A concise definition of the four major views on the continuation and/or cessation of the gifts of the Spirit by R. McLaughlin of Third Millennium Ministries.  Read through it and reply with your thoughts.  Personally, I fall somewhere between the Continuation and Modification view.  I written several posts and provided other resources under the category of Reformed Continuationist.  For a list of articles, books, and audio messages check out “New” Calvinism Resources. 

 

Question:

Have the gifts of the Spirit to which Paul referred in 1 Corinthians 12-14 ceased? Or will they continue until the coming of “perfection” at the consummation of God’s kingdom?Answer

Answer:

There are four major views on the continuation or cessation of the charismatic gifts:

Cessation: The most common position is that the “spectacular” or “sign” gifts (prophecy, miraculous healing, tongues, etc.) ceased with the apostolic age. These gifts were manifested for the purpose of validating the gospel and apostolic authority. Once the apostles’ ministry had been sufficiently validated, the Spirit ceased to give these gifts. This view appeals in part to the phrase “foundation of the apostles and prophets” in Ephesians 2:20. From this phrase, it argues that the prophetic gifts were “foundational,” pertaining only to the foundational period of the church, that is, to the apostolic period (from “apostles and prophets”), though some extend this period until the formal closure of the Canon. It also appeals to the evidence in the New Testament that the more spectacular gifts seemed to be on the decline even while the apostles were still ministering. This position tends to limit its list of gifts to those mentioned in the New Testament (Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12; 14; Eph. 4).

Continuation: This position is probably the least common within the Reformed community. It asserts the continuing validity of all the gifts mentioned in the New Testament. However, it does not assert the necessary manifestation of any or all of the gifts (especially of the spectacular/sign gifts) in any person, place or time. Rather, it merely asserts that God can do whatever he wants whenever he wants, and is not bound never to manifest these gifts simply because the apostolic age has passed. This position tends to limit its list of gifts to those mentioned in the New Testament (Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12-14; Eph. 4), though some claim the manifestation of new gifts as well.

Charismatic: This position is very similar to the continuation position, and indeed they are often seen as one and the same. Simply for the sake of discussion, it is worth distinguishing them on the basis that continuation (as I have defined it here) does not insist on the necessary manifestation of all the gifts in any given person, at any given place, or in any given time. The charismatic position, in contrast, generally argues that all believers have all the gifts listed in the New Testament, and that this has been characteristic of the true church throughout the ages. Some also argue that all true believers will manifest the gift of tongues. There may be some in the Reformed community who hold this view, but I know of none.

Modification: Somewhere between the cessation and continuation positions in popularity, this position argues that the gifts have been modified. They have not necessarily ceased, but are now normally manifested somewhat differently than they were during the apostolic age. For example, those who hold this position may argue for the continuation of the gift of prophecy, but assert that it is now limited to the proclamation of existing special revelation (i.e. Scripture), and that it excludes the reception and proclamation of new special revelation. Like the other positions, modification tends to limit its discussion of gifts to those listed in the New Testament.

Some few who hold to modification, however, believe that the gifts listed in the New Testament were only samples or examples of the types of gifts that were manifested during the apostolic age. They argue for this point in part by noting that the lists in Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12-14, and Ephesians 4 differ from one another, and by pointing out that lists in the Bible are frequently not exhaustive (e.g., “love” is not limited to those manifestations listed in 1 Cor. 13). In short, they argue for the continuation of “gifting” without specifically arguing for or against the continuation of any particular gift or manifestation in any given person, place or time, and without limiting potential gifts to those listed in the Bible. The idea is that the Holy Spirit is free to manifest any sort of gifting in any person, at any place, during any time he sees fit.

At Third Millennium, we hold to modification. I myself also hold the latter form of modification which affirms “gifting” in general rather than limiting the gifts to those mentioned in the New Testament.

All the foregoing positions hold that any and all spiritual gifting that currently exists will cease when Christ returns. Only the cessation position asserts that all spectacular/sign gifts have necessarily and permanently ceased. The other positions all affirm the actual or possible manifestation of the spectacular/sign gifts in all ages and in all places.

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

In positively contending for the merger of the Reformed tradition and Continuationism, my plan has been to do so by concisely addressing common rebuttals and misunderstandings that presently exist. In previously look at common rebuttals at such a cross pollination, it’s important to define how I do and do not use Continuationism and Reformed. 

What Continuationism is Not 

Since many people misunderstand what Continuationism means, and since I don’t know exactly how everyone else uses the term, I think it’s best for me to begin by saying what being a continuationist does not include, at least for me: 

• Continuing revelation, as if God is adding words and pages to the Bible,
• A second baptism with the Holy Spirit that is evident by speaking in other tongues,
• ESP, Fortune Telling, Magic, Astrology, or Palm Reading that people look to for direction
• Uncontrollable laughter and convulsions
• Spiritually induced drunkenness,
• Barking like dogs,
• Oinking like pigs,
• Gold dust falling from the sky and the changing of peoples teeth fillings into gold,
• Living extravagant lifestyles on the financial “seeds” of others,
• Perpetual health and wellbeing, or
• Blowing people over with a breath of air or the waive of your hand

Now that I’ve got this out of the way, I hope that the path is clear for me to explain what I mean by being a continuationist without being mislabeled and misunderstood.    

What is Continuationism?

A Continuationist is a person who believes that every gift of the Holy Spirit continues today (Sam Storms, Convergence, pg. 21). In particular, a continuationist is a person who believes that the revelatory gifts, such as tongues, prophecy, and words of knowledge and wisdom continue, as well as the working of miracles and the gift of healing still continue today, and have done so throughout history in varying degrees (Rom. 12.3-8; 1 Cor. 12.4-11; Eph. 4.11)

I know that many will have a hard time accepting that a person can be a continuationist, yet claim that no new revelation is being given by God.  There will be some that are skeptical of God working miraculously through people without confirming new revelation.  But now that we know how I’ll use the word continuationist, I now need to clarify what I mean by being Reformed.  This is a great question and one that has sparked much controversy. 

Squabbles over Etymology

Ever since Collin Hansen penned his journalist ventures with the “New” Calvinist in Young, Restless, and Reformed, there seems to have been a lot of ink spilled and keys typed in defining what it means to be Reformed. 

Even though I could be wrong, it seems that much of this debate didn’t come to surface following Hansen’s book.  To me it seems that this debate heated up after Mark Driscoll originally responded to an article in Time Magazine that dubbed the “New” Calvinism as the third greatest idea changing the world right now.

Writing in response to this article, Mark Driscoll wrote a pithy comparison of the “old” and “new” Calvinism.  With this post on Resurgence many took odds with Driscoll’s comments.  In particular, R. Scott Clark – Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California – took odds with Driscoll.  Dr. Clark’s qualms were not with Driscoll’s profane rampages or culturally fashionable garb.  Dr. Clarks misgivings with Driscoll was over his self-identification as Reformed.      

In March 15, 2009 Dr. Clark took up verbal arms with Driscoll in writing a post entitled Calvinism Old and “New.” 

After briefly addressing some misunderstandings surrounding what it means to be a Calvinist, Dr. Clark fired off the following remarks:

There is precious little evidencethat the doctrine confessed and preached at Mars Hill Church is Reformed. There’s little evidence that Mars Hill is a recognizably Reformed congregation. Compare the Mars Hill doctrinal statement to the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dort, or the Westminster Standards. The doctrine of the continuing work of the Spirit confessed by Driscoll and Mars Hill Church is closer to that of the Anabaptists than it is to Calvin (who regarded the Anabaptists as “fanatics”), Beza, the Synod of Dort, or the Westminster Assembly. The doctrine of baptism confessed by Driscoll and Mars Hill Church is exactly opposite that confessed by all the Reformed Churches since the earliest 16th century.

Not only did Dr. Clark rattle off these remarks, he concluded his post by saying,

Better, however that he and we be honest about that fact that Pastor Driscoll isn’t actually a Calvinist. He may not be pleased with the “old” Calvinists but at least they were actually Calvinists.

Even though I greatly appreciate the work that Driscoll is doing through Mars Hill Church, Acts29, The Resurgence, and would have no qualms serving under or alongside of him, I do have to side with Clark on this matter. 

Now, if this is the case and Mark Driscoll is not Reformed in the technical, historical, etymological sense of the word, even if he adheres to predestination, then what does it mean to be Reformed? 

Is this just a game of semantics?

In following the lead of Dr. Clark in answering this question, we have to look no further than how Reformed Churches have defined themselves throughout history than the confessions she embraces.     

Reformed Churches throughout history have accepted such documents as The Westminster Confession of Faith, the Belgic Confession, the Heidlerberg Catechism, and the Baptist Confession of Faith  as an accurate systematization of the Christian faith “that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).  So, to be Reformed means to embrace the Christian faith as it is expressed in these documents. 

Although such beliefs as the Five points of Calvinism (i.e. T.U.L.I.P.) and the sovereignty of God are tenants of the Reformed tradition, holding to such convictions alone no more makes someone Reformed as does being born in the Bible Belt makes a person a Christian.  Such an understanding of Reformed is a limited expression of a historical tradition that proclaims a whole system of thought for life, faith, and church polity.   

I know, I know, this does seem like a game of semantics and petty.  But then again, is it? 

Is someone a Christian just because they were born in the Bible Belt, signed a card, prayed a prayer, or knelt down at an altar?  Is someone a Baptist if they baptize someone?  Is someone a Presbyterian if they baptize infants?  Lest I regress, you get the point.     

Personally, I’m O.K. with someone calling themselves Reformed and/or Calvinist even if they only adhere to the Five Points of Calvinism, because I know what they’re getting at.  The only reason I’m addressing the meaning of Reformed is to make my point clear.  When I use the term Reformed, I mean it in the historic sense. 

With this being the case, here’s the million dollar question, “Is there such a thing as a Reformed Continuationist?”

Is there such a thing as a Reformed Continuationist?

Technically speaking, no.  Based upon the historical meaning of Reformed a person cannot adhere to both the Reformed tradition – which is overwhelmingly cessationist – and the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit at the same time.    

But does this mean that someone cannot hold to the Reformed tradition while embracing the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit? Personally, I think not. 

Continuationism can be understood underneath the umbrella of the Reformed Tradition without having to change or give-up other portions of the historic confessions.  It is for this reason that I began this piece by emphasizing how I’m not using continuationism so that I can dispel any misunderstandings. In my opinion, based upon the books I’ve read and the people I’ve spoken with, many erroneously lump everybody under the same label with the same beliefs when they say they’re either a Charismatic or Continuationist .

For a list of posts on Reformed Continuationism, check-out the category with the same name.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post:

By John Piper, Sermon from February 25, 1990

Do you think that we should pray like that today? I mean the way they prayed in verses 29-30: “Grant to thy servants to speak thy words with all boldness, while thou stretchest out thy hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus.” Should we pray for boldness of witness and signs and wonders like healing? Or should we pray only for boldness of witness? Were the signs and wonders specially designed by God to confirm the authority of the apostles so that after the apostles have done their work in providing the church with the foundation of revelation in the New Testament the signs and wonders cease?

Heart-Wrenching Uncertainty 

I confess that as far as I can remember there has been no question in all my preaching ministry that has caused me more heart-wrenching uncertainty. I sit at my desk with my head in my hands and plead with the Lord, on the one hand, “Oh, Lord, if there is a wind of true, biblical, spiritual power blowing in our day with signs and wonders and healing and prophecy, forbid that I should stand in the way! Don’t pass Bethlehem by. Make me the leader you want me to be for the greatest blessing of this church, and the greatest missionary effectiveness.” But then, on the other hand I pray, “Oh, Lord, forbid that we should lose our biblical bearings; forbid that we become trendy or faddish and begin to substitute the sand of experience for the rock of revealed truth. Show us the fullness of the power of the gospel, Lord, and keep us from preoccupation with secondary things, no matter how spectacular.”

Here are two stacks of books by evangelical pastors and teachers. One stack argues that signs and wonders (like healings) were designed by God to help people recognize and believe in the Son of God and then to vindicate the authority of his apostles as they laid the foundation for the church with their inspired teachings and writings. After the apostles died and their writings were gathered in the New Testament, the place of signs and wonders was past, and we should not seek them today. The other stack of books argues that signs and wonders should be sought and performed today in Jesus’ name. The reason we don’t see so many is because of how little expectancy there is in the church. But God is at work doing a new thing in our day awakening the church to the reality of these things.

I read these two stacks of books. I comb the Scriptures. I pray. And I wind up again and again somewhere in the middle with a lot of uncertainty. So the best I can do for you this morning is to show you some of what I see that pulls me in both these different directions. Then perhaps as we study and pray together, the Lord will give us more light.

1. Signs and Wonders Limited to the Apostolic Age

Let me begin with the view that says signs and wonders are limited to the age of the apostles. This doesn’t mean miracles don’t happen. It just means they are not the typical or normal way ministry is to be done. The healing ministry of Jesus and the apostles was unique. Signs and wonders were not done by Christians in general, but were the signs of the apostles, and when the apostles died out, the signs died out.

I’ll mention five pieces of evidence for this view.

1.1. The Special Ministry of the Apostles in Acts

In the book of Acts it looks like Luke, the author, means for us to see signs and wonders not as the common occurrence among Christians in general but as the special ministry of the apostolic group.

First of all, Luke reminds us that signs and wonders were important in the ministry of Jesus. Acts 2:22, “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him.”

Then, Luke shows us the importance of signs and wonders in the ministry of the apostles.

• Acts 2:43, “Fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles [not through the Christians in general].”
• Acts 5:12, “Now many signs and wonders were done among the people by the hands of the apostles [not by the hands of all the Christians].”
• Acts 14:3, “So they [Paul and Barnabas] remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.”
• Acts 15:12, “And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles [as though this were something remarkable, not something being done daily by average Christians].”

So it looks like Luke intends for us to see signs and wonders in the book of Acts as having a special role in the ministry of the apostles. This suggests that neither then nor today were signs and wonders intended to be a normal part of church ministry or evangelism. They were intended to vindicate the authority of the apostles once for all.

1.2. 2 Corinthians 12:12

The second piece of evidence is 2 Corinthians 12:12. Paul is writing to defend his apostleship at Corinth against the claim that some other men were the true or greater apostles. He says, “The signs of an apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.”

Paul insists that he has given sufficient evidence of his authenticity as an apostle—he had worked the signs of an apostle in the midst of hardship. And “signs and wonders” were part of what Paul did when he performed the signs of an apostle. So again it looks like signs and wonders have a special role to play in authenticating apostles (cf. Romans 15:19). That would imply that when the apostles had finished their founding work and died, signs and wonders would cease as a part of gospel ministry.

1.3. Hebrews 2:4

Hebrews 2:4 looks back on the time when the apostles brought the gospel to this people and says, “It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him [i.e., apostles], while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will.” It looks like the miracles were not an every day occurrence in the church but something the church looked back on at a very special time when the eyewitness’ of the Lord first brought the gospel.

1.4. The Uniqueness of Jesus’ Ministry

Fourthly, this view points out that the ministry of Jesus was unique in some ways; and so you can’t jump to the conclusion that just because he sent his disciples out to heal during his lifetime, he means for us to do ministry just that way when he is gone. For example, in Matthew 10:7-8 Jesus does say to the twelve, “Preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick . . . ” (cf. Luke 9:2). So, yes, there is a command for his disciples to heal the sick as part of their ministry.

But two verses earlier he says, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Everybody agrees that this command is temporary. For a short time there was a limit to the Jewish people during Jesus’ ministry. But after the resurrection Jesus commands us to go to all the nations. So you can’t just assume that everything Jesus commanded during his lifetime he means to be continued as a ministry priority after his resurrection (cf. Luke 22:35-36). There was something unique about the time of the incarnation and the unusual upsurge of signs and wonders was part of that uniqueness.

1.5. No Parallel in Church History

One final argument from church history is that there has never been anyone that we know of that regularly healed people the way Jesus and the apostles did—instantly, completely, and the hardest cases. Most healing since the days of the apostles deals in the easier cases, fails often, and does not happen instantly. This does not mean it is unreal, only that it is of a different order than the signs and wonders of Jesus and the apostles.

So for reasons like these, one group of evangelicals says that signs and wonders ceased as a normative part of the ministry when the apostles finished their work. We should not pursue them today.

2. Signs and Wonders To Be Pursued Today

The other view says that we should see more signs and wonders today than we do. They are given both for the blessing of the church and for the spread of the gospel. Here are some of the reasons this view demands serious consideration.

2.1. Continuity Between Jesus’ Ministry and the Church’s

Jesus does seem to teach a continuity between his own ministry and the ongoing ministry of the church. “As the Father has sent me so send I you” (John 20:21). Luke says in Luke 9:2 that when Jesus sent out the twelve, “He sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal.” And in Luke 10:9 when he sent out the 70, he commanded them, “Whenever you enter a town . . . heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near you.’” So the preaching of the kingdom seems to be very closely linked with the ministry of healing.

Then in Matthew 24:14 he says, “This gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all the nations; then the end will come.” In other words, the same gospel of the kingdom that Jesus preached is to be preached until all the nations have heard it. And it would seem natural that we should spread that kingdom pretty much the way Jesus did except in those points which he tells us to change or in which some other part of the New Testament tells us to change. So, for example, we do stop limiting the ministry to Jews, because he said to stop, but we don’t stop healing, because he didn’t say to stop.

In fact in John 14:12 he said, “Truly I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do.” Whatever this means in detail, it surely seems to suggest continuity between the signs and wonders of Jesus and the ministry of those who believe (not just apostles). So the first piece of evidence is that Jesus seems to teach a continuity between his ministry and the ministry of the church. He does not say, “Make healing part of the ministry while I am here, but not after I am gone.”

2.2. Signs and Wonders Done in Acts by Non-Apostles

The second piece of evidence is the fact that in the book of Acts it is not just the apostles who do signs and wonders. Two “deacons”—two of the seven chosen in Acts 6, Stephen and Philip (Acts 6:5)—also do signs and wonders as part of their ministry.

In Acts 6:8 Luke says, “Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.” And in Acts 8:6 it says, “And the multitudes with one accord gave heed to what was said by Philip, when they heard him and saw the signs which he did.” What makes Philip’s ministry to the Samaritans so interesting is that later the apostles came down and laid hands on the Samaritans. This means that Philip was not acting somehow in the place of an apostle when he did signs and wonders. He simply had sign-working power in his evangelistic ministry.

2.3. Galatians 3:5

The third piece of evidence is found in Galatians 3:5. Paul writes to the churches of Galatia and says, “Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?” The point is that God is now supplying his Spirit to the Galatians (not to the apostles) and working miracles among them when he is not there. So the working of miracles does not seem to be limited to the ministry of the apostles in the early church.

2.4. Gifts of Healing and Miracles

Finally, the fourth piece of evidence is that in 1 Corinthians 12 Paul teaches that in the church there were gifts of healing and miracles for various believers not just for the apostles. He says in verses 7-10, “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good . . . to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom . . . to another gifts of healing, to another workings of miracles.” Then in verse 28 he distinguishes this from the apostolate when he says, “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings . . . ” So it seems pretty clear that there were gifts of healings and miracles that were not limited to the apostles.

So for reasons like these, a second group of evangelicals believes that signs and wonders were not limited to the apostles or to that age, but are available for today and should be sought for the good of the church and the spread of the gospel.

What Shall We Say to These Two Views? 

So what shall we say to these two views? Virtually all the great pastors and teachers of history that I admire and that have fed me over the years belong to the first group who believe that signs and wonders were only for the apostolic age (John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, Benjamin Warfield, my own father). But I am not fully persuaded by their case. On the other hand, there does seem to be something unique about the way God did signs and wonders in the ministries of Jesus and the apostles.

So what I think I can say for our guidance is this.

1. On the one hand, we ought to honor the uniqueness of Jesus and the apostles and of that revelatory moment in history that gave us the foundational doctrines of faith and life in the New Testament.
2. On the other hand we ought to be open to the real possibility that this too might be a unique moment in history, and in this moment it may well be God’s purpose to pour out his Spirit in unprecedented revival—revival of love to Christ and zeal for worship and compassion for lost people and a missionary thrust with signs and wonders.

I want to have my keel deep and stable in the once-for-all biblical revelation of God, and I want to have my sails unfurled to every movement of God’s Spirit upon the deeps.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post:

The continuation of the gifts of the Spirit is as hotly debated today as it ever was.  Why not?

From parading like drunkards, laughing uncontrollably, barking like dogs, oinking like pigs, to living extravagant lifestyles on the financial “seeds” of their followers, there have been countless documented abuses within groups associated with the “charismatic movement.”.  In light of such recklessness, many may believe this is reason enough to reject the practice of spiritual gifts.  I assert that it is not.

Irrespective of the countless abuses that have taken place within the “charismatic movement,” such recklessness is not reason enough to reject the practice of spiritual gifts. 

Writing in response to the Corinthians ignorance and evident abuse of spiritual gifts in the 1^st century, the Apostle Paul did not forbid them from exercising their spiritual gifts, but rather encouraged their proper use.  We observe this in 1 Corinthians 12.1:

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed.

In 1 Corinthians 12.31, we read,

But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

Now, in 1 Corinthians 14.1 we read,

Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.

Finally, in 1 Corinthians 14.39, we read,

So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues

In light of the apparent ignorance and abuses that existed within the Corinthian Church in relationship to the gifts of the Spirit, God – nor Paul – neither discouraged or forbid their usage, but rather encouraged their proper usage.

Commenting upon 1 Corinthians 14.1, John Calvin said, “It is not God’s design to draw them [the Corinthians] away from the gifts that they abused.”  He goes on to say, “Man’s abuse of them [the spiritual gifts] does not necessitate for their being thrown away as useless or injurious” (Commentary: The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, pg. 434)

Just as Paul corrected the Corinthians misunderstanding and misuse of the gifts of the Spirit, so too do we today.  What’s more, if we treated other gifts, such as teaching and preaching in the same way that many treat prophecy, tongues, and gifts of healing, then we would have done away with these gifts a long time ago. 

Instead of “throwing the baby out with the bath water” by forbidding people from serving others with their gifts when they’re in error, we should look to restore them through gracefully rebuking and encouraging them.  

Instead of outright forbidding the gifts of the Spirit that we’re less comfortable with, let us instead follow the example of Paul and rebuke, restore, and encourage people to properly use their gifts, not abandon them.

In the words of the Apostle Peter:

As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies – in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ.  To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever.  Amen (1 Peter 4.10-11).

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post:

In 1 Corinthians 14.30 we observe that prophecies are based upon a revelation.   Now, if we acknowledge that revelations continue today, does this mean that the authority and sufficiency of Scripture is undermined?  Well, in my opinion, no.

Although this is the case, some today believe that the revelations that undergird contemporary prophecies are wholly free from error and are infallible as God Himself, which necessitates that we attribute infallibility to their messages.  So, those that are concerned about the undermining of Scriptural authority are justified in their position if this is the case.

However, this is not the case.

Personally, I see that there are two different levels of authority attributed to revelations.  In general we observe that the Apostles and Apostolic men spoke and wrote with a divine authority (2 Timothy 3.16-17; 2 Peter 1.20-21) while all other revelatory activity was and is subordinate to that which the apostles and apostolic men were given.  We see this no clearer than in 1 Corinthians 14.26-40.

In this passage of Scripture, Paul provides instructions for the Corinthians in ordering their times of worship together.  During these instructional remarks, Paul had the following to say about prophets and revelation:

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.  If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent (1 Corinthians 14.29-30) (bold mine).

Moreover, he continues,

Or was it from you that the word of God came?  Or are you the only ones it has reached?  If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized (1 Corinthians 14.36-38) (bold mine).

What we clearly observe in these verses is that Paul acknowledged the existence of prophets who received revelation outside of himself and the other apostles.  However, it is clear that the revelations these prophets received and spoke were subordinate to the authority of Paul and what he was writing.

Consequently, this implies that we too can acknowledge the validity of prophets and revelations today that have messages that are subordinate to the authority of Scripture.  The author of Prophecy: A Gift for Today, Graham Houston, concluded a similar notion.

Graham says, “…revelation need not always imply absolute verbal authority, and suggesting that the contextual use of the word ‘revelation’ is crucial.  Because Paul speaks of Christian prophecy as a kind of revelation which is open to testing and evaluation we concluded that it did not…claim to be the very words of God.”[1]

This brings us to an important issue: Is not prophecy in the New Testament on par with prophecy in the Old?  Although some believe this to be true, and there is some merit to their arguments, I do not believe that their opinions are final and conclusive.  Let me explain.

Some Reasons why we Cannot Place an Old Testament understanding of Prophecy on all Prophecy in the New Testament

In Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, Thomas Edgar quipped, “…the gift of prophet in the New Testament is similar to that in the Old Testament.”[2]

Dr. Sinclair Ferguson, Pastor of First Presbyterian Church and Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, made a similar observation, saying,

In the Old Testament the prophet was the mouthpiece of God, and the instrument of divine revelation.  That revelation came, of course, in various forms and was delivered in a variety of ways.  Common to all modes, however was the notion that the words of the Lord became the words of the prophets: his words in their mouths and on their lips (Deut. 18.18-19; cf. Jer. 1.9).  Thus, to prefix one’s statement with the sacred claim “This is what the Sovereign Lord says” was to profess to be a vehicle of divine revelation.  Prophecy in the New Testament has been similarly understood.[3]

If all prophecy is to be considered on par with Old Testament Prophecy, then we must consider the following questions:

• Why are not all of the prophecies of the Jerusalem prophets (Acts. 11.27-28), the Ephesians (Acts 19.6), the disciples of Tyre (Acts 21.1-6), the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21.7-9), and Agabus (Acts 21.10) recorded as Scripture?
• Why are non-Apostles given the gift of prophecy (Rom. 12.6; 1 Cor. 12.10)?
• Why were women, who were able to prophecy (1 Cor. 11.4-5; cf. Acts 21.1-6) yet forbidden to teach or exercise authority in the church (1 Tim. 2.12), not included among the apostles?[4]
• Why does Paul encourage the Corinthians to prophecy (1 Corinthians 14.1)?
• Why does he acknowledge the legitimacy of their revelations? (1 Cor. 14.30)?
• If the Corinthian prophets were in error, why were they not executed rather than corrected (Deut. 18.20-22; also see Deut. 13.1-5)?
• Why are the Thessalonians told to test prophecies rather than accept them as divine revelation (1 Thessalonians 5.19-22)?

In addition to these questions, I believe if we consider all New Testament prophecy on par with Old Testament prophecy then reading many passages in the New Testament just doesn’t make any sense.

Finally, in addition to equating all New Testament prophecy with Old Testament prophecy, Edgar went on to say, “Similar to the Old Testament prophet, he functions as a spokesman for God.  If someone does not receive direct revelation and does not predict on occasion, he is not a prophet.  The Old Testament states that a prophet must be able to predict.  The only examples of prophet’s ministry in the New Testament reflect this predictive element” (bold mine).[5]

If the only examples of prophecy in the New Testament are predictive, then what about this example from 1 Corinthians 14.24-25 which reads:

But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

What we observe here is that prophecy not only has a predictive element, prophecy may also have a convicting element in the lives of non-Christians.  Someone given the gift of prophecy may be capable of disclosing the secrets of another’s heart through a revelation given by God (1 Cor. 14.30)

As a result, not every example of prophecy in the New Testament is predictive. This provides us with another reason why we cannot so easily correlate Old and New Testament prophecy as the same.

Some Final Thoughts

Picking-up where I first began with the rightful concern of undermining Scriptural authority, we can reason that Paul was correcting such errors in Corinth.

What is implied in Paul’s remarks above is that the Corinthian Prophets, and perhaps the Corinthian church, thought of themselves and their prophetic messages as divinely authoritative.  Why else would Paul bring attention to the authority of his writings above and beyond the authority of the revelations given to the Corinthian Prophets?

With this, I will admit that some fall victim to such error, and that some – if not many - look more to prophecies for guidance and instruction rather than the Scriptures.  As Paul rightfully states, this should not be the case.  For he, and not the Corinthian prophets, spoke with the authority of God.

What this implies for us today is that prophets and prophecies are not on par with the authority of Scripture, but rather subordinate to.  Therefore, the Scriptures – not prophecies, hunches, feelings, and impressions – are authoritative in all matters of life and faith and are to be prayerfully sought for direction (2 Timothy 3.16-17).

---

[1] Graham Houston, Prophecy: A Gift for Today (Intervarsity Press, 1989), 149-150.

[2] Thomas R. Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Resources, 1996), 65.

[3] Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 214.

[4] Houston, 52.

[5] Edgar, 84.

[Updated February 9, 2010]

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

This is a great illustration on how the cessationist position necessitates that we remove passages of Scripture that do not gel with the position.  Scan it and let me know what you think. 

Experiential Calvinism and the Charismatic Gifts, by Matthew Slick – Founder and President of CARM (Christian Apologetic and Research Ministry)

If the cessationist argument is true then it seems to negate parts of the Bible; namely, parts where spiritual gifts for the church are listed and exemplified. I have reproduced 1 Cor. 12,13, and 14 and “crossed out,” by making the text bold , those portions that are no longer applicable from a cessationist point of view. The specific verses may be debatable, but I think the point is made.

1 Corinthians 12:1-31

¹Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. ²You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. ³Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. ⁴There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. ⁵There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. ⁶There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. ⁷Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. ⁸To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, ⁹to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit ¹⁰to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. ¹¹All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
¹²The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. ¹³For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body — whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free — and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. ¹⁴Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. ¹⁶And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. ¹⁷If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? ¹⁸But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. ¹⁹If they were all one part, where would the body be? ²⁰As it is, there are many parts, but one body. ²¹The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” ²²On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, ²³and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, ²⁴while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, ²⁵so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. ²⁶If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. ²⁷Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. ²⁸And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. ²⁹Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? ³⁰Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? ³¹But eagerly desire the greater gifts. And now I will show you the most excellent way. (NIV)

1 Corinthians 13:1-13

¹If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. ²If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. ³If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. ⁴Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. ⁸Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. ⁹For we know in part and we prophesy in part, ¹⁰but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. ¹¹When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. ¹²Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. ¹³And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (NIV)

1 Corinthians 14:1-40

¹Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. ²For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. ³But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. ⁴He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. ⁵I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified. ⁶Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? ⁷Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? ⁸Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? ⁹So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. ¹⁰Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. ¹¹If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. ¹²So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church. ¹³For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. ¹⁴For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. ¹⁵So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. ¹⁶If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? ¹⁷You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. ¹⁸I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. ¹⁹But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue. ²⁰Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. ²¹In the Law it is written: “Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me,” says the Lord. ²²Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. ²³So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? ²⁴But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, ²⁵and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!” ²⁶What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. ²⁷If anyone speaks in a tongue, two, or at the most three, should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. ²⁸If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. ²⁹Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. ³⁰And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. ³¹For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. ³²The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. ³³For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, ³⁴women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. ³⁵If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. ³⁶Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? ³⁷If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. ³⁸If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. ³⁹Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. ⁴⁰But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way. (NIV)

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post:

The following arguments against cessationism by Matthew Slick  are clear and succinct.  Of course these are not conclusive, but they do provide fodder for those within the cessationist camp. 

So, sit back, take your time, and read them over.  If you have further points to add or rebuttals to make, feel free to make them in the comment section below. 

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Experiential Calvinism and the Charismatic Gifts, by Matthew Slick – Founder and President of CARM (Christian Apologetic and Research Ministry)

For simplicity sake, I will state a standard objection to the perpetuity of the spiritual gifts and then I will give what I believe is a basic but sufficient refutation for that argument. All the verses quoted are listed in full at the end of this paper.

Argument 1:
Since we have the Bible we do not need spiritual gifts. 1 Cor. 13:8-10 is usually quoted as scriptural support for the position.

The only place in Scripture that explicitly states when gifts will cease is 1 Cor. 13:8-13. In part it reads, “When the perfect comes the imperfect shall be done away with.” Some vigorously maintain that the “perfect” is the completed Bible and, therefore, the extraordinary gifts are no longer needed. If someone wants to believe that, fine. But I do not think these verses can be used to support cessationism. This is why.

Verse 12 says, “…then we shall see face to face.” The word “then” refers back to the phrase “when the perfect comes.” Since the only infallible interpreter of Scripture is Scripture, a quick examination of the way God uses the term “face to face” should help us understand this passage better.

The phrase is used throughout the Bible and usually means an encounter with a person. When God uses it in reference to Himself, it means a visual, personal encounter with Him (Gen. 32:30; Ex. 33:11; Num. 12:8; Duet. 5:4; and Jer. 32:4). Likewise in the New Testament. There it is also used in speaking of personal encounter (2 Cor. 10:1; 2 John 12; 3 John 14, etc.). “When the perfect comes…then we shall see face to face” seems, most logically, to refer a personal encounter; at least, that seems to be how God uses the phrase.

If the position is taken that the “perfect” is the completed Bible, how then do we encounter God in the same manner as the phrase suggests: an encounter with a person. Seeing Christ face to face occurs when He returns.

Another “then” is mentioned in verse 12: “then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” The word “then” again refers back to the phrase “when the perfect comes.” Again, we need to look at how the Bible uses words, this time, the word “know.” Scripture says that eternal life is to know God (John 17:3). Only the believer is known by Jesus (John 10:27; Gal. 4:8-9; Rom. 8:29). The unbeliever is not known by Jesus (Matt. 7:21-23). No where in the Bible does it say that an unbeliever is known by God. This is a salvific knowing; that is, it is a kind of knowing that God does of His people. He knows them and they are saved. The unbelievers are not known and are, therefore, not saved.

It would seem most consistent with scripture to say that “…as I am fully known” would refer to a salvation relationship between Jesus and the Christian. At the return of Christ we (the ones known) shall know fully; we shall see face to face the One who is our Savior.

Also, we don’t “know” Jesus through the Scripture; we know about Him from the Scripture (John 5:39). Instead, we know Him by personal encounter (John 1:12; 1 Cor. 1:9) through the Holy Spirit’s indwelling. We don’t know fully right now, even though we have the Bible, because we still are corrupted by our sin nature. In our fallen state we can only see Christ through sin-clouded eyes. We see a reflection of Christ in the Word. When Jesus returns the reflection of the truth will pass to clear understanding (the way childish thoughts give way to mature ones) when we receive our resurrected bodies, no longer have to battle sinful flesh, and can see Him face to face because “we shall be like Him” (1 John 3:2).. “Then we shall know fully.”

The context of 1 Cor. 13:8-13 seems, to me, to show that the spiritual gifts will cease when Jesus returns. Interestingly, 1 Cor. 1:7 may be consulted here. It says, “Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed.” (NIV) The Greek word here for “revealed” is apokalupsis. It means the apocalypse, the return of Jesus. In both this verse and 1 Cor. 13:8-13 the gifts, which aren’t differentiated as to which kind they are, are connected to the return of Christ, not the completion of the Bible.

Argument 2:
Present day tongues are further revelation and must then be equal to Scripture and should be included in the Bible. But since the Bible is not to be added to, the gift of tongues (and therefore, the rest of the spiritual gifts) must no longer be valid.

This is a faulty argument because the Scripture itself recognizes inspired revelation that is not to be added to the Bible: “What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church” (1 Cor. 14:26). Here, in the Corinthian church, revelations were given that were not made part of the Bible. This shows that there were, for a lack of a better word, “different” kinds of revelation: one from the prophets and apostles meant for canonization and another through the Spirit to be used in the church for edification–not canonization. So, in my opinion, for someone to maintain that revelation today is a threat to the Canon does not consider 1 Cor. 14:26, is not applying scripture properly here, and is being illogical.

Argument 3:
There is such misuse of the gifts that they couldn’t possibly be real.

First of all, misuse of the gifts implies their existence. They couldn’t be misused if they did not exist. The only real position to be taken here would be that the use of the gifts really is no use, but is only fakery and self-deception.

First, it cannot be denied that the gifts are misused. I have heard manifestations of tongues, interpretations of tongues, and prophecy that, in my opinion, were not genuine. But I do not discredit the gifts based upon those experiences anymore than I would say the spiritual gifts are alive because I saw them used well and accurately. The final authority is the word of God. Experience does not make doctrine, the Bible does.

Second, it is not a sick child that needs discipline and correction; it is the active, energetic, exploring child that needs to be guided. This was so with the Corinthian church. They were using the gifts greatly but improperly and needed to be corrected.

1 Corinthians 13:8-13

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Regarding “Face to Face”:

Genesis 32:30 – “So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
Exodus 33:11 – “The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.”
Numbers 12:8 – “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”
Deuteronomy 5:4 – “The LORD spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain.”
Jeremiah 32:4 – “Zedekiah king of Judah will not escape out of the hands of the Babylonians but will certainly be handed over to the king of Babylon, and will speak with him face to face and see him with his own eyes.”
2 Corinthians 10:1 – “By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you — I, Paul, who am “timid” when face to face with you, but “bold” when away!”
2 John 12 – “I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.”
3 John 14 – “I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face. Peace to you. The friends here send their greetings. Greet the friends there by name.”

Regarding “Know”

John 10:27 – “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.”
Galatians 4:8-9 – “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God — or rather are known by God — how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?”
Romans 8:29 – “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son…”
Matthew 7:21-23 – “Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post:

Some oppossing the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit contend that these gifts sole purpose was to both confirm and authenticate the message of the original apostles.   

Even though Scripture speaks of the signs (i.e. miracles) of an apostle (2 Corinthians 12.12), this in no way relegates the gifts of the Spirit to the apostles alone.  If this were the case, should we not expect to observe one of the following two instances: (1) Explicit Scripture saying that the gifts of the Spirit were only intended for the apostles; and/or (2) Examples from Scripture that depict only the apostles who operated with the gifts of the Spirit?

Well, I think so. 

If anything, there are a plethora of Scriptures and examples that say otherwise.

Gifts given to non-apostolic men

After sending out and giving power and authority to the twelve apostles over all demons and diseases (Luke 9.1-2), Jesus also sent out seventy-two total people to heal the sick while proclaiming that the Kingdom of God has come near to them (Luke 10.1-12). 

Moreover, we are told by Paul that gifts of prophecy, words of knowledge and wisdom, healing, and miracles were given to non-apostolic people (Romans 12.6; 1 Corinthians 12.4-11). 

Examples from the Book of Acts 

There are a myriad of examples in the Book of Acts that described non-apostolic men and women that miraculous gifts operated through: 

Stephen, a non-apostolic man, was told to have been full of grace and power and did great wonders and signs (Acts 6.8). 

Philip was miraculously transported by the Spirit to a different location, reminiscent of a Star Trek episode (Acts 8.39).

There were an undisclosed amount of prophets from Jerusalem and one in particular by the name of Agabus (Acts. 11.27-28).

The disciples of Ephesus spoke in tongues and prophesied (Acts 19.6).

The disciples of Tyre prophesied (Acts 21.1-6). 

The four daughters of Philip prophesied (Acts 21.7-9). 

More prophecies were made by Agabus (Acts 21.10). 

Some final thoughts

It is clear to see that non-apostolic men and women were empowered by the Spirit of God to perform miraculous deeds.  I’m in no way mitigating the unique life that the Apostles and Apostolic writers lived.  I’m simply saying that the Gifts of the Spirit were not limited to them and the authentication of their message alone. 

The authentication of the apostolic ministry was not the sole purpose of the Gifts of the Spirit.  The Scriptures are clear that the exaltation of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 12.3), the edification of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12.7; 14.3, 26; also see John Calvin, Corinthians, pg. 258), ministerial confirmation (1 Timothy 1.18), and the impartation of gifts (1 Timothy 4.14) are other operations of the gifts of the Spirit.

For those of you that adhere to the Reformed Tradition, did not John Calvin himself believe that when miraculous events took place, such as a healing, that this in NO WAY necessitates that new Biblical revelation is implied unlike one of his successor’s B.B. Warfield did? (Paul Elbert, Calvin and the Spiritual Gifts, JETS 22/3, pg. 246)?

Nonetheless, there are NO explicit passages OR rightful deductions that can be made from the Bible that says the gifts of the Spirit WERE only for the authentication of the apostles message.  It is for this reason that we should rightfully expect that the Spirit of God will continue to impart miraculous gifts to the body of Christ.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post

Since there is an apparent “absence” or “disparity” in the quality of the Gifts of the Spirit today, as compared to Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, and Jesus and the Apostles, that this lends evidence in support to the expiration of the Gifts of the Spirit (John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, pg. 134).

I find this position from Reformed Cessationist somewhat baffling.  How can someone who adheres to the sovereignty of God over all of history vie that He interacts in history consistently the same?  Furthermore, this position is deductive in nature and is easily tempered with explicit writings of the New Testament.

God is sovereign over the past, present, and future, which means He is also sovereign over the distribution of the Gifts of the Spirit in the past, present, and future. This means that when, where, and how the gifts of the Spirit are given are not determined by our will, but His.

The Westminster Confession of Faith 2.2 states:

He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things (Romans 11.36); and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases (Daniel 4.25, 35; 1 Timothy 6.15; Revelation 4.11)

In 5.5, we read from the same confession:

God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

It is obvious within redemptive history that at times more miraculous activity occurred than in others.  However, this does not mean that miraculous activity is non-existent in between these times or is not capable of occurring.

In relationship to the gifts of the Spirit, God is free to do whatsoever He pleases in when (time), where (place), and how (power) He distributes them.

The Sovereignty of God in Relationship to the Gifts of the Spirit

The following are some passages that speak directly to God’s sovereign will over the distribution of the Gifts of the Spirit:

• God empowers all of the gifts in us (1 Corinthians 12.6)
• The gifts of the Spirit are given through the will of the Spirit, not man’s (1 Corinthians 12.8, 9, 11)
• God sovereignly made us who we are with what gifts and offices we have (1 Corinthians 12.18, 24, 28).
• God bore witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ with signs and wonders that were given by His will (Hebrews 2.3-4)
• So, even though we are commanded by God to pursue the gifts of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12.31; 14.1), we can see that it is God who is Sovereign over them, determining when, where, and how He distributes them throughout history and the world today.

What is more, God is the author and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12.2) and we are to serve others with the gifts He has given us in proportion to our faith (Romans 12.6).  As a result, if God does not work within us the faith to serve others with our gifts, then we’ll be inhibited from serving them.

It is for this reason that Martyn Lloyd-Jones in The Sovereign Spirit: Discerning His Gifts, said:

The miracles, including the power of healing, were always something occasional, determined by the Spirit…All these gifts, as I shall be emphasizing, are under the sovereignty of the Spirit.  He decides when and how and where.  We must never think of it as automatic, that you just pull a lever and there it is, it has all happened.  That is entirely foreign to the New Testament.  A power was given, a commission was given on particular occasions, and then the miracles happened (pg. 43)

The…position is that of those who assert that the full and miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit ought always to abide in the church, and that it is only from want of faith that we do not possess them now…The teaching of the Scripture is that these things are to be considered in terms of the lordship of the Spirit.  It is he who decides.  “He giveth to every many severally as he wills.”  It is he who chooses (pg. 47)

We must not say “only” for New Testament times nor must we say “always.”  The answer is, “as he wills,” as the Spirit wills.  It is always right to seek the fullness of the Spirit – we are exhorted to do so.  But the gifts of the Spirit are to be left in the hands of the Holy Spirit himself (pg. 48)

The gifts of the Spirit are not confined in history, with a particular group of people, or a particular place.  They are released by God’s sovereign will, by His grace, and for His glory (1 Corinthians 10.31; 12.1-3).

The Gifts in History

In recent studies, the historical evidence contending for the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit actually falls within a more positive light than what has been originally proposed, particularly from B.B. Warfield (see Counterfeit Miracles)

For starters, the early Church Fathers did combat extremists, such as the Montanists, but in no way did any of them before John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407) in the East or Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) in the West disavow their continuation or suggest that some or all of the gifts were just for a particular time in history (Stanley M. Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Ancient Christian Traditions, pg. 14)

We read from the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 50 to 98 or 117) the work of God the Holy Spirit in imparting gifts to the Church.  “Why through a careless neglect of acknowledging the gift (charisma) which we have received, do we foolishly perish?” (Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians xvii, ANF 1:56 (From Burgess, 20).

In a letter to Polycarp, Ignatius asked for he and others to pray for him that the “invisible realities might be revealed him in order that he ‘be deficient in nothing, and mayest about in all gifts” (Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp ii, ANF 1:99 (From Burgess, 20).

Writing to Christians at Smyrna, Ignatius referred to the church “that has mercifully obtained every kind of gift (charisma) and is deficient in no gift” (Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, superscription, ANF 1:86 (From Burgess, 20).

What is more, in the Didache – written in the early 2^nd Century – we discover accounts of the continuation of the gifts as well as how to discern between a true and false prophet.  Stanley Burgess says of this early Christian treatise, “According to the author, the Church was still experiencing the ministry of itinerant teachers, prophets, and apostles, who apparently had equal importance to the ordained, resident ministry” (Burgess, 21).

One who is looked to in contending for the discontinuation of the gifts, Augustine of Hippo, at one time apologized for making previous statements that insinuated the extinguishing of miracles:

But what I said is not to be so interpreted that no miracles are believed to be performed in the name of Christ in the present time. For when I wrote that book, I myself had recently learned that a blind man had been restored to sight. . . and I knew about some others, so numerous even in these times, that we cannot know about all of them nor enumerate those we know (Elbert, 253)

As we can see, those that read him as a cessationist is doing so out of context since he recanted of his previous position.

More to the point, after a thorough examination, D.A. Carson concluded in his work, Showing the Spirit, that “there is enough evidence that some form of ‘charismatic’ gifts continued sporadically across the centuries of church history that it is futile to insist on doctrinaire grounds that every report is spurious or the fruit of demonic activity or psychological aberration” (pg .166)

Some Final Thoughts

The alleged absence of the gifts of the Spirit in history and present day circumstances, as well as their non-comparison in quality, is a misnomer since God sovereignly determines when, how, and to what degree the gifts of the Spirit are distributed.

Even though a greater number and quality of miracles may have been clustered around certain times, this does not mean that miraculous activity did not take place during the interval times.  In a similar vein of thought, since there have been certain periods of revival in which many people placed their faith in Jesus Christ, should we conclude that God is not in the business of saving people in between these times of revival?  I think not.

[Updated 2/3/2010]

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

Based upon Ephesians 2.20, some argue that the gift of prophecy was solely linked to the apostolic ministry.  Therefore, after this foundational period ceased with the death of the apostles, so too did the gift of prophecy.

We see this clearly annunciated by Thomas Edgar, who said of Ephesians 2.20, “This passage strongly implies that apostles and prophets are of the past and were only at the beginning” (Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, 240).

If this were the case, shouldn’t we presume that the gift or prophecy was confined to the apostolic ministry alone?  I think so.  Moreover, if there are examples of non-apostolic people speaking prophetically as well as non-apostolic people who received the gift of prophecy, wouldn’t this be proof enough to rebut this position?  Once again, I think so. 

Let’s consider the following passages that clearly show that the gift of prophecy was not confined to the apostles or apostolic ministry alone.

The Gift of Prophecy was not Confined to the Apostles

The following is a list of verses showing that the gift of prophecy was not confined to the Apostles:

In the last days inaugurated on the Day of Pentecost, it was foretold that God’s Spirit will be poured out on all flesh and that our sons, daughters, male servants and female servants shall prophesy (Acts 2.17-18)

There were an undisclosed number of prophets from Jerusalem and one in particular by the name of Agabus (Acts. 11.27-28; 21.10).

The disciples of Ephesus spoke in tongues and prophesied (Acts 19.6).

The disciples of Tyre prophesied (Acts 21.1-6). 

The four daughters of Philip prophesied (Acts 21.7-9). 

The gift of prophecy was given to non-apostolic people (Romans 12.6; 1 Corinthians 12.10)

People were commanded to earnestly desire to speak prophetically (1 Corinthians 14.1).

Timothy was set aside for the work of the ministry through prophetic messages (1 Timothy 1.18)

Timothy was given gifts through the prophetic messages of non-apostolic elders (1 Timothy 4.14).

Once again, I’m not mitigating the unique life and authority of the apostles and apostolic men that God worked through in writing His inscripturated Word.  What I’m saying is that the gift of prophecy was not confined to them, the 1^st Century, and is not to be considered in the same vein as Old Testament Prophecies.  Why?  Simple, the New Testament does not produce such a limitation or definition of prophecy via rightful deduction, explicit statement, or clear example.

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post: