The power of the word of God: oft-overlooked ramifications

by Dan Phillips

All Christians attribute power and authority to God's word, for the simple fact that it is God's word. In his Sufficient Fire talk, Phil Johnson mentioned that Brian Maclaren attempted to make mileage over the fact that 2 Timothy 3:16 said that Scripture was useful, not that it was authoritative. In my later talk I chuckled a bit over that, wondering how much more authoritative you could get than "God-breathed"!

I find John Frame's phrasing of Scripture's authority very helpful and memorable:

[Scripture] imposes on them an obligation to respond in an appropriate way. That is the proper definition of authority: an authoritative word is one that imposes obligations on those who hear. And the word of God imposes an absolute obligation.

[John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 529.]

There are obvious implications to this. It's easiest to see in the commandments. For instance, when God says not to commit adultery (Exodus 20:14; Ephesians 5:3), I'm to obey by not committing adultery. When God commands that we love Him (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:37), we know we are to love God.

But do the narratives obligate me, as well? The Bible begins with a narrative: God creates the universe in six days, and rests on the seventh. Does that narrative obligate me? Or does the narrative of the call of Abram, or the Exodus, or the Passover, or Balaam's loquacious donkey, or Jonah and the big big fish? Or the narratives of Jesus' casting out demons, of His resurrection, and of dead rising in conjunction with that resurrection?

Do these stories obligate me in some way? Is there something I must do, reading them?

One's first thought might be that no moral obligation arises from a story. If so, one's first thought would be mistaken. These aren't newspaper items or oddments in old books. These present themselves to me as God's Word. As such, I am obligated — morally obligated — to believe them. If I disbelieve them, I not only err, I sin.

How so? God tells me they are true, on His honor. Reject the stories, I reject His honor. If that doesn't plunge me into blasphemy, doesn't it bring me right up to the door and knock?

But wait, there's more.

What of the passages that tell me I should fear God (Proverbs 1:7; 1 Peter 2:17), that I should rejoice in the Lord (Philippians 3:3-4), that I should hope (1 Peter 1:13)? Do those obligate me as well? Surely they do.

But wait, there's still more!

This all brings us to the Charismatic issue.

The great achievement of modern Charismaticism is to dupe so many otherwise-fine people into letting Charismatics carve a niche for themselves where they can both promote themselves and avoid all meaningful accountability. Or, put another way, both to canonize and sanctify their personal experiences and claims and to avoid testing of any sort.

One of these ways is that they will ostensibly quote God, some "word from the Lord" — but then, when challenged, hurry to say "That's just for me!"

But is that option open? They have dared to claim to quote God. They have had the breath-taking, astonishing hubris to position themselves as mediators of revelation — claiming that God said words directly to them and them alone, words they now convey to you and to me.

Can that be a private affair? If so, too late now: they've spoken. They've claimed to speak God's words!

So now I am indeed obligated. Their word obligates me. I cannot escape. (Nor can they, though they try.)

You see, if what they speak is a word of God, I am morally obligated to believe it. It doesn't matter what the content is: a word from God has God's authority, and "an authoritative word is one that imposes obligations on those who hear." Well, I hear. What is my obligation?

If it is God's word, I am obligated to believe it. And if it is not, I am obligated to rebuke and expose them as false prophets.

I want to be sure you get this. Even if what they say is "God told me personally, 'Hey, buck up, my precious darling cuddly lambie-dear, I just want to cuddle you close in sweet saccharine waves of My unconditional love and approval, and have great plans for you'" — now that they've told me, I'm obliged.

If that's God speaking and I do not believe it, I am sinning.

But if it isn't, and I do? Same result — or, at the very least, I am complicit in enabling another's sin (cf. Ezekiel 3:18).

And so, an open-but-clueless sort is obligated to search out every claim to revelation, and decide whether to embrace and submit to it, or reject and expose it. That means that such poor souls are morally obligated to be constantly directing their attention from inspired, inerrant, sufficient Scripture, to vet and test and decide on every modern claim to quote God. Because if those are words of God, I am obligated to receive and believe them, myself.

Those are our choices. Either reject the movement as a whole and stand on the sufficient Word of God, or devote yourself to constant, daily distraction.

My, that sounds like a clever way to keep Christians off-focus, doesn't it? Devilishly clever!

Claiming to speak for God is a big, big deal, as I argued at length. They want us to forget it, so they can keep the charade going.

But we mustn't forget it. And we mustn't lose focus on God's real, abiding Word.

---

Sufficient Fire conference audio and video are available

by Dan Phillips

In case you missed the announcement Friday, Copperfield Bible Church, and the volunteers who worked on the conference, have now made available the audio and video from the Sufficient Fire conference sessions, both the talks and the panels.

Click on the graphic.

Everyone who came had a wonderful time — sessions, giveaways, fellowship, worship. Maybe some will share. It was terrific meeting some of our longtime readers.

All of my brothers' talks were stellare. But Phil's opening session was particularly wonderful, and Frank's second session is one my dear wife and I plan to listen to again and again — stirring, convicting, instructive. Just wonderful.

---

The real problem with Pat Robertson

by Dan Phillips

I'll just admit it up front: from their articles, I have a hard time understanding what the RAANetwork is about. They have a statement of purpose, but, as I say, I'm focusing on the articles. Where are we going, I wonder, when I see pieces like this, and this, and this? Does that all bring us together in an Ephesians 2 and 4 way, lifting up what unites us in Christ through His work on the Cross?

But I follow them in Twitter, in part because I dearly want to see Biblical truths spread all over, including those areas where historically it has not been well-presented and well-known. For that reason, Monday my eye was caught by their tweets about Pat Robertson.

Pat Robertson has been making ridiculous statements on global television for decades. http://t.co/wBqyhyiKun
— RAANetwork (@RAANetwork) October 20, 2014

Well, yeah, yes he has. Absolutely. Welcome aboard. And:

Pat Robertson is what happens when we rely on the wisdom of man rather than God. http://t.co/TqsrJWmVMP
— RAANetwork (@RAANetwork) October 20, 2014

Really? Now, that's not what I would have said. I don't think it really gets to the heart of it. But I went to read the article by Cornell Ngare, to see how he developed his thought. The more Christians who put the Bible to Robertson, the better. So I read.

For one thing, I — are you sitting down? — was a bit taken aback at how bare-knuckled it was. Deserved, appropriate... but just a bit surprising to me.

"Pat Robertson has been making ridiculous statements on global television for decades." OK, well yes; again, amen. Ngare points at Robertson's "record and reputation for being flippant, bigoted, and all other words that describe a serious lack of wisdom or discretion," and asks whether we really should "be wasting our breath and time reacting to his latest episode of verbal diarrhea?"

"Latest episode of verbal diarrhea"? Ouch; absolutely true, and needs to be said. You go, bro!

Then Ngare (again truly) observes that one would hope a 84-year old would be mellowing and maturing — more "nuanced"! — and yet Robertson "only seems to be getting worse." Indeed.

Then Ngare goes on about Robertson's regular practice of popping off answers and rants and musings on an array of topics without even an attempt at deriving them from Scripture.

So: true, true, true... but what does Pat Robertson's follies in this regard have to do with Reformed folks, or the RAANetwork's statement of purpose? Robertson isn't Reformed, makes no claim to being Reformed. I'm still puzzling that out.

However, that said, I must quickly add once again that I'm always glad to see a Christian brother warning about Robertson. I myself have a long, long record of doing just that, and far less gently than Cornell Ngare (to his credit, no doubt). Just see this, and this, and this, and this, for starters.

In the first of those, I get at what I am suggesting Ngare is missing, and where I think he's just a bit wide of the mark.

I think Pat Robertson would categorically reject Ngare's accusation. Robertson would say that he seeks God's wisdom constantly—and he gets it, directly, by God's personal revelations to him.

You see, Pat Robertson is a Charismatic. He is a man who has written generously that "Probably 95 per cent of all the guidance we need as Christians is found in the clearly understood principles of the Holy Bible." The other 5 per cent? Well, that's where you need Pat and the other Charismatic leaders who have a hot line to God.

Paul's question in Romans 4:3a seldom seems to be Robertson's first question, 2 Timothy 3:15-17 doesn't inform him much, and Deuteronomy 18:20 doesn't seem to sober him up to any measurable degree. The hard fact of a completed Canon is just a "and-then-that-happened" thing in the landscape of his thinking.

So why is Robertson's ranting reported? Why does he have an audience? Why is he a problem?

It's this progression which is as unpopular as it is irrefutable: without (A) Pentecostalism, (B) Charismaticism (however you shade those two), and most crucially (C) the Open-But-Clueless crowd of Reformed-and-other enablers, Robertson would be without a platform. He'd have no one to listen to him. Once he started popping off and saying things that can't be warranted by Scripture, Christians would turn away en masse, and he'd be talking to the mirror.

This is the consequence of not truly affirming and embracing and heralding a robust doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. This is the consequence of winking at the Charismatic movement. This is the consequence of Reformed folks like Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress and the others coming up with rationales to save face for Charismaticism's 100 years of straying and of failure-to-deliver.

Just take one example, only one: Robertson's internationally-famous record for false prophecies. Just take this one: here we see Pat Robertson and Michael Brown's BFF Benny Hinn, where Robertson says in so many words that God told him that Mitt Romney would win the Presidency.

Don't rush past that. There's no way to soften this. Sniggering, giggling Pat claims a word from God. Michael Brown's good buddy Hinn says "I trust God's voice." So both equate Pat's private revelation with the august voice of God, that voice which brought the universe into existence out of nothing.

Yet note again, Hinn says "I trust God's voice," and Robertson chuckles "Well, we'll see."

Words fail me. Almost.

Now, this clearly was a false prophecy. Can't we agree on that?  That, or (I speak as a fool) God was wrong. So, remind me: what are the consequences for delivering a false prophecy?

1. In Israel, it would be death (Deuteronomy 18:20).
2. In the church, surely it would be excommunication.
3. In this day of Grudem and Poythress and other enablers of modern pop-offecy... nothing. No consequences.

I totally agree with Cornell Ngare that Robertson's a huge problem. But I don't think his wording of his analysis hits the ten-ring. Robertson's problem is the reason why he even has a platform: failure to give God's Word the place God gives it.

What Christ's church really needs is a revival-level, massive embrace, and living and systematic proclamation of the sufficiency of Scripture.

---

And... we're live: TeamPyro's Sufficient Fire conference — January 23-24, 2015

...we're putting the band back together!
And we want you to be there!

The sufficiency of Scripture and preaching

by Dan Phillips

Last week I launched a few Tweets on a theme I've hit in the past and mean to develop more in the near future. You may have heard of it: the sufficiency of Scripture.

The specific point I was making was that, if we really believed it, we'd start there, rather than making stuff up and then testing it by Scripture. Here was one of my tweets:

If we rly believed in th sufficiency of Scripture, we'd start with Scripture in the first place — not start somewhere else and "test by Scr"
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) May 2, 2014

Someone who doesn't follow my account (and thus understandably may not "get" where the shorthand of my tweet was coming from) responded, "So then why do we hear sermons in church instead of just Scripture readings?"

I take it that the idea is, if Scripture is enough, why say anything else? Why not just stand up and read it, and be good with that?

The question itself makes my brain itch. But the calmer DJP says "Teaching opportunity!" so, here we go.

The truth of the sufficiency of Scripture means that Scripture contains everything for which we need a word from God. That's what it does mean. It doesn't mean that, whenever we have a need, we whip out a Bible and read a passage at random without a moment's thought (before or after), and call it good.

The life of faith and obedience that the Bible (the Bible, the words in the Bible, the contents of what Scripture teaches) calls us to means that we read it, study it, understand it, think about it, and apply it.

So here's this "church"-thingie. What's it for? What am I supposed to look for in it? Who leads it? If I'm one of those leader-people, what am I supposed to do?

From what Scripture teaches me, I should start with the assumption that I don't have one clue, no idea whatever — unless I get that idea from Scripture itself. (If you're not clear on why that is, I can recommend something that goes to the literal heart of the matter in great Biblical detail.) So I consciously set aside my assumptions and biases and preferences, and go to the Bible, God's Word, believing that it contains everything for which I need a word from God.

So, let's fast-forward through decades of study and all, and get to the bottom-line: if Scripture is sufficient, then why do we preach sermons, in church?

Because that sufficient Scripture tells us to. See, for instance, 1 Timothy 3:2; 4:13; 5:17; and 2 Timothy 4:1-2; Titus 1:9.

See? That's how it works. It won't teach anyone who is unteachable — nothing does that. But it does give us everything for which we need a word from God.

Like to hear that opened up even further, live and in person? I know this conference that's coming up. We'd love it if you came!

---

The Neo-orthodox Bibliolatry Dodge (NEXT! #40)

by Dan Phillips

Challenge: You worship a book. I worship the Living Word!

Response: Really? And where, pray, do you learn of this "Living Word"?

NEXT!

(Proverbs 21:22)

---

Strange Fire Conference #4: Steve Lawson on Calvin and the Charismatics

by Dan Phillips

First post
Second post
My overall summary report to CBC
Third post

Steve Lawson's session focused on what John Calvin would say to modern Charismatics. Lawson is a lot of things: senior pastor of Christ Fellowship Baptist Church in Mobile, Alabama, teaching fellow with Ligonier Ministries, visiting professor at the Ligonier Academy, The Master’s Seminary, and Samara Theological Seminary in Russia — and a constant fixture at conferences. (Seriously: how do you get that gig?)

It was really a terrific session. Lawson showed a surprising facility for spontaneous humor, particularly on display when a remark drew one person's applause ("Thank you to the one person who clapped" — and then, when everyone applauded, "I can tell when you don't mean it").

Having read Lawson's recent book on Luther (the review of which I plan to post after this series), I appreciate all the more the extent of research that goes into his talks. This was laced liberally with direct quotations from Calvin.

Lawson observed that Calvin faced foes who also believed they had inner light and direct revelations from God — the Anabaptists and the Libertines. He quotes Calvin as saying that they were 100 times worse than Roman Catholicism. Some of the libertines wore torn robes and seemed to want a "grunge" look. (When the audience laughed, Lawson remarked, "I feel like I just stepped on something," to more laughter.)

Lawson largely found Calvin's thoughts revealed in his commentaries on related passages. I looked them up to add to my notes and to BibleWorks as needed. Here are just some of the highlights:

On Acts 2:38, Calvin said:

Therefore this doth not properly appertain unto us. For because Christ meant to set forth the beginning of his kingdom with those miracles, they lasted but for a time; yet because the visible graces which the Lord did distribute to his did show, as it were in a glass, that Christ was the giver of the Spirit, therefore, that which Peter saith doth in some respect appertain unto all the whole Church: ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. For although we do not receive it, that we may speak with tongues, that we may be prophets, that we may cure the sick, that we may work miracles; yet is it given us for a better use, that we may believe with the heart unto righteousness, that our tongues may be framed unto true confession, (Rom. 10:10,) that we may pass from death to life, (John 5:24,) that we, which are poor and empty, may be made rich, that we may withstand Satan and the world stoutly.

Calvin's note in the Institutes is particularly telling as to his Biblically-derived view of the attesting/revelatory gifts' purpose:

In demanding miracles from us, they act dishonestly; for we have not coined some new gospel, but retain the very one the truth of which is confirmed by all the miracles which Christ and the apostles ever wrought.

In other words, Calvin saw the purpose of the gifts as being to confirm the new message of the gospel and its messengers. When his contemporary critics demanded that he and the other reformers perform miracles, his response in effect was "Why should we? We are not bringing any new message, but the old message which has already been revealed and attested by God's supernatural power."

As I've often argued: define the gifts' purpose Biblically, and you define their intended shelf-life. Describe the gifts Biblically, and you refute modern substitutes.

Calvin again notes tongues' long-past cessation in his comment on Acts 10:44 —

The gift of the tongues, and other such like things, are ceased long ago in the Church; but the spirit of understanding and of regeneration is of force, and shall always be of force, which the Lord coupleth with the external preaching of the gospel, that he may keep us in reverence of his word, and may prevent the deadly dotings, wherein brain-sick fellows enwrap themselves, whilst that, forsaking the word, they invent an erroneous and wandering spirit. 

It was particularly interesting to hear that Calvin, in his remarks on Acts 21:9 some 500 years ago, made the same point about errorists in his day that I've made again and again about Charismatics (bolding added):

Prophecies had now almost ceased many years among the Jews, to the end they might be more attentive and desirous to hear the new voice of the gospel. Therefore, seeing that prophesying, which was in a manner quite ceased, doth now after long time return again, it was a token of a more perfect state. Notwithstanding, it seemeth that the same was the reason why it ceased shortly after; for God did support the old people with divers foretellings, until Christ should make an end of all prophecies. Therefore, it was meet that the new kingdom of Christ should be thus furnished and beautified with this furniture, that all men might know that that promised visitation of the Lord was present; and it was also expedient that it should last but for a short time, lest the faithful should always wait for some farther thing, or lest that curious wits might have occasion given to seek or invent some new thing ever now and then. For we know that when that ability and skill was taken away, there were, notwithstanding, many brain-sick fellows, who did boast that they were prophets; and also it may be that the frowardness of men did deprive the Church of this gift. But that one cause ought to be sufficient, in that God, by taking away prophecies, did testify that the end and perfection was present in Christ; and it is uncertain how these maids did execute the office of prophesying, saving that the Spirit of God did so guide and govern them, that he did not overthrow the order which he himself set down. And forasmuch as he doth not suffer women to bear any public office in the Church, it is to be thought that they did prophesy at home, or in some private place, without the common assembly.

Lawson also noted that, when challenged as to why he invested so much time in responding to errorists, Calvin replied, "Even a dog barks when he sees someone assault his master." This clearly resonated deeply with us who heard. This foolish error opens the door to Satan, leads the simple away from the truth, and provokes God. For Calvin, a charismatic Calvinist would be an oxymoron.

Lawson closed his stirring talk with three principles:

1. The exclusivity of Biblical authority. Either there is one stream of revelation, or there are two. Either Sola Scriptura or something else. Calvin faced the "two streams" model in Roman Catholicism, and then in another form with the Anabaptists and libertines. It is the notion of the word of God and ______ that Calvin opposed, insisting that the Word of God formed the one and only stream.
2. Priority of Biblical preaching. Look to two streams and pulpit is diminished. Bible mandates Biblical preaching. Two streams dilutes that. 
3. The unity of Spirit and Word. The Holy Spirit is not opposed to the Word of God, but is its divine Author, and uses it as His means.

---

The anthropolater's dodge (NEXT! #34)

by Dan Phillips

Biblical Christian: The Bible says XYZ {begins to offer Biblical proof}.

Dodge: But {Revered Big Name Du Jour #247} says...

Biblical Christian Response A: Oh... sorry, do you not have a Bible? Can I get you one?

Biblical Christian Response B: Oops. My mistake. You want to compare biographies. I thought we were talking about Bible and truth. Perhaps you could look up a church historian? Maybe he could help you.

NEXT!

(Proverbs 21:22)

---

Written for our instruction: it's all in how you look at it

by Dan Phillips

First scene:

During those many days the king of Egypt died, and the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. God saw the people of Israel—and God knew. (Exodus 2:23–25)

Fast-forward:

...and the people of Israel said to them, “Would that we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the meat pots and ate bread to the full, for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” (Exodus 16:3)

And again:

Now the rabble that was among them had a strong craving. And the people of Israel also wept again and said, “Oh that we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we ate in Egypt that cost nothing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. But now our strength is dried up, and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at.” (Numbers 11:4–6)

And again:

“Is it a small thing that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, that you must also make yourself a prince over us?” (Numbers 16:13)

Then rewind, rewind, rewind:

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:6)

Tap the fast-forward:

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. (Genesis 3:7)

Once more, a bit longer:

Now Absalom, David’s son, had a beautiful sister, whose name was Tamar. And after a time Amnon, David’s son, loved her. And Amnon was so tormented that he made himself ill because of his sister Tamar, for she was a virgin, and it seemed impossible to Amnon to do anything to her. But Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David’s brother. And Jonadab was a very crafty man. And he said to him, “O son of the king, why are you so haggard morning after morning? Will you not tell me?” Amnon said to him, “I love Tamar, my brother Absalom’s sister.” (2 Samuel 13:1–4)

And tap again:

But he would not listen to her, and being stronger than she, he violated her and lay with her. Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, “Get up! Go!” (2 Samuel 13:14–15)

Press and hold:

But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. (James 1:14–15)

Tap rewind:

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Hebrews 11:1–3)

Once more:

for we walk by faith, not by sight. (2 Corinthians 5:7)

And once again:

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31–32)

Concluding observations:

1. Sin always — always — makes things appear as they are not.
2. The only way to see things rightly is by God's Word

See you in church, Sunday.

---

Sufficiency of Scripture concisely defined

by Dan Phillips

I can't believe I haven't posted this before. It's the best concise definition I've ever seen, and it comes from this book, page 220 (reviewed here).

"Scripture contains all 
the divine words needed 

for any aspect of human life."

There y'go. You're welcome.

---

Leaky canoneers and their good-hearted enablers: making excuses for God

by Dan Phillips

Let me stipulate emphatically that there are not merely good but excellent brothers and sisters who have an affectionate blind spot when it comes to Charismaticism. Let me further stipulate that I have no doubt whatsoever that, among those otherwise good-hearted, bright-brained, right-spirited spiritual sibs their intent is to glorify God. All of Scripture to the contrary notwithsthanding, they really believe that to "deny" the para-Biblical semi-continuance of pale imitations of some revelatory/attesting gifts is to hamper God, to downplay the spiritual, to handcuff the Holy One.

And nobody wants to do that.

But as always happens, when we don't yield to all of Scripture, our attempts to help God always end up injuring rather than enhancing His fame.

Let's examine a short list of excuses "continuationists" make for God's failure to keep up what He used to do on the level at which He used to do it.

1. He really is doing it, you Christians are just not looking in the right places.
2. He really is doing it, He's just not doing it here in the First World.
3. He really is doing it; see, I know this lady who was prayed-for and got better.
4. He would really love to do it, but unbelief is stopping Him.

You see the first in the "_____ Revival" folks. We gave you a Biblical perspective on one of them over four years ago, and some RPBs recently discovered it as if it were a new and startling thing. These are the poor souls who pour out to fill stadiums and such, desperately looking and hoping that God will show up and do there what He has "failed" to do in their local congregation.

The second is also a constant. It has in common with all "continuationism" that it thrives on non-falsifiability. If you indulge in this line of dodge, you can always raise the rung. You know? Like this:

Biblical Christian: As Scripture indicates would happen, there is no evidence of apostolic revelatory and attesting gifts continuing past the first century.

Continuationist: But they're happening right now in Florida. 

Biblical Christian: I watched the videos, and I went to Florida, and nothing of the sort was happening.

Continuationist: Um... that's because you didn't go to Kaoma, in Zambia! Oh boy oh boy, it's going great guns over in Kaoma! No cameras, no objective observers, no first-hand evidence... but boy oh boy, holy fire from heaven!

Biblical Christian: Uh huh.

The third indicates someone who just hasn't heard a word that Biblical Christians who really-really believe in the sufficiency of Scripture have said. This is a sure-fire is a dead giveaway: every time some would-be continuationist says, "Ah, but I in contrast to you believe that God still heals," laying it down as some kind of trump-card, you know you're dealing with sheer, deliberate ignorance. There is no excuse for it, never has been. No Biblical Christian has ever denied that God heals. It's a red herring.

The last is sheer desperation, and again shares the constant of moving the target away from falsifiability. It's a classic. I mean, who can deny it? None of us is perfect in faith.

However, like all the others, it's a vacant dodge. Any honest person — ANY. HONEST. PERSON. — will be compelled to abandon it with one simple question:

How many of the original tongue-speakers believed in speaking in tongues before they spoke in tongues?

The answer, of course, is ZERO. Not one person at Pentecost expected to speak in tongues, asked to speak in tongues, believed that he would speak in tongues. There was zero faith in tongues.

It was a sovereign move of God.

And so was the distribution of real gifts (1 Cor. 12:4-7, 11).

And so it is today.

Which is why we simply do not see apostolic, Biblical instances of revelatory and attesting gifts. The Triune God is not distributing them. If He wanted to, He would, and they'd be in all His churches. And that isn't what we see.

What we see instead is an elaborate fog-bank of dodges and excuses.

Or we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

So: if it weren't for disbelief in God's own testimony, fueled by discontentment in Christ, and propped up by the support-system of good-hearted, well-meaning enablers willing to supply an endless chain of excuses and dodges and irrelevancies, "continuationism" would most often be mentioned in the same breath as "geocentrism."

And in the same verb-tense.

---

The pseudo-sufficiency Pushmi-pullyu

by Dan Phillips

In sum, it goes like this:

Of course I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. It's just that we need to hear things from God that aren't in Scripture, and Scripture doesn't tell Christians how to get them.

So I'll tell you how to get them.

Just like that.

---

Leaky Canons and moralizing Gospel misfires: an analogy

by Dan Phillips

On the way to this piece's point, two things must be made very clear:

First: every unglorified saint has doctrinal blind spots and inconsistencies. You do, I do. There's no helping it. You credobaptists see it clearly in your pedobaptist brothers, and they see it clearly in their Arminian brothers, and on it goes. And if you ask me what my blind spots are, I'll be forced to ask in reply what it is about "blind spots" you don't understand. We all have them, and that's what that Remedial Theology 101 class is all about.

Second: some Leaky Canon brothers are splendid preachers of the Gospel, and of a great many other solid-gold Biblical truths. They are as sound on the issue of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, as any man ever has been since Paul wrote Romans and Galatians. The parallel I'm going to suggest is not in any way meant eo ipso to impugn the Gospel soundness of a Leaky Canoneer simply because he is a Leaky Canoneer.

Having said that, then...

It struck me forcefully, as I was praying today, that there is a parallel between the Leaky Canon position and the false gospel of moralism.

What is that false gospel? It is the idea that we need more and/or better rules. It sees Jesus as a great teacher, a great enabler, a great example. It brings in Biblical imperatives as laws we must keep to win God's favors, and then moves perhaps to improve on those laws for that same reason. It's similar to the classmate at seminary who, when I suggested that the student handbook's section on conduct just single out directly-Biblical issues such as lying and stealing and immorality, replied that all that just "isn't specific enough."

To that, Biblical Christians reply that more rules would just damn us more. We're sinners. We don't live up to the light we have. More light just means more condemnation, more rules means more guilt. If the problem were lack of guidance, they might help. But the problem is sin, and rules simply serve to stir sin up (cf. Rom. 7:5-11, etc.). That is why we need sovereign grace to save us. Not more rules.

What does that possibly have to do with the Leaky Canon error?

We have sixty-six books full of the inerrant, sufficient, and morally-binding revelation of God's heart. It claims to impart absolutely everything we need to know in order to know and serve God.

So let me ask:

Is there any sane, rational, even-marginally-sentient being who would claim that the professing Christian church as a whole is doing a very good job of teaching and preaching the contents of those sixty-six books?

No.

Then let me ask this:

Is there any sane, rational, even-marginally-sentient being who would claim that professing Christians as a whole are doing a very good job of studying and learning and practicing (let alone even working to support churches that teach and preach) the contents of those sixty-six books?

No.

Leading us inexorably to ask: 

That being the case, how can anyone argue that what we really need is more words from God?

But wait, it gets even worse!

Given that 106 years of Leaky Canon errorism has not yet produced even one universally-acknowledged syllable of prophetic-level revelation from God, and given that in the light of that 100% failure they have worked hard so to lower the bar and redefine what they promise so as to remove it from the arena of falsifiability, we must reword that question:

How can anyone argue that what we really need is more semi-sorta hazy mumbly jumbly foggy indistinct words from God at several degrees of removal?

More words from God, given our failure to be faithful to what we already have, and absent repentance, would simply mean more failure and more faithlessness.

But more words from God that really aren't necessarily words from God, but that maybe might kinda be words from God, and that claim to be essential for a real and vital and living relationship with God, though they require 1000 time-and-focus-devouring-and-diverting qualifications...?

Yikes!

All of which takes us right back to the sufficiency challenge, and leaves Leaky Canonism as exposed and repugnant (— in its distinctives!) as it should have been all along.

---

Untangling a (too) terse word about affirming sufficiency and meaning it

by Dan Phillips

First, please read this post about James MacDonald's five ways of hearing a word from God.

In that post, I asked this question:

What would be the premise for, and ramifications of, promoting only the way(s) in which Scripture directly and in so many words urges and directs all Christians without exception to seek and find what it itself directly calls, in so many words, a "word from God"?

The subsequent meta pretty well convinced me that I failed the clarity test. In seeking to be pithy, dense and impenetrable... well, I certainly achieved impenetrability. Proof: some of our very best, sharpest readers got lost in the density. So clearly, lack of clarity was mine. Obliging me to untangle my verbage. Which I now do.

Ahem.


Let's begin with something I've sought to communicate many times, with varying success. Here is Buzz Christian. Buzz feels he needs Data-group A.  Buzz  doesn't find Data-group A in Scripture.  Buzz  has two choices:

1. Conclude that he doesn't need God to give him Data-group A directly, or it would be in Scripture.
2. Find another way to obtain something he'll call Data-group A... and then deal with Scripture. Or not.

So, clearly many people want to hear things from God that aren't in Scripture. The issue of what things? doesn't really matter at this point. They look at Scripture, and it doesn't have everything they want. What to do, what to do?

Basically, you can do two things:

1. You can conclude that you don't actually need a word from God relaying those things, or they'd be in Scripture.
2. You can invent another way to obtain something you'll say are those things... and then deal with Scripture. Or don't deal.

James MacDonald knows people want there to be ways "God speaks," ways to "hear from God," ways to have "the Holy Spirit speak a word," ways to get, as he says explicitly and more than once, "a word from God" — apart from Scripture. And so MacDonald teaches four such ways, and assigns degrees of certainty to them... which is revealing in itself, but we don't even need to go there to arrive at my point.

What I was asking was, Suppose we were to confine our focus to explicit Scripture alone. Suppose we don't start with stories, anecdotes, tradition, or "just what everybody knows."

Suppose we were to say that we will promote only the way(s) in which Scripture directly and in so many words urges and directs all Christians without exception to seek and find what it itself directly calls, in so many words, a "word from God." Suppose we wouldn't try to principlize stories, or torture verses, or lead with anecdotes and try to bend Scriptures which at a twelfth degree of separation might sorta give a kinda hint that such a thing might be in some way something like valid.

Suppose, instead, we said:

"I will only call 'a word from God' what Scripture calls 'a word from God.'  I will only appeal to verses that directly tell all Christians that they can always and with 100% certainly find a word from God. I will only urge Christians to use those means to obtain words from God."

So, I say, supposing we were to say that — on what premises would such a position rest, and what would the ramifications be? Having failed to make my point the first time for most of you (and I'm sorry about that), I'll answer my own question.

The premise for such a statement would be the sufficiency of Scripture, robustly affirmed.

The ramifications for such a statement is that we would only urge Christians to look to Scripture to find words from God. We would only look to Scripture ourselves to find words from God. One hundred percent of our efforts, our devotion, and our attention, would be given to the study, understanding, preaching, teaching and practice of the written Word of God, which absolutely certainly claims to be fully sufficient for such purposes.

Further ramifications would be the instant end of the Charismatic movement (— which they clearly recognize, as witnessed by the unvarying pushback against all genuine affirmations of the sufficiency of Scripture). Also, we would see the utter transformation of the majority of pulpit ministries across the world. Revival would almost surely come in as well — though it's likelier to be a necessary cause than an effect.

Clear enough now?

---

How can Christians hear a word from God? I mean, really?

by Dan Phillips

Some guy named "Phillip R. Johnson" (whatever; I think he writes about creation, or something) posted this video from James MacDonald, in which MacDonald explains ways to receive a word from God. Turns out there are five. To wit:

Wellnow, let's us chat about this.

First, to do that thing that drives drivebys crazy, let's anticipate the first response defenders will have: this is a very small excerpt from must have been a much longer talk, and it is out of context.

Fair enough. Absolutely true. It is possible that, just before this video, MacDonald said,

"For the next two minutes and fifty-six seconds, I am going to present some traditionalistic notions that are very popular among many Christians. I'm going to do it with warmth and enthusiasm, and even add a personal anecdote, just to be sure I'm doing a fair job of representing their position. Then, starting with the fifty-seventh second of the third minute, I'll show you why this is such dangerous nonsense."

If so, that would absolutely change everything, and taking this video as representing MacDonald's thoughts would be very unfair.

So let's just focus on what is actually in the clip, rather than on MacDonald himself.

This is a test. Let's see what you've learned from our dozens of posts on this general area. How would you respond to what he said?

But even beyond that, let me broach something I'm not sure I've said before in this way.

Before giving it, I note that the vid above proceeds on the premise that of course we should accept all five ways as ways "God speaks," as ways to "hear from God," to have "the Holy Spirit speak a word," or to get, as he says explicitly and more than once, "a word from God." It's the results that we are to test by Scripture — not the ways themselves.

Note too that we need these ways, according to MacDonald. We need them. We, Christians, all Christians. He makes that very clear.

But what if we asked a more fundamental question? What if we tested the ways, and not just their results?

Suppose, in response, we just asked this multifaceted question?

What would be the premise for, and ramifications of, promoting only the way(s) in which Scripture directly and in so many words urges and directs all Christians without exception to seek and find what it itself directly calls, in so many words, a "word from God"?

Bam.

Should be both fun and profitable.

POSTSCRIPT: I untangle and answer that question HERE.

---

What we confess as our sufficient, complete Bible: what's missing?

by Dan Phillips

Oncet upon a time, I wrote a constitution for a church I was attempting to plant, and along with it a Statement of Faith. The latter is available online for the curious and idle and, you know, whoever.

What I'm doing here is what I've long meant to do but never done. I am simply posting that portion of the statement that deals with the Bible, and then I shall ask one question in two ways. Mainly, I just want this post here for future reference.

The sixty-six books of the Protestant canon, in their original writings, comprise the verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God. The thirty-nine books known as the Hebrew Old Testament are God-breathed, products of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, and thus free from error in all that they affirm (cf. Deuteronomy 18:18, 19; Psalms 19:7, 8; 119:89, 142, 151, 160; Matthew 5:17-19; John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20, 21). Similarly, the twenty-seven books known as the Greek New Testament are the eternally abiding words of Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:35), and are thus the words of God (John 7:16; 12:49). The Holy Spirit enabled the writers both to recall what the Lord said (John 14:26), and to continue to receive His revelation (John 16: 12-15). As a result, the writings of the New Testament are the commandment of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37), are Scripture (2 Peter 3:15, 16), and are God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). For this reason, the sinner finds the way of salvation through Scripture (Romans 10:17; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 2: 1-3). The believer is made fruitful (Psalm 1:2, 3) and successful in the will of God (Joshua 1:8), warned and kept from sin (Psalms 19:11; 119:9,11), made holy (John 17:17), given wisdom (Psalm 9:7) and freeing knowledge of the truth (John 8: 31, 32), taught the fear of God (Psalm 119:38), counseled (Psalm 119:24), taught, reproved, corrected, and disciplined in the way righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16) by Scripture. Scripture is, in short, the fully adequate revelation of the person, ways, and will of God.

Now here's the question: all that being the case — being what God the Holy Spirit says about the nature, use, function and work of Scripture — what essential truth did God leave out? That is, what vitally-necessary truth-that-we-need-to-live-the-Christian-life-to-God's-glory did God leave to be supplemented by the additional misty, non-inerrant, vaporous, errant, semi-revelation that is so essential and vital to so many?

---

Charismatic lexicon - Part One

by Dan Phillips

In the interests of communication and instruction, and because I'm here to help, I offer this lexicon. I'm calling it Part One because (A) I'm sure there'll be more, because (B) I'm pretty sure readers will supply some great stuff that (C) I will steal, publish here, and claim as my own.

First, then: the term as used by a Biblically-oriented Christian (BibC); then the Leaky Canon Charismatic equivalent (LC²). I paint, as I must, with a broad brush... but not that broad.

BibC: Culmination of millennia of revelation in a completed, wholly sufficient and closed Canon
LC²: Whatever. (Alternate: And then that happened...)

BibC: Feeling.
LC²: The Holy Spirit.

BibC: Hunch.
LC²: The Holy Spirit.

BibC: Silly passing thought.
LC²: The Holy Spirit.

BibC: Impulse, best to be rejected after a bit of wise and critical reflection.
LC: The Holy Spirit.

BibC: Testing by Scripture and rational examination.
LC²: Unbelief.

BibC: Walking in gracious, faith-driven obedience, which definitionally and consciously rests on the written Word alone.
LC²: Deism.

BibC: Living impulsively and irresponsibly, eschewing Biblical analysis and responsible decision-making, and blaming the whole mess on God.
LC²: Moving in the Spirit.

BibC: Undocumented anecdote allegedly done in a corner thousands of miles away and transmitted through the world's longest game of "telephone."
LC²: Proof that "the gifts" continue.

BibC: The undeniable absence of substantiated and globally-accepted claims to revelatory/attesting gifts among the Biblically orthodox from the first century until 1906.
LC²: "The man behind the curtain." (Alternate: "Look! A comet!")

BibC: The undeniable fact that modern instances of substantiated and globally-accepted claims to revelatory/attesting gifts among the Biblically orthodox depends on drastic reinterpretation of Scripture and playing fast and loose with the laws of evidence.
LC: (See above)

BibC: Prophecy is an explicitly Biblically-defined phenomenon in which God gives inerrant, binding, direct revelation to someone and assures that it is communicated as such. It is objectively verifiable.
LC²: Whatever you say it is. Except not verifiable or falsifiable.

BibC: Insisting on redefining the Biblical teaching about and descriptions of revelatory and attesting gifts so as to smuggle pale imitations into a time-frame some twenty centuries after their disappearance.
LC²: Non-negotiable essentials.

BibC: Affirming the all-over-the-Bible teaching of the sovereignty of God in salvation.
LC²: Totally negotiable, relatively minor.

...and one reverse:

LC²: A divine healing that undeniably proves all charismatic claims.
BibC: Answered prayer, God healing — which all Christians have always confirmed and distinguished from the gift of healing.

UPDATE: Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio had a lot of very creative, hysterical fun with this.

---

Better word than "cessationist"? Almost! So close!

by Dan Phillips

Labels are a necessary evil. Few of them really capture a position sufficiently, but the alternatives just don't work. What chafes is the frequent necessity of using a well-known label for the sake of communication, but knowing that with it comes unwanted baggage and connotations.

And so for instance — as I've posed before — what do you call yourself if you unreservedly affirm the sufficiency of Scripture and the Holy Spirit's definition of the nature, role and ministry of His gifts and works? What are you? Decades ago, there wasn't a well-known name, then along comes "cessationism."

And so, though we affirm a robustly positive and vibrant position, we find ourselves stuck with negative label.  We're stuck with describing ourselves by what we don't think is currently happening. If it's a PR battle, we lose from the outset. I tried suggesting a more negative (and more accurate) label for the opposition but, as expected, it went nowhere.

I've long wanted (and called for) a positive word, connoting the robust fullness of the position, the happy and God-honoring affirmation that the Holy Spirit had succeeded in His work. He succeeded in affirming the Gospel by His revelatory and attesting works (Heb. 2:1-4), He succeeded in bringing to completion the process of piecemeal revelation (1 Cor. 13:8-10), He succeeded in producing a Word that contains everything we need to know for salvation and service (2 Tim. 3:15-17).

And then it dawned on me:

SUCCESSIONIST!

What is a Successionist? It's someone who celebrates the the Lord Jesus' success in giving the apostles all the information He wanted to communicate through them (Jn. 16:12-15), who rejoices in the Trinity's success in revealing and attesting the Gospel (Heb. 2:1-4), who affirms and celebrates the Holy Spirit's success in producing a truly sufficient Word (2 Tim. 3:15-17). He is a successionist.

So what if it's a coined word? So was Charismatic. So was Cessationist. So are many theological labels.

Ah, but I fear that my newborn is a stillborn. Though I don't think I've ever heard the term used, it turns out that word has been around for a long, long time, and already has many connotations which have nothing to do with my intent.

Sigh.

Oh well, the search continues.

But next to "too late," two of the saddest words in English have to be...

...so close!

---

The sufficiency challenge

by Dan Phillips

I think the truth of the sufficiency of Scripture may be the central Biblical doctrine under attack in our day.  Of course cults, heresies and false religions attack it, as they must. What is saddest to see is all the "friendly" fire that well-meaning obsessives have leveled with a boldness that seems to be on the increase.

I've come at this topic "at sundry times and in divers manners," including here, here, and here, among many others.

Sunday was part three of our Thinking Biblically series at CBC, and the sufficiency of Scripture was one of the foci of the sermon titled What Should We Do with the Bible? (That and, well, once again too many other things.) I'll lift out a part of the sermon, part that actually wasn't in the notes.

I grant that my efforts may not have convinced everyone, though I will keep trying. But virtually all remotely-sound Christians will at least give a nod to the proviso that yes, yes, yes, the Bible is God's Word, and yes, it's some kind of sufficient, and no, no hemi-demi-semi-kindasorta revelation can displace it — well, not formally, anyway.

So agree with me on this. If you really believe what you say you really believe, this should be no problem. Here we go:

Agree heartily to believe in and use Scripture as befits what it claims about itself. Treat it like it is what you say you believe it is: God's actual, real-live, inerrant, personal, living and powerful Word. Approach it as you would actually approach such a treasure as you profess to affirm to have found in Scripture.

That is, pledge yourself exclusively to seek God and His will according to Scripture. Pray only for light to understand Scripture (cf. Psa. 119:18; 2 Tim. 4:7). Commit yourself only to regard what comes from Scripture as God's binding will for you. Set aside all the yeah-buts and evasions and distractions and special-pleadings and fourteenth-hand stories and traditions, for a time.

Set yourself to seeking and being in a church that emphatically teaches the Bible as if it were what it says it is, that devotes itself to the exposition and proclamation and practice of Scripture as God's inerrant word, without the endless distractions of entertainment and fads and dancing bears.

Devote yourself exclusively to studying Scripture, all sixty-six books. Set yourself to master every book, every chapter, every verse, every word. Seek perfect understanding of all of Scripture, and Scripture only, as containing what God really wants you to know. Memorize all of it.

Finally (and at the same time) commit yourself to practicing Scripture perfectly. All of it. Master it, and be mastered by it — exclusively. If it is not Bible or a valid straight-line application of the Bible, do not claim it as any level of special revelation from God.

Then and only then — when you have plumbed the full dimensions of Scripture in every direction; when you have conformed your thoughts, attitudes, affections and behavior to it; when you've ransacked every corner and crevasse and entirely emptied the cupboards and completely cleared the shelves — if you find that Scripture is truly insufficient to lead you to know and serve God in this life (contrary to its own self-testimony)...

...then look me up.

Deal?

---

"What Is Written"

by Phil Johnson



o I was in Minneapolis Saturday for Todd Friel's Wretched Psalm 119 Conference, and David Wheaton broadcast his weekly radio program, "The Christian Worldview," live from the conference venue. David graciously featured an interview with me in one of the segments, and at one point he asked me to give a thumbnail sketch of what I would be speaking on later in the day. The theme of this year's Psalm 119 Conferences is the Holy Spirit, and one of my messages dealt with the question of how the Holy Spirit communicates truth to believers. Should we expect Him to reveal fresh prophecies through intuitive impulses, voices in our heads, and other means of private revelation?

I said no, nothing in Scripture instructs us to seek that kind of guidance. Instead, we are commanded to order our lives by the Scriptures (Deuteronomy 5:32; Joshua 1:7-8; Psalm 1:2-3; 1 John 2:5-6; etc.). The Holy Spirit's ministry is to enlighten our understanding of the Word (1 John 2:20, 27; Ephesians 1:17-18; 1 Corinthians 2:12-14; Psalm 119:18) and motivate our obedience (Ezekiel 36:27), so that the Word of God (not some mystical extrabiblical revelation) is "a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Psalm 119:105).

That's more or less what I said in answer to David Wheaton's question about how the Holy Spirit guides us.

Less than 15 minutes later, my phone dinged, letting me know I had received a fresh e-mail. Here's what the message said:

I was just listening to an interview with you on local Christian radio. It seems you have elevated that which is written above the mystery of Christ hidden in us. Perhaps I have misunderstood. I hope so. There was nothing "written" for the common man until when? The 16th century? Maybe sooner...Even so, literacy was widespread. But, here we are, the seed has not been obliterated. I submit that you could consider the inner work of the Spirit...that is a mystery, indeed. Just as surely as the union of sperm and egg produces life, so the Spirit produces new life, and that eternal. And we have no dispute there. Lean not into your own understanding...let the Spirit have His work...by Faith. After all, God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must do so in spirit and in truth.

Yikes.

My reply:

God himself elevates "that which is written" to the position of highest authority, and He has expressly instructed us "not to go beyond what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6). Scripture is the only truth we have that is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). And the truth of Scripture is sufficient for all our spiritual needs (v. 17).

So if someone heard my abbreviated answer to David Wheaton and thought I was saying the Scriptures are more authoritative and more reliable than any mysterious "inner work of the Spirit" that involves extra-biblical "truth" or inspired intuition, then emphatically: Yes, you heard me correctly.

Like many charismatics, my interlocutor seems to imagine that the principle of sola Scriptura is hostile to a robust understanding of the Holy Spirit's work in the daily lives of Christians today.

That idea is perhaps the single most deadly error in the vast menagerie of problems associated with the charismatic movement.

---