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.

---

TIWIARN

by Dan Phillips

If you want to learn how to support extending the reach of the conference, contact Josh Feinberg.

---

If I could change Christian vocabulary: "Closed Canon"

by Dan Phillips

I've remarked in the past that it often seems as if bad doctrines (and problematic denominations/cults) have all the best names, while orthodoxy gets stuck with negative terms. More than once, I've tried to spur a search for more positive terminology...with varying degrees of success. I've also tried to find less gauzy, more realistic descriptors for bad doctrine.

Wellsir, well ma'am, I'm back with another.

We're wont to talk about the closed Canon. By that we mean a great thing: we mean that the millennia-long process of revelation has reached its climax (Heb. 1:1-2), and no fresh revelation is being imparted.

It's a wonderfully robust truth. But the term is negative. It just says closed. No more. It doesn't mean that the process was successful or satisfactory; just that you aren't getting any more. Closed. You've gone to the pharmacy to get some medicine for your flu... but it's closed. You wanted to take your honey to your favorite restaurant... but it's closed. You wanted to register for the Sufficient Fire conference, but... well, thank God, that's not closed yet. But it will be.

See? Closed. Disappointing, dissatisfying. Final, yes; but not happy. Not gladsome connotations.

So what if in stead of "closed" we spoke of the...

Full Canon

"Full," as in "No, thanks, really, I'm stuffed. Not another bite!" As in "Everything I could possibly need." As in "Replete, well-stocked, abundantly furnished, neither room nor need for one bit more." Full.

Doesn't that describe the situation better and more truly both connotatively and denotatively? It isn't that the last apostle had a bunch he needed to say, but just expired before he could, and now the doors are closed. It isn't as if it's an inadequate product, but it's the one we've got, so we've got to make-do.

It's that God has given us everything for which we need a word from God. It's bursting with His wisdom, His mind, His heart, His direction, His instruction. It has more in it than we will ever be able to take in, process, savor, and put into practice! It has enough to make us wise to salvation (2 Tim. 3:15), and fully to equip us for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17)! It's full!

Which then correctly depicts the sort of person who'd try to come up with some sort of lame supplement in the light he deserves: foolish, futile, ignorant, and in the final analysis of-little-faith.

So I submit that for your mulling-over and discussion. What if we began speaking of the "full Canon" instead of the "closed Canon"? Would the newer phrase say all the older one did even better, and say more besides? Plus, it makes a nice set with another contribution of mine, "leaky Canon."

Have at it.

---

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.

---

Pastoral ministry: a call for Biblical thinking

by Dan Phillips

(See what I did there?)

The notion that pastor's are "called" to ministry is so enmeshed in evangelical culture that it is common for writers not even to bother attempting a Biblical demonstration of the idea. Consider this article as an example, with its list of categorical statements attended by nary a single warranting verse.

As I've already shown, the "call" model is without Biblical warrant. Not that the Bible says nothing, it just says something perfectly clear and quite different. Though I thought that article was clear enough, some of the same questions keep being asked, so we'll try to clear them up here, in two steps.

The Biblical model. "Pastors and teachers" are listed among the gifts of the ascended Christ (Eph. 4:11), though that passage gives no further clues about identifying pastors. The fullest treatment comes in 1 Timothy 3:1ff., which actually tells us all we need to know. It gives three lines of qualification.

1. Desire. Paul uses two verbs to denote the desire a gifted man has in 1 Tim. 3:1. They combine to indicate that the man will yearn for the office, will strongly desire it. He'll be driven from within — not because he's idle, not because his dad did it, not because it looks like fun, but because he needs to do it. The first pastor who trained me said something I dismissed at the time, though later I came to see the wisdom in it. "Gentlemen," he used to say, "if you can be happy doing anything else, do it."
2. Doctrine. Desire isn't enough. The man has to know his stuff. Unlike a deacon, the overseer must be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2). Paul expands in writing to Titus, saying that an overseer must be able to identify and shut down false doctrine, and must be able positively to teach sound doctrine (Titus 1:9ff.). Not only must he be doctrinally sound, he must be doctrinally authoritative, in representing the Word of God and in guarding against error.
3. Devoutness. Desire and doctrinal knowledge must be adorned by a godly character. Only so does the man show that he understands and believes what he teaches, and can serve as a faithful, reliable overseer for others. Both 1 Timothy 3 and Titus give the particulars.

So there it is: an internal motivation on the level of desire, confirmed by theological soundness and holiness of character.

Why not just call that a "call"? One good brother said it doesn't matter what we label it, we end up the same place. I couldn't agree less, for two reasons:

1. Sufficiency of Scripture. The contrary position amounts to "Okay, okay, the Bible doesn't exactly teach the pastoral 'call'... but we've always called it that, so what's the diff?" Well, the "diff" is that God has given us everything for which we need a divine word in Scripture, and we are supplementing it as if He did not. We're improving on a Scripture that doesn't need our improvements. It's a bad idea, it sets a bad precedent, and sends a bad message.
2. The mystical mystique. Introducing the unbiblical notion of a "call" takes us out of the Biblical realm of desire tested by discrete evidences, into the realm of the God card. If an authority figure (another pastor) imagines that he hears another man's "call," he could push him into preaching, unqualified — of which I've heard story after story after story. Or the man (or woman!) can insist that the divine call takes precedence over everything else, and on that strength step into an office to the ruination both of himself and of his hearers.

In close, let me just do that thing I do. I know, as sure as Obama's already planning his next vacation, that people will have read this, will have no specific Biblical response, and will say "I just don't see any reason not to call it a 'call.'" 

To that, I can only reply, "Well then, you can't object if I call it a hamburger."

You're welcome!

---

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 #6: Tom Pennington

by Dan Phillips

Next I'll discuss and give some highlights from the talk given by Tom Pennington, who made a Biblical case for cessationism. Pennington has pastored Countryside Bible Church in Southlake, Texas (4 hours from me; we've never spoken), since 2003. This pastorate began after sixteen years at Grace Community Church, during which time he served variously as managing director of Grace to You, senior associate pastor, and personal assistant to John MacArthur. Academically, Pennington has a B.A. and M.A. from Bob Jones University and took additional Ph.D. classes in New Testament Interpretation. In 2013, he received an honorary Doctor of Divinity (D.D.) from The Master’s College

Pennington noted in starting that all three major branches of Charismaticism shared affirmation of "continuationism" (though I'd argue none of them is truly continuationist — they're more like "continuation-of-some-gifts-once-we've-radically-redefined-them-and-moved-them-safely-out-of-the-arena-of-falsifiability"; but I digress). Their familiar arguments were stated, then briefly countered:

1. Claim: the NT nowhere dirrectly states that miraculous gifts will case during church age. Response: Equally, it doesn’t say they will all continue.
2. Claim: A couple of NT passages imply all the gifts will continue until Christ returns (1 Cor. 13:10). Response: But that’s a highly disputed passage, not a sufficient foundation for any position.
3. Claim: There are no grounds for dividing apostolic and post-apostolic. Response:  But unless a movement can produce legitimate, full-bore apostles-just-like-Peter-and-Paul, they’re de facto cessationists as well.
4. Claim (most common by far): 500 million professing Christians can’t all be wrong. Response: Oh yes, they really can. Otherwise, don't forget to hold your breath as you swim the Tiber. (That last is mine.)

I just need to riff on that last one for a moment longer. When was truth settled by majority-vote (even if it is a majority)? How'd that work out at Kadesh-Barnea, for that group that didn't find the word of God sufficient?

And what's more, do you notice how that always goes?

Charismatic defender: We're 500 million strong and growing. Your criticism is invalid!

Biblical Christian: A lot of that number deny the Trinity, bark and moo, grab after gold dust, roll around out of control and jerk and jitter like possessed people, preach the false prosperity gospel, and/or wouldn't know a Bible study if it bit them on the tongue.

Charismatic defender: Yeah, well... they're not with us. And you're painting with a broad brush.

Biblical Christian: Then since those people number in the millions, yours must be a really small, virtually insignificant movement.

Charismatic defender: Oh no. We're 500 million strong and growing. 

Biblical Christian: { facepalm }

Then Pennington made the point that's been made since the start, the point that surprises folks like Adrian Warnock every time they hear it, which they do over and over again: no cessationist believes (or ever has believed) that God doesn't do miracles whenever He chooses to. More to the point, every conversion is the greatest of miracles. What it does mean is that the Spirit is no longer sovereignly giving the miraculous gifts listed in Scripture and attested in the NT.

Here I digress again. For my part, I wish we sufficientists would say "revelatory/attesting gifts" rather than "supernatural gifts." A good case could be made that every gift is a supernatural gift. But not every gift imparts inerrant, directly-received revelation (which is the case with at least apostles, prophets and tongues-speakers); and not every gift serves as a supernatural attestation of those who possess such gifts (which is the case at least with the gift of healing). I think that would be a better distinguishing term.

Then Pennington gave seven Biblical arguments for cessationism. You should, of course, listen to his own enunciation of them. This is my interpretive reporting. Your mileage may vary.

1. By and large, God only did miracles during periods. First was about 65 years (Moses to Joshua), then Elijah and Elishah, 860-795 BC (about 65 years); then Christ and apostles, about 30-100 (once again, about 65-70 years). There were occasional interventions (i.e. during the ministries of Isaiah and Daniel), but only about 200 years total. Moreover, these miracles were given to validate spokesmen for God. Only prophets performed miracles in the OT, because miracles were their credentials. Miracles also attested Jesus; they weren’t for evangelism per se, as Jesus noted explicitly and emphatically in the parable of rich man and Lazarus. See also Acts 14:3 [and many other similar, search “wonders”], and Heb 2:1-4.
2. The gift of apostleship had a terminus ad quem. We see in 1 Cor. 12:28. and Eph. 4:7ff. that every office was a gift, though not vice-versa. The very qualifications of apostle make clear that this can’t be a continuing office. That gift ceased without a clear NT statement that it would cease. This is precedent-setting. (See also Waldron's development of this argument.)
   
3. The gifts of apostles and prophets were foundational (Eph. 2:20). A building has only one foundation.
4. Nature of the miraculous gifts. If modern phenomena were legitimate, they’d be the same as the NT gifts. Manifestly modern tongues and prophecy are so clearly not the same as NT gifts that the best case that can be made is the now-debunked "analogy" argument, which is an explicit confession of non-identity. If they're not the same (and they aren't), we're done here. As I've said to everyone who asks for a single "kill-verse" to counter Charismaticism: every Biblical description of genuine revelatory/attesting gifts is a "kill-verse" for modern imitations.
5. Church history. In my opinion, it is better to say “Continuationists' 1900-year failure to deliver on anything vaguely resembling 'continuation.'"
6. Sufficiency of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17). He was moving pretty quickly here, understandably. I have made the argument (in print and in preaching) that, if Scripture is what it says it is, it's awfully hard to understand what supplements are needed today. "Fully equipped" is "fully equipped," no?
7. NT rules laid down for miraculous gifts. Pennington notes that most Charismatics ignore these rules. As a preacher I heard ~30 years ago noted, when 500 people in a church meeting are speaking in tongues, at least 497 of them are out of God's will.

Pennington pled with cessationists: don't overreact to Charismatic error and downplay the role of the Holy Spirit (Biblically defined!) in our lives. Hold to your well-grounded confidence in sufficiency of Scripture. Know what you believe, and why. Reject all forms of extra revelation, including subjective revelation and mysticism. Respond differently to different people. To false teachers, warn in the language of 2 Peter and Jude. Confront prosperity-gospel folks with the Biblical gospel.

Finally (in my notes anyway): Don’t refuse to come to a convinced position due to desire for peace. 

Amen.

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

---

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)

---

Words mean specific things — especially God's words

by Dan Phillips

The baleful effects of postmodernism are not confined to the classroom nor lecture-hall. They can be heard and felt in home Bible studies, frequently run by someone unqualified to lead and unconnected to a local church. They are seen in the oft-heard inquiry, "What does that passage mean to you?"

Now, I don't want to be a Pharisee who pronounces the death-penalty for word-choice. That question can simply mean something like: "God's Spirit uses His unchanging word to touch each of us in individual ways, so that a text with one meaning can apply personally in a thousand manners. What personal application do you take from the one meaning of this text?" Sola-est Sola-ist couldn't object to a question like that... or shouldn't.

However the question sometimes is framed expressly to claim that nobody can really say what a text means. Its meaning is out of our grasp. In fact, its meaning isn't even our goal. If we ask ten people what a verse means, and we get ten irreconcilably different answers, that's a good thing, and all the answers are equally valid.

Yeah, see...that's a problem. And I do mean it.

Paul Henebury makes a great point at the start of his lectures on Biblical covenantalism, focusing on the first chapter of Genesis: God is the inventor of language, and Himself illustrates that words have distinct referents; they are adequate to convey meaning.

He is the first speaker: "Let there be light," He commands (Gen. 1:3). What happens next? Does a pyramid pop into existence? Or a quahog? Or the smell of fried chicken, the law of gravity, a Pyromaniacs T-shirt, Chicago's first album, or the concept of "boredom"?

No. Light happens. God said "light," God meant "light," light is what God created.

And so for each creative verbal act of the original Speaker:

• He said "expanse," and an expanse is what He got (vv. 6-7)
• He said "waters," and waters is what He got (v. 9)
• What He called "earth" was earth, and what He "seas" was seas (v. 10 — seeing a pattern, yet?)
• He called for vegetation, and (hel-lo?) vegetation is what He got (vv. 11-12)
• He said "lights," and lights is what He got (vv. 14-18)
• He called for land animals, and land animals is what He got (vv. 24-25)
• He said "Let us create man," and man is what He created (vv. 26-27)

Nor was there any utter bafflement when God addressed the first human. Adam understood perfectly well what ""You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" meant (Gen. 2:16-17), apparently well
enough to tell someone else what it meant (Gen. 3:2-3). There is no record of Adam blinking in hopeless befuddlement. God chose words that conveyed meaning; and that's what they did.

Scripture is a collection of God's words. They convey meaning clearly enough and adequately enough. I don't say say "always simply," but I do say clearly and adequately.

My observation from 40+ years is that the real problem is seldom the clarity of God's word. Or perhaps I should say, it is the clarity of God's word... coupled with human unwillingness to bow the knee.

But that isn't a word-problem. It's a heart-problem.

---

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.

---

"Assuming Jesus lied and is dead..."

by Dan Phillips

It's one of those commonplaces that many never notice. But once you do notice it, you see it everywhere.

I speak of the unspoken assumption of a great many non-Christian/Christian dialogues, at least from the non-Christian side. Unspoken, I say (or speak, heh), but there nonetheless.

Take this recent post from one of those blogs you should visit every day instead of ________ and _______ ___ ______, to wit: Fred Butler's Hip and Thigh.

Fred responds in characteristically non-RPB style to another post titled 7 Truths LGBT Kids Need to Hear from Homeschooling Parents. Fred's post, in turn, elicits a cordial, well-written challenge from a person named "whitechocolatelatte" which goes something like this:

Are you endorsing a tough love, aka abusive or bullying, response to LGBT children? We all know people will have theological disagreements, but the larger question is how to love those you care about most in the midst of those disagreements.

To interpret a hurt child’s longing for affection and understanding as an assault on your faith is not a gracious response on any level. If you want to weep in your closet and pray, be my guest, but when you interact with people you disagree with, especially if they are people who look up to you, what they need is acceptance of *their inherent worth,* regardless of their theological positions or lifestyle choices. (You would even agree with that, theologically, wouldn’t you — we are all made in the image of God?) If you develop a real relationship with people, and they see you have a life they would prefer, you’ll get questions, but running around throwing metaphysical stones like this is just bullying.

Getting up on your high horse is not going to convince anyone else to come down off of theirs.

As such responses go, it's hard not to appreciate the relative graciousness of the questioner, and his/her attempt to make common-ground, from his/her -- oh, bother, his -- perspective.

But there it is. Really to get what he's saying, you have to preface it with the thought, "Assuming the Bible is a lie," or "Assuming God's word is insufficient and uncompelling," or "Assuming Jesus lied and is dead..."

Because what he does is simply sweep aside Scripture and the worldview it lays out. He calls Fred to assume with him that everyone's self-chosen path is equally valid (except the Christian one), and that the highest value is love-as-endorsement, and that the greatest crime is making people (except Christians) feel bad about their choices... and on that basis, calls Fred to come off it.

Which Fred, characteristically, does not.

That last is a constant feature, by the way. The assumption here is that Fred is the issue. He is on his "high horse." How could it be otherwise? We're all free to choose whatever we choose to believe; there is no external, compelling authority against whom it would be high moral treason to rebel. All there is is choice, our choice, our hearts, our feelings and values and judgment.

And so, sure: assuming that, then whatever you want, follows. Like "Assuming that saltwater is air, crossing the Atlantic is just like a really long walk." Right. Exactly. Assuming.

What I'm wanting to highlight is that this is not new. When were the words "Has God really said" spoken, in challenge to an unwelcome word from God? You know. And have you seen what Satan did there? Like Fred's commenter, he didn't try formally to deny everything at once. He didn't deny that there was a God. But he did deny that God was compelling, that God's word was binding and sufficient, that the only starting-point for thought was the word of God.

That was the whole game-plan, and it was executed very effectively. Simply move the game pieces to a different board and a different set of rules. Do that, and it's all over but the rolling of the credits.

Listen for that, in what is said to you; watch for it, in what you read. It's seldom stated formally, but it's there: "Assuming the Bible is under our judgment, assuming our judgment is supreme, and assuming that we are as gods, don't you think...?"

Once you see that, you see the bankruptcy of evidentialism as an apologetic. You see that granting that assumption is the whole game. You see that ultimately the only sufficient response can be, "But I don't assume that. And since you have no transcendent reason for doing so, I call you instead to assume that God's word is sufficient and compelling, that God alone is sufficient judge, and that Jesus was the truth, is the truth, and spoke the truth, and that He is alive and coming as Judge of the living and the dead.  Assume that, and..."

Game over.

---

Leaky canon = lazy disciple: a story

by Dan Phillips

Valerie was preparing some dish for our church pot luck, and needed lime-flavored tortilla chips.

I looked and looked among the chips, the tortilla chips. Nothing. Up, down, back and forth. Nothing. I mean, yes: there were chips of all kinds; there were even tortilla chips of all kinds.

Just no lime-flavored tortilla chips.

But I really wanted to please and serve Valerie, and I tend to be very tenacious in situations like this. So I kept looking, back and forth, up and down, back and forth, up and down.

Then I looked in a totally different area from where all the tortilla chips were — and there it was.

If I didn't care, I would have quit earlier. If I didn't have the conviction that Walmart had to carry this kind of chip, I would have quit earlier.

Moral: The effect of these "God whispered in my ear and it worked out" stories is to encourage and validate giving up, and thus to encourage laziness.

After all, if you have the conviction that Scripture doesn't have every word you need from God, you'll look a bit... then you'll quit. If you don't see it on the shelf after a couple of glances, and your theology tells you that not everything you need is in fact on the shelf, and that there is in fact an entirely different way to get what you're looking for... done!

What's more, if you have a choice between close, hard, focused, disciplined study, and maybe the humbling experience of asking for help, on the one hand — and having God just murmur the answer directly into your ear, on the other (thus giving you the unchallengeable G-card) ... who'd choose study?

---

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.

---

Reflections on the Word in Paul's writings

by Dan Phillips

As I preach through Titus, I've taken occasion now and again to share insights gained after the event ("the event" being the sermon). Today, we'll get ahead on the curve.

I'm about to preach on Titus 1:9, Lord willing, which goes something like this: "holding fast to the faithful word according to the teaching, in order that he might be able both to urge to action by healthy instruction, and to reprove those who contradict it." It's the last in the catalog of requirements for an elder/overseer/steward. Some list it as the seventh positive requirement, but I pare it off from the focus on the leader's family-life (v. 6) and his character (vv. 7-8).

At any rate, the particular focus from v. 9 for this post is the expression "the faithful word according to the teaching." I was using BibleWorks 9 (duh!) to search for occurrences of logos ("word"). I singled out a rafter of instances. This is just one of those cases where I won't be able to preach but a fragment of what I'm seeing, unless I take fifteen sermons on that one verse — which, God love 'em, my dear folks would support, but just because I can doesn't mean I should!

So I'll take this opportunity to share a data-dump with you in fairly raw form. You fellow hardcore GreekGeeks will love it just fine as-is; everyone else can mouse-over the references. So, without further eloquence:

The term logos occurs 1569 times in Gk. Bible, 330x in NT, 84x in Paul generally, 20x in Pastoral Epistles specifically. Here are some notable (in this connection) uses in Paul:

It's half the twofold division Paul makes of his ministry:

Romans 15:18  οὐ γὰρ τολμήσω τι λαλεῖν ὧν οὐ κατειργάσατο Χριστὸς δι᾽ ἐμοῦ εἰς ὑπακοὴν ἐθνῶν, λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ,

Paul's preaching is summarized as Ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ ("the word of the cross"):

1 Corinthians 1:18  Ὁ λόγος γὰρ ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῖς μὲν ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία ἐστίν, τοῖς δὲ σῳζομένοις ἡμῖν δύναμις θεοῦ ἐστιν.

The λόγος is powerful:

1 Corinthians 2:4  καὶ ὁ λόγος μου καὶ τὸ κήρυγμά μου οὐκ ἐν πειθοῖ[ς] σοφίας [λόγοις] ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως,

The Gospel is summarized as a λόγος :

1 Corinthians 15:2  δι᾽ οὗ καὶ σῴζεσθε, τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν εἰ κατέχετε, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῇ ἐπιστεύσατε.

Paul didn't adulterate or hucksterize the word:

2 Corinthians 2:17  οὐ γάρ ἐσμεν ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ καπηλεύοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ εἰλικρινείας, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐκ θεοῦ κατέναντι θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ λαλοῦμεν.

2 Corinthians 4:2  ἀλλὰ ἀπειπάμεθα τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς αἰσχύνης, μὴ περιπατοῦντες ἐν πανουργίᾳ μηδὲ δολοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ τῇ φανερώσει τῆς ἀληθείας συνιστάνοντες ἑαυτοὺς πρὸς πᾶσαν συνείδησιν ἀνθρώπων ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ.

Paul's preaching was a word of reconciliation to God:

2 Corinthians 5:19  ὡς ὅτι θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ, μὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν καὶ θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν τὸν λόγον τῆς καταλλαγῆς.

...and of truth:

2 Corinthians 6:7  ἐν λόγῳ ἀληθείας, ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ· διὰ τῶν ὅπλων τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῶν δεξιῶν καὶ ἀριστερῶν, 

Ephesians 1:13  Ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς σωτηρίας ὑμῶν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ πιστεύσαντες ἐσφραγίσθητε τῷ πνεύματι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τῷ ἁγίῳ,

...and of life:

Philippians 2:16  λόγον ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες, εἰς καύχημα ἐμοὶ εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ, ὅτι οὐκ εἰς κενὸν ἔδραμον οὐδὲ εἰς κενὸν ἐκοπίασα.

...and of the truth of the Gospel (or this could be epexegetical, "the word of truth, the Gospel"):

Colossians 1:5  διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα τὴν ἀποκειμένην ὑμῖν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ἣν προηκούσατε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου

...and of Christ:

Colossians 3:16  Ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν πλουσίως, ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ διδάσκοντες καὶ νουθετοῦντες ἑαυτούς, ψαλμοῖς ὕμνοις ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς ἐν [τῇ] χάριτι ᾄδοντες ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν τῷ θεῷ·

...and of the Lord:

1 Thessalonians 1:8  ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν γὰρ ἐξήχηται ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου οὐ μόνον ἐν τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ [ἐν τῇ] Ἀχαΐᾳ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐξελήλυθεν, ὥστε μὴ χρείαν ἔχειν ἡμᾶς λαλεῖν τι. 

2 Thessalonians 3:1  Τὸ λοιπὸν προσεύχεσθε, ἀδελφοί, περὶ ἡμῶν, ἵνα ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου τρέχῃ καὶ δοξάζηται καθὼς καὶ πρὸς ὑμᾶς,

...and of God:

2 Timothy 2:9  ἐν ᾧ κακοπαθῶ μέχρι δεσμῶν ὡς κακοῦργος, ἀλλὰ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ οὐ δέδεται·

It is welcomed by the elect as a powerful word:

1 Thessalonians 1:5-6  ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ, καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν [ἐν] ὑμῖν δι᾽ ὑμᾶς. 6 Καὶ ὑμεῖς μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε καὶ τοῦ κυρίου, δεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ μετὰ χαρᾶς πνεύματος ἁγίου,

...indeed, as the Word of God:

1 Thessalonians 2:13  Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως, ὅτι παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐδέξασθε οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων ἀλλὰ καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς λόγον θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.

Submission to the apostolic word is a test for fellowship:

2 Thessalonians 3:14  Εἰ δέ τις οὐχ ὑπακούει τῷ λόγῳ ἡμῶν διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, τοῦτον σημειοῦσθε μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι αὐτῷ, ἵνα ἐντραπῇ·

The apostolic word should be welcomed and embraced without reservation or qualification:

1 Timothy 1:15  πιστὸς ὁ λόγος καὶ πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος, ὅτι Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἁμαρτωλοὺς σῶσαι, ὧν πρῶτός εἰμι ἐγώ. 

1 Timothy 4:9  πιστὸς ὁ λόγος καὶ πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος·

To be good servants, pastors must themselves be nourished in the words of faith and of good apostolic doctrine:

1 Timothy 4:6  Ταῦτα ὑποτιθέμενος τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς καλὸς ἔσῃ διάκονος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἐντρεφόμενος τοῖς λόγοις τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας ᾗ παρηκολούθηκας·

The activity God most values in an elder is hard work in the word and teaching:

1 Timothy 5:17  Οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν, μάλιστα οἱ κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ.

The elder is to herald that word above all, insistently and persistently, no matter what the societal prevailing winds or climate or pressures:

2 Timothy 4:2  κήρυξον τὸν λόγον, ἐπίστηθι εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως, ἔλεγξον, ἐπιτίμησον, παρακάλεσον, ἐν πάσῃ μακροθυμίᾳ καὶ διδαχῇ.

Anyone who teaches other than the apostolic word is an inflated, deluded, obsessive ignoramus:

1 Timothy 6:3-5  εἴ τις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ καὶ μὴ προσέρχεται ὑγιαίνουσιν λόγοις τοῖς τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τῇ κατ᾽ εὐσέβειαν διδασκαλίᾳ, 4  τετύφωται, μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος, ἀλλὰ νοσῶν περὶ ζητήσεις καὶ λογομαχίας, ἐξ ὧν γίνεται φθόνος ἔρις βλασφημίαι, ὑπόνοιαι πονηραί, 5  διαπαρατριβαὶ διεφθαρμένων ἀνθρώπων τὸν νοῦν καὶ ἀπεστερημένων τῆς ἀληθείας, νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν.

There is a template for reliable apostolic words:

2 Timothy 1:13  Ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαινόντων λόγων ὧν παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσας ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ·

All effort must be expended to handle it correctly, which means laziness results in handling it crookedly:

2 Timothy 2:15  σπούδασον σεαυτὸν δόκιμον παραστῆσαι τῷ θεῷ, ἐργάτην ἀνεπαίσχυντον, ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας.

The apostolic word reveals the eternal counsels of the unlying God:

Titus 1:3  ἐφανέρωσεν δὲ καιροῖς ἰδίοις τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐν κηρύγματι, ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγὼ κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ,

The elder must hold it fast, regardless the pressures to the contrary:

Titus 1:9  ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου, ἵνα δυνατὸς ᾖ καὶ παρακαλεῖν ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ καὶ τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐλέγχειν.

Unholy living brings slander to the word:

Titus 2:5  σώφρονας ἁγνὰς οἰκουργοὺς ἀγαθάς, ὑποτασσομένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, ἵνα μὴ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ βλασφημῆται.

The man who possesses that word must insist on the word being respected by believers:

Titus 3:8  Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος· καὶ περὶ τούτων βούλομαί σε διαβεβαιοῦσθαι, ἵνα φροντίζωσιν καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι οἱ πεπιστευκότες θεῷ· ταῦτά ἐστιν καλὰ καὶ ὠφέλιμα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις.

Do you see the cumulative impact of this, and how counter-cultural — indeed, how counter-evangelical cultural — it is? Does it leave you (as it does me) all the more impressed with what a catastrophe it is to dash off in pursuit of the approval of the age, what a betrayal it is, what rank unbelief it is, not only to think we have something other than the Word of God to hold forth, but (God grant us repentance!) something better?

Pastor-bros, preach the word. Sheep-bros, support churches that preach the word, and individuals who proclaim it in any venue. They're rowing against the tide. They need all the support they can get, and it's worth it.

I think doing that would revolutionize Christians globally, the church scene, the publishing and music business... and, for that matter, the blogosphere.

---

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.

---