Spiritual Gifts
Lesson 11: Spiritual Gifts
The Elephant in the Room
“We believe that some gifts of the Holy Spirit
such as speaking in tongues and miraculous
healings were temporary. We believe that
speaking in tongues was never the common or
necessary sign of the baptism nor of the filling of
the Spirit, and that the deliverance of the body
from sickness or death awaits the consummation
of our salvation in the resurrection (Acts 4:8, 31;
Romans 8:23; 1 Cor. 13:8).”
http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/
I.
Introduction
A.
B.
My experience
Why is this topic an important
matter?
1. It has been the source of
division
2. It will encourage or restrict the
use of certain gifts
3. It could greatly contribute to
evangelism
4.
5.
6.
We see these gifts in other
countries and contexts
It bears on our faith and
relationship to the Holy Spirit
There are good people on both
sides
II.
A Brief Overview
A. Pentecostalism
B. The “Charismatic Movement”
C. Notable exceptions (early Noncessationists):
1. A. W. Tozer
2. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
“I agree with the words of Martyn Lloyd-Jones,
preached in 1965:
It is perfectly clear that in New Testament times,
the gospel was authenticated in this way by signs,
wonders and miracles of various characters and
descriptions. . . . Was it only meant to be true of
the early church? . . . The Scriptures never
anywhere say that these things were only
temporary – never! There is no such statement
anywhere.” (John Piper, “Signs and Wonders, Then
and Now”)
D. The “Vineyard Movement”
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
John Wimber
Jack Deere
Sam Storms
Wayne Grudem
John Piper
Vern Poythress
E. Dan Wallace (“The Uneasy Conscience
of a Non-Charismatic Evangelical”)
III. Caught in the middle
A. Definition of Cessationists and Noncessationists
B. The Cessationist position
1.
2.
Rightly critical of excesses and
abuses among charismatics in the
realm of spiritual gifts
I’m encouraged by Dan Wallace’s
challenge to Cessationists
3.
4.
Find Non-cessationist definition of
prophecy very troubling
Nevertheless, I find Cessationist
arguments less than compelling
C. Areas of agreement with Noncessationists:
1.
2.
3.
Cessationist arguments are less
than compelling
It is difficult to know how to
distinguish between “temporary”
and “permanent” gifts – where do
you draw the line?
Sign gifts are not just to accredit
the apostles
4.
5.
6.
7.
Could these be the “last days”?
Signs and wonders reinforce the
preaching of the gospel
Some Cessationists act like they
doubt that God acts powerfully
today through His Spirit
Are we inconsistent in our
prayers for missionaries?
D. My problem with Non-cessationists
regarding their definition of prophecy
“. . . the gift of prophecy is a very different thing
than the verbally inspired speech of the apostles
and prophets who wrote Scripture. It is based on a
spontaneous revelation from the Holy Spirit, but it is
fallible and in need of sifting because our
perception of the revelation and our thought about
it and our delivery of it are all fallible.” (John Piper,
“Why the Gift of Prophecy is Not the Usual Way of
Knowing God’s Will”)
Piper on the Supremacy of Scripture:
“Let me begin by affirming the finality and
sufficiency of Scripture, the 66 books of the Bible.
Nothing I say about today’s prophecies means that
they have authority over our lives like Scripture
does. Whatever prophecies are given today do
not add to Scripture. They are tested by Scripture.
Scripture is closed and final; it is a foundation, not
a building in process.” (John Piper, “The Authority
and Nature of the Gift of Prophecy”)
My Concerns:
If “prophecies” today are to be tested by the
Scriptures, which have supreme authority,
then why would we not let these Scriptures
define prophecy?
Deuteronomy 13
Deuteronomy 18
There is much emphasis on the supremacy of
Scripture, and assurances that this new kind of
prophecy – a prophecy about which I cannot be
certain, and which may well be flawed – does
not take precedence over Scripture. Thus, I am
told, this new “prophecy” can never replace, or
revise or override the inspired revelation of the
Scriptures. But if this is so, if the Scriptures are
supreme, then why are they not regarded as
supreme in the definition of prophecy which
they give us?
It is clear that Piper himself recognizes
problems with this new definition of prophecy:
“Now I have already tipped my hand that I
think Grudem is right about the meaning of
New Testament prophecy. But I want to say
here at the outset that even if he is wrong
that this kind of thing is what New Testament
prophecy was, the experience may still be
valid, and we just should not call it the gift of
prophecy .” (Using our gifts in Proportion to Our
Faith, Part I – Oct. 10, 2004)
“We don’t need to agree on whether to call this
experience “prophecy.” (John Piper, “Using our
Gifts in Proportion to Our Faith, Part 1 – October 10,
2004)
[Notice that this is one of Piper’s late lessons on
“prophecy,” rather than one of his early (1990)
messages – after more than 10 years of reflection]
If, as Paul works very hard to demonstrate,
prophecy is the greatest gift, then why is a
new, watered-down definition of prophesy
so desirable?
If, in the last days, prophecy will again occur,
will it be the “new prophecy” of today, or
will it be the “old fashioned prophecy” of the
Bible?
Part of the uniqueness of the gift of
prophecy is that it (unlike the other gifts)
must be perfect (inspired and inerrant). If
so, then isn’t the acceptance of a new
definition of prophecy (which expects flaws)
robbing this gift of its unique contribution?
IV. My most difficult problem in 1
Corinthians:
I maintain the strictest, most conservative
definition of prophecy, and yet the epistles
(including 1 Corinthians) appear to deal with
prophecy as though it were a common,
everyday experience. How do I reconcile the
“everyday” feel of prophecy in 1 Corinthians
with the exclusive feel of prophecy in
Deuteronomy 13 and 18, and even in the
Book of Acts?
Solutions:
The epistles were written before the canon of
Scripture was closed or completed.
The apostles were still living, and their
authority was under attack.
1 Peter 4:10-11
V.
Conclusion
A. I don’t believe either view is totally
correct
B. Polarization has not been productive
C. Be grateful that both sides have moved
toward each other, and are talking
graciously
D. To Non-cessationists
1. Let the Bible be the ultimate authority
for defining spiritual gifts
2. Reject any definition which not only
fails to square with Scripture, but in fact
reverses Scripture. (If prophecy in the
Bible must be without error, then don’t
call something prophesy and then
prepare me to expect error.)
3. Don’t water down spiritual gifts.
4. Insist the gifts be exercised biblically
E. To Cessationists:
1. Be aware that strict cessationism is
saying, “We have no need of you” to
certain members of the body
2. Don’t be closed to God working
powerfully today, indeed pray and
expect that He may do so
3. How are we praying?
Copyright © 2007 by Community Bible Chapel, 418 E. Main Street, Richardson, TX 75081. This is the edited
PowerPoint Presentation in the Spiritual Gifts series prepared by Bob Deffinbaugh for November 11, 2007.
Anyone is at liberty to use this presentation for educational purposes only, with or without credit. The Chapel
believes the material presented herein to be true to the teaching of Scripture, and desires to further, not restrict, its
potential use as an aid in the study of God’s Word. The publication of this material is a grace ministry of
Community Bible Chapel.