GTY Mobile

GTY Mobile.

A Brief Introduction To The Millennium

A Brief Introduction To The Millennium.

An open letter to every celebrity who becomes a Christian

An open letter to every celebrity who becomes a Christian.

How I learned to speak in tongues, and then never do it again Part II

How I learned to speak in tongues, and then never do it again Part II.

How I learned to speak in tongues, and then resolved to never do it again

How I learned to speak in tongues, and then resolved to never do it again.

A CALL TO SANCTIFICATION

Post written originally by Jerry Wragg at Grace and Granite

“Child, out of the grace and love of My heart I’ve purchased your pardon from sin, adopted you as My own, prepared an eternal home for you, and long to fellowship with you in the fullness of My glory for all eternity.

To bring you to where I am, I’ve ordained a particular path for you so that I may magnify My character through your life along the way.  You did nothing to deserve the journey nor the blessings I’ve planned for you, it’s simply that I desire to give you My joy as you reflect My perfections through all that I’ve purposed to do.  As promised, I’ve placed My Spirit of Truth within you so that you possess the power and wisdom to reach all the spiritual milestones I’ve mapped out for you along the way until you arrive safely home with Me.  I’ve also revealed, through My Spirit, every essential truth you will need to make the blessed journey I’ve bestowed upon you.  You are called to simply believe My word!  The journey will be challenging and at times exceedingly difficult.  When such times come, remember the following principles:

1. You must believe that My Spirit is sufficient power to provide everything you need along the way –
2. Based on what I’ve told you and what I’ve declared to be yours, you must immerse yourself in My word, set your heart on what it says, and submit your will to all that I command.
3. You must set aside doubts and fears and entrust yourself to My promises in order to be strong in the power I’ve permanently provided.
4. When you face unknowns, you must refer to all that I’ve provided and believe it is sufficient, despite your fears and lack of skill.
5. When power seems deficient for getting through some very rough circumstances, you must trust what I’ve provided and move forward in faith.
6. If, because of fear, selfishness, pride, or distracting lusts you choose to trust your own conclusions, follow vanities, or ignore My promises, I will use all kinds of pressure and circumstances to lovingly guide and discipline you back to the right path, heading in the right direction.
7. You must not covet a different path or a Father more to your comfort.
8. You must not covet a trouble-free journey, easier circumstances, more palatable revelation, emotional highs, or earthly relief.
9. You must not expect My power to propel you without your obedient faith, nor should you covet a different means of progress than what I’ve provided.
10. You will often experience lack of motivation, and even dislike for the journey’s obstacles, but don’t expect to overcome these contrary attitudes before you truly believe Me and yield your will.  If you wait for some earthly, natural motivation, you will have trusted your own wisdom and therefore cannot walk in My power.  You will simply stall your journey’s intended progress.  It is especially crucial during those times of indifference, self-pity, self-sufficiency and or sinful fear that you trust and obey all that I’ve said.  Believe Me, yield your will to Mine, and you will find My strength and power leading you forward.

Along the way, I have tailor-made your path so that you will become like Me in all your character.  Everything has been ordained to increase your discernment, test your faith, wean you from unnecessary as well as dangerous tendencies, and strengthen the conviction in you that I’ve provided the best and most trustworthy means for bringing you safely home to glory.  At times, you will fail to follow My commands, which will result in less power and slower progress.  You will become discouraged by your lack of ability to meet the challenge.  When you neglect an important means of grace and strength I’ve provided, you will be tempted to give up, believing that I’ve not planned your journey sufficiently.  You may get discouraged by what will seem like impossible obstacles.  During these times, it is important that you NEVER believe that I’ve left you without resources!  All My power has been provided, but you must use the means I’ve given for enjoying it.  You must know My promises.  You must seek Me for grace and strength.  You must entrust your life to Me.  You must yield your will to Mine.  And when by faith you have followed what I’ve commanded, you can trust that it is exclusively by the power and means I’ve provided that IS bringing you safely home to Me forever.”

Jerry Wragg

Pastor of Grace Immanuel Bible Church in Jupiter, Florida and the Chairman of The Expositors Seminary.

Related Posts

• Gospel-Off-Centered? – Part 3

• Gospel-Off-Centered? – Part 2

Gospel-Off-Centered? – Part

WHY I AM A CESSATIONIST

From the cripplegate

by Jesse Johnson

Yesterday I explained that spiritual gifts were God’s way of uniting believers in the church and advancing the gospel through the church. Every believer uses their spiritual gifts when they serve the church for the purpose of building up each other (1 Cor 10:23-24, 1 Cor 12:7).

But there is an obvious exception to these principles: the sign gifts. By sign gifts I mean the gift of languages, interpretation, the gift of healing, the gift of apostleship, and the gift of miracles. These gifts were not merely examples of people serving the church, but instead they had a much more immediate role: they validated the ministry of the Apostles. This is exactly why Paul called them “sign” gifts (2 Cor 12:12).

Most Christians globally would say that those gifts all continue today, exactly like they did in Acts. I disagree. I think those gifts were given for a period of time and have since ceased—in fact, I believe they ceased before the NT was even completed. This view is called cessationism, and here I want to lay out my case for it.
Before I do so: I know this topic has been beaten to death recently—this isn’t even the first time our blog has done a post like this. Yet some how it keeps getting resurrected (score one for the miracles side, I suppose). Let the coroner’s report indicate that the time of death for this horse was 9 pm on October 1, 2014, and bear with me as I lay out the four reasons I am a cessationist:

1. Because the sign gifts have ceased

My strongest argument is also the most circular, so I might as well get it out of the way at the front. I believe the sign gifts have ceased, because they are not around anymore. In the NT, people with the gift of healing healed everyone. They drove illness out of the cities they were in. You could touch their handkerchief and be healed (Acts 19:12). Their shadow would do the trick if their hanky was taken (Acts 5:15).
This is not what we see today. Today we see those with the “gift of healing” charging for their time, lying about the results, and staying far away from hospitals. The poor are robed, the desperate are exploited, and the sick die.
Today, if you are sick, you are supposed to ask for others to pray for you, and God may heal you through prayer. That is worlds apart from the handkerchief/shadow method seen in Acts. If someone had the gift of healing today, they really should go to the hospital, clean it out, and preach the gospel while they are at it. Start in the nations with Ebola.
The same is true for the other sign gifts as well. Bata-longa-sota does not count as the gift of languages. When someone once tried to teach me how to speak in tongues, they told me to just let go of my thoughts and repeat the same words over and over again until muscle reflex kicked in. Then I’d be off to the glossia races. Let’s just say, that’s not exactly the gift of languages in Acts 2, 10, and 19.
And of miracles? Apostleship? Even CJ Mahaney walked away from claiming that gift.
Look around the world—I know we all wish it looked more like it did in Acts (minus the beheadings), but the sign gifts that we see in the early church simply are not still in the world today.
In other words, I am a cessationist because the sign gifts are not still here—and their half-hearted prosperity-preaching step-sisters don’t’ count. The sign gifts simply are not here anymore.

Doesn’t count.

2. Because the function of the sign gifts was to establish the early church

Why did God give the sign gifts to the church in Acts? Because it was a world without elders and a world without the New Testament.
Imagine how unhealthy a church would be if it didn’t’ have elders, and if it didn’t have a NT. This is exactly the situation in Jerusalem, then Corinth, and everywhere the gospel went in those first few decades of missions.
This is why 1 Corinthians 13:11 compares the sign gifts to the infancy of the church. Paul actually calls them childish, not because the gifts were for children, but because they were for the church when the church had not yet “become a man.” People can wrestle over what telios means until the cows come home, but getting over that debate, Paul’s comparison of the sign gifts to childishness is astounding.
Then glide your fingers over to Ephesians 4 where Paul again describes how some of the gifts (and particularly the gift of apostleship) were critical because the church had not yet grown up into maturity.  As it was, the church was “children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine.” I’ll save this for a future post, except to say that the connection between 1 Cor 12-13 and Eph 4 is obvious. Both passages compare the church to a human body, they both describe the sign gifts as given before the church reaches “maturity/manhood,” and they both say that love is what remains when the church grows up.
In other words, the gifts were given to hold the church together until they got some of the NT books, and developed some elders who could preach whatever Scripture they could get their hands on (see also Eph 2:20).

3. Because the function of the sign gifts was to authenticate the apostles:

In an immature church without the NT and without elders, what would people believe? What would they teach? Who would teach? Who would throw out the heretics, and who would commission the missionaries? Basically it would be a free-for-all, not at all unlike Corinth.
The answer to those questions in the book of Acts was simply: The Apostles. But how do you know who they are? You don’t have their pictures on Facebook. You can’t fax a photo from Corinth to Jerusalem to have this Paul guy checked out (aka: Saul). The function of the sign gifts was to fulfill this purpose (again, see 2 Cor 12:12).

The gifts authenticated the Apostles, and demonstrated to the world that they were the ones Jesus left in charge of his church until elders and the NT arrived. Because those Apostles are dead, churches have elders, and the NT is completed, those gifts have obviously run their course (cf. point 1).

4. Because the gifts ceased inside the NT

Finally, the NT itself describes the cessation of the gifts. Consider Hebrews 2:3-4:
“It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.”
Notice that the author appeals to his readers to remember the time when Jesus spoke, his message was proclaimed by the apostles, and God validated their message by the miraculous gifts. All of this points backwards to a time when that had happened in their past. If those sign gifts were still ongoing in the church, there is no conceivable way to understand these verses. Again, the argument is simply: “Don’t walk away from the gospel, because remember the time when Jesus spoke, and then his followers spoke, and they had the miracles to back it up!”
Earlier I compared how the gift of healing worked in Paul’s life with the so-called gift of healing today. (see: “handkerchiefs” in Acts 19:11-12 vs. TBN). But the truth is, we don’t even need to compare Acts 19 with the present day, when we can instead compare it with 2 Timothy 4:20: “Trophimus I left sick in Miletus.”
And with Trophimus, context is key. These are the last words Paul writes before he dies. He is abandoned, alone, and without his co-workers. He pleads with Timothy to hurry and join him, and tells Timothy that part of his urgency is because Trophimus was too sick to come.
Hebrews 2 and 2 Timothy 4 show that by the time elders had been raised up in churches, and much of the NT was written, the sign gifts had already faded away from the scene. They didn’t end when Revelation was completed, or when John died in isolation. They had run their course long before that.

An audio version of this post can be found here.

A RECIPE FOR DISCERNMENT - PART 3

by John MacArthur

True biblical discernment isn’t developed by osmosis. It’s cultivated over time, as a believer matures in faith. The last few days, we’ve been considering the essential ingredients for discernment, including consistent prayer, the pursuit of godly wisdom, moral integrity, and the necessity of faithful Bible teaching and teachers. But none of those elements can function properly apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Depend on the Holy Spirit

The Spirit of God is ultimately the true Discerner. It is His role to lead us into all truth (John 16:13). First Corinthians 2:11 says, “The thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.” Paul goes on to write:

We have received . . . the Spirit who is from God, so that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. (1 Corinthians 2:12–15)

Discernment ultimately depends on the Holy Spirit. As we are filled with and controlled by the Spirit of God, He makes us discerning.

Study the Scriptures

It cannot be overemphasized: True discernment requires diligent study of the Scriptures. None of the other previously stated steps is sufficient apart from this. No one can be truly discerning apart from mastery of the Word of God. All the desire in the world cannot make you discerning if you don’t study Scripture. Prayer for discernment is not enough. Obedience alone will not suffice. Good role models won’t do it either. Even the Holy Spirit will not give you discernment apart from His Word. If you really want to be discerning, you must diligently study the Word of God.

God’s Word is where you will learn the principles for discernment. It is there you will learn the truth. Only there can you follow the path of maturity.

Discernment flourishes only in an environment of faithful Bible study and teaching. Note that in Acts 20, when Paul was leaving the Ephesian elders, he warned them about the deadly influences that would threaten them in his absence (Acts 20:28–31). He urged them to be on guard, on the alert. How? What safeguard could he leave to help protect them from Satan’s onslaughts? Only the Word of God: “And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32).

Let’s look once more, closely, at 2 Timothy 2:15: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.” Notice what this mandate to Timothy implies. First, it suggests that the discerning person must be able to distinguish between the Word of Truth and the “worldly and empty chatter” mentioned in verse 16. That may seem rather obvious. But it cannot be taken for granted. The task of separating God’s Word from human foolishness actually poses a formidable challenge for many today. One look at some of the nonsense that proliferates in churches and Christian media will confirm that this is so. Or note the burgeoning stacks of “Christian” books touting weird views. We must shun such folly and devote ourselves to the Word of God. We have to be able to distinguish between the truth and error.

How? “Be diligent.” Being diligent pictures a worker giving maximum effort in his or her work. It describes someone driven by a commitment to excellence. “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God.” The Greek phrase literally speaks of standing alongside God as a colaborer worthy of identifying with Him.

Furthermore, Paul says this approved workman “does not need to be ashamed.” The word “ashamed” is very important to Paul’s whole point. Any sloppy workman should be ashamed of low-quality work. But a servant of the Lord, handling the Word of Truth carelessly, has infinitely more to be ashamed of.

What Paul suggests in this passage is that we will be ashamed before God Himself if we fail to handle the Word of Truth with discernment. If we can’t distinguish the truth from worldly and empty chatter, if we can’t identify and refute false teachers, or if we can’t handle God’s truth with skill and understanding, we ought to be ashamed.

And if we are to divide the Word of Truth rightly, then we must be very diligent about studying it. There is no shortcut. Only as we master the Word of God are we made “adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17). That is the essence and goal of discernment.

(Adapted from Reckless Faith.)

A RECIPE FOR DISCERNMENT - PART 2

by John MacArthur

Discernment is not automatically built in to the lives of Christians. The ability to wisely divide truth from error is something that must be pursued and developed as a part of the sanctification process. As we saw last time [link], the biblical recipe for discernment starts with fervent prayer and earnest desire. Both of those are foundational, but not enough on their own. A third vital ingredient in developing biblical discernment is obedience to the truth.

Obey the Truth

Someone will point out that with all his abundance of wisdom, Solomon was nevertheless a dismal failure at the end of his life (1 Kings 11:4–11). “His heart was not wholly devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been” (1 Kings 11:4). Scripture records this sad assessment of the wisest man who ever lived:

King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the sons of Israel, “You shall not associate with them, nor shall they associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after their gods.” Solomon held fast to these in love. He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods. . . . For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites. Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not follow the Lord fully, as David his father had done. Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon. Thus also he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.

Now the Lord was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the Lord. (1 Kings 11:1–9)

But Solomon did not suddenly fail at the end of his life. The seeds of his demise were sown at the very beginning. First Kings 3, the same chapter that records Solomon’s request for discernment, also reveals that Solomon “formed a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt” (1 Kings 3:1). Verse three tells us, “Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of his father David, except he sacrificed and burned incense on the high places.”

From the very beginning his obedience was deficient. Surely with all his wisdom he knew better, but he tolerated compromise and idolatry among the people of God (1 Kings 3:2)—and even participated in some of the idolatry himself!

Knowing the truth without obedience is worthless. What good is it to know the truth if we fail to act accordingly? That is why James wrote, “Prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves” (James 1:22). Failure to obey is self-delusion; it is not true discernment, no matter how much intellectual knowledge we may possess. Solomon is biblical proof that even true discernment can give way to a destructive self-delusion. Disobedience inevitably undermines discernment. The only way to guard against that is to be doers of the Word and not hearers only.

Follow Discerning Leaders

Another key ingredient in biblical discernment is this: Emulate those who demonstrate good discernment. Do not follow the leadership of people who are themselves “tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14). Find and follow leaders who display an ability to discern, to analyze and refute error, to teach the Scriptures clearly and accurately. Read from authors who prove themselves careful handlers of divine truth. Listen to preachers who rightly divide the Word of Truth. Expose yourself to the teaching of people who think critically, analytically, and carefully. Learn from people who understand where error has attacked the church historically. Place yourself under the tutelage of those who serve as watchmen of the church.

I do this myself. There are certain authors who have demonstrated skill in handling the Word and whose judgment I have come to trust. When I encounter a difficult issue—whether it is a theological problem, an area of controversy, a new teaching I have never heard before, or whatever—I turn to these authors first to see what they have to say. I wouldn’t seek help from an unreliable source or a marginal theologian. I want to know what those who are skilled in exposing error and gifted in presenting truth have to say.

There have been outstanding men of discernment in virtually every era of church history. Their writings remain as an invaluable resource for anyone who wishes to cultivate discernment. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and J. Gresham Machen are just two of many from the last hundred years who have distinguished themselves in the battle for truth. Charles Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, and scores of other writers from the nineteenth century have left a rich legacy of written material to help us discern between truth and error. In the century before that, Thomas Boston, Jonathan Edwards, and George Whitefield battled for truth, as did many others like them. The preceding era was the Puritan age—the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which gave us what is undoubtedly the richest catalog of resources for discernment. And before that the Reformers fought valiantly for the truth of God’s Word against the traditions of men.

Virtually every era before the Reformation also had godly men of discernment who stood against error and defended the truth of God’s Word. Augustine, for example, preceded John Calvin by more than a thousand years, but he fought exactly the same theological battles and proclaimed precisely the same doctrines. Calvin and the Reformers drew heavily on Augustine’s writings as they framed their own arguments against error. In the year 325, a contemporary of Augustine, Athanasius, took a decisive stand against Arianism, the very same error that is perpetuated by modern-day Jehovah’s Witnesses. His writings stand today as the definitive response to that error.

Much of the written legacy these spiritual giants left behind is still available today. We can all learn from these men of discernment—and we would do well to emulate the clarity with which they spoke the truth against error.

Those who can expose and answer the errors of false teachers are set in the body of Christ to assist us all to think critically and clearly. Learn from them.

(Adapted from Reckless Faith.)

THE CASE FOR CESSATIONISM STILL STANDS

by Tom PenningtonPastor-Teacher, Countryside Bible Church, Southlake, Texas
When Grace to You asked me to present the biblical case for cessationism at the Strange Fire conference last October, I was excited about the opportunity.  Although I am a convinced cessationist and had addressed this issue with my own congregation, I spent several months studying the Scripture and reading the relevant literature on both sides of this contentious issue.  But it wasn’t long before my initial euphoria turned to discouragement.
The problem was not (as some continuationists argue) because there is insufficient biblical evidence for cessationism to preach on for an hour.  My problem was the sheer extravagance of biblical material.  I was faced with a difficult decision between equally tempting choices:  to spend the hour I was given developing one argument or to present a brief summary of the primary arguments.  Both choices were fraught with slippery slopes and gaping chasms.  If I concentrated on one argument, the uninformed on both sides of the issue would race to the conclusion that cessationism is a tune with only one string and one note.  But if I tried to cover all the main arguments, I would have to leave crucial points and counterpoints on the cutting-room floor, appearing to leave holes in an argument that has none.  If you listened to my message at Strange Fire, you know that I eventually opted for the lesser of two evils—the second.  
In light of the difficulty of that decision, I have been fascinated by the responses to the biblical case I presented.  Cessationists have written to say that the conference strengthened their confidence in the Scripture.  I have heard from practicing charismatics who had been told there are no biblical arguments for cessationism but who were troubled by what they saw in their churches.  In God’s providence they listened to Strange Fire, the truth they heard resonated with their hearts, and they have since left the charismatic movement for good.
Frankly, much of the online opposition has been all heat and no light.  Some critiques have been so apparently self-defeating that they neither require nor deserve a reasoned response.  Among the mostly gracious and careful responses to the case for cessationism, Andrew Wilson’s critique stands out.  Several on both sides of the issue have suggested I respond to the issues he raised.  So that is what I will do here.
Surprisingly, Wilson devotes the first half of his critique to defending the common arguments for continuationism that I mentioned in passing in my introduction.  First, he quotes the arguments as Tim Challies summarized them, and then he defends them.  So I will quote Challies’s summaries and the key portions of Wilson’s critique.

(1) The New Testament doesn’t say they [miraculous gifts] have ceased. But then again, it doesn’t say that they won’t either.

Wilson responds:

The burden of proof is firmly on the shoulders of the one who would place a break at the end of the New Testament period, for the simple reason that, throughout Scripture, substantial changes in the way God communicates with people—and cessationism posits a substantial change… —are clearly communicated.

But there were, in fact, two huge changes at the end of the New Testament period—changes that even most charismatics (including Wilson) admit can be discerned from the New Testament but that are not clearly announced in one clarion passage.  Those two changes are (1) the end of the unique apostolate and (2) the end of canonical revelation.  When charismatics state their case against cessationism as Wilson does, they unintentionally also surrender the field to apostolic succession and ongoing canonical revelation.

(2) 1 Corinthians 13:10 - they [continuationists] say this means that only when Christ returns will the partial gifts of tongues and prophecies cease. This implies that the gifts continue. But this is an uncertain interpretation.

To this argument Wilson responds:

The charismatic case here [1 Corinthians 13:10] is immensely strong (and the overwhelming scholarly consensus in the commentaries would confirm this). For Paul, the imperfect (prophecy, tongues, knowledge) will cease at the arrival of the perfect (the return of Christ, when we shall see him face to face). Not much uncertainty there.

That is a case of both overstatement and misdirection.  It is overstatement because a survey of commentaries will reveal as many as ten possible interpretations of what “the perfect” is.  It is misdirection in that charismatics ignore that for most of church history this text was used primarily to argue against the continuation of the miraculous gifts.  I freely admit that some cessationists have tried to make this text bear too much weight.  But it is equally true that many charismatics, including Wilson in the quote above, try to make it bear too much weight in their defense.

(3) The New Testament speaks only of the church age, and so, [continuationists] argue, the gifts that began the church age should continue throughout it. They say we artificially divide it between apostolic and post-apostolic eras. But they do this, too, by not believing that the apostolic office still continues.

Wilson writes:

Actually, a huge number of charismatics don’t believe this at all. Many believe, for reasons outlined in my recent article in JETS, that even in the New Testament period there were eyewitness apostles (the twelve, Paul, James) and people who never witnessed the resurrection but were referred to as apostles anyway (Apollos, very likely Barnabas, Silas, possibly Timothy, and so on), and that while the eyewitness category ceased with Paul, the other category didn’t.

Here, I confess, I was personally disappointed in Wilson.  His comments reveal either that he just read the paraphrased version of my message on Tim Challies’s site or that he was careless—either of which is troubling in a person of his intelligence and education.
If he had listened to my complete message or read the transcript, he would have known that I acknowledged that most charismatics don’t believe there are eyewitness apostles today.  That was my point.  I specifically said that unless charismatics believe that there are apostles today at the same level as Peter and Paul—and most charismatics don’t—they also divide the church age.  And they relegate at least apostleship solely to the apostolic era.  They have become de facto cessationists—at least in part.
Positing a second tier of apostles as some do (which ignores any nontechnical, nontitular sense of the word apostolos in the New Testament) doesn’t change the point.  In fact, their protest proves the point.  There was a marked difference between the apostolic and postapostolic eras.  And by agreeing that the most significant mark of the age of the apostles—the men Jesus Himself appointed and called to be His official proxies—ceased, charismatics tacitly accept one of the key tenets of cessationism.

(4) 500 million professing Christians who claim charismatic experiences can’t all be wrong.  But if we accept this, then logically we should accept the miracles attested to by one billion Catholics in the world.  The truth is that 500 million-plus people can be wrong.

Wilson responds:

This is not really a fair representation of any responsible charismatic argument. Of course billions of people can be wrong: billions of people do not believe the gospel, and virtually no charismatic would contest that. A fairer representation would be to say that, in order to explain the enormous number of miraculous experiences testified to by charismatics . . . a cessationist has to resort to an awful lot of accusations of fraud, deliberate deceit and delusion amongst some extremely level-headed, critical and theologically informed individuals.

My statement is not only a fair representation of responsible charismatic argument, it is a very common—albeit informal—argument of reputable charismatic authors and scholars, as well as laymen.  To appeal as Wilson does to what he calls the “enormous number of miraculous experiences testified to by charismatics” only reinforces my point.  We have to accuse more than a billion Roman Catholics of “fraud, deliberate deceit and delusion” to reject their “miracles,” yet that is exactly what the church has always done—and what I suspect Wilson himself does.  If charismatics want to argue that sheer numbers lend credibility to their “miracles,” they have to own the weakness that comes with this argument.
After spending half of his critique on the arguments continuationists use to defend their position, to which I devoted less than five minutes, Wilson comes to the primary arguments I presented.
I began by defining cessationism.  Cessationists believe it is neither the Spirit’s plan nor His normal pattern to distribute miraculous spiritual gifts to Christians and churches today as He did in the time of the apostles.  Those gifts ceased being normative with the apostles.  In Scripture we find at least seven arguments that the miraculous gifts have ceased.  Again, since Wilson quotes Challies’s summary of my points, I will as well.

(1) The unique role of miracles.  There were only three primary periods in which God worked miracles through unique men. The first was with Moses; the second was during the ministries of Elijah and Elisha; the third was with Christ and his apostles.  The primary purpose of miracles has always been to establish the credibility of one who speaks the word of God—not just any teacher, but those who had been given direct words by God.

Wilson writes:

The crucial word here, which appears twice and is somewhat mysterious on both occasions, is “primary.”  Where in the Bible does it say that the miracles of Moses, Elijah or Elisha are more “primary” than those of Joshua (opening the Jordan and stopping the sun in its tracks isn’t bad), or Samuel (who had the odd prophecy), or David or Solomon, or Isaiah, or Daniel, or for that matter any of the canonical prophets (who, by Pennington’s definition, are exercising miraculous gifts)?

First of all, the point is not about God’s working miracles directly—something He did as He chose in both Old and New Testament history.  Instead, the focus was on those epochs in redemptive history when God chose to give men the capacity to work miracles.  There is a difference between God’s giving Moses the capacity to perform miracles and God’s directly giving Samson superhuman strength.  Samson used the strength God gave him, but he never performed a miracle.  And prophecy is a miraculous gift because God miraculously reveals His truth to a man.  But the prophet is not performing a miracle.
When you examine the biblical record, it is clear that there were three main time periods when there were miracle-working men.  Again, Wilson apparently didn’t listen to my message or read the transcript, because the first period I mentioned was not that of Moses but that of “Moses and Joshua.”  And although God performed miracles directly during the ministries of Samuel, David, Isaiah, and Daniel, where is the biblical evidence that they were given miracle-working power in the way Moses and Joshua or Elijah and Elisha were?  Create a comprehensive list of miracles performed by men in Scripture—not those performed by God directly—and the resulting list will support the point.  In thousands of years of human history, there were only about two hundred years in which God empowered men to work miracles.  And even during those years, miracles were not common, everyday events.
Wilson adds:

Where does it say that the “primary” purpose of a miracle is always to establish the credibility of the one who speaks the word of God?  One might have thought the primary purpose of the exodus was to lead Israel out of slavery, and the primary purpose of the fall of Jericho was to defeat God’s enemies, and the primary purpose of the destruction of the Assyrians was to preserve Jerusalem, and so on. And even if the “primary” purpose of all miracles was authenticating a preacher, which cannot be shown, it would by no means indicate that this was the only purpose.

When God granted Moses—the first human miracle worker—the power to work miracles, He gave Moses only one reason:  “that they may believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you” (Exodus 4:5).  I provided a number of other examples throughout the Scripture to demonstrate that God’s primary purpose in giving men power to work miracles was to validate them as His messengers.  Of course, God used Moses’ miracles to free Israel from Egyptian bondage.  But why did God give miracle-working capacity to Moses, rather than simply free the Israelites Himself?  According to God’s own statement, it was to validate His messenger.  At Sinai, no one doubted that Moses spoke for God.  Look up the other references I cited and you will find exactly the same pattern.

(2) The end of the gift of apostleship. In two places in the New Testament Paul refers to the apostles as one of the gifts Christ gave his church (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4).

Most Christians, including most evangelical charismatics, agree that there are no more apostles like the twelve or like Paul.  So at least one New Testament gift—the gift of apostleship—has ceased.  That means there is a significant difference in the work of the Spirit between the time of the apostles and today, because one of the most miraculous displays of the Spirit disappeared with the passing of the apostolic age. Once you agree that there are no apostles today at the same level with Peter and Paul, you have admitted there was a major change in the gifting of the Spirit between the Apostolic Age and the post-apostolic age.  The one New Testament gift most frequently associated with miracles—the gift of apostleship—ceased.
Wilson responds:

This argument takes us nowhere: all agree that the eyewitness apostles have ceased, and all agree that (say) pastors and teachers have not ceased.  Only if we can show that all New Testament miracles, prophecies, tongues and healings came via apostles—which is patently not the case—would this hold any water at all.

Here, Wilson’s argument isn’t clear, but he seems to be relying on an article he wrote for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) in which he argues for a two-tier approach to apostleship.  He maintains that the Twelve, Paul, and several others were “eyewitness apostles,” and those have ceased.  But there are lower level apostles who are the Spirit’s ongoing gift to the church.
Wilson concludes his JETS article with this:

Within conservative evangelicalism, it has become commonplace to divide the apostolate into two, neat types.  There are the Apostles (capital “A”) of Jesus Christ, comprising the twelve, James, Barnabas, possibly Silas, and then finally Paul: eyewitnesses of the resurrection, officers of the church, personally commissioned by Jesus, and with the capacity to write or authorise the scriptures, pioneer into new areas, lay foundations in churches, and exercise authority over them.  Then there are the apostles (lower case “a”) of the churches, including Andronicus, Junia, Epaphroditus, the brothers of 2 Cor 8:23, and possibly Timothy: messengers that were sent out among the churches, but with no eyewitness appearances or commission from Jesus, and without the capacity to write Scripture, pioneer, lay foundations or exercise authority over churches.  On this view, although there is occasional debate (as to which category, say, Eph 4:11 should correspond to), it is theoretically possible to dig up every occurrence of the word apostolos and put it squarely into one of these two categories.

The view that Wilson rejects above is not merely the common view of “conservative evangelicalism.”  It is the understanding of historic Christianity and even of many charismatic theologians.  Wilson finishes his JETS article by saying that a possible reference to Apollos as an apostle in 1 Corinthians 4:9 (which the entire article argues for but never proves) “may . . . suggest that, according to Paul, although the appearances of the risen Jesus ceased with Paul’s encounter on the Damascus road, the apostoloi did not” (emphasis added).  In other words, maybe there is another office in the church—Apostle, Second-Class—that continued after the death of the Paul and the twelve.
The weight of proving this novel idea falls on charismatics.  Wilson’s conclusion that the best evidence he can muster “may suggest” a two-tiered apostolate is hardly enough to overturn two millennia of Spirit-enabled interpretation.  The argument for cessationism based on the end of the gift of apostleship stands.

(3) The foundational nature of the New Testament apostles and prophets.  The New Testament identifies the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20-22). In the context, it is clear that Paul is referring here not to Old Testament prophets but to New Testament prophets.  Once the apostles and prophets finished their role in laying the foundation of the church, their gifts were completed.

Wilson:

This [argument] runs aground on the sandbanks of Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 in particular, in which it is assumed that local churches experience prophecy in their meetings, yet without such prophecy serving as foundational for the church for all time, or being written down in the canon.  Clearly, there is a foundational role for the apostles and prophets of whom Paul speaks in Ephesians (2:20; 3:6), but this in no way implies either that all prophecy has now ceased, or (obviously) that tongues or healings have now ceased.

Most charismatics admit that the New Testament “prophets of whom Paul speaks in Ephesians (2:20; 3:6)” play “a foundational role.”  But then without any clear scriptural support, they assume that the prophecy mentioned in Romans and 1 Corinthians must be lower level prophecies.  However, if there are not two levels of prophecy—which remains unproven—then Ephesians 2 is definitive.  Both the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, and their roles were never intended to last.

(4) The nature of the New Testament miraculous gifts. If the Spirit was still moving as he was in the first century, then you would expect that the gifts would be of the same type. Consider the speaking of tongues. At Pentecost, the languages spoken were already existing, understandable languages. The New Testament gift was speaking in a known language and dialect, not an ecstatic language like you see people speaking in today. Prophecies (which were then infallible) and healings are also different in character today from the NT period.

Wilson writes:

Again, this hits serious problems when it comes to 1 Corinthians 12-14, which scholars widely agree refers to ecstatic speech rather than known earthly languages, and to prophetic revelation which needs to be weighed or judged, rather than instantly being added to the infallible canon of scripture.

Contrary to what Wilson implies, there are many scholarly works and commentaries that do not support the view that 1 Corinthians 14 refers to ecstatic speech.  But even more important is the analogy of Scripture.  When Luke wrote the book of Acts, he knew what Paul had written six or seven years earlier in 1 Corinthians 14.  Moreover, Luke knew what was actually happening in the church in Corinth.  Yet without any caveat, Luke defines speaking in tongues as “we hear them speak in our own language” or our own dialect (Acts 2:7-8).
Wilson:

To say, further, that healings are different in character is to beg the question: there are numerous testimonies out there (I have heard many personally) of blind eyes seeing, deaf ears opening, the lame walking and even the dead being raised, unless one prejudges the veracity of such testimonies by assuming cessationism (or, of course, naturalism).

It is important to remember that all Christians believe God can cause blind eyes to see, open deaf ears, and even cause the lame to walk again.  But the key issue is whether God still distributes to people the miraculous ability to heal others.  When it comes to the supposed modern miraculous gift of healing, there are always “testimonies out there” and those who believe them “have heard many personally.”  But there are rarely firsthand accounts, and there is never verifiable evidence of the miraculous gift of healing—much less of the ability to raise the dead!

(5) The testimony of church history. The practice of apostolic gifts declines even during the lifetimes of the apostles. Even in the written books of the New Testament, the miraculous gifts are mentioned less as the date of their writing gets later. After the New Testament era, we see the miraculous gifts cease. John Chrysostom and Augustine speak of their ceasing.

Wilson:

There are two errors here. The first is that miracles are mentioned less in New Testament books that are written later; the book of Acts is certainly written after the books of 1 Thessalonians and James, and very probably after the other Paulines and Petrines, yet contains far more miracles (and John, among the latest books, has one or two miracles in it as well!).

I was not speaking of the working of miracles by the apostles (2 Corinthians 12:12) as Wilson seems to imply, but rather of the miraculous gifts given to individual Christians other than the apostles. When you trace the practice of the miraculous gifts by those other than the apostles against a time line of New Testament history and its letters, you will find that the miraculous gifts decline in their mention and use even during the apostolic period.
Wilson continues:

The second [error] is that we see the miraculous gifts cease after the New Testament; again, this begs the question by assuming that subsequent accounts of and responses to miraculous or prophetic activity, from the Didache and the Montanists onwards, are inaccurate or exaggerated. . . .  In any case, this sort of argument—that, since something gradually disappeared from the church over the course of the first two or three centuries, it must therefore be invalid—should strike any five sola Protestant as providing several hostages to fortune.”

Many scholars believe the original version of the Didache was probably written during the apostolic age, so it proves nothing about the continuation of the miraculous gifts after the time of the apostles.  There are scattered reports of the miraculous throughout church history, but many of them are connected to groups and leaders whose doctrine was seriously aberrant in some way.  And in spite of Tertullian’s connection to the Montanists, the church eventually spoke with one voice against them.
The consistent testimony of the church’s key leaders is that the miraculous and revelatory spiritual gifts ended with the Apostolic Age—they didn’t “gradually disappear” over several centuries.  I provided a sampling of quotes from across church history as proof.  John MacArthur cites many others in his book Strange Fire.  The consistent testimony of the Christian church’s key leaders across church history poses a huge problem for our continuationist friends.  As Sinclair Ferguson expressed it, continuationism provides no convincing theological explanation for the disappearance of certain gifts during most of church history.

(6) The sufficiency of Scripture. The Spirit speaks only in and through the inspired Word. He doesn’t call and direct his people through subjective messages and modern day bestsellers. His word is external to us and objective.

Wilson responds:

This is not so much an argument for cessationism as a restatement of it. Suffice it to say that James and Paul, to mention just two apostles, envisage Christians being given wisdom by God, experiencing the Spirit crying out “Abba!” in their hearts, and being given spontaneous revelation during church meetings, none of which conflict with their high view of the scriptures.”

I intentionally did not develop this point, because I knew Steve Lawson planned to address this issue in his message on sola Scriptura.  You can listen to or read Steve’s excellent defense here.

 (7) The New Testament governed the miraculous gifts. Whenever the New Testament gift of tongues was to be practiced, there were specific rules that were to be followed. There was to be order and structure, as well as an interpreter. Paul also lays down rules for prophets and prophecy. Tragically most charismatic practice today clearly disregards these commands. The result is not a work of the spirit but of the flesh.

Wilson writes:

I’m not qualified to comment on whether this is true of “most” charismatics, rather than “some,” but to the extent that this is true, I wholeheartedly agree with Pennington that miraculous gifts need to be governed and practiced wisely, in line with the New Testament.  Clearly, however, this is not an argument against using charismatic gifts—it is an argument against using charismatic gifts badly.

To his credit, Wilson decries the unbiblical practice of the charismatic gifts.  And I would agree that there are a few charismatic churches making valiant efforts at following Paul’s directives.  But he is too well read and informed not to know that charismatics claim to be 500 million strong.  Of that number, more than 125 million are Roman Catholics who have embraced a false gospel.  And of the remaining number, even charismatic writers estimate that close to 40 percent of the 500 million are involved with the prosperity gospel (other estimates have the percentage as high as 90 percent).  Add in the huge audiences watching charismatic television programs and services where the biblical directives are not followed, and far more than 50 percent of a movement that claims to be a work of the Spirit is either preaching a damning gospel or completely disregarding the Spirit’s clear New Testament commands regarding practice of the gifts.  That is more than a few charismatics behaving badly.  Instead, it demonstrates that the movement as a whole can claim neither the Scripture nor the Spirit.
Wilson concludes his critique:  “I think that the cessationist position is biblically distorted, theologically confused and historically exaggerated.” Sadly, it is the charismatic position that is out of step with the Scripture, with historic theology, and with the key figures of evangelical church history.  The biblical case for cessationism still stands.
If you want to read more on charismatic issues, see the brief bibliography below.
A Brief Bibliography of Books Arguing for Cessationism

• John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos.
• John MacArthur, Strange Fire.
• Samuel Waldron, To Be Continued?.
  [Best brief work on the issue for laymen]
• Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit.
  [Best work on the role of the Holy Spirit, and a helpful defense of cessationism]
• Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.  Perspectives on Pentecost.
  [Recommended]
• B.B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles.
  [Classic historical defense of the end of the miraculous but not a biblical defense; recommended]
• Robert Reymond, What About Continuing Revelations and Miracles in the Presbyterian Church Today?[Recommended; deals primarily with the gift of tongues but also addresses the issue of cessation; out of print]
• Larry Pettigrew, The New Covenant Ministry of the Holy Spirit.[Helpful work on the roles of the Spirit in the Old Testament & New Testament; section on cessation and tongues is helpful]
• Walter Chantry, Signs of the Apostles.
  [Helpful but a bit dated]
• Robert Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts.
  [Great exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14]
• Robert Gromacki, The Modern Tongues Movement.
• R.C. Sproul, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit.
• Arthur Johnson, Faith Misguided: Exposing the Dangers of Mysticism.
• Graham Cole, He Who Gives Life: the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit.