The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Response to 'Tongues-Nonsense and Martyn Lloyd-Jon

This is, hopefully, a more readable version of the initial post.

Response to 'Tongues-Nonsense and Martyn Lloyd-Jones' by Ronald Cooke

Ronald Cooke wrote,

This is the logical fallacy of the appeal to fear. The author feels it is scary to think that God could speak through dreams and we would have to be ina position where we would have to determine if a dream is scary or not. Would God do something like that? He did it to His people in the Old Testament and in the early days of the church. So why would He not do that to us? God does not seem concerned with giving us a 'comfortable' theology that allows us to figure everything out in our heads with simple formulas without having to be challenged by determining if something is from God.

So what, the Bible never says that visions or dreams ceased. So we should understand that they continue. The problem with cessationism is that it reaches and grasps and straws--arguments that the Bible must be inferring that the gifts have ceased. These arguments based on human reasoning that goes out on a limb are used to contradict direct _commands_ of scripture.

Scripture __commands__ the saints to covet to prophesy, and to forbid not to speak with tongues.


The same types of gifts the apostles did were given to men like Stephen Philip, and members of the (carnal and immature) church in Corinth.

And I do not see any scripture that infers that the office of apostle ended.


From what I have read, the word there refers to a premature baby. Premies probably rarely made it back then. Maybe Paul had the idea of barely surviving in mind. He used a word that could be taken to imply that he was born too early, rather than born to late, however.

We also see several others referred to as apostles in scripture, such as Silas and Timothy (I Thes. 1:1, 2:6), Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14) and possibly Apollos (I Corinthians 4.) Paul wrote that Jesus ascended on high and received gifts for men, and therefore that God had set apostles in the church. Paul was among the apostles who were sent for after Jesus ascended and received this gift. The 11 apostles were designated apostles by Christ before His ascension.

HIS ARGUMENT


Christ's works were evidence that God had sent him. God bore witness to those who heard Christ by granting that signs and wonders be done when they preached. But the Bible does not teach that confirming Christ's deity or the veracity of the apostle's ministry was the _exclusive_ reason for miracles. In fact, we read in I Corinthians 12 that miracles, among other gifts, were given for the edification of the body of Christ. Whether the canon was completed or not, the need for edification of the church still exists.

The Bible does not teach that revelation is complete or that once the canon is completed, the gifts will cease. That is the issue here--what the Bible teaches. The scriptures teach the gifts are given to the church, and does not teach that they have already ceased.

And God bore witness to the preaching of the Gospel with signs and wonders. The Bible does not teach that God bore witness to the _scriptures_ that would later be written by signs and wonders. This idea is an invention of theologians. If a preacher of the Gospel preaches a true message before unbelievers, God is certainly free to bear witness to that preaching with signs and wonders.

Philip, who was apparently not one of the 12 apostles or author of scripture, did signs and wonders in Samaria. The debated end of the book of Mark says 'the signs shall follow them that believe'-- not apostles.


I Corinthians tells of the gift of working of miracles being done in the church. If signs and wonders are marks of an apostle, this is not proof that non-apostles could not ever do these things as well. "Regular believers' in Corinth and an evangelist like Philip did such things.


The author talks about the gospel (Heb. 2:3-4) which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.5

To use this verse to substantiate continued miraculous activity is to miss the whole import of the verse. As Criswell and others have pointed out, this is one of the strongest arguments against continued miraculous activity found anywhere in the New Testament.<<

If this is one of the strongest arguments against continued miraculous activity found in the New Testament, then the case for cessationism is weak indeed. This verse tells us that the preaching of the word was cofirmed by God by signs, wonders, miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost. It does not say that such occurences had ceased to occurring. Another thing to note about this passage is that it is in line with the pattern in scripture and the longer end of Mark of the Gospel being confirmed with signs and wonders when it is preached, particularly among a new group of people.

Criswell noted:


This is eisegesis. The text does not say that he miracles had died out, but only that the Gospel was confirmed with signs and wonders among the readers when it was first preached. I Corinthians showed a continuation of spiritual gifts, including miracles, after the apostle Paul had left Corinth. The scripture is clear that miracles, healing, etc. were not exclusively for the apostles, were not exclusively for confirming their ministry, and were not exclusively for confirming the deity of Christ.


This is an argument based on fear. The issue is whether or not the teaching of scripture is that supernatural manifestations of the Spirit can continue today. The author is scared of these other manifestations, and uses an argument based on fear to convince the reader that the idea of miracles continuing is scary.

The argument based on fear:
"Hmmm. They told me there is a snake under the sheets. But if there were a snake, that would be scary. Therefore there is no snake."

The author also has a wrong understanding of what the canon is. Scripture is clear that God has given revelation outside of scripture. We do not know what prophecies were spoken about Timothy, even though scripture mentions that some were made. We do not know what Saul said when he prophesied when the Spirit of the Lord came on him. These real prophecies were not recorded in scripture.

What is scripture? What is the New Testament? The New Testament is a collection of writings written by the apostles and their close associates. They represent true apostolic teaching, the faith once delivered to the saints. They are not the sum totality of all revelation from God to man, which we can see if we read what the scriptures actually teach.


This is an unsupported assertion. It is an underlying assumption of cessationists. But this idea is not taught in the Bible, and therefore runs contrary to the Reformation principle of 'sola scriptura.' Those who try to squeeze this idea of sola scritpura end up with a sola scriptura concept that contradicts scripture.


The Word of God and Spirit of God have been foundational to true church teaching since before the New Testament was completed. The Bible simply does not teach that when the New Testament was completed that these gifts would cease. And there is no passage that even connects the idea of 'the perfect' with the ending of the gift of the working of miracles, for example. Cessationists put all gifts that offend a rationalist view of the universe into one category and try to dump them all away.



When Christ ascended, He received gifts for men, including the gift of prophet. Christ told the scribes and Pharisees that He would send forth apostles, prophets, and wise men. After Christ's ascension, Peter said that the scripture was being fulfilled that God would pour out His Spirit on all flesh. So while Christ is the ultimate revelation of God to man, and far superior to God speaking only through prophets, Christ's birth, death, burial, and resurrection did not do away with prophets, prophecy, or revelation-but rather brought a new outpouring of it as the Spirit was given to the church.


The problem with the 'evidential' view of the gifts is that it lacks scriptural support. Sure, God granted that apostles do signs and wonders. But Christ also gave Judas power to do miracles along with the other apostles. He was a son of perdition. God also had Caiaphas prophesy the death of Christ, and in the Old Testament, the soothsayer Balaam prophesied a true prophecy.

Philip did miracles when he brought the Gospel to new territory in Samaria. Philip was not an author of scripture, and was apparently not the Philip who was in the 12 apostles (since, as one of the 7, he had been chosen to help to alleviate the 12 of serving tables.) Yet he did signs and wonders when he preached the Gospel that he had received from the apostles. Philips miracles did not testify that he was a special messenger to receive apostolic revelation from heaven. They did draw attention to the Gospel that he preached, a Gospel he had no doubt heard from the apostles and them that heard them.

Paul wrote that the gift of working of miracles was given to members of the body of Christ. He did not say that it was only for approved messengers. The debated end of Mark says that these signs would follow 'them that believe.'

The idea that miracles was confined only to periods of time when scripture was being written is not a doctrine taught in scripture. As such, it should not be a doctrine of the church. It is 'human reasoning' that appeals to people who already hold to the idea that the gifts have ceased, and are looking for arguments to back up that idea. The new covenant era is different in many ways from the Old covenant era. It is an age of grace. Should we not expect that, now that we are under grace (charis), that there would be an abundance of gifts (charis-mata) in the church? The concepts of grace and gifts are closely tied together, as we can see in the meaning of the words and in the way Paul mentions 'grace' in gifts passages like Romans 12 and Ephesians 4.

MacArthur makes a similar argument to the one above in Charismatic Chaos. If I remember correctly, he argued that miraclees were done during times when scriptures were being written. One problem with this is that Kings was written long after the events occured. It would seem unlikely that any scripture was written in the time of the great miracles done by Elisha, for example. And scripture was being written by two prophets during the time of Ezra, besides the books of Ezra Nehemiah, and whatever other scriptures from the Ketubim that Ezra wrote. But is there any evidence of miracles occuring at that time?

And we should expect there to be more manifestations of gifts in an age of grace, when the Spirit is poured out on all flesh. Christians have the indwelling Spirit. Why should such manifestations be more limited now than they were in Old Testament times, if we obey the scriptures that say to desire spiritual gifts, and Jesus' teaching to pray for what we want (and yes I know the audience was the apostles on this last verse I mentioned.)


Historically, this is untrue, since there continued to be manifestations of miracles and other gifts of the Spirit in the church, including prophecy, after the last of the 12 died. The other major problem with this is that it is human reasoning. The Bible does not teach that these gifts would ceased when the 12 or Paul died. This is an unscriptural doctrine and does not line up with the Protestant principle of sola scriptura.

quote,


The Bible 'leaves us hanging' by leaving the teaching out there that there are gifts of the Spirit in the church. The Bible does not 'cancel' this teaching. So we need to believe it. God does deal with mankind as a whole, with the church as a whole. But He also deals with individuals through gifts of the Spirit.

In Old Testament times, there were prophecies given for specific situations that God did not see fit to have included in scripture. Perhaps they were not of such significance to the church that they needed to be included in the Bible. But they were revelations from God none-the-less. These revelations were not 'unneeded' for the individuals who received them. Someone or several people spoke prophecies over Timothy that were not recorded in scripture, but that does not mean that these prophecies were unimportant or unnecessary. Neither should we label revelations that God gives to people today about their ministries to be unneeded. How many missionaries have gone abroad because they sensed the Holy Spirit directed them to do so?


On the issue of I Corinthians 13, the author argues that 'telion' could refer to something that gradually becomes 'perfect.' This point is irrelevant. Whether telion means something that gradually becomes completed, or something that is completed all at once does not change when the prophecy (or prophecy in part) and knowledge (or partial knowledge) will cease. They cease 'when that which is perfect IS COME.' So whether the perfect thing took a long time to be perfect or not is irrelevant. The in part will be done away with when the perfect comes, not while the perfect is being perfected. Partial prophecy and tongues cease when the perfect comes, not while the perfect thing is becoming perfect.

And from the whole book, there is a good contextual argument for the perfect being the resurrection, or the state of the believer and the creation in the resurrection, since Paul expounds on that topic later in the book. In chapter 13, he mentions tongues, prophecy, and the perfect. In chapter 14 he expounds on tongues and prophecy, and in chapter 15, he expounds on the 'perfect' state of things in the resurrection.

Paul's state in the resurrection will make his then-earthly life seem like childhood in comparison. Paul's state when the scriptures were completed did not. Our having the scriptures does not make us seem like adults and Paul's life on earth at the time seem like childhood. Martin Lloyd-Jones has a valid argument here.



And because John Chrysostom was not well-enough versed in the documents of church history, should we all become cessationists? Perhaps Chrysostom had not read Justin Martyr who argued that there were prophets in his own time, or Ireneaus, who wrote of brethren in his own time exercising such gifts as prophecy, foreknowledge, tongues, miracles, casting out devils, raising the dead, etc. Perhaps he had not read the numerous references to prophecy and revelation of the second century. Your average second century Christian probably took it for granted that such things were possible. If cessationism were the universal teaching of the church, books like the Shepherd of Hermas could never have been so popular. The weight of church history argues against the cessation of the gifts of the Spirit.


This has not been my experience, but I am not from a staunch Reformed background. I would imagine Presbyterians and other Reformed groups who tend to be open to Charismatic gifts tend to be of a more liberal slant, still. Pentecostals and some of the more Fundamentalist Charismatic groups tend to be very much against Modernism.

But if you think about it, all of the Modernism and other such things you complain about are an argument against the idea that perfection has come. There is a lot of childishness, and people being thrown about by every wind of doctrine these days. We have not arrive become a perfect man, or arrived at the full measure of the stature of Christ, either.