more on spiritual gifts

Adrian Warnock found some excellent resources on the "charismatic issue". This paper by Vern Poythress is as the Brits say, "spot on". The abstract is below to whet your appetite.

The Book of Revelation is inspired. Modern visions, auditions, and “prophecies” are not inspired, because the canon of the Bible is complete. However, these modern visions and auditions may be analogous to the Book of Revelation, just as modern preaching is analogous to apostolic preaching. Like modern preaching, modern intuitive speech has authority only insofar as it bases itself on the final infallible divine authority of Scripture.

A key distinction here is the distinction between rationally explicit processes, such as those involved when Luke wrote his Gospel, and intuitive processes, such as those involved with the Book of Revelation. One type of process is not inherently more “spiritual” than the other. Both the Gospel of Luke and Revelation were inspired.

Modern preaching in analogous to Luke: in composing a sermon rationally explicit processes dominate. Modern “prophecy” or intuitive speech is analogous to Revelation. Intuitive processes dominate. The general analogy between apostolic gifts and lesser gifts of the present day suggests that rationally explicit processes and intuitive processes can both be used by the Spirit today.

Cessationists argue that New Testament prophecy was inspired and has therefore ceased with the completion of the canon. But there are still noninspired intuitive gifts analogous to prophecy. Therefore, in order not to despise the gifts of the Spirit, cessationists must allow for a place for intuitive gifts in their ecclesiology.

The fact that we have analogy rather than identity means that we must respect certain restraints. Modern intuitive phenomena must be subject to the same restraints that are placed on preaching. Everything must be checked for conformity to Scripture.

The whole paper is worthy of a close read. At times it can be a bit heavy but I think that is because Poythress goes to great lengths to ensure clear definition of terms.

At times however it is fun. I love his analogy supporting that there are still gifts that are not necessarily inspired.

“He makes grass grow for the cattle” (Ps 104:14). But growing grass is not inspired.

Poythress handles one of the more sensitive issues, that of commands (point 8 in his paper), with great sensitivity and with sound conclusion.

People must learn to devote all their energy to obeying the clear will of the Lord. And in the process what is less clear ... will fall in place.

He rightly understands that the Bible is not the end-all. Rather it is God's clear instruction for our pattern of life. Throughout the Word God speaks to ordinary people giving direction for them and for others. We are to not read those Words as solely as a boilerplate to apply to our lives but as examples of how God would work in us today.

I also appreciate Poythress's honest warning that not all the we think we hear "in the Spirit" is accurate. For support he uses Acts 21:4 in which the disciples at Tyre wrongly advised Paul not to Jerusalem. We see that the Bible itself provides evidence of our fallibility so I'm always surprised when the anti-gifts crowd feel they have one the debate when they point out that we are fallible. They always miss the comparison to teaching, i.e., there is fallible teaching all around us, that doesn't invalidate teaching, it reminds us of our fallibility and sends us running all the more to God - and at the same time we do not do away with teaching. The same holds true with other spiritual gifts.

Ok - I've said enough, read this paper.

Technorati Tags: charismata, spiritual gifts