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.

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.

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. 

Responding to Steve Hays' Well-Poisoning Arguments Once More

SOUL MATES

Ed DingessYou will reply that you personally don't know of any faith healers to whom we can turn for healing. Have you ever witnessed an indisputable, certified genuine miracle? One for which there were no natural explanations?
LessingMiracles, which I see with my own eyes, and which I have the opportunity to verify for myself, are one thing; miracles, of which I know only from history that others say they have seen them and verified them, are another. I live in the eighteenth century, in which miracles no longer happen. The problem is that reports of fulfilled prophecies are not fulfilled prophecies;that reports of miracles are not miracles. 

The purpose of this blog is to provide a very simple and short response to Steve Hays' argument regarding whether or not we cessationists are justified in demanding proof that miracles workers exist before believing the claim that they actually do exist. Perhaps Hays has really misunderstood this assertion. My argument, while it makes the same conclusion as my cessationists friends, takes a somewhat different path. I reject the claim that miracle-workers are continuing to operate in the Church on the ground that no one has offered proof to the contrary. Hays thinks this debate can be confined to exegesis. In truth, so do many cessationists. I respectfully disagree. I think the best argument moves from empirical observation to exegesis and back again. The bottom line really is quite simple. If Steve Hays wants us to believe that there are still miracles workers in the Church, all he needs to do is provide some proof, some sort of evidence. That evidence has to be credible. I have heard and read many charismatics report that miracles are happening but in every case where those reports were actually investigated, the evidence simply did not support the claims in the reports.

I have had my own family members visit these men: men like R.W. Schambach, Ernest Angsley, and R.W. West. They have been prayed for and proclaimed healed at the conference. But the healings never happened. My grandmother passed away with sugar. Another family member passed away before she was 40 with breast cancer after having been proclaimed healed. Fred Price broke his foot and hobbled around for months in a cast just like the rest of us.

So here it is in a nutshell. Reports of miracles contained in Scripture, in fact, any event in Scripture comes to us with impeccable testimony that is irrefutable. We do not test nor question it because it is the witness and testimony of God Himself. Therefore, I accept the testimony of miracles from Scripture. I dare not put God’s word to the test. I think Gotthold might take a fundamentally different approach. So much for being soul mates. Steve’s Christian kindness precedes him. He is such a respectful debater.

Scripture is not merely a historical record of what happened at that time. It is much more than that. Those events are part of God’s revelation for a reason. Our personal experiences are not! The nature of extra-biblical history is fundamentally different from biblical history. If Steve Hays does understand this, then that is would explain his inability to understand our argument.

I want to be clear that I am not arguing that God does not or cannot perform miracles or heal the sick should He will to do so. I am not even arguing that God is not doing this today. If Hays thinks I am, then he sorely misunderstands my position. I am contending that I have no good evidence to believe the Pentecostal Charismatic idea that miracle workers and healers are active in the body of Christ today. That is my argument. My argument is based on empirical and exegetical proofs even though I emphasize the lack of empirical evidence as the greater obstacle for accepting the claims.

Now, let’s follow Steve’s argument to its logical end. If we are under obligation to believe there are miracle workers, where does Steve draw the line? Do we have to believe everyone who claims to be a miracle worker or claims to have the gift of healing? When some guy claims to have raised the dead, over there, far away, are we really supposed to just be amazed and take him at his word? If the answer is yes, then we just surrendered the biblical mandate to test those who claim to be God’s messengers but are not. If the answer is no, then the next question is by what standard can we determine the genuine from the false. Why is it a bad practice for Christians to demand that miracle-workers be tested and verified? After all, they are in the public spotlight professing to represent all that is Christianity. It seems to me that we should want to ensure that their claims are legitimate if for no other reason than the credibility of the Christian community is at stake.

At the end of the day it is really easy to verify legitimate and credible reports of miracles. If I were Pentecostal and I had been diagnosed with an illness or I had been blind and now I was cured, you better believe that I would be providing verifiable documentation of it to anyone who asked without flinching. I would not be offended if someone asked for the evidence. I would be all too happy to prove to them what Christ had done for me. After all, this would be a great opportunity to give them the gospel. But for some reason, Steve Hays and others seem to think we should just naively accept these accounts without question. Hays even places them on par with Scripture. Moreover, they are offended and we are criticized because we think it prudent to examine such incredible claims just to be sure the integrity of the Christian community remains intact. Hays’ position that accepting the miracle claims of Scripture logically means that we cannot question modern miracle claims is just plain silly. There is simply no other way to say it. Why Hays thinks it is a bad practice for us to demand verification for these claims so that the Church may be protected, as far as I am concerned, remains a mystery.

Judging by Behavior: A Response to Steve Hays’ Judging by Appearances

Steve Hays is at it again. One of the tactics employed at John MacArthur’s Strange Fire Conference was the use of several You Tube clips from Pentecostal-Charismatic (PC) worship services. These clips were used to illustrate the bizarre behavior that goes on in the PC churches and events. Steve Hays has taken exception to the clips and titled his response “Judging by Appearances.” Now, first of all, Hays employs his standard debate technique. This technique seeks, from the start, to poison the well. We all know that we are not to judge by appearances and it is easy to understand that such behavior must be avoided. But when Hays describes Strange Fire leadership as Judging by Appearances, he immediately sets a very negative and unfair tone. These tactics are not only unethical, they represent some of the most fallacious arguments on the Web. The shocking thing is that Hays claims to be a conservative reformed kind of guy. Over the last year or so, I am not so sure what kind of guy Hays is. I know that his arguments seem to lack pastor concern, genuine love, and humility, and are quite totally lacking in gentleness and respect for others. I have prompted Hays several times to change his tone to no avail.

Hays Point One

i) One problem is the fallacious extrapolation from examples like that to charismatics in general, much less charismatic theology in general. When MacArthurites use these YouTube clips to discredit charismatic theology in principle, they are encouraging others to draw a blatantly fallacious inference. They need to demonstrate that this behavior is representative of charismatics. They also need to demonstrate that this behavior is a logical outcome of charismatic theology. 

Response

First of all, Hays assumes that these behaviors are not fair representatives of the PC movement in general. I spent years in the movement and was a licensed minister in the Church of God, the movement’s oldest Pentecostal denomination. I can say that while not everyone in the PC movement behaves in this manner during worship, a high percentage do, and, that percentage has grown over the years, and the ones that do not are afraid to criticize it because they are afraid of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The fact is there are very, very few in the PC movement who actually see these behaviors as a problem.

Secondly, if you are open to dreams, visions, and open revelation in general, by what standard could you ever criticize this behavior? If your entire theological system is built off a radically subjective view of open revelation and you believe that you can feel God and the Holy Spirit, how can you criticize the behavior? Have you ever had someone use the argument that we can’t put God in a box? Take a guess who made that foolish argument so incredibly popular today: that is correct, it was the PC movement telling us that God can do whatever He wants because we can’t put God in a box. If Hays cannot understand how PC theology leads logically to this kind of behavior: it is not the fault of poor argumentation on the part of cessationism.

Hays Point Two

ii) It's spiritually hazardous to treat these YouTube clips as an implicit standard of comparison. I'm reminded of obese people who complain that they are one of the few remaining groups it's socially acceptable to make fun of. 

Response

This is one of the silliest analogies I have seen from Hays. It is a perfect exemplar for non-sequiturs if ever there was one. Hays’ tactic is easy to spot even if he thinks it is not. He takes one behavior that is obviously in poor taste and then says the other behavior is the same. The purpose of the PC video clips was not to make fun of anyone. The purpose was to let others see what is really going on in PC worship services and events. Most people who are not PC have no idea that this is the kind of stuff going on in the movement. Moreover, the objective was to show that these behaviors are not out there on the fringe. They are in the mainstream of the movement. Ken Hagin, Ken Copeland and other prominent leaders have led the way. Michael Brown was a tenacious defender of the laughing revival which is still going on. To my knowledge, he has never recanted.

Hays then uses another analogy as if it clarifies his point, but it only serves to introduce more confusion. Hays says, “For instance, I never attended a Mormon service, but I imagine that Mormon services are very staid and respectable. Nothing sensational or embarrassing usually happens. Everyone behaves themselves.” Does Hays really think that PC worship run amok is a mere appearance? If Steve Hays does not understand that these behaviors do not occur in a vacuum, he really should excuse himself from the discussion.

Why do PC people engage in and tolerate these behaviors on the You Tube clips? The answer is very simple: they believe God moves in his church and in His people in precisely this way. They think that their duty as Christians is to focus on God and “enter into His presence, or enter into His Spirit” in order to have the premium worship experience they are supposed to have. They are taught that when they open up and let go and just enter God’s presence that God does things in them that He does not do at other times. They think He heals their marriages, gives them what they need to grow spiritually, and that it will even result in career advancement and material success. This “entering into God’s presence” is common among all those in the PC movement. The enemy of PC worship is often portrayed as rational thought. PC adherents are constantly encouraged not to try and understand God’s moving with your mind. Do not think about what is happening, they are told. Just let go and jump in. Do you feel that urge or tingle? That’s the presence of God. That is the Holy Spirit trying to work on you! Let Him in. Do not quench the Spirit!

Michael Brown states it this way, “What is revival? It is God “stepping down from heaven” and baring His holy arm. He comes and acts and speaks. There is a holy presence and a word on fire. God is in the midst of His people. The Lord is shaking the world. That is revival! It is a time of visitation.” Leaders in the PC movement would say that these clips are people “responding” to the presence of God as He “moves” among His people. If Hays cannot see the theology behind it, that is no fault of the Strange Fire Conference. It is the fault of his own unwillingness to give the conversation the kind of respect and appreciation it deserves. After all, we are talking about the very character and reputation of the Christian religion and even more than that, we are talking about the God of all that is and how He is being represented to an unbelieving world. Finally, we are talking about millions of people who think this is Christianity when it clearly is not!

Hays concludes his criticism saying, “Don't be so quick to judge by appearances. Jesus reminds us that some of the worst sins are sins of the heart.” Thinking he has made his point, he issues a final indictment. The Strange Fire conference is guilty of judging by appearances. Does Hays really think that men of the caliber of Phil Johnson, Steve Lawson, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur would not set out to understand both the theology and practices of the PC movement before putting on a conference like this? Does Hays not realize that John MacArthur is a pastor in the middle of where this movement actually started just over 100 years ago? Is Hays oblivious to the fact that Pastor MacArthur is likely to have encountered more PC people than he himself ever will and that these encounters have resulted in a depth of experience with the movement and its people that uniquely qualifies him to address the errors? Apparently all these facts seem to be missed by Hays as he puts on display his morbid interest in abstract, perpetual debates about one subject after another without the slightest display of genuine concern for the Church or for those who are being harmed by a movement whose theology ranges from small error to heresy to overt blasphemy.

Having spent years in the movement and having served as a licensed minister and pastor in the PC movement, I can speak with authority and credibility on the Strange Fire conference. The conference is exactly correct in its assessments. My journey out of the PC movement was due to my willingness to consider that I was wrong about tongues, about “feeling God,” about how God moves, about open revelation, about prosperity and success being tied to faith in Christ. I admit that I rejected certain aspects earlier on, but my shift out of the movement took several years. I can honestly say that from my perspective, Hays’ comments come from what appears to be a serious lack of experience with the movement and a significant lack of interaction with PC theology at any degree of depth. I hope Hays will reconsider his apparent propensity for intellectual pugilism and his desire for what appears to be a life defined by one debate after another. I am all for standing for truth. But there is a difference between seeking to allow the Word of God to perform its work in us and seeking to win an argument. When we become so obsessed with winning the argument that we forget about the edification of the people involved, and we forget that we must seek to represent our Father well before a dark world, then we become the very darkness against which we fight, blinded by our own insatiable lust for intellectual dominance instead of humbled by the life-transforming truths that we proclaim and defend.

The Sufficiency of Scripture in View of Pentecostal Tongues and Prophecy

Each generation of the Church is obliged to immerse itself in, and practice the doctrines of Christianity that have been handed down to her from the inception of the apostolic tradition (Acts 18:5; 1 Tim. 4:15). Neglecting this responsibility has led to catastrophic outcomes across most, if not all branches of Christianity, and most especially, the visible Church in general. In this post, I will attempt provoke my audience of readers to once again rejuvenate their understanding of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture and the implications that such a doctrine has on the modern claims of contemporary prophecy and tongues averred by Pentecostals and by non-Pentecostal continuationists.

My fundamental premise is quite simply that both individually, and corporately, we have all that is necessary for faith and practice given to us in the canon of sacred Scripture. We need nothing more than what is contained in the Bible if it our desire to grow spiritually, to honor God in our life, and to be conformed to the image of His Son, Jesus Christ.

John Frame gives one definition of the Word of God as God’s free communications with His creatures. [Frame, Doctrine of the Word of God] To the collection of authoritative Hebrew Scripture were eventually added some additional writings in the form of gospels, a historical account, letters, and an apocalypse. [Allison, Historical Theology, 41] These writings were, from the very beginning of their existence, the authoritative Word of God. The primary purpose of Scripture is sanctification. The Word of God comes to us in order to change us. It is the instrument by which God brings His people back into a true knowledge and relationship of and with Himself. It is the instrument by which God restores in our hearts a love for Him, His truth, and all that He commands us to be and to do. It is the final revelation of God, completing the whole disclosure of his unfathomable love to lost sinners, the whole proclamation of his purposes of grace, and the whole exhibition of his gracious provisions for their salvation. [Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration] Scripture is viewed as the very foundation of the Church (Eph.2:20). Where Christian theism is concerned, nothing is more important to this system of truth than the sacred Scriptures, which provide the very foundation of her existence.

When I say that Scripture is itself sufficient for faith and practice, what exactly do I mean? I mean that sacred Scripture gives the Church and the individual all they need in order to carry on a life that is pleasing to God in the highest form. Nothing more is necessary. The Scripture is sufficient to that end. Paul, writing to the Thessalonian Church said this, “For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe (1 Thess. 2:13).” Scripture was given to perform a work in us. Louw-Nida defines this word as “to be engaged in some activity or function, with possible focus upon the energy or force involved—‘to function, to work, to be at work, practice.’

The Westminster Confession 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.” [WCF I.vi] This point was made in contradistinction to Roman Catholic claims of tradition as well as Anabaptist mysticism. Neither tradition nor mystical experiences are necessary for faith and practice.

Paul tells Timothy explicitly, “You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:14-15). The sacred Scriptures bring salvation to the whole person. Every part of human existence is redeemed, saved, made whole by the teachings of sacred Scripture. What more do we require? What more could we ask for?

Paul continues, “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” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). According to Paul, nothing more is needed outside of Scripture to equip the saints for every good work. The Word of God is sufficient to perform its predetermined work in our lives and in the life of the body of Christ. Here Paul says that the purpose of Scripture is to equip the believer for every good work. There are no good works required of God that Scripture is not sufficient to equip us to perform. “It signifies that without exception (πᾶν, “every,” in the sense of every kind) God has equipped “the person of God” to do what is “good,” i.e., what he has indicated in his scripture should be done, since he himself is the norm of all good.” [Knight, The Pastoral Epistles]

To be sure, even those gifts mentioned in the text of Scripture itself, to include offices and experiences were all given for our own equipping. They were not events that happened to individuals without any relation to the overarching purpose of their record in the sacred writings. Every revelation in Scripture was given, not solely for the benefit of the purpose receiving, but for our benefit as well. In fact, I would argue that every revelation of Scripture was given primarily for us, not the individual having the experience. The latter would always be of secondary concern.

If one accepts the view of Scripture as both necessary and sufficient, the question then arises what are the consequences of this position on the standard Pentecostal/continuationist view of tongues and prophecy. I think we can talk about this briefly to see if the modern claims of tongues and prophecy are coherent with the reformed or conservative view on the sufficiency of Scripture.

Most scholars readily admit that NT tongues were actual languages. I am not going to argue with the counterclaim to this because it is entirely without merit, reason, and especially sound exegesis. In addition, modern studies reveal that modern tongues practiced in Pentecostal theology are not actual languages. Therefore, if one is going to claim that this modern phenomenon is linked to the NT Church, they will have to find another way. The way to approach this difficulty, according to some, is to view modern tongues as this private prayer language mentioned in 1 Cor. 14:2. However, the context of this chapter would not support the view that this phenomenon is the same as that witnessed in Pentecostal circles today. This is because the tongues mentioned in 1 Cor. 14 can be interpreted. We see this in verse 13 where Paul says that the one who uses this language must also pray that he can interpret it. Only real languages can be interpreted. Some argue that this a code-like language similar to a computer code. Others confess that the modern phenomenon is not the same as NT tongues, but that does matter because the experience is similar. Suffice it to say, there is not one shred of biblical support for such subjective and nonsensical arguments. From this we conclude that NT tongues were always either understood by those who spoke that language, or they were capable of being interpreted into the language of the community. This means that NT tongues were in fact always an actual language.

In light of this, while NT tongues, properly interpreted, and prophecy may have been valuable while God was in the process of giving what has come to be known as His final revelation in Scripture, it is difficult to understand, in the light of the sufficiency of Scripture, how these gifts would hold value once that revelation had been finalized.

If a person prophesies, we are told, that that prophecy is tested with Scripture. This raises the question as to why I need prophecy today if I already have a sure word from God. If I already have a Word from God about which I AM certain, why would I need a word from God about which I might not be certain? And if that prophecy simply tells me something that Scripture already tells me, why do I need it at all? I already have it in the form of Scripture. Is it possible that it is the perceived supernatural experience that excites me more than the Word from God? That is a good question. If tongues with its interpretation and prophecy are merely telling me something that Scripture already tells me, they are completely superfluous and unnecessary. I have a fixed word from God that is sufficient. I don’t need someone to tell me the same thing under some supposed ecstatic spell if you will.

On the other hand, if tongues and its interpretation along with prophecy are actually telling me something new, then we must presume we need whatever it is God is telling us. And if we need this new word from God, then Scripture is fact not sufficient. This is a serious problem for anyone arguing for continuationism while also trying to maintain the reformed position on the sufficiency of Scripture. It is as I have argued before, the revelational speaking gifts are either superfluous or they are destructive of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.

What Steve Hays and others should consider is that the prophecies and tongues along with their proper interpretation that we are discussing, were actually used to give the Church the word of God that they had not yet heard (or maybe they had heard some of it) but would come to be inscripturated in God’s time. In other words, NT Scripture and perhaps OT Scripture being unavailable at the time to most of the Church, were being given by God through prophets, through prophecy, and through tongues and its interpretation until the Church was given the most fixed Word from heaven. Part of the problem is that we so often presume that ancient NT prophecy and the speaking gifts were what we see in modern Pentecostalism. There is no reason to think this to be the case and every reason to think, as I have argued, given the transition period of the NT Church, that the situation was much more reasonable and much closer to the situation I describe. It is also quite reasonable to think that some prophets were endowed with the ability to remember what they had heard from an apostle elsewhere and they in turn spoke those words under the movement of the Holy Spirit as a prophet was inclined to do. There are enough reasonable possibilities and probabilities at our fingertips that it seems hardly necessary to invent positions that result in a real threat to the authority, necessity, and sufficiency of Scripture.