- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostThings You Never Wanted To Know
- Next Post »A La Carte (1/29)
Review - Guidance and the Voice of God
- 01/28/07
- 68
Guidance and the Voice of God is one of several books I have read that discusses the way God speaks to and guides His children. I initially turned to these books in response to the words I hear all around me in modern Christianity. People continually ask God to speak to us in circumstances and situations. Likewise, I am often asked how God spoke to me during a period of time or perhaps during a specific event. The terms people use would seem to indicate that many of them hear audibly from God on an ongoing basis and that such revelation from God is normative for the Christian life. Yet I have been a Christian for many years and have never knowingly received a “word from the Lord” and have never had a vision, dream or whispering that I can conclusively attribute to God. Is this a matter of theology or a matter of simply not listening?
Phillip Jensen and Tony Payne, authors of Guidance and the Voice of God believe that God has spoken to us fully and finally through the Bible and that this is the only way we should expect for Him to speak to us. They make five propositions about how God guides us:
- God, in His sovereignty, uses everything to guide us "behind the scenes."
- In many and varied ways, God can speak to his people, and guide them with their conscious cooperation.
- In these last days, God has spoken to us by His Son.
- God speaks to us today by His Son through His Spirit in the Scriptures.
- Apart from His Spirit working through Scripture, God does not promise to use any other means to guide us, nor should we expect Him to.
While God has often used many supernatural means to speak to His people in former times, these are relegated to the past now that He has given us the Scriptures. While He is still capable of revealing Himself however He wishes, the way He has chosen to do so is by the Spirit working through the Scriptures. This argument is based primarily in the writings of Hebrews which provides ample support.
A good part of the book is dedicated to decision making, and the authors propose a three-fold means of determining what to do when “matters matter.” First, they speak of matters of righteousness. If the Scripture tells us explicitly what to do or what not to do, we should instantly and joyfully obey. This is a simple matter of obedience and we must realize that God will never ask us to disobey Him, for He is not the author of confusion. Second, there are matters of good judgment. When we have already determined that an action is not expressly forbidden, we may have to choose between two “right” options. The example they use is marriage - we are told that celibacy is honorable and that marriage is also part of God’s plan. So when it comes to the choice of whether or not to marry, we must evaluate ourselves, our sexual appetites and determine what the Bible tells us. These decisions rely on Biblical wisdom which can be gained only through diligently studying the Word. Finally, there are matters of triviality, which are minor matters that are not worth worrying about. Either do them or don’t, but do not concern yourself with them. Where some people become obsessed with trivialities, the authors encourage us to focus instead on the greater matters.
One important aspect of the authors’ argument involves the idea of God’s will for our lives. While many Christians today seem to believe that God has a specific plan for us that we may well miss out on if we make poor decisions, the authors show that this is not the case. God has mapped out our lives so that all our decisions will lead to the ultimate goal, which is becoming increasingly conformed to the image of Christ. We do not need to fear that one wrong decision will relegate us to a life of second best - to God’s backup plan for those who do not obey. In this view they teach that the Scripture is not to be treated like a map that will tell us when to turn left and when to turn right, but as a compass which will continually guide us in the direction of godliness.
The book concludes with three case studies which take the theory the authors have taught and seek to put it into practice. This is quite helpful as it makes the theoretical practical in at least a fictional setting.
I have a couple of concerns with the book. While the authors clearly state that other means of revelation, such as dreams, feelings, desires and external affirmations are not God's way of guiding us, they do not take a stance on what they might be. Are these Satan's ways of trying to lead us astray, or merely circumstances? I would have liked to have some teaching on what I have often heard referred to as “spiritual impressions.” Are we to interpret desires as coming from our own hearts, or does the Spirit begin to change our goals and desires as part of His guidance.
Guidance and the Voice of God is well-written and easy to understand, even for a young believer. The authors provide godly wisdom and what they share will surely allow many Christians to escape the snares inherent in thinking that we can miss out on God's will simply by laboring over decisions, but making wrong ones. I highly recommend this book which can be purchased through Matthias Media. In the same vein, I also recommend Decisions, Decisions by Dave Swavely.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (68)
Ok…Luke…if that is your real name. I accept your challenge. What about….uh…..wait I know it is in here some where (insert Bible page flipping sound)….um….ok. It is no where in the Bible, but we should believe it anyway :op
It looks like I have to agree with you Luke. If I am going to stick with Sola Scriptura that is.
Thanks for the great discussion. A timely and important one for all believers of any age.
Another resource which I don’t think has been suggested, by Bruce Walke (formerly of Regent College in BC)
“Finding the will of God: A Pagan Notion?”
Hailie,
I know a comment this long is not warranted simply from your short comment. I am really commenting on what I have seen previously and not mentioned, so please don’t take this comment as being a reaction just to your comment.
It seems like a lot of people on the internet that believe God doesn’t speak or lead His people today are quick to suggest a book to read on the subject or a preacher to listen to, but not Scripture. The very people that say we need to be guided only by the Bible are the first ones to suggest books from which we can build a system of how to discern God’s will. I am very weary of men who claim they have figured out a closed system for discerning God’s will. Anyone who suggests to you, I know exactly how to discern God’s will, I would stay very far away from. Men like to build systems that try to put everything in their perfect place, even if they have to cram a round peg in a square hole to do it. Then others like to adopt that system because it makes things easy, you don’t have to search out the Scriptures anymore, you have a system! The book you suggested sounds the least balanced of all the ones I have read about that support your position.
If I want to convince someone of Calvinism (a system I strongly believe in after writing my own 140+ page study on it [not for others, but just for myself) I take them straight to the Scriptures, why? Because it is all over the Scriptures. If I got my Calvinism from a book, I might suggest a book, but I didn’t. I know others have gotten their Calvinism from a book, and that is not wrong, but the book should not be prominent, the Scriptures should. Maybe a ways down the road I might suggest a book to someone, but it would not be the first thing I suggest. Am I saying it is wrong to suggest a book? No. But in my own life God has used the Scriptures to form my doctrine, not books by fallible men.
Books may be good to stregthen what you already believe (I mainly read the puritans, reformers, various other men from the past and other modern men I respect, even some that disagree with me on secondary doctrines I care deeply about - including this one) but they should not be the first place I go to for doctrine. In one of my previous comments I mentioned that I would like to hear what Paul Washer or Charles Leiter have to say on this subject, but only because I have already searched these things out in the Scripture on my own (not that I have exhausted the Scriptures, no one can do that, but at least I have a Biblical knowledge to work with to discern if what they are teaching is Biblical).
We live in a day where we have worldwide access to the greatest preachers (past or present); mostly this is good, but it can also be bad. It can be bad if we begin to depend more on the preachers than on the Scriptures. This can be a subtitle thing. If the first thing we do is run to a certain preacher or commentary to find out what a text means, instead of the studying the Bible ourselves and meditating on it for a good while and asking God to open our eyes that we may behold wonderful things from His law, we may be doing this. God has given elders to the church to teach the church, but at the same time even the Bereans in Acts 17:11 “received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” and they were being taught of all people by Paul!
I am not suggesting that you haven’t searched these things out on your own or that you are suggesting people go to this book first instead of Scripture, I am just saying it seems too often I hear people suggesting books before they even direct us to any Scripture. This bothers me no matter what the doctrine is.
In Christ,matt haney
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your response, though I am confused why you would apply this to my post.
1. I assumed that people were reading the Bible.
2. The book I suggested directs people to scripture.
3. Some of us aren’t smart enough to dismantle all the misconceived notions (“pagan notions” according to Waltke) that are so ingrained in evangelical churches regarding “finding the will of God” - like it was something that somehow had been lost! I have been a follower of Jesus for many years, and have been through agonizing times of indecision because I wanted to hear direction from God. This partially came from incorrect exegesis of verses such as Proverbs 3:5-6 or the assumption that God’s direct directions given to apostles are normative for all believers (there are many other examples). There are many doctrines that are ingrained in churches but are not necessarily supported by the Bible. It often takes an outside voice, for example: a friend or a book, to say to us “hey… you really need to rethink this doctrine!” The Ethiopian needed Philip to explain the scriptures to him. Not all of us have as lucid a Bible expositor at our chariot, so we need books to help us to understand. Scripture first, yes. But if anyone thinks they can understand the depths of scripture without the aid of preachers, theologians and good books, they are smarter than me.
4. I didn’t state my position, so there is no way you could know what it is or whether Waltke’s book is a good support of it or not.
5. If you have read Waltke’s book, you will find it similar to the book by Friesen mentioned above. If you think it is inferior in some way, I would be interested to know exactly why you think it is deficient.
Thanks for the discussion, Matt
Hailie
“Cessationism: Signs and Wonders (and miraculous giftings) served the sole purpose of authenticating and establishing the Apostolic message (and only Aposltes had such gifts) until the cannon was closed, once closed God has chosen to cease giving such gifts.”
I challenge anyone to find even one verse that would state any of this.
Luke or others…do you think God is still giving some as apostles today as in the first century? Why not? It is one of the gifts mentioned in 1 Cor. 12:28 along with prophets, teachers, miracles, healings and tongues.
Find me one verse in the Bible that supports the notion that the gift of apostleship has/would cease.
My point for asking this is to see how consistent my continuationist friends are being with their view that the sign gifts are ongoing (when one of those gifts is that of apostle).
Thanks.
Brian,
Thank you for the very good question. An answer to your question will take more room than I have here to give a thorough answer. But, I will give an attempt to answer it, but won’t be able to give all the necessary qualifications and defenses that would be necessary. So, this answer will not be all that can or should be said.
1. I would want to make a distinction between gifts and offices in the Church. Now, this does not answer the objection you bring, but there is sense in which there are offices or positions in the body of Christ that correspond to particular giftings, but those giftings do not necessarily equal office. For example, one might be gifted to teach, but not in the office of Pastor. 1 Corinthians 12, the passage you reference, is in its broader context dealing with spiritual gifts. Due to the close connection between office and gifting Paul is able to speak of offices in reference to the vast array of giftings in the Church.
2. It is clear that there is more than one kind of Apostle described in scripture. One no longer exist, not because the gift or office has ceased, but because the qualifications for this particular kind of Apostle cannot be attained. There is however, examples of other apostles in the New Testament who did not function in the same capacity as that of Paul or the 12.
Galatians 1:1 Paul describes his apostleship as not being mediated by or through man, but through Jesus Christ himself and God the Father. Paul did not meet the qualifications listed in Acts 2:21-22, but like the 12 was divinely commissioned in the service of an apostle. These were commissioned by God himself and no man and were given a degree of authority that no other men would have.
The giftings associated with this office have not ceased, but the qualifications for this office simply cannot be met. Acts 2:21-22 simply are impossible for us to duplicate.
On the other hand we see an example of other kinds of apostles in the NT…one example is in Philippians 2:25 where we see Epaphroditus described as one “sent (ESV)” or most literally an “apostle.” He was commissioned by Paul to represent Paul to the Philippian people. Epaphroditus had giftings that qualified him to serve a lower form of apostleship, but nontehless was himself an apostle…even R.C. Sproul would concede this, c.f. his study notes in the Reformation Study Bible in note under Galatians 1:1.
In this sense the office and giftings are still available. The danger, obviously, is that one might confuse the distinction between Paul and the 12 and other apostles, but these examples and many others show us that this is in fact the case.
Most importantly Ephesians 4:11-14 explicity, yes EXPLICITLY, teaches us that the gifts and office of Apostleship is around so long as there are immature Christians. The word “until” (ESV) in v.13 tells us of the duration of the offices and giftings listed in v.11. If we need evangelists and pastors and teachers due to our immaturity today, then we do indeed need, yes NEED, as a means of grace from God, both apostles and prophets that we might be served well.
This a very long post so I’ll finish. In direct answer to your question, apostles still exist and so also the gifts that are associated with that office. There is no contradiction here.
Hailie,
Thanks for your kind reply.
I acknowledged our need of teachers and preachers in my comment; the church would not be able to function without them. I also have a decent library of books, my wife thinks I have too many. One time when I went to a brothers house everyone watched a movie, I sat there reading one of his systematic theologies, which is always better than a movie. My point was that those who don’t believe God leads His people today can’t point people to Scripture for their position because none exists. Instead they must resort to pointing to books and systems made by men. These systems may refer to some Scripture, but largely they rest on false presumptions and systems of thought that are foreign to Scripture.
Lets consider Waltke’s tigthly closed system. He says, “The Lord provides a six-point program of supervised care in directing His elect. The order of those six steps is very important. You cannot start in the middle or skip to the end. If you want to be clear on God’s guidance for your life, you must begin with the first step, then move to the second. There is a prioritized sequence for the way He guides His saints, and it begins on the basis of Holy Scripture”
Here are Waltke’s 6 steps that MUST be done in order:
1. Read Your Bible 2. Develop a Heart for God 3. Seek Wise Counsel 4. Look For God’s Providence 5. Does This Make Sense? 6. Divine Intervention
Waltke has built a system that Scripture just doesn’t support. If you can find Bible texts that support those 6 steps and that they must be done in that exact order, I am open to changing my mind.
For Waltke to say that seeking God’s will lines up with pagan divination which is clearly forbidden in Deuteronomy 18:10 sounds like a twisting of Scripture to me. It is a straw-man arguement. Simply accuse anyone who seeks God’s will of breaking 1 Deuteronomy 18:10. A straw-man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw-man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (from wikipedia).
Waltke also says, “I think ‘laying out the fleece’ is generally a lazy man’s way to discern the will of God. It requires no work, little discipline, and almost no character development.”
It is not normative to lay out a fleece. I would think they are generally for huge decisions where you have done everything that can be done and it is down to the wire and you have to move, you can’t stay still. However, the way these authors talk in their books make me think they are against such things as a whole. They seem to like to take the edge off of everything in Christianity that doesn’t make sense to the secular scholar. There was only one time in my life that I was lead to lay out a fleece and God instantly answered it, and it was a miracle. I know other brothers who have rarely (probably only once) laid out a fleece and God clearly answered it. I can’t say what Waltke would say about that. I suspect he would say I was acting like a pagan.
By suggesting that book I think you did state your position. I hope you wouldn’t suggest a book that your convictions wouldn’t support.
In Christ,matt haney
The giftings associated with this office [apostle] have not ceased, but the qualifications for this office simply cannot be met. Acts 2:21-22 simply are impossible for us to duplicate.
Luke,
Thanks for your reply.
If the ‘giftings’ associated with the office of apostle have not ceased, then how is the gift itself manifested today? Are you saying someone today can be an apostle but just not hold the office of apostle? How does that work, and how is that consistent with the 1st century reality of God not only giving some as apostles, but giving FIRST, apostles?
Thanks.
ps. Your reference to Acts 2:21-22 for the point you make doesn’t seem to make sense. Did you intend to reference another passages other than that one?
Brian,
I accidentally put Acts 2 instead of Acts 1:21-22, which says “So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us - one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
My point, quite simply, is that this kind of Apostle cannot exist simply due to the fact that no one can meet those qualifications 2000 years past the goings and comings of our Lord. But, as stated in my previous post, it is clear that there is another kind of Apostle that functioned in the life of the Church.
In regard to the question of application today I must admit I am not qualified to delve into the specifics therein. I will give a few thoughts, but I definitely do not have the definitive answer on this.
1. Apostles being mentioned first does not necessarily mean most important or greatest authority. D.A. Carson’s Theological Exposition on 1 Corinthians 12-14 called “Showing the Spirit” gives a great discussion on the significance of order in the lists of gifts and offices. If we take it too seriously we’ll find contradicting orders of importance between epistles. So, while I would say that an Apostle would have a degree of authority, I don’t know that I would begin the dubious task of ranking.
2. It is clear that an Apostle, even apart from the 12 and Paul, have a degree of authority in the life of the Church. It appears that an Apostle has clout in Churches other than the one he is directly associated with. Even Epaphoditus seemed to have this kind of ministry to the Philippian Church.
3. Some missionaries function and work within the gifting of evangelist. Some missionaries oversee the planting of Churches and the training of Pastors. The latter go beyond that of an evangelist and serve as a leader to leaders. The very term “apostolos” can be translated as missionary, advocate, representative, etc… One merely preaching the Gospel to the lost, while vital and awesome, they fulfill the function of evangelist, not apostle. I would name some men who I believe unofficially function as apostles, but knowing their position on this subject I believe they would find it offensive to suggest that they function in this capacity.
Unfortunately, there is not a 1 Tim. 3 or Titus 1 for the office of Apostle after Acts 1, as there is for the office of pastor and deacon. I wish there was something more specific to explain the exact function and place of folks like Epaphroditus, but there isn’t. This probably says something of the importance of ranking of Elder and deacon more than the place they find themselves in a list. But, in the end we have to find a way to deal with people like Barnabus and Epaphroditus and others who are desginated as Apostles in the Bible who do not fulfill the same function as the 12 and Paul.
I am sure someone much smarter and capable than me has a lot more to say on this.
Hi Luke,
Thanks for your reply and for your honesty in handling this tough topic. I too am woefully inadequate to fully handle this subject to the fullest.
One thing I would say is that Paul does seem to provide a specific order at 1 Cor. 12:28 when he uses the words ‘first’, ‘second’, and ‘third’, and the word ‘then’ prior to each of the remaining gifts.
I do not see that type of specificity in the other verses that list spiritual gifts, and I think the way Paul lists them at this verse does hold some significance with respect to some type of order or authority, etc.
This is also problematic for Piper and Grudem when we come to prophecy, as they say teaching is above prophecy, when Paul, I think, clearly shows that prophecy has some authority or priority (specifically what, I am not prepared to defend) over teaching. Piper even acknowledges that this can and might be problematic for his own view concerning prophecy.
Thanks.
Brian,
The only objection I would pose in regard of seeing 1 Corinthians 12:28 begining a ranking of gifts is the context.
1. The immediate context both before and after seem to say that there is no ranking of gifts, period, but that all are significant to the life and health of the Church. If Paul saw us pitting the import of one gift over another after just saying what he did in the preceding verses I would want to duck and try to miss his slap.
2. The primary reason why we associate numbering with issues of significance is because of social facilitation. We watch David Letterman and listen to Casey Casem’s countdown on the radio. It is a very American, 21st Century thing, to associate numbers in a list with the significance of the subjects of the numbers.
3. The verse following in 1 Corinthians 12:29-30 shows us that Paul is not giving this list for the purpose of showing us what the most authoritative gifts are, he does it for one purpose…to show the diversity of gifts in the Church. We cannot take an argument for diversity and turn it into an argument for authority, especially when in doing so we have to abandon everything stated in v.12-27 in order to do it.
Luke,
Thanks for your comments, but you have addressed everything around v. 28 without addressing v.28 itself.
What is the significance of Paul saying that “God has appointed in the church, FIRST apostles, SECOND prophets, THIRD teachers, THEN miracles, THEN gifts of healings, helps, adminsitrations, various kinds of tongues.”
I would like for you or someone else to address this list and the significance of the FIRST, SECOND, THIRD statements from Paul.
Also, Paul does seem to indicate some type of hierarchy of gifts in v.30 when he says “earnestly desire the greater gifts.”
This does not imply one is better than the other, but cold it be that there is possibly an authoritative ordering of gifts…equal in importance, but different in how they are subject one to the other (similar maybe to the hierarchy within the Trinity…none more important than the other, but a hierarchy nonetheless, where one is subject to the other - such as the Son to the Father).
Thanks.
Brian,
Regarding your previous post I have two things to say in response:
1. In regard of v.28 in 1 Corinthians 12 I see the numbering of Apostles, Teachers, Evangelists having nothing to do with authority, but having to do with what the context tells us; there should be unity despite the array of diverse giftings. While it is not wrong to see Apostles as having a unique authority we aren’t going to be able to deduce this due to enumeration. We get this based upon other texts. My point in focusing my attention on the context is because context determines the meaning of words, phrases, and even lists. To read importance or authority in to the numbering would be the result of eisegesis. But faithful exegesis of the text would yeild minimal to no significance regarding the numbering. Numbers do not always have to be highly significant, this is one case where the context would lead us to think this.
2. Regarding 1 Corinthians 12:31. This deserves a long treatment but I will be short in my answer. The general answer is this: the “greater” gifts are not referring to those numbered in v.28. I would argue to juxtapose 12:31 and 14:1 together and to see the entirety of chapter 13 as a parenthesis between the two verses, a sort of rabbit trail if you will, but indeed it is no insignificant rabbit trail. This is both supported by context and the general concern expressed in chapter 14.
The context would completely contradict ranking gifts and pursuing gifts upon the result of such ranking. In fact, if we see that we are to pursue the greater gifts then we all should be pursuing to be Apostles. If you don’t believe this then you should be pursuing to be an evangelist and/or teacher. This is completely opposed to Paul’s overall point in chapter 12. He has just got done telling us to give greater honor to the less honorable gifts (less honorable in the sense that some APPEAR less honorable). If we are to take v.31 in relation to v.28 we will have to be a bit schitzo, do we puruse the apparently honorable according to enumeration, or do we pursue that which Paul explicitly teaches us to give honor too in the preceding verses. This confusion is not necessary for us to endure.
Chapter 14 begins with a reiteration of 12:31, though without the qualifier, “greater.” All of chaper 14 focuses on what that particular term refers to. If we read 14 faithfully we will see that the greater gifts are those gifts that effectively work to edify the Church. This is why 14:1 says, “especially prophecy” because prophecy is given for edification, consolation, and upbuilding. In other words, Paul is not necessarily pointing us toward a particular gift or office, but pointing us to a passion to build up our brethren.
Chapter 13 becomes helpful in the sense that love governs our pursuit of and desires for the gifts. Love demands that we edify and serve one another. The greater gifts are those that have this as their end. Thus, when we pursue the greater gifts we are most ardently pursuing to edify…not to be apostles!
Hope that helps…though it is insufficient.
Luke,
Thanks for your comments, but you still have not addressed v.28, choosing, instead it seems, to discount its meaning. There must be a reason for Paul to prioritize these gifts as he does here in v.28.
To read importance or authority in to the numbering would be the result of eisegesis. But faithful exegesis of the text would yeild minimal to no significance regarding the numbering.
Why? Why would seeing something significant in the way Paul prioritizes these gifts be eisegesis? You described what Paul does in v.28 as an ‘ordering’ of gifts, whereas I might describe it as some sort of prioritizing of them.
Surely you would agree that there has to be some significance to what Paul does in v.28. Why does he use the qualifiers ‘first’, ‘second’, ‘third’, and ‘then’?
Thanks.
ps. I never said the greater gifts Paul was talking about were those mentioned in v.28…only that, according to Paul, if he mentions desiring the greater gifts, then there must be some that rank differently than others in some way. Otherwise, how would some be greater than others?
Brian,
To say that the numbering has the significance you want me to see there must be an idnication either in the verse or the context to justify it. If I am missing the contextual input that warrants or demands such significance then show me. Until I see it then I must be faithful to the context. This text is about diversity of gifting, it is NOT about authority of offices in order of authority.
Until I can see something that says otherwise I have to treat the way described.
I would compare what you are doing here with what some do in 1 Peter 3:21 which says, “Baptism…now saves you…”
It says it, but the context as well as the corrolary passages won’t lead you to baptismal regeneration. We rely on context to interpret the passage. If we seperate the “now saves you” fom the context we’ll be Cambelites as opposed to orthodox people teaching justification by faith.
Just because the words are given in their particular ordering does not demand that we have to accept the implications and all become Cambelites…the context sets us in a different direction.
There is a reason why we interpret Romans 9 with the correlation to Malachai 1 and move from Jacob and Esau representing nations to them representing individuals. Most Arminians want us to take the context of Malachai 1 and move that and squeeze it into Romans 9 which is clearly talking about individuals apart from nations and force the national election into particular election. While they have an excelent grasp of Malachai 1 they fail to allow the context of Romans 9 determine the usage of the Malachai 1 passage.
My point is simple and I will digress from this post as the converstaion is not going to be much more helpful from here. We must be faithful to context and let it work to influence our interpretation of words and phrases.
Luke,Thanks for your comments. I hope I have been clear (maybe not), that I am not 100% sure or confident as to exactly what the significance of the way Paul lists the gifts in 1 Cor. 12:28 is…but make no mistake…there must be SOMETHING significant to it, wouldn’t you agree?
Otherwise, why wouldn’t he have just listed them randomly instead of saying God gave “FIRST”, “SECOND”, “THIRD”, etc.
Yes, I am saying there must be some type of significance to Paul’s prioritizing of the gifts here…and you seem to be saying there is NONE at all. That view I don’t understand.
You said the text is about diversity of gifting, and to be sure…I agree that Paul is certainly talking about that in this passage. But at the same time, he has also - in some way - prioritized some of the gifts. I find it hard to overlook that from the plain reading of this passage.
Thanks.
Not sure exactly how this conversation got so derailed, but for what its worth, I have to agree with Brian here. Whatever we conclude is the main point of the passage, and to whatever extent the gifts are prioritized or not, we simply cannot read verse 28 and say “It looks like it says there’s an order, but the context doesn’t seem to be speaking of priority, so that verse doesn’t really mean anything.” If we believe that every word of the text is God-breathed (and I certainly do), we must at the least treat this verse more carefully than simply dismissing it because it doesn’t seem to fit the context. Like it or not, it’s in the context.
With love,
Kyle
Hi, my name is Dave. I’m a Brit and I’d like to enter my thoughts on this debate. I’m basically a cessationist - I agree with an article by Vern Poythress called “Affirming extraordinary works of the Spirit within a cessationist theology” (available on his website). John Piper thinks quite highly of this article. This means that I dont dismiss charismatic experience but I would want to suggest that their understanding of it is askew. A few points…
1) There isnt actually any biblical examples of prophecy in the form of “I think the Lord might be suggesting…..”. E.g. When Agabus gives his prophecy in Acts 21 he says “Thus says the Holy Spirit…” this means that charismatic experience is not the same as in the New Testament. Charismatics can’t say “thus says the LORD” - cos if they did they would be competng with the authority of scripture (unless what theys say is actually in the bible). If they say “I think the Lord might be suggesting” - they cant provide any biblical examples of this - so…. “I think the Lord might be saying is best seen as analagous to NT experience. Sinclair Ferguson makes this point in his book “The Holy Spirit”.
2. What about 1 Cor 13 & 14?-Even on a charismatic reading of these there is still an issue of the CONTENT of prophecy. Here we should distinguish prophecy which has teaching content, circumstantial content and applicatory content. Obviously we are gonna have no new teaching content - it must be in the bible. If a propehcy has circumstantial content I think it is actually uncontroversial (see Vern Poythress) - since it is on a par with cirucmstantial knowledge we gain through natural means. Cirumstantial knowledge gained through natural means doesnt challenge the authority of scripture, neither does cirusmatntial knowledge gained through extraordinary means. Eg the bible tells me to love my father… but It doesnt tell me who my father is… To find that out I have to go to natural revelation - so I take tha bibles commandments and apply them to what I learned naturally. So I know I’m supposed to love my father (from the bible) and I apply that to my natural knowledge ( my dad is 5 ft 10, drives a Toyota, and lives in Britain)- David Jackman (Cessationist from the Proclamtion Trust) helpfully distinguishes between “the prophetic” and “Authoritive prophets”. He says there is a place today where God enmables us to speak his word (in the bible- hence Thus says the LORD) in a away that is prophetic - and that this is to be eagerly desired. This could inlude telling telling someone the gospel with God given insight into their circumstances. However, we have to say that authoritive prophets have ceased cos our only authority is scripture.
3) Listening to God is best seen as a subset of REVELATION. In the bible revelation can be normative (the ten commandments), historical (the incarnation), and subejctive (Peters own realsiation that Jesus was the Christ - Matt 18). I dont have a problem with Charimsatics claiming subjective revelation ( I think I had a dream from God once), however I do think that it has to be tested on its content. I am also opposed to views of listening to God which seem to talk about it as if it was exclusively subjective.
4) God word is always Gods word for today. Cessationists dont deny that God is speaking today - we believe that what God is saying to the church is “the words of Ezra, the words of Exodus, the words Matthew”. We dont deny that God is speaking today. God s word is always God’s word for today, cos God doesnt change.
5) Does the bible specifically teach cessationism? Well no, but then it doesnt specifically mention abortion either! Hoever the bible does say things that apply to abortion, and it does say things that apply to cessationism… such as there being no biblical prophecies in the form of “I think the Lord might be suggesting….” and that prophets were a foundational gift (ephesians 2)
5) How does God guide today?I think normally God guides by giving us wisdom (John Piper supports this, as does Sam storms). This isnt a form of deism. I believe that God gives us a subjective revelation where he helps us to discern what is wisest and godly. I believe God can give extarordinary guidance today (as in Acts 16) but I would understand these things as simply applications of the great commision.
You might find some of these things unbelievable for a cessationist - but see Poythress.
Cheers Dave