Dr. Joel Beeke:
Godly Marriage According To The Puritans
Reply
Monthly Archives: July 2018
Evaluating the Modern Gift of Prophecy
A Word from the Lord? Evaluating the Modern Gift of Prophecy by Nathan Busenitz
Introduction
The title for our seminar this afternoon is “A Word from the Lord? Evaluating the Modern Gift of Prophecy.” And that subtitle really defines our goal in this session. We want to look at prophecy in the contemporary charismatic movement and compare it to the Word of God.
It is important for me to note, at the beginning of this seminar, that much of what we will talk about today parallels what is found in the Strange Fire book. So, if you want to dig into this topic in more depth, I would recommend that resource as a place to start.
Definition of Terms
Now, before we begin, it is important that we define several terms:
Charismatic – The term “charismatic” is very broad, encompassing millions of people and thousands of denominations. Charismatics are known for their belief that the miraculous and revelatory gifts described in the New Testament are still in operation today and therefore should be sought by contemporary Christians. According to the International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, there are more than 20,000 distinct Pentecostal and Charismatic groups in the world. Those groups are generally subdivided into three broad categories or “waves.”
The First Wave refers to the classic Pentecostal Movement which began in the early 1900s under the leadership of men like Charles Parham and William Seymour.
The Second Wave is known as the Charismatic Renewal Movement. It began in the 1960s as mainline Protestant denominations were influenced by Pentecostal theology.
The Third Wave represents the influence of Pentecostal theology within evangelical denominations. It started under the leadership of C. Peter Wagner and John Wimber, both of whom were teaching at Fuller Theological Seminary at the time. Today, we will be using the term “charismatic” to encompass all three waves, doing so in an admittedly broad fashion.
(2) Continuationist – The term “continuationist” is similar to the term “charismatic” in that it refers to a belief in the continuation of the miraculous and revelatory gifts of the New Testament. Thus, continuationists assert that things like the gift of prophecy, the gift of tongues, and gifts of healing are still functioning in the church today.
However, the term “continuationist” is often used to differentiate theologically conservative charismatics from those in the broader charismatic movement. Well-known evangelical continuationists would include Christian leaders like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and Sam Storms. And, it is important to note, that while we do not agree with their position regarding the charismatic gifts, we have much that we appreciate about these men. Thus, the term “continuationist” often helps us differentiate conservative evangelical charismatics from those in the broader movement.
Here is how one continuationist author explained the term:
The term charismatic has sometimes been associated with doctrinal error, unsubstantiated claims of healing, financial impropriety, outlandish and unfulfilled predictions, an overemphasis on the speech gifts, and some regrettable hairstyles. . . . That’s why I’ve started to identify myself more often as a continuationist rather than a charismatic. (Bob Kauflin, Worship Matters, 86)
(3) Cessationist – The term “cessationist” refers to those who believe that the miraculous and revelatory gifts passed away in church history after the apostolic age ended. Cessationists therefore assert that supernatural phenomena like the gift of apostleship, the gift of prophecy, the gift of tongues, and the gift of healing are no longer functioning in the church today. Rather, they were given as signs to authenticate the ministry of the apostles during the foundational age of the church. Once the apostolic age has passed, and the canon of Scripture completed, the primary purpose for those gifts was fulfilled and they ceased.
Prophecy
With those key terms defined, we can now turn our attention to the gift of prophecy. When we speak about “prophecy” or “the gift of prophecy” or a “word of prophecy,” we are talking about the declaration of divine revelation. I think most charismatics and most cessationists would agree that—at a very basic level—prophecy might be defined as the human report of God-given revelation. For example, continuationist Sam Storms defines prophecy as is “the human report of divine revelation” (Four Views on Miraculous Gifts, 207).
And, in terms of a very rudimentary definition of prophecy, I think that is one that most cessationists would be happy to agree on. Biblical prophets like Moses and Isaiah received new revelation from God and they reported that revelation to the people both by speaking that truth and by writing it down. Many charismatics today similarly claim that they receive new revelation from God which they are then able to articulate as words of prophecy to others.
The word prophet itself comes from the Greek prophētēs which means “to speak in the place of” or to be a “spokesman.” So a prophet is a spokesman for God. And when someone claims to be exercising the gift of prophecy or claims to have a word from the Lord that is exactly what they are claiming. In that moment, at least, they are claiming to be a spokesperson for God.
The Need to Test Prophets
Throughout history, there have been many people who have claimed to be prophets, who have claimed to speak for God. But all Christians—whether charismatics or cessationists—would agree that at least some of these prophets were false prophets.
For the sake of time, I’ll provide just three examples.
In the second century, there was a false prophet named Montanus. Montanus claimed to speak for God. He said that the world was about to end, promoted extremely legalistic ethical standards on his followers, and claimed that God was going to establish the New Jerusalem, not in Jerusalem, but in the town of Pepuza in Phrygia. Needless to say, his predictions did not come true. He was declared a heretic by the early church. Continue reading
The Matchless Miracles of Christ
In the course of His earthly ministry, Jesus
healed diseases
cast out demons
calmed storms
raised the dead
fed thousands at one time
walked on water
turned water into wine
and even controlled the placement of fish (e.g. Matt. 17:23–27; Luke 5: 1–11).
Because His miracles were so well-known, Jesus Himself pointed to them as verification that He came from God. As He told His critics, “For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me” (John 5:36; cf. Matthew 11:5; John 10:38).
Significantly, Jesus’ opponents never denied His miracles. Though they questioned the divine origin of His power (Matthew 12:24), they were never able to deny that the works He and His apostles performed were supernatural (John 11:47–48; Acts 4:16). Even today, “the fact that miracle working belongs to the historical Jesus is no longer disputed.” [1]
In the words of the German scholar, Wolfgang Trilling: “We are convinced and hold it for historically certain that Jesus did in fact perform miracles. . . . The miracle reports occupy so much space in the Gospels that it is impossible that all could have been subsequently invented or transferred to Jesus.” [2]
Jewish literature from the first few centuries A.D. confirms that the Jews, like the Christians, accepted the fact that Jesus performed supernatural acts. Unlike many of the pseudo-miracles done today in the name of Jesus, the actual miracles of Jesus were irrefutable. But while they could not deny His power, the Jewish religious leaders rejected the idea that God was the source behind it.
The Pharisees of Jesus’ day attributed His power directly to Satan (Matthew 12:24). In later centuries, the rabbis attempted to pass it off as sorcery and magic. [3] Thus, in the Babylonian Talmud we read this accusation: “Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray.” [4] Though intended pejoratively, that statement provides backhanded confirmation of the fact that Jesus performed amazing wonders (which His enemies misconstrued as “magic”). The statement also indicates that His miracles were so compelling that many in Israel believed in Him.
Jewish sources further acknowledge that Jesus’ immediate followers also had the power to heal in His name. [5] Princeton Scholar Peter Schäfer comments on one particular account in the Talmud, in which the grandson of an unbelieving Jewish man named Yehoshua b. Levi was miraculously healed by a Christian. Though the healing was successful, Yehoshua b. Levi was mortified that his grandson had been subjected to such “magical” powers. Based on that account, Schäfer explains the Jewish perspective of Jesus’ miracles:
The story about Yehoshua b. Levi and his grandson . . . presents an ironical critique of Jesus’ and his [apostle’s] power [to perform miracles]. True, it argues, their magical power is undeniable: it works, and one cannot do anything against its effectiveness. But it is [in the minds of the Jews] an unauthorized and misused power. [6]
Again, the opponents of Christ (and the apostles) could not deny His miracle-working ability. The best they could do was try to deny the heavenly source of that power.
Faced with the reality that Jesus and His immediate followers could perform miraculous deeds, the Jewish leaders (both in Jesus’ day and in the generations that followed) had a clear choice. But rather than attribute “the chaste, ethical, and redemptive nature of the miracles of Christ” [7] to God, they chose instead to attribute them (either directly or indirectly) to Satan. Their wild accusations exposed the irrational nature of their blinding unbelief.
Jesus Himself pointed out the self-contradictory nature of their claim (cf. Matt. 12:25–32): Why would He use His miracle-working power to fight against Satan, if He was in fact empowered by Satan? That Jesus used His miracles to further the kingdom of God clearly revealed the true source of His power. [8]
Though neither the Pharisees nor the later rabbis responded in belief, their writings (from the first few centuries of church history) provide historical confirmation of Jesus as a miracle worker. [9] His ability to perform mighty wonders was undeniable.
Thus Christians today can look to Christ’s miracles as verification that He is indeed the Son of God (John 3:2); Acts 2:22). As the early Christian leader Justin Martyr (d. 165) explained to the Jewish antagonists of his day,
“[Jesus] was manifested to your race and healed those who were from birth physically maimed and deaf and lame, causing one to leap and another to hear and a third to see at his word. And he raised the dead and gave them life and by his actions challenged the men of his time to recognize him.” [10]
Even today, two millennia later, the accounts of Jesus’ miracles leave us in amazed wonder as we reflect on the majesty of who He really is.
Modern Day Tongues
A series of 4 short articles by Nathan Busenitz (original source thecripplegate.com)
Article 1: Are Tongues Real Languages?
We begin today’s post with a question: In New Testament times, did the gift of tongues produce authentic foreign languages only, or did it also result in non-cognitive speech (like the private prayer languages of modern charismatics)? The answer is of critical importance to the contemporary continuationist/cessationist debate regarding the gift of tongues.
From the outset, it is important to note that the gift of tongues was, in reality, the gift of languages. I agree with continuationist author Wayne Grudem when he writes:
It should be said at the outset that the Greek word glossa, translated “tongue,” is not used only to mean the physical tongue in a person’s mouth, but also to mean “language.” In the New Testament passages where speaking in tongues is discussed, the meaning “languages” is certainly in view. It is unfortunate, therefore, that English translations have continued to use the phrase “speaking in tongues,” which is an expression not otherwise used in ordinary English and which gives the impression of a strange experience, something completely foreign to ordinary human life. But if English translations were to use the expression “speaking in languages,” it would not seem nearly as strange, and would give the reader a sense much closer to what first century Greek speaking readers would have heard in the phrase when they read it in Acts or 1 Corinthians. (Systematic Theology, 1069).
But what are we to think about the gift of languages?
If we consider the history of the church, we find that the gift of languages was universally considered to be the supernatural ability to speak authentic foreign languages that the speaker had not learned.
In the early church, the writings of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Hegemonius, Gregory of Nazianzen, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Augustine, Leo the Great, and others all support this claim. Here are just a few examples:
Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390): “They spoke with foreign tongues, and not those of their native land; and the wonder was great, a language spoken by those who had not learned it. And the sign is to them that believe not, and not to them that believe, that it may be an accusation of the unbelievers, as it is written, ‘“With other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people, and not even so will they listen to Me” says the Lord’” (The Oration on Pentecost, 15–17).
John Chrysostom (c. 344–407), commenting on 1 Cor. 14:1–2Open in Logos Bible Software (if available): “And as in the time of building the tower [of Babel] the one tongue was divided into many; so then the many tongues frequently met in one man, and the same person used to discourse both in the Persian, and the Roman, and the Indian, and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him: and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak divers languages” (Homilies on First Corinthians, 35.1).
Augustine (354–430): “In the earliest times, ‘the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spoke with tongues,” which they had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance.’ These were signs adapted to the time. For it was necessary for there to be that sign of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth” (Homilies on the First Epistle of John, 6.10).
In reaching this conclusion, the church fathers equated the tongues of Acts 2 with the tongues of 1 Corinthians 12–14, insisting that in both places the gift consisted of the ability to speak genuine languages.
The Reformers, similarly, regarded the gift of tongues as the supernatural ability to speak real foreign languages. By way of example, here is John Calvin’s treatment of 1 Corinthians 12:10):
John Calvin: “There was a difference between the knowledge of tongues, and the interpretation of them, for those who were endowed with the former [i.e. the gift of tongues] were, in many cases, not acquainted with the language of the nation with which they had to deal. The interpreters rendered foreign tongues into the native language. These endowments they did not at that time acquire by labor or study, but were put in possession of them by a wonderful revelation of the Spirit.” (Commentary on 1 Cor. 12:10)
To the names of the Reformers, we could add the names of the Puritans, and the names of theologians like Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, Charles Spurgeon, and B.B. Warfield among many others. Continue reading
The Tongues of Angels
Article: The Tongues of Angels by Nathan Busenitz (original source here)
… we are considering the continuationist claim that tongues in the New Testament were not necessarily real human foreign languages. One leading evangelical proponent of this position is Sam Storms, who articulates his views in The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Gifts. In this series, we have been responding to the arguments presented by Storms in that book.
In today’s post, we will consider one of the most common arguments for a type of tongues-speech that is non-earthly and non-human in character.
Continuationist Argument 4: The reference to “tongues of angels” in 1 Cor. 13:1 demands the possibility of heavenly (non-earthly) languages.
Sam Storms articulates this argument as follows:
Paul referred to ‘tongues of men and of angels’ (1 Cor. 13:1). While he may have been using hyperbole, he just as likely may have been referring to heavenly or angelic dialects for which the Holy Spirit gives utterance.
I am thankful that Storms (as well as other continuationists like D. A. Carson) allow for the possibility of hyperbole in 1 Corinthians 13:1, because I am convinced from the context that that is exactly how the phrase ought to be understood. Why?
The phrase in 1 Corinthians 13:1 is parallel to Paul’s subsequent statements (in v. 2) of knowing “all mysteries and all knowledge” and of having “all faith so as to [literally] remove mountains.” Both of those statements articulate hyperbolic impossibilities (since no one can know all mysteries or have all knowledge or possess all faith). In verse 3, Paul gives additional extreme examples: giving “away all my possessions” and giving “my body to be burned.” While martyrdom is obviously possible, it still fits the pattern of Paul’s use of extreme examples in order to illustrate a crucial point: even the most superlative expression of any gift (including that which is impossible) would be worthless if it is devoid of love. As John Calvin observed in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 13:1: “When he [Paul] speaks of the tongue of angels, he uses a hyperbolical expression to denote what is singular, or distinguished.”
One of the things that is important to note about the grammar of 1 Corinthians 13:1 is that, in the Greek, it literally reads: “If with the tongues of men I speak and of angels.” That construction is unique and occurs only here in the New Testament. The grammar suggests that Paul intentionally separated the tongues of men from the tongues of angels, articulating the normal expression of the gift of foreign languages before emphatically inserting a hypothetical hyperbole. This pattern is seen in Paul’s subsequent examples as well.
A simple chart shows the parallel between 1 Corinthians 13:1 and Paul’s other superlative statements in the immediate context:
Based on a comparison of all of Paul’s hypothetical examples in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, a strong case can be made that the apostle was using superlative, hyperbolic, and extreme examples to showcase the superiority of love. This contextual consideration leads us to conclude that the “tongues of angels” was a rhetorical expression, used by Paul to make a point. It did not describe the actual gift of tongues, which consisted only of “the tongues of men.”
However, for the sake of argument, if one insists on taking the phrase “tongues of angels” literally, there are still two important factors to consider:
(1) It represents the rare exception and not the rule, as evidenced by both the unique grammatical construction of 1 Corinthians 13:1 and the other parallel examples Paul included in vv. 2–3. Consequently, this verse cannot be used to establish “angel-speech” as the normal expression of the gift of tongues.
(2) When angels spoke in the Bible, they spoke in a real language that people could understand (cf. Gen. 19; Exod. 33; Joshua 5; Judges 13). Thus, this phrase “tongues of angels” does not support the notion of non-cognitive speech.
It should be noted that some charismatics, including Sam Storms, point to an ancient document called the “Testament of Job” to buttress their case. The Testament of Job was likely written by a group of mystical Jews in Egypt shortly before the time of Christ. It is an apocryphal expansion of the story of Job, and in a couple places it mentions that Job’s daughters sang in the language of the angels.
The assertion is then made that Paul may have been familiar with this apocryphal work and was referencing a similar phenomenon when he wrote 1 Corinthians 13:1.
But there is no reason to assume that Paul was influenced by the Testament of Job or that the Corinthians knew anything about it. Nor is it safe to build our exegetical conclusions on passages from a highly imaginative, mystical, non-Christian, apocryphal account. It is much better to interpret 1 Corinthians 13:1 in its immediate context, as an example of hyperbole used for rhetorical effect to accentuate the superiority of love—rather than insisting that Paul was influenced by a group of heterodox Jewish mystics from Egypt.
When the grammatical and contextual evidence is considered, the “tongues of angels” simply does not provide charismatics with biblical support for a non-human form of tongues.
7 Charismatic Deceptions
Youth Ministry – Voddie Baucham
The Divine Meaning of Scripture
Article by by Vern Poythress at this link.
Why Building a Border Wall Is a Morally Good Action
Article by Dr. Wayne Grudem (original source here)
Is building a wall on our border a morally good action? As a professor who has taught biblical ethics for 41 years, I think it is – in fact, the Bible itself repeatedly views protective walls with favor.
Walls gave peace and security. In the world of the Old Testament, people built walls around cities to protect themselves from thieves, murderers, and other criminals, and from foreign invaders who would seek to destroy the city. People could still enter the city, but they had to do so by the gate, so that city officials would have some control over who was coming in and going out. Today’s debate is about a larger area – a national border, not a city – but the principles are the same.
A strong wall gave peace and security to the city, and one prayer of blessing for a city was, “Peace be within your walls and security within your towers!” (Psalm 122:7). There was also a spiritual component, for the Lord himself strengthened the gates in the walls so they would protect the children and the peace and prosperity of a city:
Praise the LORD, O Jerusalem! Praise your God, O Zion! For he strengthens the bars of your gates; he blesses your childrenwithin you. He makes peace in your borders; he fills you with the finest of the wheat (Psalm 147:12-14).
After King David established his capital in Jerusalem, he prayed, “Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; build up the walls of Jerusalem” (Psalm 51:18) – God’s blessing would include strong walls! After David came King Solomon, who finished and strengthened the wall around Jerusalem (1 Kings 3:1).
But the people of Israel strayed from God, and he brought judgment in the form of Babylonian invaders who broke down and destroyed the city wall: “And they burned the house of God and broke down the wall of Jerusalem and burned all its palaces with fire and destroyed all its precious vessels” (2 Chronicles 36:19; cf. Jeremiah 52:14). God’s judgment removed the walls! As long as the wall around Jerusalem was broken down, it was a mark of shame and derision: “The remnant . . . who had survived the exile is in great trouble and shame. The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates are destroyed by fire” (Nehemiah 1:3).
The pathetic shame of a city without walls is also evident in this proverb: “A man without self-control is like a city broken into and left without walls” (Proverbs 25:28). The implication is that such a man and such a city are both headed for destruction.
After 70 years of exile in Babylon, the Jewish people were able to return and to rebuild Jerusalem’s wall. Nehemiah asked the Persian king Artaxerxes to give him the timber needed to build the wall and its gates: “And the king granted me what I asked, for the good hand of my God was upon me” (Nehemiah 2:8). In this case, God’s blessing was evident when the leader of the government authorized the allocation of materials to build the wall.
Then Nehemiah needed laborers for the massive task of rebuilding the wall. He challenged the people, “Come, let us build the wall of Jerusalem, that we may no longer suffer derision” (Nehemiah 2:17). Fortunately, “the people had a mind to work” (Nehemiah 4:6), and an entire chapter of Nehemiah is devoted to recording the names of people who rebuilt the wall, specifying the section that each person repaired (Nehemiah 3). Such a record – having their names forever in the pages of the Hebrew Bible – was a significant honor for those who repaired the wall. It was a morally commendable act. Continue reading