Does the Bible Teach That the Charismatic Gifts Are For Today?

Above is a debate between Dr. Sam Waldron, Dean and Resident Professor of Systematic Theology at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, and Matt Slick, President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. They debate the question, "Does the Bible teach that the charismatic gifts are for today?"No matter which side of the issue you may be on, I highly recommend watching this debate, which is very instructive and helpful in seeking to understand the important issues involved. I think it may be the best debate I have seen on the issue, especially since it is between two men who share a commitment to Reformed theology. I also think that Sam Waldron won the debate. He did a much better job defending his "cascade argument" than Matt slick did in defending his position.

Jeff Johnson Offers a Biblical Case for Cessationsim

On Sunday, August 9, my blog partner, Jeff Johnson, will seek to answer the question, "Have the spiritual gifts ceased?" In answer to the question, he will offer a Biblical case for Cessationism. He will be addressing the issue at 6:00 PM at Grace Bible Church in Conway, Arkansas, where he serves as the primary teaching elder. Perhaps those of you who live in the Conway, Arkansas, area will be able to drop by for the evening and leave a comment here with your thoughts about it. I'll keep the rest of the blog's readers posted and let you all know when the audio and/or video of the teaching is made available. Here is Jeff's description of what we can expect from the teaching:

On August 9^th Grace Bible Church will present a Biblical case for Cessationism in a two part presentation. There are three Scriptural reasons why the spiritual gift of tongues has ceased. One, the nature of tongues indicates that they have ceased. Two, the purpose of tongues indicates that they have ceased. Three, the finality of the cannon indicates that they have ceased.

We will cover these 3 reasons in two sessions. In the first session we will cover the nature and purpose of tongues, and the second session we will cover the finality and completion of the Word of God.

In the first session we will cover the nature and purpose of tongues, which gives us the first two reasons why tongues have ceased. Under the nature of tongues, we will examine the reasons why biblical tongues were not ecstatic utterances as practiced today. After examining (A.) the etymology and the historical use of the Greek word glossa (γλῶσσα), we will (B.) exegete the major biblical texts relating to tongues. In each text, unknown foreign language(s) is the best interpretation of the meaning of the gift of tongues. (C.) Next we will show why speaking in an unknown foreign language was truly a supernatural miracle that testified the divine source of the revelation. Ecstatic utterances are easily faked and thus prove and testify of nothing. This naturally leads to the purpose of tongues. Tongues, according to God’s Word, had a restricted and temporal function that was inherently connected to the apostolic age. That is, tongues gave divine testimony and validation of three things: (A.) new revelation, (B.) apostolic authority, and (D.) divine judgment upon unbelieving Israel. All three of these purpose are temporal by their very nature. Thus, if tongues were given for these three reasons, it is impossible for them to continue past their intended usefulness and purpose.

In the second session we turn our attention to 1 Cor. 13:8-13. Tongues were never meant to continue. They were prophesied to cease when that which “perfect comes.” By studying the context of this passage the best description of “that which is perfect” is the completion of the objective revelation of the New Testament. The infallible Scripture is not only “perfect,”  it best fits the context of what was predicted to come and replace tongues, the less reliable source of divine revelation. This session will conclude with some of the important implications of a closed and complete canon of Scripture. Mysticism and the charismatic movement are dangerous, for anything that adds to or competes with the sufficient, finished, and complete Word of God is something that is not harmless.

I am looking forward to hearing more of Jeff's thoughts on this important issue, and I hope you all will be anxious to hear his teaching on the subject as well.

Strange Fire Debate - Michael Brown Versus Phil Johnson

This is a very interesting, candid discussion/debate between Phil Johnson and Michael Brown concerning the claims made especially by John MacArthur at the Strange Fire Conference. When Phil gets the chance, he does a good job of challenging Michael.

Although I have myself criticized John (here) for painting with too broad a brush in his own criticisms of open-but-cautious men in Reformed circles, in the main I agree with the warnings being issued against the Charismatic Movement.

John MacArthur Misses the Point in "Providing Cover to Charismatics" Video

The video above was posted earlier today at the Grace To You blog. In it John MacArthur seeks to answer the question "What's wrong with taking an open-but-cautious approach to the charismatic movement?" Sadly, however, his answer is troubling because of the way that it misrepresents many who take such a view, especially many who hold to solidly Reformed theology in many respects.

For example, MacArthur wonders why many "prominent, faithful, blessed preachers and theologians" would say that they are open to charismatic phenomena such as tongues, prophecy, healing, etc. He wonders what motivates them, and he suggests a couple of possibilities in response to his own rhetorical question. After he states, "I don't know what the heart motive is," he nevertheless suggests a couple of possible motives. First he suggests that "maybe it's love and acceptance," but with a tone and in a context that leaves one thinking that he means "maybe it's love and acceptance devoid of a proper concern for the truth of God's Word." Then he suggests that "maybe it's kind of a personal longing for something more in their spiritual life," again with a tone and in a context that leaves one thinking that he means "maybe it's a desire for subjective experiences divorced from a proper concern for the truth of God's Word."

But some readers may be wondering at this point why I think MacArthur implies such accusations when he doesn't actually state them. The answer is found in what he doesn't say. For MacArthur doesn't even once consider the possibility that they could be motivated by what they believe is a proper exegesis of Scripture. And thus he leaves the false impression that faithfulness to Scripture isn't -- and couldn't possibly be -- what motivates them. Yet, men such as Wayne Grudem and D.A. Carson have written entire books offering an exegetical defense for their respective Continuationist positions, and many who consider themselves open-but-cautious have been so persuaded by Scripture as well. MacArthur must know -- whether he agrees with the exegesis offered by such men or not -- that they are motivated by faithfulness to Scripture as they understand it, just as I would presume that MacArthur himself is so motivated. But I guess I am trying to be more fair to MacArthur on this point than he has been to some of the men he is criticizing in this video, despite the fact that he avoided mentioning any names.

I also take exception to the way that MacArthur says that such men "provide a certain cover" for the charismatic movement, as though these men haven't been explicit in their criticisms of the various extremes that often accompany the movement. In fact, the "GTY Staff" member who posted the blog entry in which this video was posted makes this misrepresentation even more egregious when he writes, "Being reluctant to criticize charismatic theology may seem like a safe, middle-ground approach for noncharismatic leaders. But as John pointed out, their silence has given cover to false teachers." But who is being referred to here? I suppose there are some men like this out there, but I frankly have never met an open-but-cautious man who cares at all about Scripture or doctrine who hasn't been quite vocal in decrying the many problems and extremes -- both doctrinal and practical -- in much of the charismatic movement.

So both MacArthur's video and the blog entry itself make it sound as though being open-but-cautious -- and thus also being more vocally Continuationist as well -- automatically places one is a situation where he gives cover to false teaching or aberrant practices, and this due to a lack of concern for fidelity to Scripture on their own part.

I would appeal to this blog's readers, however, to be more fair minded in their assessment of the matter. Whether you are a Cessationist or a Continuationist, surely you can see that there are men on both sides of this issue who care deeply about being faithful to Scriptural teaching, even if they disagree about what Scripture actually teaches on this issue.