CovenantinBlood writes: No interest. I was Pentecostal. I've heard the arguments in favor of noncessationism. In my view, the biblically-defined function of those gifts—to attest to the authority of the ministry of the apostles and to announce judgment on Israel and the ingathering of the Gentiles—destroys all the arguments for their continuance.
I was Pentecostal too. I left Pentecostalism because I disagree with their interpretation of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I disagree with their Arminian theology. I disagree with the abuse of the gift of tongues and prophecy. I am disgusted with the many spurious claims of divine healing. I find that in a good number of places, Pentecostalism produces a “health and wealth” effect. It bothers me to no end when they write off verses that disagree with their theology.
When you say “the biblically defined function,” are you speaking in general of what they accomplished? Or, do you mean the biblically defined purpose? These can be the same, they can be different. A butter knife can function as a steak knife, but the purpose is for spreading butter.
Spiritual gifts can function as signs. The signs of believers.
Mark 16:17-18 ESV And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; (18) they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."
The signs of non-believers and believers.
1 Corinthians 14:22 ESV Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.
The signs of apostles.
2 Corinthians 12:12 ESV The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works. (I wonder which signs?)
Spiritual gifts can also have the purpose to build up the church:
Ephesians 4:11-12 ESV And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, (12) to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.
1 Corinthians 12:7 ESV To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
1 Corinthians 14:1-4 ESV Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. (2) For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. (3) On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. (4) The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.
Romans 12:4-9 ESV For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, (5) so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. (6) Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; (7) if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; (8) the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness. (9) Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.
1 Corinthians 14:24-25 ESV But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, (25) 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.
There are many instances within Church History of God giving revelation to believers (i.e., revealing some knowledge to someone, other than through the reflective meditation of scripture).
Take an example from the life of Charles Spurgeon (from his autobiography):
“While preaching in the hall, on one occasion, I deliberately pointed to a man in the midst of the crowd, and said, ‘There is a man sitting there, who is a shoemaker; he keeps his shop open on Sundays, it was open last Sabbath morning, he took ninepence, and there was fourpence profit out of it; his soul is sold to Satan for fourpence!’ A city missionary, when going his rounds, met with this man, and seeing that he was reading one of my sermons, he asked the question, ‘Do you know Mr. Spurgeon?’ ‘Yes,’ replied the man, ‘I have every reason to know him, I have been to hear him; and, under his preaching, by God’s grace I have become a new creature in Christ Jesus. Shall I tell you how it happened? I went to the Music Hall, and took my seat in the middle of the place; Mr. Spurgeon looked at me as if he knew me, and in his sermon he pointed to me, and told the congregation that I was a shoemaker, and that I kept my shop open on Sundays; and I did, sir. I should not have minded that; but he also said that I took ninepence the Sunday before, and that there was fourpence profit out of it. I did take ninepence that day, and fourpence was just the profit; but how he should know that, I could not tell. Then it struck me that it was God who had spoken to my soul though him, so I shut up my shop the next Sunday. At first, I was afraid to go again to hear him, lest he should tell the people more about me; but afterwards I went, and the Lord met with me, and saved my soul.’ ”
Spurgeon then adds this comment:
“I could tell as many as a dozen similar cases in which I pointed at somebody in the hall without having the slightest knowledge of the person, or any idea that what I said was right, except that I believed I was moved by the Spirit to say it; and so striking has been my description, that the persons have gone away, and said to their friends, ‘Come, see a man that told me all things that ever I did; beyond a doubt, he must have been sent of God to my soul, or else he could not have described me so exactly.’ And not only so, but I have known many instances in which the thoughts of men have been revealed from the pulpit. I have sometimes seen persons nudge their neighbours with their elbow, because they had got a smart hit, and they have been heard to say, when they were going out, ‘The preacher told us just what we said to one another when we went in at the door’ ”
Spurgeon would never say that he was prophesying, or that he was speaking a word of knowledge, or a word of wisdom. He just said, “I believed I was moved by the Spirit to say it.” But what difference does it make? The Holy Spirit was still revealing something to him. And this revelation was not then put at the same level as Scripture. How do we know that he wasn’t given a word of knowledge, or a word of prophecy? At least then, the glory would be given to God, not to man.
I read with interest the following article:
MODERN SPIRITUAL GIFTS AS ANALOGOUS TO APOSTOLIC GIFTS: AFFIRMING EXTRAORDINARY WORKS OF THE SPIRIT WITHIN CESSATIONIST THEOLOGY
Vern Sheridan Poythress
JETS 39/1 (March 1996) 71–101
Poythress writes: “Now let us look for a moment at a tangled debate. People debate about whether “prophecy” in the NT and the early Church was divinely inspired and infallible. Did it possess full divine authority? Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., says that it was inspired. Wayne A. Grudem argues that it was not. Many people believe that the outcome of this debate is crucial for the future of the charismatic movement. But actually the outcome of the debate makes very little practical difference today.
Suppose Gaffin is right. Then prophecy ceased with the completion of the apostolic era and the completion of the canon of Scripture. Modern phenomena are fallible and hence are not identical with NT prophecy. But modern nondiscursive processes with teaching content are analogous to prophecy, just as modern preaching is analogous to apostolic preaching. Hence the general principles concerning spiritual gifts, as articulated in 1 Corinthians 12–14 and elsewhere, are still applicable. What charismatics call prophecy is not really the prophecy mentioned in the NT. Rather, it is a fallible analogue. It is really a spiritual gift for speaking fallibly through nondiscursive processes. It contrasts with preaching, which is a spiritual gift for speaking fallibly through discursive processes. Modern nondiscursive processes with circumstantial content are in a sense not really analogous to inspired Biblical prophecy. But they can function positively in the service of the Spirit, just as does circumstantial content through discursive processes.
On the other hand, suppose that Grudem is right. Then prophecy continues. But such prophecy is fallible. It is not identical with the inspired prophecy of the OT. It is in fact a spiritual gift for speaking fallibly through nondiscursive processes. If the content is Biblical, its authority derives from the Bible. If the content is circumstantial, it is not an addition to the Bible (not divinely authoritative). Hence it is just information and has no special authority. Hence Grudem ends up with substantially the same practical conclusions as does Gaffin. Thus there is no need for Gaffin and Grudem to disagree about the modern phenomena. They disagree only about the label given to the phenomena (“not-prophecy” versus “prophecy”) and about whether the NT phenomena were identical or merely analogous to the modern phenomena. Both Gaffin and Grudem already acknowledge the fallibility of the modern phenomena. Gaffin needs only to take the additional step of integrating the modern phenomena into a theology of spiritual gifts. Given this theological integration, we find that there is an analogical justification for the use of these gifts in the Church today. Grudem, on the other hand, needs only to clarify the status of prophecy. Prophecy, he says, is fallible but still revelatory. It still derives from God and still is important for the well-being of the Church. Gaffin and many others find this sort of description difficult to grasp or classify. How can something be revelatory and still not compete with the sufficiency of Scripture? I explain how, partly by distinguishing teaching content from circumstantial content. Teaching content must not add to Scripture but can only rephrase what is already there in Scripture. Circumstantial content has the same status as information received through a long-distance telephone call—that is, it has no special claim to authority. It is therefore obvious that neither type of content threatens the sufficiency of Scripture.
If charismatics and noncharismatics could agree on these points, I think that the debate on modern spiritual gifts would be largely over. But there are practical adjustments. People who value nondiscursive gifts have tended to migrate into charismatic circles, where nondiscursive gifts are prized. People who value discursive gifts have migrated into noncharismatic circles, where discursive gifts are prized. Each group tends to prize only people of its own kind. We all need to learn again from 1 Corinthians 12 the importance of every gift, including those with which we have yet to become comfortable.”
I think Poythress is right.
In another place Poythress writes: “There are lessons here both for charismatics and for noncharismatics. Some charismatics need to become more explicit about the fallible, mixed character of nondiscursive gifts. They need to learn to value discursive gifts. Instead they have up till now indirectly said “I don’t need you” (1 Cor 12:21) to discursive gifts because, supposedly, these gifts are less spiritual than nondiscursive gifts. Conversely, some noncharismatics need to learn to value nondiscursive gifts. Instead they have subtly to say, “I don’t need you.” Their basis, supposedly, is that nondiscursive gifts ceased with the completion of the canon of Scripture. What they have actually shown is merely that inspired nondiscursive gifts ceased with the completion of the canon. (Thus e.g. Gaffin cautiously opens a door to modern nondiscursive gifts in Perspectives 120: “Often, too, what is seen as prophecy is actually a spontaneous Spirit-worked application of Scripture, a more or less sudden grasp of the bearing that biblical teaching has on a particular situation or problem. All Christians need to be open to these more spontaneous workings of the Spirit.” Gaffin here speaks of what I have classified as teaching content derived through nondiscursive processes. Robertson allows for similar phenomena in Final Word 84.)” -- Emphasis mine.
I love what Paul write to the Corinthians, “I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, (5) that in every way
you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge-- (6) even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you-- (7)
so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 1:4-7 ESV
Please, all who reads this. Take one day, and prayerfully consider this. Then respond to me.
Consider the words of John Wesley.
"Are you persuaded you see more clearly than me? It is not unlikely that you may. Then treat me as you would desire to be treated yourself upon a change of circumstances. Point me out a better way than I have yet known. Show me it is so by plain proof of Scripture. And if I linger in the path I have been accustomed to tread, and therefore I am unwilling to leave it, labour with me a little; take me by the hand and lead me as I am able to bear. But be not discouraged if I entreat you not to beat me down in order to quicken my pace: I can go but feebly and slowly at best: then I should not be able to go at all. May I not request you, further, not to give me hard names, in order to bring me into the right way. Suppose I was ever so much in the wrong, I doubt this would not set me right. Rather it would make me run so much the further from you, and so get more and more out of the way.
“Nay! perhaps if you are angry, so shall I be too; and then there will be small hopes of finding the truth. If once anger arises, its smoke will so dim the eyes of my soul that I shall be able to see nothing clearly. For God's sake, if it be possible to avoid it, let us not provoke one another to wrath. Let us not kindle in each other this fire of hell; much less blow it up into a flame. If we could discern truth by that dreadful tight, would it not be loss rather than gain? For how far is love, even with many wrong opinions, to be preferred before truth itself without love! We may die without the knowledge of many truths, and yet be carried into Abraham's bosom. But if we die without love, what will knowledge avail? Just as much as it avails the devil and his angels!"
Some articles for your edification.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/spiritualgifts.htmlhttp://desiringgod.org/library/sermons/04/101004.htmlhttp://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/39/39-1/39-1-pp071-101_JETS.pdfhttp://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article2.asp?id=187Blessings to you!
Kevin
