Bible, Theology & Philosophy

The visit of the magi to the Child-Messiah, recorded in Matthew 2:1-12, is one of the most familiar biblical scenes to most Christians.The perception of this event has been unfortunately marred by a large number of popular misconceptions. Some of these derive from the popular song, “We Three Kings of Orient Are.” Consider the following list of erroneous assumptions about the magi:

1. They were three in number.
2. They were kings.
3. They were from the Orient (i.e, the Far East).
4. They were named Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar.
5. One of them was a black man.
6. They visited the baby Jesus in a stable.
7. They followed an astrological or astronomical phenomenon to Bethlehem.

All of these ideas compose what might be called the mythology of the magi. Some of the misconceptions can be corrected by simply reading Matthew 2:1-12. Others can be dispelled by a logical reading of the text giving attention to its Jewish background.

This study of cessationism considers three essential questions. Focusing on the gift of tongues, Parts 1 and 2 addressed the first of these: What were the gifts in the New Testament, and how does that biblical description compare to what is happening in contemporary charismatic circles? When we approach the continuationist/cessationist debate by first defining the gifts biblically, it becomes apparent that modern charismatic practice does not match the New Testament phenomena.

The second essential question is the when question. If the miraculous gifts (biblically defined) are not occurring in the church today, then does the Bible provide indications to when those gifts ceased?

For the sake of space, this question will be addressed only briefly. Those interested in further study on this issue should read Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit by Thomas Edgar.

In interacting with the when question, six texts must be considered. Many of these texts are used by continuationists to argue for the ongoing nature of the charismatic gifts.

Used with permission from Theologically Driven.

The blogosphere has been humming lately with questions of Christian freedom and Christian depravity, the role of faith and works in sanctification, the priority of law or Gospel in sanctification, and the like. Some have seized the “Gospel-Centered” banner and have used it to wage general war on law and works—after all, they argue,

So what’s wrong with the syllogism? Well, the logical structure is fine, so if an error is to be found, it has to be in one of the premises. In this case, it is the major premise. The gospel is not reducible to the forensic reality of justification. It also includes the experimental reality of regeneration. Together they comprise what the Reformers described as the duplex beneficium of union with Christ—two distinct benefits received simultaneously in the Gospel. And whenever we minimize either of these benefits, the Gospel disappears: