Due to the stirring discussions
among American Evangelicals regarding the charismatic gifts, created by the
Strange Fire conference, a debate was organized yesterday by Reformed Baptists,
between Dr. Michael Brown and Dr.Sam Waldron. It was sponsored by Confessing
Baptists and hosted by Alpha and Omega Ministeries. Dr. James White of AOMIN
was also the moderator. It was live streamed on youtube and you can watch the
entire debate on youtube :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFpqVPhWt2Y
Dr. Michael Brown is a Charismatic scholar
with a PhD in Near Eastern languages from New York University, the President of
Fire school of ministry, hosts a nationally syndicated radio show and is the
author of numerous books, including "Authentic
Fire : A Response to MacArthur's Strange Fire" (December 2013). Dr. Sam Waldron is a Reformed Baptist scholar
and pastor, with a PhD from Southern Seminary, the Academic Dean of Midwest Center
for Theological Studies and the author of numerous books including "To Be
Continued? : Are the Miraculous Gifts for Today?".
Both speakers are in some respect dear to me. Dr.Brown's passionate and very gracious plea for continuationism during the strange fire controversy has made him quite dear to me. He has been consistently charitable in his spirit. Dr. Waldron was at one point, one of the pastors of my most dear church in US and some of his works especially on eschatology were great blessings to me. Of the two Waldron is Reformed in his soteriology (as I am) whereas Dr.Brown is an Evangelical Arminian. However on this issue, I cannot stand with Waldron, as I believe his position is exegetically weak. Here are my thoughts on his position.
Both speakers are in some respect dear to me. Dr.Brown's passionate and very gracious plea for continuationism during the strange fire controversy has made him quite dear to me. He has been consistently charitable in his spirit. Dr. Waldron was at one point, one of the pastors of my most dear church in US and some of his works especially on eschatology were great blessings to me. Of the two Waldron is Reformed in his soteriology (as I am) whereas Dr.Brown is an Evangelical Arminian. However on this issue, I cannot stand with Waldron, as I believe his position is exegetically weak. Here are my thoughts on his position.
First a word on the debate.
Yesterday's debate was really good. It was well conducted by the Confessing
Baptists and AOMIN. Both the speakers spoke graciously and scholarly, very
prompt to keep their defenses well within their time limit. James White did a
good job moderating it and the audio and video were technically all fine. We
had 15 min opening address by both the speakers, then 10 min rebuttals by both
of them, followed by 15min cross examination by each speaker, ending with 5min
closing remarks from each of them.
Getting to the meat of the
matter, Dr. Brown presented his case from a Sola Scriptura perspective. He kept
on pointing that there are no explicit reference in Scripture to cessationism,
a fact even affirmed by some cessationists like Dr. Tom Schreiner. Thus if
authority and sufficiency of Scriptures are affirmed by us, then we have to be
continuationists. Dr. Waldron argued against it with his cascade model of
argument, which he had presented in his book on this issue "To Be
Continued?" published a couple of years ago. His argument is that all
orthodox Evangelicals believe in the cessation of the Twelve, unique Apostles
of Christ. Thus even Continuationists hold on to a form of cessationism. He did
differentiate between Apostles of Christ and apostles of the church. He does
believe the latter can exist even today. He also made a difference between
miracles and miracle workers. He believes the former can happen though the
latter has ceased. His cascade model goes like this. Since Apostles of Christ
have ceased, we can infer and deduce that prophets have ceased, as they both
are the foundation of the church according to Ephesians 2. It is because these
two have ceased that there is no infallible revelation being given today and
the canon is closed, which also explains why miracle workers have ceased, as
miracles are signs of attestation for the infallible revelation being brought
in by authoritative messengers. Since prophecy has ceased, tongues have also
ceased as tongues is a kind of prophecy, as Peter quotes Joel to show how
tongue speaking on the day of Pentecost is the fulfillment of all saints under
the new covenant prophesying and Paul says in 1 Corinthians that interpreted
tongues is equal to prophecy. Thus Dr.Waldron argues that the form of
cessationism that all Evangelicals hold on to, the cessation of the greatest
gift- Apostles of Christ, overflows to
the cessation of prophecy, tongues and miracle workers.
Dr.Brown in his response did ask
some valid questions regarding Waldron's model. However I believe more could
have been done. Here are some of my observations and criticism of the cascade
model. These are additions to what Dr.Brown did. First of all, Dr.Waldron kept
on saying that even continuationists hold onto a kind of cessationism which is
a loose thread that unravels the whole. However I would contend that there is a
difference between this kind of cessationism found in continuationists and the
cessationism of the cessationists. As Dr.Waldron himself did so well yesterday,
it can be shown exegetically and more importantly from clear statements of
Scripture that the Apostles of Christ ceased. The Twelve were unique and never
repeated. So even if the continuationists hold onto a form of cessationism, it
is based on some explicit and straightforward statements from Scripture.
However the consequences of this, as explained in the cascade model are not so.
Regarding the hermeneutics of the cascade model from this point on, was
questioned by Dr.Brown, when he asked Dr.Waldron where he finds any explicit
statements regarding the forbidding of prophecy and tongues. Dr.Waldron's
answer was he does not need to have a verse. For as the Westminster confession
says, "good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture".
Now this is remarkable to me that a confessing Reformed Baptist would quote
that phrase of the Westminster confession which our Baptist forefathers very
carefully and purposefully avoided to include in the 1689 confession of faith
(the official confession of Reformed Baptists). Baptists forefathers knew this
deduction or inference logic is precisely how peadobaptists argue for infant baptism,
without any clear explicit statement in Scripture for doing so. Why do Reformed
Baptists argue for clear, explicit statements of scripture to warrant infant
baptism, while denying continuationism which unlike cessationism has clear and
explicit warrant from scripture? Secondly, this does not mean we cannot deduce
anything from scripture. Sure we can deduce and infer from scripture, provided
we are deducing and inferring from clear passages of scripture. Any good
exegete however would agree that unlike the meaning of a text we arrive at
through exegesis, all those positions we arrive through deductions and
inferences are at best only plausible and thus cannot be held dogmatically.
Thus the cascade model's deduction of consequences of the cessation of Apostles
of Christ is at best only plausible and cannot be held dogmatically.
Now specifically regarding the
weight of these deductions, a couple of points may be raised. First, the
cascade model argues, since Apostles of Christ ceased, prophets also ceased. It
is assumed that prophecy in the New Testament refers to infallible and
authoritative revelation. Jude 3 clearly argues that the body of doctrinal
truth which makes our faith would be given at a point in history, never to be
repeated. Thus when the body of infallible and authoritative truth that makes
our faith is sufficiently given to the church, the canon is closed and the
chosen messengers ceased. All Evangelicals agree on this point that no
infallible, authoritative and doctrinal revelation is being given today. This
is what it means to believe in a closed canon. This by the way is why we
believe the canon is closed. Unlike what Dr. Waldron said, it is not closed
because Apostles ceased. Rather it is the other way around, the infallible
revelation was sufficiently given and therefore the Apostles ceased. However to
say therefore prophets also ceased has a couple of problems. It cannot be shown
that all prophecy in the New Testament was always prophecy of scripture. Many
have written volumes on it and I can only point a few scriptural reasons to
chew on it. In the epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul begins by commending them
for their love for the word of God and how they received the message of the
Apostles as the word of God. However to the same church, he has to admonish
them to not despise prophesying. If all prophesy always were the infallible,
authoritative word of God, why would a church, which obviously had much love
for the word, despise prophesying? Secondly, Paul tells in 1 Corinthians 14:37
that all prophets should recognize and submit to his Apostolic authority as the
chosen and authoritative messenger of God. If Apostles of Christ and prophets
alike gave infallible authoritative revelation of God, shouldn't Apostles and
prophets be on par in terms of their authority? Many others could be cited,
which would suggest a difference between the revelation brought by an Apostle
of Christ and a prophet. To make sense of these kind of verses , it seems we
have to understand that the Apostles of Christ were really unique and were the
only authoritative messengers of Christ, whose messages alone were infallible,
whereas prophecies in the New Testament are to be tested and be submissive to
Apostolic revelation and authority. Since a difference exists between the
revelation given by Apostles of Christ and prophets, it cannot be therefore
argued that when the unique, infallible and authoritative revelation given by
Apostles of Christ was completed, prophets and prophecies should also
necessarily cease.
It is also argued by the Cascade model that if prophecy ceases, tongues should also cease. The exegetical basis for this statement is also weak. First of all, nowhere in the New Testament does it say that the contents of prophecy and tongues are the same. In 1 Corinthians 14, prophecy and interpreted tongues are equated, not in terms of their content, but in their function of edifying the body. They are functionally equated as they edify, build up and comfort the body. Also, Paul indicates that the content of tongues is prayer, praise and thanksgiving to God (1 Cor.14:14-17). It is never a word from God as prophecy. We have no clear statements to say otherwise.
Finally, to associate miracles
exclusively with messengers of revelation is also not clear from Scriptures.
When Paul lists the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12, he lists working
of miracles as one of the gift that anyone in the body can have. Plus he lists
Apostles and miracles as separate gifts. As seen in the case of Stephen (Acts
6:8), miracles can happen through people who were not one of the chosen
authoritative spokesmen of divine revelation. Thus to say since Apostles of
Christ ceased, miracle workers have also ceased is going against these texts.
So any Evangelical who really
loves the Bible and holds tenaciously to Sola Scriptura is being challenged to
either embrace the explicit statements of Scripture like earnestly desire
prophecy, do not despise it, do not forbid tongues, that these are for the last
days extending from the day of Pentecost till the Parousia, or embrace a model
based on good and necessary deductions which at best can only be plausible. If
one is clear regarding the exegetical weight of straightforward statements in
Scripture over against that of good and necessary deductions made by exegetes,
then it is also clear which of these theological positions have better exegetical weight.
Charis kai Eirene hümēn
Charis kai Eirene hümēn
(grace and peace to you)
Jay Dharan
Jay Dharan
