His article:
Of straw men and slippery slopes (part one of two)
His first argument:
1. If you believe that you need more revelation than the Bible then you will not pay as much attention to the Bible.
2. Therefore we should not believe that we need more revelation than the Bible.
My Rebuttal:
Again, I affirm Dan's point that nothing more is needed. And yes, even believing that more revelation is possible, despite the fact that it is not needed, is dangerous. I believe that even if God were to grant me beatific visions of himself, were those to cause me to ignore the scripture or lessen my regard for them, I would pray for the strength to ignore the visions as long as they were replacing my daily portion of the Word. Otherwise there is no telling when error could begin to overtake me.
I remember when I first discovered the charismatic gifts, I noticed that many of the charismatics I was surrounded did not have the depth of understanding of scripture or doctrine as I was accustomed to in reading men such as John Piper, Jonathan Edwards, and Charles Spurgeon. It was at that time that I vowed in my heart that I would believe in the charismatic gifts because the Bible teaches them, yet I would not allow myself to become as the typical charismatic who saw scripture as simply something to go to in order to hear a great story and get one's spirits up. I would be a charismatic who sought Scripture in the detail and intricacy that my otherwise Reformed views dictate.
Furthermore, his line of reasoning in this argument seems to indicate that just because something is dangerous or might possibly produce bad fruit, we should deny it. Yet I think that on reflection, even Dan would admit that that is a poor line of reasoning. Even sola fide, which Dan doubtlessly believes in, is a doctrine, as Romans shows, that is dangerous. Paul had to vehemently argue against many who took it as license to continue sinning. Therefore, sola fide – dangerous? Yes. True? Yes. Belief that revelatory gifts are still active today – dangerous? Yes. True? Yes.
His Second Argument:
1. If revelation is really from God then it should be added to the canon
2. Canon is closed so revelation can’t be from God
My Rebuttal:
I know I already responded to this in my comments on the book review post (that kicked this whole thing off) but for the sake of answering all Dan's arguments in one space, I’ll go over it again very briefly. Canon is unique among all of God’s revelation in that it rules over all other types of revelation. I hope in my saying this everyone can again see that my view of scripture is actually very high (ironically, it is higher than the cessationist who believes that Canon is no different from any of God's other revelation). God revealed many true, inerrant, infallible things to apostles and prophets that were not recorded in scripture, that does not mean Canon is missing anything. If one doubts this, look no further than John 20:30 or 21:25, or how about the true, inerrant revelation from God given to Timothy (1 Tim 1:18, 4:14) that is no where found in Canon. If these examples don't convince you just say so and I'll make more of a laundry list.
I do not know why Canon contains exactly what it does. Does anyone claim to know this? But if I had to define Canonical revelation I would simply define it as revelation for all people at all times. God put enough in Canon to make it sufficient for all our needs, as I previously discussed. He alone could explain why Canon, not plus or minus one iota, is what he gave to all Christians. I think most of us, cessationist and continuationist alike (flesh speaking), would have appreciated a few more chapters or books to clarify a few things for us.
With this said, I hope it is clear how there is no inconsistency in belief that God gives inerrant revelation today and yet Canon is completely closed and is totally sufficient. I abhor any accusation of being a "leaky-Canon" anything. The only way a person could claim this is if they were unaware of all the times the Bible itself points to other instances of inerrant revelation and yet fails to record it. Perhaps we should call them, "incomplete-Canon cessationists" or, better yet, "insufficient-Canon cessationists." Wow, they're really in a tight spot.
His Third Argument:
1. Praying in tongues draws us nearer to God
2. We should stop praying in English altogether
3. This is obviously not taught in scripture, but it’s a logical conclusion of charismatic teaching, therefore that teaching much be wrong
My Rebuttal:
The Bible says that there are benefits for both prayer that is understood and prayer that isn’t. In 1 Cor. 14:15 Paul says, “What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also.” In 1 Cor. 14, Paul outlines the benefits of praying in tongues (with my spirit) and he outlines the benefits of praying in the language that the pray-er understand (with my mind). So he says he will pray in both. I think he gives a pretty good, systematic way of thinking about it in 1 Cor. 14, but I don’t think it’s necessary to go into all that for this peripheral argument, unless someone demands it. Suffice it to say - it's good enough for Paul the apostle to pray in both, therefore I shall pray in both also.
Another sub-note: notice how Paul explicitly says that he (with volition) will pray with his Spirit. Just in case any of you cessationists were wondering how one could just stop and start-up praying in tongues.
His Fourth Argument:
1. Ministry without signs and wonders is incomplete
2. All the great men of the past must have had incomplete ministries
3. This obviously isn’t true, comparing them to men today who claim to have miraculous empowerment
4. Therefore ministry can clearly be “complete” without signs and wonders
5. Therefore signs and wonders have ceased
My Rebuttal:
I really don’t know why Dan goes here, some charismatic must have said that ministry without signs and wonders is incomplete. I, for one, greatly revere the ministries (most notable in my own life) of John Piper, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, and George Mueller. None of them had (or have) a ministry that was regularly accompanied by signs and wonders. I do not think their ministry was incomplete by any means. They accomplished all that God laid out for them to do, and in their case they accomplished more than many others who had signs and wonders to accompany their ministry (but who am I to judge the impact of one's ministry?).
I do think that their ministry would have been more effective if they had had signs and wonders, but who doesn’t believe that? Anyone who can call down fire from heaven is going to turn a few more heads. At the same time, signs and wonders are obviously not a wonder drug for any ministry.**(see the note at the bottom of the post) The first and greatest importance for any minister is that they be in accordance with Biblical teaching. Then, if God wills, perhaps they will have signs and wonders as a bonus.
But the conclusion Dan wishes to draw still doesn’t follow from his premises. Just because ministries can be powerful and complete without signs and wonders, doesn’t make any difference in concluding whether or not signs and wonders have ceased. It just means they were really good ministries using only natural giftings, who knows what more possibly lies in the supernatural realm.
His Fifth (and final) Argument:
1. If all the gifts are extant then apostles and prophets must be too
2. Only people who are way out on the fringes would believe that apostles and prophets are for today
3. Therefore apostles and prophets are not for today
4. Therefore the gifts are not extant.
My Rebuttal:
I’m sure Dan can see how this argument is fatally flawed logically. “People on the fringes” are not always wrong. Furthermore, the matter is not who believes what but who is right and who is wrong according to Scripture. This is my purpose in currently responding to Dan. He himself has pointed out the fallacy of guilt by association.
**I am aware that this is a side-topic, which is why it is a note at the end, but since I am sure that my comment confused many Bible-sufficient cessationists, I thought I should clarify. The point is simply this: imperfect people may exercise miraculous gifts of the Spirit. In fact, a person who still has sin in their lives and still has bad theology may receive the gift of prophecy or healing while someone else much more holy, with much better theology may not exercise miraculous spiritual gifts at all. I won’t argue for this here (although I would hope this would be obvious) but I just thought that this may be needed for some of you to understand how I could revere a patently unsupernatural person like Jonathan Edwards above a person whom I believe to be gifted in prophecy or healing. A person’s ability or lack thereof with supernatural gifts is not God saying, “this person is infallible”, it’s simply God saying, “this person is preaching my gospel.” And even the best cessationist knows that a person can preach the gospel yet still have a lot of learning to do.
Technorati Tags: Signs & Wonders, spiritual gifts
No comments:
Post a Comment