s look at the text to see if it is possible to understand “this is that” as something other than the signs on display during this phenomenon.

The text in question is Acts 2:16, which says, “This is what was spoken through the prophet Joel.” Is the antecedent of “this” the miraculous language-speaking ability that has accompanied the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost or is it the divine act of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit itself that is being referenced? Since Peter says “this” is the same thing essentially that Joel spoke about, then the “this” must be the same phenomenon predicted by Joel.

The event, according to Joel 2:28-30 which, contains the promise of the Spirit, begins with “I will pour out my Spirit” and it ends with “I will pour out my Spirit.” Between these two bookends, Joel points to some clear signs that God gives us as an indication that He will in fact pour His Spirit out on all flesh in the future. This future age will be known as the last days. The reason this “age” is called “the last days” is because the governing covenant enacted at this time will be the covenant under which humanity will experience the culmination of God’s plan for redemption and for judgment of all humanity. Once this covenant is enacted, there will be no other covenants in human history. The covenant governing this age is the last one, it is the last age, it is the time of the last days.

Now, here is where I think the error resides in Brown’s argument. God may give us a sign that when it happens, we know God is doing something different. He may give us a sign to indicate we have entered a new age. For some reason, Brown seems to think that the signs that accompany this new age must continue until that new age reaches its culmination, and that is simply not the case. God has indeed given us these signs so that we can know that this new age has begun, but it does not necessarily follow that they must continue in order for the new age to continue. God may point to this incident at Pentecost and say, “When you see this, then you know that I have begun a new age in which I will now include all in my covenantal relationship.” There is no necessary relationship between God pouring out His Spirit on all flesh and the continuation of the sign He gave to accompany it at the outset. These signs point to the greater event, which is the gift of the Holy Spirit in the new covenant. What’s more, Brown does not provide us with any compelling exegetical proof that there is a necessary relationship between the gift and the sign of the sign. He just says it is so and thinks this is enough.

If the signs do not continue throughout the age, then how can we know we are living in the age signified by the sign in the first place? In order to know this we must read on. God has graciously given us signs for the beginning of this age and signs for the end of it as well. This way we know when it began and we know when it will end. God did not leave us to guess.

Joel 2:31 clearly indicates that the signs that this age of the new covenant, of God’s Spirit-outpouring on all flesh will culminate with His final judgment. There will be signs in the heaven above, blood, and fire, and columns of smoke. Now this we did not see at Pentecost even though Peter referenced it as part of “this” which was spoken by Joel. Clearly, Peter is not speaking just about the events these Jews are witnessing on Pentecost. It is much broader than that. This comes out in the course of his sermon. If one looks at Matt. 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 we see Jesus Himself referring to this very language as He points to the final coming and judgment of the Son of Man.

It seems to me that Brown is simply allowing theological bias to create a necessary relationship between the signs at Pentecost and the new covenant age. Those signs at best show the beginning of the age. The sign that the age is over is not that these signs end, but that the other signs of the great tribulation begin, culminating in divine judgment. There are signals at the enacting of the new covenant and at the culmination of the new covenant. With this understanding in hand, we can clearly see that God is doing something profound. He is no longer only relating to the Jew. He is now in a covenant relationship with the Gentiles as well, those whom He has grafted into the Olive Tree, Jesus Christ. So the promise that Peter mentions in Acts 2 is not the promise of tongues or prophecy or miracles or revelations. It is the promise of being baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and being filled with His wonderful presence daily. It is the promise of a new covenant relationship with the Father through the Son by the work of the Spirit. And this promise is to Jews and Gentiles alike without distinction.

As we study the experience of NT believers, another startling fact emerges. Not everyone in the Church experienced these gifts. 1 Cor. 12 informs us that on the one hand, they were distributed according to God’s sovereign plan and on the other hand, not everyone experienced them. In other words, God did not, contrary to Brown’s view, promise the gifts of the Spirit to everyone. Clearly, many did not receive such gifts from the Lord. But Peter tells us in no uncertain terms that God has promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to everyone that believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, Paul emphatically tells us that not everyone speaks in tongues, not everyone works miracles, not everyone has the gifts of healing. This is critically important to Brown’s argument. If Brown is correct, then Paul is in error. It really is that simple. If Paul is correct, then Brown is in error. It is abundantly clear that Paul believed that Christians must be filled with the Spirit and yet that these same Christians would not necessarily, even in the NT era, speak in tongues or possess these gifts. Brown is simply mistaken to argue that the gift of the Holy Spirit promised to all believers comes with the gift of speaking in tongues.

One final point worth noting is the argument from causative faith. Brown asserted that Jesus words in John 14:12 are actually intended for every single believer. There Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly, truly, 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 the Father.” On the basis of this and other verses in the NT, Brown, along with nearly all Charismatics contends that every Christian should be able to work miracles and heal the sick. Brown refuses to consider that this text should be understood to be speaking specifically to the disciples present with Christ at this time. If Brown is actually correct, the gifts of miracles and healings are irrelevant. All one needs is faith and they can do everything a miracle worker can do. But Paul contradicts this thinking in 1 Cor. 12 as I mentioned above. So it seems that Paul believed that working miracles and routinely healing the sick required more than just faith in Christ. It required a special gift that is only distributed by the Holy Spirit according to God’s good pleasure.

In addition to this problem, we have the problem of Timothy’s ailment that God did not heal. Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletus. But undoubtedly Paul had faith. Why didn’t he heal Trophimus? Could it be that the signs were already beginning to dissipate? Could it be because it wasn’t God’s will? If you listen to Brown’s argument, the only viable option is because someone did not have faith. What we have here is a violent and clear contradiction.

The Charismatic argument that Peter had the signs in mind when he said “this” is what Joel spoke about is simply the product of theological bias. Joel had the actual gift of the Holy Spirit, the outpouring itself to which the signs pointed in mind. God graciously gave us a sign to let humanity know that it has entered the very last era of its existence in any temporal, physical sense. The New Covenant has been launched, God is pouring His Spirit out on all flesh, and the next sign we see from God will be the sign of judgment at the culmination of the New Covenant. Pentecost signifies the beginning of the end. There will be no more new works of God in the history of humanity. We are living in the last era of God’s dealings with man.

Finally, no prayer in the NT was ever given with the intent that we could ignore the Lord’s model prayer.And certainly there was never any intent that we could ignore the Lord’s example in Gethsemane. In both of those instances we see Jesus commanding us to always consider God’s will in our prayer and then we see Him actually considering God’s will in His own prayer. Obviously if it were God’s will to heal Timothy, He would have done so. Nothing can thwart God’s will. But this leads us to another very troubling aspect of Charismatic theology that no one is addressing at the moment. The Charismatic believes that God’s will can be thwarted by all sorts of human and even demonic activity. There is a pervasive idea in Charismatic theology that weak faith can thwart God's will for the individual believer's life. But we must save this issue for another time.

We see then from Scripture that there is no promise that the sign gifts of the NT would continue until the return of Christ. To assert that such a promise exists is more the result of theological bias than biblical exegesis. From the standpoint of reason, since no such promise exists, we must conclude that the arguments that depend on such this premise (and they all do) fall short of the standard of soundness. Finally, from a scientific standpoint, we have no empirical evidence that the modern miracles are the same kind of miracles we see in the NT and we also see that modern tongues are not languages, heavenly or otherwise. In fact, there is absolutely nothing miraculous about them. Biblically, logically, and scientifically, there is no good reason for us to accept the modern claim from Charismatics like Michael Brown that the NT gifts are continuing in our day.

John MacArthur Answers Critics in Tim Challies Interview

Click here to read interview

Excellent response from John MacArthur. Enjoy!

Practical Cessationism

I have been writing for a while now on the subject of the Charismata in support of John MacArthur’s conference and soon-to-be-published book, Strange Fire. The debate that has raged over this issue has been confused and convoluted on many points from my perspective. Recently, while reading Thomas Schreiner’s review of the book, Strange Fire, someone in the comments section of the review used the expression “practical cessationist” to characterize they’re position. I liked that term so much and felt like it did such a good job of capturing my own view that I thought it fitting to write a few things about it.

First of all, I continue to hear charismatics and continuationists miss a very basic point in our argument. Namely, they continue to presume that what they call supernatural gifts are the same gifts experienced by Jesus, His disciples, and the early church. Men like Steve Hays continuously extend to Charismatics the courtesy of that assumption. I, on the other hand, respectfully disagree with the view that the modern phenomena witnessed among Charismatics are in fact the very same supernatural gifts we see in the NT Church. In order for the Charismatic claim to prove true, it must be verified that what is actually being claimed today is true, and that it actually corresponds with the amazing, indisputable miracles of the first century church.

It is astonishingly easy for Charismatic claims of miracles to be defended as legitimate. First of all, there are literally thousands of people supposedly being cured of all kinds of diseases if we are to believe the Charismatic movement. These healings are purported to be the result of miracle workers and faith healings exercising the very same gifts of the apostles and they’re associates in the first century church. Since these claims are being published in the name of Jesus Christ, a name we all care deeply about, and since there are skeptics who deny that Jesus Christ is Lord, it is only prudent for us to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt, that these miracles are authentic. It would be absurd for anyone to expect any intelligent person to simply take our word for it. After all, if we are claiming that Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit into the world and that the Holy Spirit is present in the body of Christ, performing miraculous deeds, then we should be able to provide certified documentation sufficient to prove our claims. Moreover, supplying such proof in an age such as ours with all the technology we have at our fingertips should be incredibly easy. Why would any reasonable person think it perverse in our day and our culture for someone to investigate the kind of miraculous claims being propagated in Charismania? The very suggestion that such behavior is related to atheism or skepticism or is somehow not in keeping with biblical faith or the Christian ethic is utterly ridiculous. Yet, men like Steve Hays continue to accuse cessationists of adopting a method of reasoning aligned with atheistic or skeptical thinking. There is no place in the Christian community for such nonsense.

I continue to be amazed that non-cessation adherents accuse the cessation view of not remaining faithful to the principle of sola scriptura. The argument is rather elementary and if framed in the wrong way, I can see how they might arrive at their conclusion. The first thing we have to understand is that Scripture is what defines the phenomena in question. When we allow Scripture to set the definition we are then in a much better place to evaluate the modern claims of Charismatics. Are the miracles we see in the New Testament the same kind of phenomena we see among Charismatics? As I said above, it would seem to me that modern conditions, with Facebook, You Tube, Twitter, etc. would make authentic miracles impossible to hide, let alone hard to find. When was the last time you heard about someone losing their disability because they failed the doctor’s certification? If Jesus healed you in that way, wouldn’t you plaster it all over Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube? Wouldn’t you go on Fox News to show the world what the Holy Spirit has done? Where are all the certifications? If I were a miracle worker I would demand validation for that very reason. I would want people to know that I am not a hoax. I would want nothing left to question. But apparently the Charismatic miracle workers prefer to be insulted by examination than glorify Christ by taking the initiative to offer such proof.

The truth is that modern claims of the miraculous seem to be either nebulous, generic, or in one way or another, unverifiable. This does not ipso facto prove that they are not happening. But that burden of proof is not on the cessationist. The counter-claim to the argument that miracles seemed to have ceased requires empirical proof to the contrary. After all, it is the absence of empirical evidence upon which the cessationist rests their argument. Abstract arguments only serve to muddy the waters and cloud the issue. If you don’t think this is so, check out the haze manufactured by Steve Hays over at Triablogue. Steve offers nothing of any substance to support the claim that genuine miracles are still taking place in the church. Instead, he has latched onto what he considers to be an inferior argument from cessationism and like a Pit Bull, he refuses to let go. Somehow, Hays thinks this argument is confined to the abstract. It seems to slip his notice entirely that even if he were to construct a superior argument in the abstract, he still faces the uncomfortable and in my opinion, the unsurmountable burden of authentic documentation and evidence in support of his claim.

Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument that the non-cessation argument is correct. Let’s suppose that miracles, according to Scripture should continue until Christ returns. It seems to me then, for the sake of the credibility of Scripture, that our non-cessation friends should be eager to validate their claims in an effort to vindicate Scripture. The argument goes like this: the Bible says that miracles will continue until Christ returns. Here are those miracles! Therefore, the Bible is true. But what happens if we are unable to validate such miraculous claims? It seems to me that the Bible would experience an extreme crisis of credibility. If the Charismatic exegete is correct, however, and the Bible teaches that miracles will continue to the end of the Church age, we must ask what are the consequences for the credibility of Scripture if we are unable validate these miracles, and vindicate the claims of Scripture. This would lead us to believe that the Bible is not true after all. Therefore, if we are to accept the hermeneutics of the Charismatic, then had better provide concrete empirical evidence for miracles. Christianity depends upon it.

The miracles of Scripture were beyond reasonable doubt and were all verified or verifiable. There was never a question about whether or not someone had been healed, cured, delivered, or raised from the dead. Modern claims dodge verification better than the national dodge-ball champion. Ancient tongues were real languages while modern tongues are not. Modern tongues are gibberish. Can God understand gibberish? Let’s examine this idea. Supposedly, the Holy Spirit prays gibberish through us back to God for us and somehow, even though we have no idea what is being said, we are edified. And there is supposedly something miraculous about it all. Really? What is miraculous about it? Why is it such a sign? Anyone can do it. Anyone can fake it and you can’t tell the difference. This means we have no mechanism for being able to know what is a true tongue and what is a false one. Does this sound like the work or mark of God? If the devil can copy it, how can we be sure that what we have is God’s genuine gift and not the fake copy offered up by Satan? Would Simon offer up boatloads of money in order to speak gibberish? He could do that without offering up big bucks. This makes no sense whatever. What, do we test it by some feeling or sensation inside us? Is that what it comes down to? Even if this made sense, it would mean we could only know that our personal gift of tongues was real and we could never ever know if the other person had the real thing or the fake gift. Paul Cain comes to mind, along with all the other charlatans. The Catholics, Oneness, Word-Faith, and other heretics sound exactly the same when they speak in tongues. Are they really Spirit-Filled? Does the Spirit fill men who deny the trinity? Are Catholics who deny the gospel really Spirit-Filled? Is Benny Hinn really filled with the Spirit? He speaks in tongues and claims to work miracles. He offers us the same evidence that every other charismatic holds up as authentic. How are we supposed to know?

Practical cessationism argues that the miracles of Scripture were radically superior to what we see in modern claims. They were and are indisputable. Their credibility is beyond any reasonable doubt. The tongues of Scripture were real languages. All one has to do is read Acts 2 and interpret the rest of Scripture in light of that very clear text. That is the hinge upon which biblical interpretation turns. The idea that prophets can speak for God but be wrong a certain percentage of the time is totally foreign to Scripture. There is nothing remotely resembling such irresponsible teaching anywhere in Scripture. Therefore, based on what Scripture teaches regarding revelation, healings, miracles, tongues and prophecy, we must conclude that God is no longer working like this. Moreover, this should come as no surprise to us. God has never, in redemptive history worked in creation for an extended period of time in such a fashion contrary to modern Charismatic claims.