Are Tongues for Today? Part 1

Originally published as a single article: “Tongues—Are They for Today?,” DBSJ 14 (2009).

Why revisit the subject of tongues?

On March 7, 2009, David Wilkerson, a seasoned “prophet” from New York City, issued a warning that shook his readers: “An earth-shattering calamity is about to happen…. It will engulf the whole [New York City] megaplex, including areas of New Jersey and Connecticut. Major cities all across America will experience riots and blazing fires.” Though Wilkerson was able to give few details about this impending conflagration other than “I know it is not far off,” he was able to provide some advice for his readers, including “laying in store a thirty-day supply of non-perishable food, toiletries and other essentials.”1

Most of those who were aware of this “prophecy” reacted to it with more amusement than alarm, but a few bloggers responded to Wilkerson’s doomsaying remarks in an effort to calm the panicked naïve among their readership. It seems that the previously simple task of answering this kind of alarmism, however, has been rendered increasingly complex by an uptick in sympathy for prophecy and tongues in conservative evangelicalism today. Simple denunciation of such foolishness is apparently no longer acceptable in today’s “open but cautious” evangelical milieu.2 Instead it would seem that one is now obliged to give Wilkerson a hearing and remain cautiously open to the possibility that his prophecy might be accurate. John Piper, for instance, cautiously proposes that Wilkerson’s prophecy “does not resonate with my spirit…. God might have said this. But it doesn’t smell authentic to me.”3 Somehow, I am not reassured.

The case for the cessationism of revelatory gifts has been, I believe, objectively convincing for years. Unfortunately, not all arguments that are objectively convincing prove subjectively persuasive, particularly when the only ground of persuasion acceptable to some subjects is experiental in nature. This is a problem that by its very nature no journal article can overcome. Nonetheless, changes within the continuationist community over the past two decades provide an occasion to revisit the issue of cessation, recasting yesterday’s defenses with greater care and with different emphases. For instance, while B. B. Warfield effectively answered the crude and overtly unbiblical expression of miraculous gifts prevalent in his day,4 there is a growing notion that Warfield was speaking not to the refined expression of tongues in today’s conservative evangelical milieu, but to something else. Even recent works such as John MacArthur’s Charismatic Chaos5 speak most clearly to a raw and careless expression of miraculous gifts that differs considerably from the more biblically sensitive continuationism that is finding increasing approval in conservative evangelicalism today.6

A second reason to revisit this topic is the fact that this new breed of tongues-speaking and prophecy comes today from sources more theologically conservative and more academically credible than ever before. Dispensationalism, historically a stronghold of cessationism,7 has seen a spike in sympathy for tongues, especially in progressive dispensational quarters.8 This surge of sympathy for tongues is also seen in Reformed circles, likewise traditionally cessationist,9 both in the academy (e.g., Wayne Grudem and D. A. Carson) and in the pulpit (e.g., John Piper and C. J. Mahaney). This encroachment of continuationism, coupled with an increasing suppression of differences on “non-essential” doctrines in the interest of standing “together for the gospel,” has created a milieu ripe for the allowance, accommodation, and even embrace of tongues in conservative evangelicalism and even fundamentalism today.

Works defending cessationism continue to emerge, but even these seem to feel pressure not only to affirm the evangelical credentials of continuationists, but also to recognize the contribution of continuationism to evangelicalism and even to concede certain aspects of continuationism. Dan Wallace, for instance, introduces the book [amazon 0737500689] with the forthright assertion, “I am a cessationist,” even a “hard-line” cessationist.10 But he admits that in the crucible of personal trial, he was forced to “come to grips with the inadequacy of the Bible alone to handle life’s crises. I needed an existential relationship with God.”11 He adds,

Through this experience I found that the Bible was not adequate. I needed God in a personal way—not as an object of my study, but as friend, guide, comforter. I needed an existential experience of the Holy One. Quite frankly, I found that the Bible was not the answer. I found the Scriptures to be helpful—even authoritatively helpful—as a guide. But without my feeling God, the Bible gave me little solace. In the midst of this “summer from hell,” I began to examine what had become of my faith. I found a longing to get closer to God, but found myself unable to do so through my normal means: exegesis, scripture reading, more exegesis. I believe that I had depersonalized God so much that when I really needed him I didn’t know how to relate. I looked for God, but found many community-wide restrictions in my cessationist environment.12

Wallace concludes, “I am increasingly convinced that although God does not communicate in a way that opposes the scriptures, he often communicates in a non-verbal manner to his children…. To deny that God speaks verbally to us today apart from the scriptures is not to deny that he communicates to us apart from the scriptures.”13

In these words lies a third and final reason for pressing a defense of cessationism today, one that penetrates to the heart of my concern, namely, that the practice of tongues (and all revelatory gifts) is not so innocuous and peripheral to the Kerygma as is often portrayed. Allowance for tongues and continuing revelations from God (whether verbal or non-verbal) betrays a dim view of the sufficiency of Scripture alone to speak in all its grammatical/historical/theological simplicity to all of life.14 Once we concede that Scripture may or even must be supplemented by revelatory “communication,” we have in principle surrendered one of the most vital doctrines of evangelical Protestantism: sola scriptura. And this doctrine is one that we dare not abandon.

The following, then, is a brief case for cessationism. More narrowly, it is a brief case for the cessationism of tongues (though the basic principles in this article extend to other miraculous gifts). It begins by defining several key terms and establishing a historical setting, and then offers some objective, exegetical/theological reasons why the doctrine of cessationism should be maintained.

Important definitions

The term cessationism in this article refers to the idea that all the miraculous gifts practiced by the early church have been suspended for the duration of the present age. This is not to say that God is prohibited from intervening in his universe in a miraculous manner today (though some cessationists argue such), but that the miraculous gifts, including tongues, have ceased in this age. Nor is it to say that God will never again bestow miraculous powers to his people—allowance is generally made here for their resumption at some point in the age to come.

The term continuationism in this article refers to any noncessationist position—the view that at least some of the early gifts practiced in the early church are still to be practiced today. This is not to say that all the gifts necessarily continue today, that all believers must exhibit miraculous gifts, or that these gifts are always at the disposal of believers (though some continuationists will argue any or all of these three points).15 At the risk of over-simplification, the cessationist and continuationist positions are to be regarded, for the purposes of this presentation, as mutually exclusive and comprehensive categories.

The term glossolalia, it shall be further argued below, refers specifically to the supernatural practice of speaking in a genuine language that one has not acquired by natural means. Since some have expanded the definition of this term to include a variety of coded speech patterns and even incoherent gibberish devoid of any inherent linguistic meaning,16 a few have opted for the more precise term xenoglossia. I understand these terms to be synonymous.

A brief history of views

One of the lesser arguments for cessationism is the virtual absence of tongues-speaking from the apostolic period until the middle of the nineteenth century.17 While this absence is not absolute, most of the examples of glossolalia from this period are isolated, sectarian, generally quite mystical, and frequently heretical18—and modern-day continuationists themselves often hesitate to appeal to these as determinative.

The modern-day phenomenon of tongues-speaking has come in a series of three “waves.” The first, Pentecostalism, is the most theologically driven of the three. Sparked by two concurrent, late nineteenth-century surges of interest, viz., eschatology (a time when, biblically, tongues will reemerge) and a less-than-completely-defined dispensational emphasis on the Spirit’s new work of Spirit baptism in the present era (which was often accompanied in the NT book of Acts by tongues-speaking), Pentecostalism broke free from the Dispensational-Keswick alliance near the turn of the last century and matured into full independence in the ensuing decades.19 Emphasis on tongues-speaking in this first wave was on its role as a confirmation of Spirit baptism either (1) at salvation or, more often, (2) at a crisis event subsequent to salvation that launched the believer’s second “stage” of Christian commitment.

The second “wave” of tongues-speaking, Charismatism, is the least theologically driven of the three waves. Not properly an expression of any one theological system, Charismatism is more a spontaneous and spectacular way of doing worship. As such, Charismatism spread across both Protestant and Roman Catholic denominational lines. Charismatism began roughly around 1960 and has continued ever since.

The “third wave,” a term coined in 1980 by Peter Wagner, represents something of a reining in of Charismatism, but should not be regarded as a return to Pentecostalism. While the third wave is far from monolithic, it is generally marked by (1) an abandonment of the baptism of the Spirit as a crisis event subsequent to conversion and (2) moderation with respect to the necessity and importance of glossolalia—like the rest of the gifts, the gift of tongues is selectively given and, in keeping with 1 Corinthians 14, is not even among the “greatest” of the gifts. The spectrum of theological commitment among third wave advocates is broad, but a significant percentage of these are deeply concerned that the practice of tongues be biblically governed.

Editor’s note: Parts 2, 3 and 4 will present a case for cessationism.

Notes

1 David Wilkerson, “An Urgent Message,” David Wilkerson Today [weblog], entry posted 7 March 2009, http://davidwilkersontoday.blogspot.com/2009/03/urgent-message.html (accessed 9 March 2009).

2 I borrow the designation “open but cautious” from Robert L. Saucy, “An Open but Cautious View,” in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views, ed. Wayne A. Grudem (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).

3 John Piper, “Testing David Wilkerson’s Prophecy,” Desiring God [weblog], entry posted 9 March 2009, http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1670_testing_david_ wilkersons_prophecy (accessed 9 March 2009). Admittedly, this is only the first of two responses by Piper, but the fact that this is a response at all (let alone the first) is telling.

4 B. B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles (New York: Scribner’s, 1918).

5 Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

6 MacArthur himself seems to bear silent witness to this fact by his recent and frequent associations and platform-sharing with known continuationists.

7 In addition to MacArthur, see, e.g., Thomas R. Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996); Robert L. Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999).

8 The aforementioned Saucy essay in Miraculous Gifts: Are They for Today? is representative here. See below for my explanatory hypothesis for this decline of cessationism among progressive dispensationalists.

9 In addition to Warfield, see, e.g., Robert L. Reymond, What About Continuing Revelations and Miracles in the Presbyterian Church Today? (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1977); Richard B. Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1979); O. Palmer Robertson, The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1993); Anthony A. Hoekema, What About Tongue-Speaking? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966).

10 “The Uneasy Conscience of a Non-Charismatic Evangelical,” in Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit?, ed. Daniel B. Wallace and M. James Sawyer (Dallas: Biblical Studies Press, 2005), p. 2.

11 Ibid., p. 1.

12 Ibid., p. 7.

13 Ibid., p. 8.

14 Sam Waldron suggests that highly subjective views of Spirit guidance among conservative evangelicals (reflected in phrases like “God told me,” “God directed me,” etc., and most starkly in the violent rejection, in many quarters, of Garry Friesen’s objective, wisdom-based approach to guidance expressed in his Decision-Making and the Will of God) has left them particularly vulnerable to revelatory tongues-speaking as promoted by charismatics: “One of the reasons charismatics have been so successful in promulgating their views among Evangelicals is because Evangelicals themselves have come to a place where they have very loose and subjective understandings of important passages of the Word of God…. There has been a real tendency to devotionalize and spiritualize the Bible in a way that was made to order and set a lot of people up, when a charismatic came with his views, to not see all that much difference between charismatic subjectivism and the prevailing evangelical subjectivism.” In short, Waldron suggests that acceptance of tongues, on a grass-roots level, can generally be traced to a hermeneutically-induced rejection of the doctrine of sola scriptura (“Tongues! Signs! Wonders! An Interview with Dr. Sam Waldron,” entry posted December 8, 2005, http://www.challies.com/archives/interviews/tongues-signs-w.php, accessed 12 March 2009.

15 As such I include under this rubric the “Open but Cautious,” “Charismatic/Pentecostal,” and “Third Wave” views represented in the Counterpoints volume, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?

16 I have deliberately avoided using the adjective ecstatic in this definition, because the term ecstatic speaks to a person’s emotional state, not the content of his utterance. A person can be ecstatic and coherent or he can be ecstatic and incoherent. Ecstasy may influence what is uttered, but not in any determinative way. See Robert H. Gundry, “ ‘Ecstatic Utterance’ (N.E.B.),” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (October 1966): 299–307.

17 I describe this as a “lesser” argument because it is, after all, an argument from silence—both logically and literally. Nonetheless, it seems to be a notable silence. If speaking in tongues, like the other gifts, is a gift bestowed sovereignly by the Spirit (Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:11, 18; Heb 2:4), it would seem logical that these would continue. While it is possible for believers to seek specific gifts (1 Cor 12:31; 14:1, 39) and for believers to fail in the exercise of their gifts due to a lack of faith (Mark 9:28–29), God’s bestowal of gifts is not restricted by human faith, and one would expect them to continue unabated in the age for which they are appointed.

18 See, e.g., Hoekema, What About Tongue-Speaking? ch. 1; Edgar, Satisfied by the Spirit, ch. 8.

19 The Azusa Street Revival, which began in 1906 and ran for about ten years, is often cited as the event around which Pentecostalism coalesced as an independent system of thought. For a detailing of the historical factors leading to the formation of Pentecostalism, see Donald W. Dayton, “The Theological Roots of Pentecostalism” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1983), ch. 4.


Mark Snoeberger has served as Director of Library Services at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary since 1997, and as a part-time instructor here since 1999. Prior to coming on staff at DBTS, he served for three years as an assistant pastor. He received his M.Div. and Th.M. degrees from DBTS in 1999 and 2001, respectively. Dr. Snoeberger earned the Ph.D. in systematic theology in 2008 from Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, PA. He provides pulpit supply for area churches on an active basis and teaches in the Inter-City Bible Institute. He and his wife, Heather, have two sons, Jonathan and David.

Discussion

What an exceptional introduction. I am thrilled with the approach and the clearly identified issues of today as compared to the then relevant responses by MacArthur and Warfield. As they faced the prevalent arguments of their day (yes John is still arguing but I am referring to the publication mentioned) and defeated them I have rather strong confidence that this series of articles will lead these modern proponents who disclaim the sufficiency of Scripture or offer theological recipes for tongues based in apologies for the past but they are more enlightened, refined and thereby modified so that we may respect them, straight to their Waterloo. I anticipate maximum edification for the soul.

I especially appreciate the tightness of Mark’s definition that it is the gifts that we see as having ceased, not necessarily individual miraculous events. This distinction is critical.
[Mark Snoeberger]

Works defending cessationism continue to emerge, but even these seem to feel pressure not only to affirm the evangelical credentials of continuationists, but also to recognize the contribution of continuationism to evangelicalism and even to concede certain aspects of continuationism. Dan Wallace, for instance, introduces the book [amazon 0737500689] with the forthright assertion, “I am a cessationist,” even a “hard-line” cessationist.10 But he admits that in the crucible of personal trial, he was forced to “come to grips with the inadequacy of the Bible alone to handle life’s crises. I needed an existential relationship with God.”11 He adds,

Through this experience I found that the Bible was not adequate. I needed God in a personal way—not as an object of my study, but as friend, guide, comforter. I needed an existential experience of the Holy One. Quite frankly, I found that the Bible was not the answer. I found the Scriptures to be helpful—even authoritatively helpful—as a guide. But without my feeling God, the Bible gave me little solace. In the midst of this “summer from hell,” I began to examine what had become of my faith. I found a longing to get closer to God, but found myself unable to do so through my normal means: exegesis, scripture reading, more exegesis. I believe that I had depersonalized God so much that when I really needed him I didn’t know how to relate. I looked for God, but found many community-wide restrictions in my cessationist environment.12

Wallace concludes, “I am increasingly convinced that although God does not communicate in a way that opposes the scriptures, he often communicates in a non-verbal manner to his children…. To deny that God speaks verbally to us today apart from the scriptures is not to deny that he communicates to us apart from the scriptures.”13

In these words lies a third and final reason for pressing a defense of cessationism today, one that penetrates to the heart of my concern, namely, that the practice of tongues (and all revelatory gifts) is not so innocuous and peripheral to the Kerygma as is often portrayed. Allowance for tongues and continuing revelations from God (whether verbal or non-verbal) betrays a dim view of the sufficiency of Scripture alone to speak in all its grammatical/historical/theological simplicity to all of life.14 Once we concede that Scripture may or even must be supplemented by revelatory “communication,” we have in principle surrendered one of the most vital doctrines of evangelical Protestantism: sola scriptura. And this doctrine is one that we dare not abandon.

I do have one possible disagreement brewing here. This has been discussed here before, and I believe it was in response to an article by Mark, also, but here goes:Wallace says he is a cessationist. But Mark implies that Wallace’s cessationism is defective because of his being open to a personal feeling of closeness to God as being critical to his spiritual well-being, just as he admits Scripture was critical. I am a cessationist, and VERY vocal in my criticism of Charismaticism and extra-biblical revelation. In the process of my expositing passages, if there is an opportunity to critique Charismaticism and/or extra-Biblical revelation, I will take that opportunity. Furthermore, I was a great fan of Friesen’s work when Fundamentalist leaders were still preaching against it.Having said this, I am not so sure that Dan Wallace is guilty of violating Cessationism. Can we say that wanting to feel God close is a search for extra-Biblical revelation? Can we really say that a belief that God has stirred within him certain feelings is a claim to revelation? In particular, while a Cessationist might make public statements about such feelings (“I sense the Spirit moving here in the service”), he would not therefore teach “Therefore, everything we say here is authoritative and equal to Scripture.” You’re going to have to win me over on this one, Mark.

It would be interesting sometime to really dig into the question of in what sense God can be said to “lead” us if there no “revelation” beyond Scripture. I’m sure it would be helpful to pick Dr. Snoeberger’s brain on that topic. It did come up briefly at a conference I attended where he presented much of what’s in this article series. I seem to recall that he wanted to make a distinction between the aid we receive from the Spirit in applying Scripture to the choices we face vs. “revelation.”

Where I got stuck was on how we can be led by the Spirit without some kind of communication occurring beyond what is written. Even if I am merely nudged cognitively by the Spirit toward a particular understanding, how does that happen without some kind of information being—well, revealed to me?

I’m sympathetic to Wallace’s openness on that particular subpoint.

It’s a bit tangential to the question of cessationism though.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Aaron Blumer] It would be interesting sometime to really dig into the question of in what sense God can be said to “lead” us if there no “revelation” beyond Scripture. I’m sure it would be helpful to pick Dr. Snoeberger’s brain on that topic. It did come up briefly at a conference I attended where he presented much of what’s in this article series. I seem to recall that he wanted to make a distinction between the aid we receive from the Spirit in applying Scripture to the choices we face vs. “revelation.”

Where I got stuck was on how we can be led by the Spirit without some kind of communication occurring beyond what is written. Even if I am merely nudged cognitively by the Spirit toward a particular understanding, how does that happen without some kind of information being—well, revealed to me?
Agreed. This is precisely where my thoughts turned after reading this intro. After all, if prophecy (as described by Grudem) is not infallible and must be subjected to Scripture, what is the real difference between that and, say, the “call” to preach? Looking forward to the answer.

Faith is obeying when you can't even imagine how things might turn out right.

I’m not sure I agree w/Grudem on “prophecy.” Wallace at least makes a distinction between extra-biblical communication and extra-biblical words. If I understand him right, he is saying we get something more than Scripture from God but we get something less than words.

It’s an interesting problem with quite a history. Needs a series of articles all by itself.

Aaron, do you have the title of Grudem’s work on prophecy? I really would like to check it out sometime. Personally, I lean toward the idea that genuine prophecy is what happens when the Spirit inspires a speaker or writer and the result is always infallible word from God. So I believe we are not getting this anymore. (And the reason for testing prophets and so forth is not because prophecy can be in error but because what poses as prophecy may not truly be prophecy)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

This article by Dan Phillips is relevant to this discussion. Dan examines Francis Chan’s recent announcement that God is leading him to leave his church and step out on faith and uses it to argue against any kind of extra-biblical revelation or subjective, authoritative leading/calling by God.

http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2010/04/taking-step-of-faith-few-thoughts.ht…

In the comments he also argues against the “calling” language when used of pastors: “God called me to be a pastor.”

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Thanks for the opportunity to interact. I’ll start by saying that there is something ineffable about the work of the Spirit. His influence is integral to the new nature and, frankly, I can’t explain some of the intersection of the mind of the Spirit with the mind of the believer. What I do feel fairly confident in saying is that what he is doing is not independently revelatory. I.e., he is not giving me new and necessary, propositional data to supplement what I have in the sufficient Scriptures.

What I see the Spirit doing in illumination is not (in my feeble mind, at least) revelatory. In answer to Adam’s question, I personally wouldn’t say that God nudges me toward a particular interpretation of a given text. The meaning of the words is bound up in the text and I get at that meaning by the science of hermeneutics. Translation, interpretation, and linguistics are in the realm of common grace and no nudges are needed, just the pure, unadulterated hard work of exegesis. In fact, to say otherwise seems to (1) reduce Scripture to a hinweis that points to a meaning that hovers above the text and (2) suggest that Bible is either an inadequate medium or an insufficient resource for divine revelation—REAL revelation lies in the encounter that the reader has with God when he reads the text (shades of Barth?).

In illumination I see something totally different. Following Fuller (as in the Fuller/Erickson debate), I would suggest that illumination is dispositional, and deals with the realm of significance rather than meaning. Illumination replaces a person’s hostility to the Word with sympathy, so that he is favorably inclined to yield to God’s Word. God regenerates the will, or in Paul’s words, gives the beleiver the mind of Christ. Once so endowed, the believer may ask God for wisdom to skillfully apply the Word. At that point the believer is able to establish not the meaning, but the significance of that text to his peculiar God-given situation.

Incidentally, that’s about as far as I’m willing to go in defining the “call.” The Spirit imparts to the believer certain gifts and inclinations. The believer then recognizes these gifts and inclinations in the mirror of the Word and by the Spirit begins to cultivate them. Then the church confirms them. That’s it. Now, admittedly, SOMETHING ineffable happens when the Spirit imparts and cultivates these gifts and inclinations in the believer. But I’m inclined to think of his work as in the realm of spiritual formation and development, not revelatory event. Specifically, I reject the idea that God gives independently revelatory messages (whether verbal, encoded, or intuited) to communicate his specific will. To me this is something of an affront to biblical sufficiency and potentially a threat to biblical authority.

My take. Hack away. :-)

As to Grudem’s infallible prophecies, stay tuned to forthcoming installments. In the meantime, I’ll point you to F. David Farnell, “Fallible New Testament Prophecy/Prophets? A Critique of Wayne Grudem’s Hypothesis,” Master’s Seminary Journal 2.2 (Fall 1991): 157-79.

MAS

MAS

[Aaron Blumer] I’m not sure I agree w/Grudem on “prophecy.” Wallace at least makes a distinction between extra-biblical communication and extra-biblical words. If I understand him right, he is saying we get something more than Scripture from God but we get something less than words.

It’s an interesting problem with quite a history. Needs a series of articles all by itself.

Aaron, do you have the title of Grudem’s work on prophecy? I really would like to check it out sometime. Personally, I lean toward the idea that genuine prophecy is what happens when the Spirit inspires a speaker or writer and the result is always infallible word from God. So I believe we are not getting this anymore. (And the reason for testing prophets and so forth is not because prophecy can be in error but because what poses as prophecy may not truly be prophecy)
Grudem’s work is called The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. Also, see the pertinent sections in his Systematic Theology. While maintaining the gift of prophecy, he also strongly affirms both the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. Note: I have not read Grudem’s book on prophecy, though I assume it does not conflict with his ST, nor Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, which he edited.

I’ll be looking for Farnell’s article.

Faith is obeying when you can't even imagine how things might turn out right.

[Mark Snoeberger] Specifically, I reject the idea that God gives independently revelatory messages (whether verbal, encoded, or intuited) to communicate his specific will. To me this is something of an affront to biblical sufficiency and potentially a threat to biblical authority.

My take. Hack away. :-)

As to Grudem’s infallible prophecies, stay tuned to forthcoming installments. In the meantime, I’ll point you to F. David Farnell, “Fallible New Testament Prophecy/Prophets? A Critique of Wayne Grudem’s Hypothesis,” Master’s Seminary Journal 2.2 (Fall 1991): 157-79.

MAS
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that God only communicates his specific will (if at all) in conjunction with Scripture, i.e. when he does it, either it is not a “revelation” per se or it is not revealed independent of Scripture. But does that mean that it necessarily must arise from a reading and study of Scripture? Or do you rule out Spirit-directed applications in sermons and Spirit-led special words of encouragement to people in distress that, while not arising from Scripture, nevertheless are in harmony with them?

Faith is obeying when you can't even imagine how things might turn out right.

I’m saying that God’s special revelation to us today is limited to his Word. That is my only normative source for governing my behavior and decisions. It’s not the only input I consider in making decisions, but everything else has, at the very best, derivative authority. Never independent authority.

MAS

MAS

[Mark S] In answer to Adam’s question, I personally wouldn’t say that God nudges me toward a particular interpretation of a given text. The meaning of the words is bound up in the text and I get at that meaning by the science of hermeneutics. Translation, interpretation, and linguistics are in the realm of common grace and no nudges are needed, just the pure, unadulterated hard work of exegesis. In fact, to say otherwise seems to (1) reduce Scripture to a hinweis that points to a meaning that hovers above the text and (2) suggest that Bible is either an inadequate medium or an insufficient resource for divine revelation—REAL revelation lies in the encounter that the reader has with God when he reads the text (shades of Barth?).
Actually agree completely with you there. I probably didn’t express my nudge idea very clearly. What I was referring to there is receiving guidance from God in decisions of life, so what we usually call application. I’m beginning to see how it’s possible to squeak some kind of Spirit activity in there that is “not independently revelatory…. not giving me new and necessary, propositional data” but with difficulty.

The whole “call” concept is a good example. Though I think many have not really analyzed it, I suspect quite a few believers in Baptist/baptistic circles would say that when a congregation votes to invite a man to be their pastor, God has communicated His will in some way through that event. Before the vote we did not have that information; after it we did. It seems difficult to deny that this is new propositional data. We could just say it’s “something ineffable,” I guess, but it sure looks like new information to me.

In reality, I’m a very rational guy and my eyes roll involuntarily when people talk about “having a peace” about something or “God told me to buy that car” etc. I’m just not personally satisfied yet that proscribing the nonrational entirely is the right solution. I know that “proscribing the nonrational” is not what you’re saying either, exactly but that might be where it kind of leads and I’m not sure that’s a better problem than the sufficiency problem.

(By the way, thanks for interacting with us here)

Greg: thanks for the Dan P. link. The case does illustrate the kind of “faith equals being nonrational” sort of thinking that goes on.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

I’m looking forward to Mark’s articles to provide a case for cessationism. I’ve previously argued for the possibility of tongues (as languages) in pioneer missionary situations. I think the evidence for that is overwhelming although most missionaries will have to learn languages with normal study over time and often not very well. It is not that experience has the final word. It is that the supposed cessation of miraculous gifts does not negate the possibility of miraculous manifestations. If it can be shown that the gift of tongues has ceased, that would not lead to the conclusion that tongues never occur (just as the cessation of the gift of healing does not rule out miraculous healing).

Many of the arguments for cessationism have been made through the lens of dispensationalism. It seems that many, including some dispensationalists, are allowing Scripture to speak and recognizing that God might operate out of harmony with our theologies but in harmony with Scripture. This will not lead to sympathy with the aberrations of the Charismatic movement. For those who have the more sure Word there is no need for the miraculous gifts as gifts. For those who find themselves in situations analogous to the first-century, where there is no Word, there is no reason to deny that God may operate in ways not experienced by us yet not contrary to scriptural truth until the recipients have the Scriptures.

Dr. Snoeberger, thank you so much for this excellent article. I am looking forward to the other installments.

Re: footnote #6: “MacArthur himself seems to bear silent witness to this fact by his recent and frequent associations and platform-sharing with known continuationists.” Although you are correct regarding the platform-sharing, I will point out that MacArthur’s right-hand man, Phil Johnson, and his cohorts on the Pyromaniacs blog, argue vehemently and frequently against continuationism and continuationists (even mentioning Piper by name several times) and argue for the very things you present in this article.

For example:

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/08/prophecy-and-signs-and-wonders.html

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/08/signs-and-wonders.html

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/09/wily-continualist.html

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/06/spirit-and-power.html

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/10/still-not-clear-on-concept.html
[Phil Johnson] I have warm affection and heartfelt respect for most of the best-known Reformed charismatic leaders, including C. J. Mahaney, Wayne Grudem, and Sam Storms. I’ve greatly benefited from major aspects of their ministries, and I regularly recommend resources from them that I have found helpful. I’ve corresponded with the world-famous Brit-blogger Adrian Warnock for at least 15 years now and had breakfast with him on two occasions, and I like him very much. I’m sure we agree on far more things than we disagree about. And I’m also certain the matters we agree on—starting with the meaning of the cross—are a lot more important than the issues we disagree on, which are all secondary matters.

But that is not to suggest that the things we disagree on are non-issues.

Candor, and not a lack of charity, requires me to state this conviction plainly: The belief that extrabiblical revelation is normative does indeed “regularly and systematically breed willful gullibility, not discernment.” Even the more sane and sober charismatics are not totally exempt from the tendency. (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/11/something-nice.html)

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

P.S. Piper’s statements that Wilkerson’s prophecy “does not resonate with my spirit” and “doesn’t smell authentic to me” are incredible. So why should we believe John Piper’s spirit and sense of smell over David Wilkerson’s?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[Steve Davis] For those who find themselves in situations analogous to the first-century, where there is no Word, there is no reason to deny that God may operate in ways not experienced by us yet not contrary to scriptural truth until the recipients have the Scriptures.
But the ways in which God has made clear he will not operate because of his integrity which will insure his keeping with his own protocol of this age for both humanity in general and his revelation to them and believers specifically and his revelation for them are ways which God has indicated he will not be working. It isn’t a matter of us denying anything it is a matter of us receiving what he has said he will not be doing.

This is akin to saying, “well there is no reason God wouldn’t_____________________ (fill in the blank with anything)”. Well, yes, there is a reason particularly if God has, in presenting his program for his people, established he won’t be functioning in a certain way during a specific period or ever. Now you can disagree with the interpretation of Scripture that leads to this view but simply saying, “there is no reason to deny God may operate in ways not experienced by us yet not contrary to scriptural truth” fails to accept that in some cases God has presented in Scripture that he won’t be doing certain things. So while it might be true that God can do some things with which we may not be familiar, such a view is not the basis for arguing whether God has or has not indicated he won’t.

For example, I know God won’t be sending his Son again to die for us because he already did and said it is finished. But I could say, “Well God can do anything, right”? Wrong, because he won’t do anything if he has indicated he will not. So the argument isn’t if he will or won’t but has he indicated whether he will or won’t and therein lies what I suspect will be the heavy blows by Snoeberger that will put to sleep this doctrinal menace.