Debate: Have the New Testament Charismatic Gifts Ceased?

Have the New Testament charismatic gifts ceased? Good evening, my name is James White, I'm the moderator for our debate this evening, a debate that was initially thought up and first arranged by Confessing Baptist, and now we've gotten involved as well, and I'm very thankful for everyone who has labored to put this debate this evening, most especially to our two debaters,

Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Sam Waldron. Have the New Testament charismatic gifts ceased?

The subject of the debate this evening, obviously prompted especially at this particular point in time by the recent strange fire conference with John MacArthur and others at Grace Community Church in Southern California.

Let me introduce our debaters and how the debate is going to go, and then turn it over to them so that we can have a timely debate this evening.

Dr. Michael Brown is founder and president of Fire School of Ministry in Concord, North Carolina, and serves as a professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary, Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, Charlotte Campus, Denver Theological Seminary, and the

King's University. He holds a PhD in Near Eastern Languages and Literature from New York University, and is the author of 25 books, including

Authentic Fire, a response to John MacArthur's strange fire, to be published in December, along with scholarly publications in Old Testament, Semitic languages, and Jewish apologetics.

He is the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Line of Fire, and the TV program, Answering Your Toughest, Questions.

On the other side of the debate this evening is Dr. Sam Waldron, who is the academic dean of the Midwest Center for Theological Studies and professor of systematic theology there.

He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, Kentucky. Dr. Waldron received a

BA from Cornerstone University, an MDiv from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a THM from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a

PhD from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001, he was a pastor of the

Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books, including a modern exposition of the 1689

Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America to Be Continued, and MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto, a

Friendly Response. Dr. Waldron is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society. So we have two very capable debaters this evening to address the thesis statement,

Have the New Testament Charismatic Gifts Ceased? In the negative of that assertion is

Dr. Michael Brown. He will be going first. Both gentlemen will have a 15 -minute opening statement followed by 10 -minute rebuttals.

We will, for the sake of simplicity, keep the same order throughout the debate, so that, well, basically so that a moderator like me can keep up with things.

And so Dr. Brown will be going first, Dr. Waldron going second. So 15 -minute opening statement, 10 -minute rebuttals.

Then we will have two periods of cross -examination. I have often said this is where a debate takes place.

In the first period of time, Dr. Brown will be asking questions of Dr.

Waldron, and in the second period of time, 15 minutes each, Dr. Waldron will be asking Dr. Brown questions, and then there will be two five -minute closing statements.

Now, I recognize the fact that 90 minutes is not going to be enough time to answer every question that people are going to have.

But what we hope to have is a respectful, collegial discussion of this subject based upon the

Scriptures as the Word of God. I will be keeping track of the time, and with that,

I would like to invite Dr. Brown to prepare to give his opening statement of 15 minutes on the subject,

Have the New Testament Charismatic Gifts Ceased? Dr. Brown, your opening statement, sir.

All right. Well, thank you so much, James, Sam, for doing this tonight, and thanks for everyone who has helped to put this together.

I want to say right from the start, this is an in -house, in -family debate.

In light of all the crisis in the world and so much that's wrong in our society, we stand united in Jesus, and I hope that shines forth in everything we say.

And I'm quite sure if I got to know Sam better over a period of years, there'd be a whole lot that I could learn from him.

In setting the framework for this debate, I want to say plainly that this is a sola scriptura issue to me. What do the

Scriptures say? I am charismatic. I believe in the gifts and power of the Spirit, the

New Testament charismatic gifts being for today, because I am sola scriptura. For me, this is a matter of letting the

Word be central and authoritative. And if I'm to accept the witness of the Word and let the witness of the

Word be central and authoritative, I cannot be a cessationist. I will say plainly that there is overwhelming, explicit

New Testament evidence for the continuation of the gifts, and no explicit

New Testament evidence against it. Professor Thomas Schreiner, New Testament scholar and himself a cessationist, actually says nowhere does the

New Testament clearly teach that supernatural gifts have ceased. A Reformed pastor, Dr.

John Carpenter, says even responsible cessationists will concede the Bible doesn't teach explicit cessationism.

Scripture has no explicit cessationist statement. So if I believe the sufficiency of Scripture, how can

I use it to defend something it doesn't teach explicitly? And if the Word of God promises something or even commands something, on what scriptural basis can

I negate this or ignore it? So let's start with the ministry of Jesus for whom healing miracles, exorcism played a central role.

This was part of his foundational ministry. Matthew 4 .23, he went throughout all Galilee teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.

We see elsewhere in Mark 6, Matthew 10, Luke 9 and 10 and other passages that proclaiming the kingdom and healing the sick went hand -in -hand.

In other words, these miracles were not just impersonal acts of power announcing the in -breaking of the messianic kingdom like trumpets announcing the approach of royalty.

They were signs, meaning indicators, of the in -breaking of the messianic kingdom. This is what happens when the rule of God arrives.

And since the messianic kingdom did not leave the earth when Jesus ascended to heaven, where does the Bible say it did, there's no reason we should not expect to see the continuance of these miracles as the kingdom of God spreads around the earth, the earth culminating with its full manifestation when

Jesus returns. So we understand that there were unique elements to the miracles of Jesus. We all affirm that to establish who he was, but we also know that some of the miracles he constantly pointed to were because of the in -breaking of the kingdom of God, Satan being driven out, healing coming, deliverance coming, because that's what happens when the light shines in the darkness.

That's why Jesus constantly pointed to his miracles to confirm his messianic identity, but he refused to perform abstract acts of power, nor did he say, look,

I was walking on the water, I must be the Messiah. Now, we know that after the resurrection of Jesus, the gospel of the kingdom was preached,

Acts 8, Acts 20, Acts 28, that's how it ends, talking about Paul preaching the good news of the kingdom, and Paul speaks of the kingdom of God in the present tense, here and now, 1

Corinthians 4, 20, the kingdom of God's not a matter of words only, but of power. Romans 14, 17, the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the

Holy Spirit. What's the point? Oh, we are looking for the full manifestation of the kingdom. We pray your kingdom come.

We are awaiting, inheriting the kingdom of God, but the kingdom of God has also broken in the earth, and with that come miracles of healing and deliverance.

That's what happens when the reign of God touches areas where Satan has dominated and destroyed lives.

Also, the healings of Jesus reflect the will of God. Throughout John's gospel, he said he could only do what he saw the

Father doing, and he said, if you've seen me, you've seen the

Father. We can learn much about who the Father is by looking at Jesus. John 1, 18, famously and literally says in the

Greek that the Son exegeted the Father. Well, did Jesus go around making people sick or making them well?

When we go to minister to the sick, not to condemn those who are sick, not to say you're lacking in faith if you're sick.

We recognize some of the godliest people in the world are handicapped. We recognize that many people grow through sickness and disease, but in terms simply of the will of God and expectation, because we always want to line up with the will of God, not our own thinking, the question is, what would

Jesus do? What is the Father's will? We see it explicitly reflected in the New Testament, and in fact, it builds on and confirms that which came before.

Also, the healings of Jesus were often the result of divine compassion.

For example, Matthew 14, 14 tells us that he had compassion on the sick and healed them.

Well, if Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, if his healings reflected the will of the

Father, and we'll see continuing evidence for this in the New Testament, if they are a reflection of the compassion of God, can we simply say they were signs to confirm his messianic identity?

I had one theologian once tell me these showed who Jesus was, but who Jesus was, in terms of his essential nature, is who he is.

Can we continue to look to God with expectation that out of compassion and mercy he will heal the sick?

And if not, where does the Word tell us that? Again, sola scriptura.

This to me is not a matter of philosophy or some type of abstract theological deduction.

This is a matter of the explicit testimony of the Word. Also, in the words of Jesus himself,

John 14, 12 is programmatic and universal. Whoever believes in me,

Jesus says, words we find in St. John 6 .35, 7 .38, 11 .25, 12 .44,

12 .46, these are universal promises. Whoever believes in me will never hunger. Whoever believes in me, the

Father will testify on his behalf. These are universal types of promises. Jesus says, whoever believes in me, the works

I do will he do also, and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father and therefore will send the Spirit. And we see some of the greater works already in the book of Acts with mass conversions and things like that taking place.

Now, if we look in the immediate previous verses, we see the works he's talking about are the miraculous deeds that he was performing.

And if we look at the verses that immediately follow, verses 13 and 14, which tell us to ask the

Father and he will answer us in Jesus' name, the question is, when has John 14, 12 ever been reversed?

What explicit verses tell me that this is not as universal as John 6 .35 and 7 .38

and all of these others, which have the identical Greek phrase, whoever believes in me. Now, let's think from the angle of God's power, his dunamis, which in particular in Luke acts speaks of the miraculous power of the

Spirit. So Luke 1 .35, that points to the conception of Jesus by the power of the Spirit.

Luke 4 .14, he comes out of the wilderness in the power of the Spirit. 5 .17, the power of the

Lord is present to heal the sick. Luke 6 .19, Luke 8 .46, power comes out of him and heals people.

Then he tells his disciples, Luke 24 .49, don't leave Jerusalem until you are endued with power, dunamis from on high.

Acts 1 .8, you will be witnesses when the Holy Spirit comes and you will receive what? Dunamis.

Acts 4 .33, with great dunamis, the Apostles bore witness to the resurrection. It does not simply mean boldness, it does not simply mean abstract power, but rather miracle power.

In fact, the plural of the word is used for miracles throughout the Bible. Signs, wonders, dunamis, the mighty acts of God.

We now look in 1 Corinthians 2, and Paul says, when I came to you, Corinthians, I didn't come with enticing words of man's wisdom.

I didn't want your faith to be in the wisdom of men, but rather in the power of God. I came to you in the demonstration of the

Spirit. And then he reiterates it in 4 .20, because the kingdom of God is not a matter of words, but of power. When did that change?

When, pray tell, did the dunamis change? When did the giving of the Spirit change? Romans 1 .16

says that the gospel is the power of God to salvation. Well, if we want to say that one aspect of dunamis changed and it's not for today anymore, perhaps

Romans 1 .16 is not for today anymore. And notice that men like Stephen in Acts 6 were endued with the same dunamis and performed miracles, so it was hardly for the apostles only.

Now, as we continue looking at the giving of the Spirit, we come to a critically important passage, Acts 2 .17

and following, right up through 2 .39. It's the outpouring of the Spirit of Pentecost, shavuot, as supernatural languages are spoken, or I should say languages are spoken supernaturally.

Peter stands up and says, this is what Joel was talking about, and then he says, in the last days.

Now, the Hebrew just says, v 'akhrechen, and after this, but Peter inserts the words in the last days to tell you that this is the last days outpouring.

And it is the universal testimony of the New Testament. I doubt that there'd be any debate about that, that from the resurrection of Jesus until today, we are in the period called the last days.

The last days are marked by deception and defection, the last days are marked by great harvest, and the last days are marked by the universal outpouring of the

Spirit on all flesh, so that now sons and daughters prophesy. This is absolutely not just for the apostles.

In fact, it started with 120 and immediately spread to many, many more. This is marked by the profusion of the gift of prophecy and by dreams and visions, and this is for the last days.

And what does Peter say in Acts 2, 38 and 39 to the repentant Jewish crowd? That they will receive forgiveness of sins in Jesus and the gift of the

Spirit for the promises to you and your children and all that are far off, even as many as the

Lord our God will call, which harks back to Isaiah 59, 29, the promise of the Spirit to the succeeding generations of Israel here, given to those who put their trust in Jesus.

This is a foundationally important text because it makes clear that the prophetic gift is not just apostolic, not just for a few prophets, but now poured out on all believers, and it is for the period of the last days, and it is to you and your children and all who are far off.

Everything else in the rest of the New Testament affirms this, nothing contradicts it.

In Acts 4, 29 and 30, the apostles pray, Lord, look upon their threats, grant your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant

Jesus. Why was that an acceptable prayer now? But when we pray prayers like that today, we're told that it's now a carnival sideshow and a distraction from the gospel.

No, the signs and wonders continue to point to who Jesus is. When we come to the epistles, we see in 1

Corinthians 1, 7, Paul commends the Corinthians, you're not lacking in any gift as you wait for the revealing of our

Lord Jesus Christ. The New Testament knows of no concept whereby a new canon of scripture will be completed, after which there'll be a long gap before Jesus returns.

And even Professor Schreiner notes that a good case for the continuation of the gifts until Jesus' second coming can be made from 1

Corinthians 13, 8 through 12. And when Paul weighs out the gifts of the Spirit in 1

Corinthians 12, 7 through 12, he does not have separate categories of revelatory gifts.

He says these are for the common good, and they are not explicitly attached to the apostles in any way, shape, size, or form.

And then he says at the end of 1 Corinthians 12, now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it, and God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating various kinds of tongues.

These are all interwoven. Even if you try to separate apostles and prophets, you have teachers, miracles, gifts of healing, helping, administrating various kinds of tongues.

This is part of the very fabric of the body. And then when he gets to the end of his discussion in the 14th chapter and says, earnestly desire to prophesy and do not forbid speaking in tongues, that is an explicit command.

On what scriptural basis does someone today forbid speaking in tongues? Paul said don't forbid it.

He said earnestly desire to prophesy. On what scriptural basis is that overturned? Frankly, there is none.

1 Thessalonians 5, do not quench the spirit, do not despise prophecies, but test everything, hold fast what is good.

Where has that been overturned in scripture? It never has. It is an explicit command. If we throw out one verse, we're going to have to start throwing out others.

And then James 5, 13 through 15, praying for the sick in faith should be a normal part of congregational life.

This is for the elders, does not require a special gift of healing. In order to pray in faith, there has to be confidence of the will of God to heal.

It's in the same context as any one of you suffering, let them pray as anyone cheerful, let them sing praise.

Well, if you want to eliminate the call to pray for the sick as a regular thing with expectation for healing, you have to throw out the other verses as well.

The fact is, if we were Roman Catholic and believed in the authority of ongoing church tradition, or if we were

Mormons and had another alleged holy book, we could have an excuse to override the explicit testimony of scripture.

But since we are sola scriptura believers, we have no alternative but to accept the clear, consistent, and never contradicted witness of the word and expect the continuation of the

New Testament charismatic gifts until Jesus returns. The entire testimony of the

New Testament goes in this direction. There is nothing explicitly that contradicts it. There are explicit commands to pursue these things for the glory of God, the good of a dying world, and the good of the

Church. And as sola scriptura people who hold to the centrality of scripture, we must be continuationists and not cessationists.

All right, thank you very much, Dr. Michael Brown, for your 15 -minute opening statement right on the nose.

In fact, I appreciate that kind of accuracy in keeping the time.

Now we will hear a 15 -minute opening statement from Dr. Sam Waldron on the thesis,

Have the New Testament Charismatic Gifts Ceased? Dr. Waldron, your opening statement, please.

James, thank you for dividing line, working with Confessing Baptist to set this whole thing up.

I really appreciate that. Let me also say that I really appreciate Michael's statement.

I want to call him Dr. Brown. It was a good statement, and it proves something else that I wanted to say at the outset, and that is that one of the reasons

I think we need to have this debate is that we need to appreciate that many Charismatics are supernaturalists.

They take the New Testament seriously, and for that they are to be congratulated, and we thank

God for that. I also want to say that I'm glad Michael said nothing about the

Strange Fire Conference, because I intend to say nothing about it. I've been away on other ministry, and I have no opportunity to review what was said there, so neither want to attack or defend it.

The subject, Have the New Testament Charismatic Gifts Ceased, is also one that I'm very thankful to discuss.

I'm glad we're discussing that. I think it's the key issue in our day, not baptism of the

Spirit or the second blessing. Those are important issues, but I think this is perhaps the most fundamental.

My argument is as well not that there are no miracles in the world today.

I believe that there are miracles in the world today. My argument is that there are no miraculous gifts.

I think there's a clear and common -sense distinction between miracles and miraculous gifts.

A miracle is a one -time event. A gift is an ongoing possession of an individual marked by repeated manifestations of that gift.

My argument against the continuation of the miraculous gifts is called the cascade argument. It goes like this.

There are no apostles of Christ on earth today. Because there are no apostles of Christ, we may cogently argue that there are no prophets on earth today.

Because there are no prophets, there are no tongue speakers, and because there are no tongue speakers, prophets or apostles of Christ, there are no miracle workers.

Let me make several observations about this argument. First of all, it's grounded in the assertion, which

I hope to prove in a moment, that there are no living apostles of Christ in the world. It assumes as well that apostles of Christ were a gift to the

Church. They were an office, but they were also a gift. 1 Corinthians 12, 28 -31,

Ephesians 4, 8 -11, Christ gave gifts to men, among them apostles. This argument also assumes an important distinction between apostles of Christ and apostles of the churches.

I am only asserting that apostles of Christ are no longer alive among us.

I'm not saying that there are no such things today as apostles of the churches, or messengers, or missionaries of the churches.

This argument does not depend on whether those people whom

I'm addressing believe that there are living apostles of Christ in the world today. Many charismatics do not believe in living apostles of Christ today, but my argument does not depend on that assertion, that there are living apostles of Christ.

Rather, it poses a dilemma for charismatics. On the one hand, if they agree that there are no living apostles of Christ, then they should not be against cessationism, because they actually hold a form of it.

And this represents a fatal flaw in their argument. If they say there are no living apostles of Christ in the world today, then they are admitting that the first and greatest gift that Christ gave to the church no longer exists, and that is a form of cessationism.

And I believe that it's a loose thread which unravels their entire argument. On the other hand, if they believe that there are apostles of Christ in the world today, they are denying a clear and pervasive truth taught in the

New Testament, which I hope to show. What, then, is the evidence for the cessation of the messianic apostolate, or apostles of Christ?

Well, it consists, or is founded, first of all, on the unique marks that they possess.

Apostles of Christ, according to the New Testament, have three distinguishing marks. First, they are directly appointed by Christ, Mark 3,

Luke 6, Acts 1 -2, chosen apostles, Acts 10 -41, witnesses whom he had chosen beforehand,

Galatians 1 -1, Paul was an apostle by the will of God, and this is the meaning of that strange account of the use of the lot.

The lot was used because no human being is competent to appoint an apostle of Jesus Christ, only

Christ may appoint his apostles. The second mark of New Testament apostles is that they are physical eyewitnesses of the resurrected

Lord Jesus Christ, Acts 1 -22, 10 -39, 1 Corinthians 9 -1, am

I not an apostle, have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Third, they are able to confirm their apostolate by doing miracles in many places, but 2

Corinthians 12 -12, especially, the signs of a true apostle were done among you. As such, these apostles of Christ spoke authoritatively for Jesus Christ.

The things that I write to you, says the apostle Paul, of 1 Corinthians 14 -37, are the commandments of the

Lord. Of the sheliach, or apostle, or sent one of a man, said the ancient

Jews, is as the man himself, and this is what the apostles of Christ claims, they were as the man himself, they spoke for Jesus Christ authoritatively.

Charismatics may argue that men today possess these characteristics, but surely the burden of proof is on them to prove such an argument and to accept the consequences of such an argument, which is to say that there are men who speak authoritatively for Jesus Christ and infallibly today.

But in the second place, and mainly, I argue the cessation of the apostolate, the messianic apostolate, from the

New Testament on the basis of five different arguments. First of all, Ephesians 2 -20, the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, which is an allusion to Matthew 16 -18, where Peter is called the rock of the church, and Revelation 21 -14, where the apostles are said to be the foundation stones of the

New Jerusalem. These passages speak of the apostles as the foundation of the church of Christ.

This illustration is met historically and chronologically, and means that apostles of Christ were confined to the foundational period of church history.

1 Corinthians 15 -8 affirms that Paul, last of all, was the last one to see the risen

Christ. Last of all, he appeared to me, says the apostle Paul, and if that's true, and one of the indispensable marks and characteristics of an apostle is to have seen with their physical eyes the risen

Christ, then Paul was the last one to do so, and there are no living apostles today. 1

Corinthians 12 -31 and 14 -1 directly suggest that Christians cannot seek the gift of apostle of Christ, and thus that it is ceased.

Prophecy, it seems, is the greatest gift that may be sought. This is what Paul focuses on in 1

Corinthians 14, and in spite of the fact that he's mentioned the gift of apostle of Christ in the preceding context.

And then a fourth argument, Galatians 2 -7 -9 teaches that Paul received the right hand of fellowship from members of the original 12 apostles.

No professed apostle of Christ today in the world can receive the imprimatur of the original 12 as Paul did.

And then finally, Ephesians 2 -20 states the form of the New Testament canon as apostles and prophets.

The church is built on apostles and prophets. If there were apostles today, the canon would be open as those apostles continue to speak authoritatively for Christ.

But since all but the most extreme charismatics acknowledge that the canon is closed, this assumes the cessation of the apostolate.

And again, this all poses a dilemma for charismatics.

On the one hand, they agree that there are no living apostles of Christ. If they agree with that, then they should not be opposed to cessationism, because they actually hold a form of it.

They believe in the cessation of the first and greatest gift given to the church, and this represents a fatal flaw in their argument.

It's a loose thread which unravels the entire thing. On the other hand, if they believe that there are apostles of Christ in the world today, they are denying a clear and pervasive truth taught in the

New Testament. Also, since the New Testament links the impartation of charismatic gifts to the apostles of Christ, Acts chapter 8, this suggests the cessation of the miraculous gifts.

Now, let me go on, then, to say that this all leads to the conclusion that there are no prophets today.

And this argument goes like this. There are no prophets because, well, first of all, the cessation of the apostolate creates the presumption, or at least the possibility, that other gifts may also cease, in spite of what our brother has said.

New Testament prophets were, like the apostles of Christ, foundational to the church,

Ephesians 2 .20. The New Testament prophets were infallible. The definition of a prophet given in Deuteronomy 13 and 18 was never rescinded, and this requires infallibility on the part of prophets, then and now, if they exist in the world today.

Just as the Old Testament's authority is summarized as the prophetic word, this is the form of the

Old Testament canon. It is the prophetic word, 2 Peter 1, 19 -21, and the 12 or 13 places in the

New Testament where the Old Testament is called the Law and the Prophets, or Moses and the Prophets, so also the canon of the

New Testament is summarized in Ephesians 2 .20 as apostles and prophets.

And, by the way, the prophets in question are New Testament prophets, Ephesians 3 .5, 4 .11,

1 Corinthians 12 .28. And because there are no prophets, there are no tongue speakers.

Why? Because it was a form of prophecy. The tongue speaking of Acts 2, mentioned earlier in the passage there, is explained in the quotation from the prophet

Joel as prophecy. 1 Corinthians 14 .5 asserts the equivalence of the two gifts.

If tongues is interpreted, it's equivalent to prophecy, says 1 Corinthians 14 .5.

And then in both tongues and prophecy, the speaker is uttering mysteries, a word that is intimately associated with prophetic revelation, 1

Corinthians 13 .2, Revelation 1 .3, with 1 .20 .10 .7. Now, all of this leads to the conclusion that if there are no apostles, and thus no prophets, and therefore no tongue speakers, that there are no miracle workers today.

And, again, I come back to something that I said earlier. I am not denying that there are miracles today.

The kingdom is present, and it may be present in there being miracles today.

But there is a difference between believing in miracles and believing in miracle workers.

There is a difference between elders praying without absolute certainty that their prayers will be answered for the healing of a member of their church and the work of a faith healer.

There is a difference between those two things. There's a difference between miracles and miracle workers.

Biblical miracles are called sign, as our brother said, and what that signifies, what that means, is that they are seen as attesting the revelation brought by the miracle worker.

This is the cascade argument. No apostles creates the precedent, leads to the further step that there are no prophets, leads to the further step that there are no tongue speakers, leads last of all to the idea that there are no miracle workers, but does not lead to the conclusion that there are no miracles, and or that the kingdom is not present in the world today.

Okay, you finished there, Sam? I am. With two minutes to spare, thank you very much for your argument, and for both of you for your opening statements.

We now have a period of rebuttal. Dr. Brown will go first, he will have 10 minutes to interact with what

Dr. Waldron has said, and then Dr. Waldron will have an opportunity to respond as well.

So Dr. Brown, your 10 -minute rebuttal, sir. Yes, Sam, thanks so much for that carefully thought -out presentation.

Obviously you've looked at this and considered it over a period of time, so the fact that I will profoundly disagree point by point is no sign of disrespect in any way, but just forthright discussion so that we can all learn better and sharpen each other.

So I want to say frankly, there's no dilemma, there's no loose thread unraveling whatsoever, there's no loose thread at all, and basically what

I heard was a deduction that is not in the text. In other words, you read something into the text that is nowhere said.

For example, nowhere are the miracles tied in with apostles, only they're tied in with the Holy Spirit. Nowhere are tongues and prophecies tied in with the existence of apostles or prophets.

This is the working of the Spirit in the Church. You started with an assumption and then read that back into Scripture to undermine the consistent and explicit testimony of Scripture.

You would have thought that Paul would have said, now, I want you to really seek the gifts of prophecy, but only for a while, even though I told you you're lacking in no good gift until Jesus returns.

I want to encourage you not to forbid the speaking of tongues, but when the last of us apostles is out of here, you better be sure to forbid it, because it's either going to be counterfeit or the flesh.

No, no such thing was taught. And to reiterate points that I made, the miracles are signs of the kingdom breaking in.

That has not changed. The promises like John 14, 12 have not changed.

And Jesus said that this will happen because he goes to the Father and sends the Spirit. Acts 2 makes explicit this is now for everyone because this is for the last days.

We're in the last days. That continues not until the last of the apostles die, but until Jesus returns.

Again, the text is quite explicit on that, that tongues, prophecy, knowledge, all in part in this age will only cease when we see him face to face.

In point of fact, one of the great things that happens now in the New Testament is that anyone can potentially be used by God, not just the apostles.

They had a certain function, just like scripture has a certain function. We do not add to scripture today.

We do not have apostles the same as the 12 and their names being on the foundation stones in the new city of Jerusalem.

We understand that, but we understand also others in the New Testament are called apostles and the docket written somewhere in the second century.

There's mention made of traveling apostles and traveling prophets. There's no notion that now prophecy would cease or had somehow stopped because of that.

And again, to eliminate apostles does not eliminate the ongoing gifts.

How can we possibly deduce that from 1 Corinthians the 12th chapter? In fact, what's written there and the verses

I read earlier say the exact opposite of that. Notice again what Paul writes, now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it, and God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, various gifts, kinds of tongues.

So even again if you eliminate apostles, prophets, you have teachers, then miracles, gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.

At the end of the chapter are all apostles, are all prophets, are all teachers, do all work miracles, do all possess gifts of healing, do all speak with tongues, do all interpret, but only desire the higher gifts.

He puts teachers right in that category along with miracles and the others. If you're going to eliminate one, you have to eliminate the other.

Again, as far as canon of scripture, no one's arguing with that. Yes, we absolutely agree and I believe it's as dear to you, the authority of scripture, as it is dear to me, no question whatsoever.

But let's think of this for a moment. The New Testament gift of prophecy was there any effort to record all the words because this was somehow going to be new scripture?

Doesn't Paul say explicitly in 1 Corinthians 14 that other prophetically gifted people have to listen and wait carefully what's spoken?

Doesn't he say in 1 Thessalonians the fifth chapter that there has to be a testing of everything and a holding fast to that which is good?

Doesn't he say in Acts 2 your sons and daughters will prophesy? Where is there any idea that this now becomes equal to the national leading prophets say in Deuteronomy 18 who's going to speak in the whole nation has to comply or not?

No, now we all have the Holy Spirit. Now we're all to test what's spoken and to hold fast to the good.

So there is a change in authority that's explicit in the New Testament and apostles are just part of a team now and in fact not even on the highest rung of authority under the apostles in that sense which would be very different from the

Old Testament paradigm. And again when we look at the promises of God, where have those changed?

Where has the dunamis changed? Where has the endowment of power in the New Testament, if this could be answered explicitly it would really help, where did that change?

Where did it come with miracle working power by endowment? Where did the Spirit give prophecy and other gifts by endowment and that stopped and that changed?

Isn't it connected in Acts 2 .17 and Acts 2 .39 that the same promise of the Spirit is to you your children and all that are far off?

I need explicit testimony of scripture that this has changed. I need explicit testimony of scripture that John 14 .12

is not true. I need explicit testimony of scripture that Paul was mistaken when he said the gifts would continue until the eschaton.

I need explicit testimony of scripture that tells me that now the prayer offered in faith, we really can't offer it in faith because we really don't know what the will of God is and we can't have any expectation of healing whatsoever.

I need explicit testimony in scripture that although someone like Philip was endued with dunamis and someone like, excuse me, like Stephen was endued with dunamis and someone like Philip preaches the gospel of the kingdom and then the sick are healed and demons are exorcised.

I need explicit testimony that somehow that changed and that ended with the apostles.

And of course, as we know, as we continue to read in church history, I don't want to base this on history and I don't want to base this on experience, but as we continue to read in church history, the unbroken testimony of healing and miracles and prophetic gifts is spoken of by the early apologists, by Justin Martyr and others to point to the fact that this is the true faith and Jesus has risen from the dead.

This is how we bear witness. Indeed, he has risen from the dead and in his name these things continue.

And again, explicit testimony, they will continue until the end of the age.

To read this once again, you are not lacking in any gift as you wait for the revealing of our

Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Corinthians chapter 1 verse 7. So again, my fundamental dilemma, and with all respect for your love for the

Lord and your love for the Word, this is not a contest of which of us is more spiritual or which of us loves the

Lord more or which of us is more committed to the Great Commission. That's not the issue whatsoever.

The issue is the explicit testimony of Scripture says, seek prophecy.

Do not forbid speaking in tongues. Do not put out the Spirit's fire. The prayer offered in faith makes the sick person well and this is something that should be done with expectation.

Whoever believes in me, the works that I do, will he do also in greater works than these really do because I go to the

Father. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit is for the last days and on and on.

This is explicit. These are commands. These are exhortations and we know historically that the gifts continued after the

Apostles died and we know by scriptural testimony to expect them. And even to mention on a historical attestation level, the longer ending of Mark, which we understand is not the original ending of Mark's Gospel and we can dispute whether it should be viewed as Scripture or not, but it's widely recognized that this is at the very least an early historical testimony to the words of Jesus, widely quoted by many of the church fathers.

So I'm not getting into a debate about its authority or place in Scripture. That's a separate debate. But this much is clear.

This is quoted by the early church leaders as something that is real and ongoing in terms of these signs follow those who believe.

Why? Because the confirmation is on the resurrection of Jesus. And even a verse like 2

Corinthians 12 .12 does not limit signs and wonders to the Apostles alone.

For example, the ESV, the signs of a true Apostle were performed among you with utmost patience.

That is what he's talking about. And with signs and wonders and mighty works, that was additional confirmation.

But the signs spoken of there are not just for an Apostle, signs, wonders, and mighty works, because they happen through others in the

New Testament. Would that therefore make Stephen an Apostle? Would that therefore make Philip an

Apostle? Obviously not. And again, there's absolutely no connection between this and the fact that the gifts of the

Spirit are given freely through the New Testament, unattached to Apostles, unattached to prophets, as part of the

Holy Spirit being poured out on all flesh. That being the case, since I just switched screens and my screen froze,

James, can you tell me how much time I have left? James - 27 seconds. 27 seconds. Well, may the blessing and smile and goodness and love of God be on my friend

Sam as we continue to dialogue and debate. With that, I will give place to my esteemed colleague for his rebuttal.

Okay. Thank you very much, Michael, appreciate that. We are engaging in a debate, have the

New Testament charismatic gifts ceased? Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Sam Waldron are addressing these issues from a biblical perspective.

We are currently in now the fourth part of the debate, which is

Sam Waldron's 10 -minute rebuttal to Michael Brown. And so, Brother Waldron, your 10 minutes, sir.

Brother Waldron. Thank you, I'm back. Okay, there you go. I really appreciate

Michael's spirit and the way in which he's addressed me and addressed these issues. Of course,

I completely disagree with him, but I do, I am thankful because this has opened the door for a number of important perspectives about Scripture and the exegesis of Scripture that I think are widely understood, not only misunderstood, not only by charismatics, but by evangelicals.

In fact, I think these misunderstandings are the source of the vulnerability of many evangelicals to charismatics.

First of all, I do appreciate our brother admitting that there are no apostles of Christ today. Please, we must not then try to fog this issue up by pointing to the apostles of the churches, missionaries, and messengers of the churches.

The apostles of Christ and the apostles of the churches are two very different things, and by admitting the cessation of the apostles of Christ, I say again, our brother has admitted to a form of cessationism.

He has admitted that the first and greatest gift Christ gave to his church has ceased, 1

Corinthians 12, 28 and following, 1 Corinthians Ephesians 4, 8 -11.

I also appreciate his emphasis on sola scriptura and the closure of the canon.

Obviously, there can be no sola scriptura, no actual embrace of it, unless you have a closed canon.

But here's the point that I think our brother misses, and that many people miss.

It's not enough just to assert, kind of by fiat and without any rationale, that the canon is closed.

What I want to know, what must be answered, what cannot be evaded, and what any doctrine of this word course must answer is this, why is the canon closed?

What is the form of the canon? The Old Testament canon is called the prophetic word.

It's called Moses and the prophets. It's called the law and the prophets. The form of the

New Testament canon, the foundation of the church upon which it is built, is called apostles and prophets.

This is the form of the canon. God didn't just drop his word on golden tablets out of heaven, he gave it through certain men, through certain designated and attested men.

And so the question has to be, not just do we believe in a closed canon. I admit that our brother,

I'm glad to say, and men like Wayne Grudem and John Piper believe in a closed canon, but the issue that never seems to be faced is this, why is the canon closed?

On what basis is it closed? What closed it? And the answer to that question is that those men that were the inspired revealers of God's special revelation, those men ceased to be in the world.

Look, if the Old Testament, Moses and the prophets, had for its form, and for one of its delivery method, the sayings of prophets, the attested word of prophets, if the

New Testament was given through the apostles and prophets, you cannot at one and the same time maintain that there are prophets in the world today and the canon is closed.

Those are two inconsistent things. What Dr. Brown, what Michael needs to answer is the question, on what basis does he believe that the canon is closed?

We agree that it is. Why is it closed? One of the reasons the early church refused the modernist heir in the second century is because they refused to allow new prophets to add to the

Scriptures. But if there are prophets, then those prophets must be incorporated in the

Scripture, and the Scripture interpreted in light of those prophets and their deliverances.

And then we must not allow the issue to be obscured either, that if you say that there is a kind of prophecy today, which our brother didn't say directly, but I think he implied, that is not at the level of the infallible prophets of the

Old Testament, then I want to know, when did the definition of Deuteronomy 18 for what a true prophet is cease?

Deuteronomy 18 says that to be a true prophet, you must speak infallibly in the name of the

Lord. What you say must always come to pass. If it does not, the

Bible does not say that therefore you have a second level, a second level of prophecy where you receive it correctly and you garble it in the transmission.

No, what the Bible says is that there's either true prophets or false prophets. True prophets have to be heeded as the mouth of God.

False prophets have to be rejected. Many of the passages that our brother cited in the New Testament are simply statements to the effect of what you do with false prophets.

The notion of some broad central category that is not prophecy on the level of Deuteronomy 18, but it's not false prophecy, is a notion imported into the

Scriptures, assumed into the Scriptures by our charismatic brethren. And then another issue that I really am thankful to raise is this.

Our brother is simply missing, as do many evangelicals, the fact that John 14 to 16 and Acts 2 focuses on the apostles of Christ.

And you can't take the promise of John 14 to 12 and excerpt it from its context and then say that it has to do with every believer.

And the reason for this is that these promises of the Spirit and this whole discourse is addressed first of all to prophets.

Now I'm not asserting that there are not some things in here that apply to all Christians, that may be said of all

Christians. Of course there are. But the fact is, and it's clear from any number of places here, that these promises are addressed, and the promises of the

Spirit are addressed to the apostles of Christ. And this is clear, for instance, from John 15, 26, and 27, when the

Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the

Father, he will testify about me. A word that is the same as the word witness, and apostles were witnesses, the chosen witnesses of Christ.

He will testify about me, and you will testify also. But now notice how the passage ends.

This is not the testimony that every Christian and disciple should bear to the work of Christ fallibly, but genuinely in their lives.

No, this is a testimony that you will testify. Notice the last words of John 15, 27, because you have been with me from the beginning.

And what's true of John 15, 27 is that that passage and that promise is given only to apostles of Christ, because it's rooted in something that only apostles of Christ have.

And therefore, the other promises of John 14 -16 cannot be willingly applied to all

Christians. There has to be an important interpretive grid that looks first of all at the fact that these promises were given to apostles of Christ.

And the same thing is true of the Great Commission. Matthew 28,

Mark 16, Luke 24, and the version of the Great Commission we have in John 20 as well.

And Acts chapter 2. The people that were standing and speaking in tongues, the focus there, and it's clear if you read the passage in context, and all the versions of the

Great Commission, including Acts 1 -8, that these are not addressed to all disciples of Christ.

They are addressed to the apostles of Christ as the foundation of the Church. Now of course, the

Great Commission continues to be on to the Church. The apostles have died, and they've bequeathed that commission to the

Church. But in its original form, the promises of the Great Commission and the focus of Acts chapter 2 is not on all disciples of Christ.

It is on the apostles of Jesus Christ, and those other men and the early

Church that received the gift of prophecy with them. How much time do

I have left, brother? 49 seconds. I think that I'll continue to observe my brevity here and render the floor back to you, brother.

All right, thank you very much. All right, we have now gone through our opening statements and our periods of rebuttal, and now we have,

I think, the most interesting part of the debate, that is the cross -examination. And we have agreed that our two participants will basically be given somewhat free reign here to have conversations.

Specifically, however, in this first section, Michael Brown will be asking questions of Sam Waldron, and we will ask for fairly succinct questions and succinct responses as best as we can.

I'll keep an eye on it, and hopefully no one will start doing what some of my debate opponents have done, and that is taking up the entire period of time with one response.

That's not going to happen, I'm sure. But I'll keep an eye on it, and then after 15 minutes, I will let you know that we're changing that order, and Dr.

Waldron will have the opportunity of asking Dr. Brown questions for the last 15 minutes, and then after that, five -minute closing statements.

So with that, Michael, the floor is yours to ask questions of Sam.

Wonderful. Again, I appreciate the opportunity and the respect with which we speak to one another is not put on, it is from the heart, we are brothers in Jesus.

I do want to make plain that I never said that there are no Apostles today, I believe the Apostles of Ephesians, four

Apostles and prophets, continue to the end of the age for clarity. But let's start here. Sam, could you just give me one explicit

New Testament verse that says stop prophesying? We have verses that say seek prophecy, don't put out the

Spirit's fire, don't forbid speaking in tongues, those are explicit commands. Can you give me one explicit verse that says stop doing this, this is now reversed?

Yeah, thank you, brother, and my answer is I don't need to, because I don't believe that we base all of doctrine on the explicit testimony of Scripture.

The Westminster Confession says that we may base genuine doctrine on good and necessary consequence inferred from Scripture, and I infer that the commands of 1

Corinthians 14 .1 assume the prophecy, and when that prophecy faded out, as those who had been given it passed away and as the canon was closed, that since the canonical character of prophecy is clear, that therefore the commands of 1

Corinthians 14 .1, like many other commands of the New Testament and of the Old Testament, have now become not false, but passé, because the situation they were given in light of has passed away.

All right, now of course you understand that I find your cascade argument, with all respect, having no scriptural merit or weight whatsoever to argue against the continuation of the gifts.

Therefore, at least you're admitting and agreeing that I have an explicit Scripture backing my point, and what you have is inference that many would not agree with to try to back your point.

Let's lead to a follow -up then. Since you are equating prophecy with Scripture, and since there was a profusion of prophecy throughout the

New Testament, where is there any evidence that they tried to record all these prophecies, or that there was any thought that all these prophecies that were being spoken were somehow equivalent to Scripture?

If they would be equivalent to Scripture with the closing of the canon, where are all the prophecies that were spoken in New Testament times, and why doesn't

Paul ever say, treat them as Scripture, make sure you write them down and record them, because if it's a prophecy it has to be canonical

Scripture. Well first of all, there is a lot of prophecy in the

New Testament, in the writings of the Apostle Paul, and I would argue Mark and Luke and others who weren't

Apostles, these are the deliverances, I think, of prophets. And of course the entirety of the book of Revelation is a prophecy.

But see, your argument proves too much, because we know as a matter of fact that there were many things said by Old Testament prophets that we don't have a record of either.

But those Old Testament prophets certainly were canonical and spoke infallibly.

And so I guess my response would be this, that we don't need to have all the deliverances of prophets to believe that in principle what they said was infallible and canonical.

If infallible, then canonical. The only question was whether the Holy Spirit and His sovereign providence would preserve a certain given prophecy to be a part of Scripture.

If we know that something is prophetic, then we know that it's infallible, and in principle it's canonical for the

Church of Jesus Christ. All right, so in my view you just undermined your whole argument by saying there were

Old Testament prophets who spoke, but that wasn't all recorded, and there was no sense of conflict with it.

So the same way if New Testament prophets could speak, and it wasn't recorded as Scripture, and there was no sense of conflict, why would there be conflict once the canon is closed?

There's no competition with the canon if Scripture is recognized as unique in its revelation. I honestly don't understand how you can make this point that there can be no prophecy with the canon closed when there was much prophecy spoken that was never part of the canon.

Even if we say that New Testament prophecy has to be infallible, let's say I accept that view, in no way is it scriptural or canonical, and we know that because there were many prophecies spoken that were not put in Scripture, nor were they ever considered in competition with Scripture.

That's a misunderstanding of the gift of prophecy. I don't know what your misunderstanding is.

The whole form of the Old Testament is described as Moses and the prophets.

The reason that something was canonical is that it was prophetic. It was the utterance of an infallible prophet.

And the fact that not all of those utterances were recorded or preserved does not mean that they weren't infallible and in principle canonical.

The question you're not answering is on what basis, what's the difference, what's the rationale for the difference between the canon and prophecy today?

We just can't drop a completed canon like golden tablets out of heaven. We have to have a rationale for why that canon was closed, and the rationale is that apostles and prophets ceased to be given to the

Church. All right, so you can ask me your question obviously in rebuttal time and press me on that.

Of course I disagree when you say that prophecies in principle were canonical. What does that mean if they were not recorded in Scripture, if the

Corinthians were prophesying and this was not recorded in Scripture? What do you mean when you say in principle that was canonical?

I see no such notion attached to these prophecies in the New Testament whatsoever. So what do you mean when you say in principle it was canonical?

Well what I mean is that they were divine revelation and the Church is obliged to live in light of all divine revelation that it receives.

The fact that all of that divine revelation is not preserved doesn't mean that the Church is not obliged to obey it.

What does it mean for something to be prophetic if it's not divine revelation? If it's divine revelation, it's obligatory, and the

Church must live in light of it. Perhaps some of these prophecies were local, and the

Holy Spirit didn't see fit to preserve them for the whole Church, but that makes no difference whatsoever.

All right, of course by the same logic you're using, you've explained why prophecies continue, but let's press on.

Again, you've said you have no explicit verse contradicting the explicit verses that we do have.

So was Paul mistaken then when he clearly taught that these things would continue until the eschaton, as in 1

Corinthians 1, 7, as in 1 Corinthians 13, 8 through 12, as almost universally recognized by exegetes?

Was Paul therefore mistaken? Shouldn't he have said the time will come when none of us apostles will be around and there'll actually be something called the

New Testament, of which no one there had a concept, was now being written, and at that point it's going to stop.

So is Paul therefore fallible in what he wrote? Because he plainly says that these continue until the eschaton.

Well, let me just respond to 1 Corinthians 13 and the argument that you're giving there, and the continuations give on the basis that, first of all, it's not the universal testimony of exegetes.

I said nearly universal, just to be clear. Okay, well, let's be clear that there are many cessationist exegetes, and they're fine men and respected men that don't believe that the perfect is the second coming at all, but that they believe it's the closure of the canon.

Now, frankly, I don't agree with that approach to the passage, but another exegete who's fairly well known by the name of Richard Gaffin takes an alternative approach to the passage as well.

And the discussion of—I'm perfectly happy to discuss 1 Corinthians 13, 8 -11, but it's a passage that needs to be carefully walked through and exegeted.

The point that I'm simply going to make is that the passage doesn't say that the gifts of tongues and prophecy continue until the perfect or the coming of Christ.

They say that the products of those gifts continue, and that the passage is read carefully.

That's what it says. Love never fails, but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away.

If there are—and notice that it does not say gifts of prophecies, but it says if prophecies, they will be done away.

If tongues, they will cease. If knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

But when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. Now, your taking and continuationists take the partial to be a reference to the gifts of tongues and prophecy.

But by that reasoning, and by imperative reasoning, then the perfect would have to be a perfect gift.

If the partial is partial gift, the perfect would have to be a perfect gift. But that's not the contrast of 1

Corinthians 13 .10. The contrast of 1 Corinthians 13 .10 is between partial knowledge and perfect knowledge.

The partial knowledge that was originally imparted through gifts of tongues and prophecy, and the perfect knowledge that comes with the second coming of Christ.

Of course, the knowledge imparted by the gifts of tongues and prophecy continue with us today, but not the gifts themselves.

And I'm not asserting that the passage is clear. I'm simply saying that this passage is not clear that leaves open whether the gifts of tongues and prophecy continue today.

All it asserts is that the partial knowledge imparted by them continues to today, and it does not assert anything about the cessation of the gifts one way or the other.

Yeah, of course, Paul's already made plain in 1 Corinthians 1 .7 that the gifts would continue until Jesus returns.

And then if you look, really it's only in modern times. It's quite an exotic interpretation that to say it's pointing to the canon or it's not referring to the eschaton.

It's really a reactionary interpretation against the modern charismatic Pentecostal movement. But if you're at home with that exegesis and you want to base much on that,

I think it speaks for itself. Again, absolutely no insult intended, but let's exegete a couple of other verses.

John 14 .12, you said that this must be interpreted only with regard to the apostles, but there's a universal statement in Greek there, whoever believes in me.

It's a constant statement that you have in John. Sometimes you have whosoever in King James English with pos added.

Other times just whoever believes in me. But it's quite clear it's a universal promise to now somehow limit it there just to the apostles.

I see no exegetical grounds for that. John 15, when Jesus says, if you abide in me,

I'll abide in you, and so on, that is clearly something that any of us can take on.

On what basis do you separate this from the identical language in John 6, John 7,

John 11, John 12, something that's clearly one of the foundational ways of Jesus making a universal promise, whoever believes in me.

I now read that. On what basis can I not apply that? Well, the simple answer is

Christ is addressing his apostles here, and he is saying any one of you who believe in me can do these kind of miracles, and he's addressing apostles just as the other promises of the

Spirit throughout John 14, 15, and 16 are addressed to apostles. That's clear.

That's not exegetic. That's the original context, and it's interpreting the passage in light of the original context.

Every passage has to be taken on its own with regard to these things, but it's clear that the other promises of the

Spirit have the apostolic situation and the apostolic character clearly in mind in this passage.

I've already given John 15, 27 to prove that. All right, so the next verses in 13 and 14,

I guess you interpret the same way. So all Christians through the centuries who have interpreted that as a promise that we could go to the

Father in prayer, that no longer applies. But just because time is short, let's go to Acts 2.

You continually say this has to do with the apostles. It's actually the exact opposite. With the outpouring of the

Spirit, this is not just on the 11, but on the 120. So it's already transcended them. Peter now quotes from Acts 2, which is a promise of the universal outpouring on all flesh.

Your sons and your daughters prophesy, and it's for the period of the last days, and it's for everyone called according to Acts 2, 39.

So how in the world can you possibly limit that to the apostles? To me, that's an extreme case of eisegesis, and I noticed many of the other arguments about dunamis, kingdom, etc.

were never touched on that I raised. But this is a very, very important one that I feel is an extreme eisegesis being read into it to support your inference, which undermines the explicit testimony of Scripture.

Well, let me respond. The closing verses of Acts 1, especially of the verses that proceed in verses 22 to 21 to 26, focus on the apostles of Christ and the choosing of a replacement 12th apostle.

When Acts 2, 1 says then that when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place, the immediate contextual reference is to the apostles of Christ.

And since it was, since we are reading now about men who are, verse 14,

Peter taking a stand with the 11, raised his voice and declared to them the focus of the context, both the preceding passage is not on the 120, it's on the apostles of Jesus Christ.

Acts 2, 14's focus is on the apostles of Jesus Christ as well. And indeed,

Acts 1, 8, just to show that there is this kind of continuing emphasis on apostles,

Acts 1, 8, but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you shall be my witnesses, a word, a technical word that refers to apostles of Christ, both in Jerusalem and all

Judea and Samaria, even to the ends of the earth. This also is given directly to apostles of Christ.

It's only indirectly through the Church founded on them that it comes to Christians, and the whole book begins with this focus on the apostles of Christ.

Until the day when he was taken up into heaven, after he, by the Holy Spirit, gave orders to the apostles whom he had chosen.

The focus of Acts 1 and 2 is on apostles of Christ. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Dr. Waldron, for your responses to the questions there.

Had a little more rebuttal material in the questions than we want to have in the cross -ex, we'll leave that for the closing if we could.

So in this next 15 minutes, Sam is going to be asking questions of Michael, and 15 more minutes of cross -examination, then two five -minute closing statements at the end.

And so, Sam, your 15 minutes begins now. All right, thank you, brother, and as we continue,

I would like you to answer this question. What is the rationale for the closing of the canon?

Why is the canon closed today, and why was it not closed before the first century?

Well, it's in the wisdom of God as to when exactly it was closed. It's quite interesting that it's over a period of centuries before there's absolute agreement on the exact books that are in the

New Testament. So the closing of the canon in God's sight was different than the closing of the canon when it was fully recognized as such by the early church.

So that's a fixed thing that we look at more clearly than the early disciples of the apostles did.

But in the wisdom of God, there was certain information God wanted us to have, and at a certain point in time in the wisdom of God, that information was to be closed.

Now, even if I agreed that it had to do with in the lifetime of the last apostle as an eyewitness, that'd be fine because no one is arguing that anything is competing with Scripture.

So there was certain information, certain revelation for the long -term good of the church that God wanted included, and once that was delivered to the body in the right time, in the right place, and in the wisdom of God, that was stopped.

And then that became realized, again, over a period of time by the early church, because we know there's debate about different books and what belongs and what doesn't belong.

And you have something like Mark, for example, which was not written by an apostle, and no one claimed it was.

So it doesn't have to be written by an apostle. But again, just to reiterate, even if I agreed that it had to be in the lifetime of the apostles, whatever, there's no competition between, say, the gift of healing and the closing of the canon.

So that would be my simple answer. So did the early church have any marks of canonicity that it referred to, or was it more like golden tablets dropped out of heaven?

Could you explain what you mean by marks of canonicity? What I mean by that is, how did they recognize books that were canonical, and then reject other books that were as not canonical, even though they were written by early

Christians, say 1 Clement? Right. So you would have to either have apostolic authorship or attachment to an apostle.

Again, there's no argument about the sufficiency of Scripture. It's the sufficiency of Scripture which explicitly tells me to expect the ongoing gifts and the work of the

Spirit, and so on. Again, the Sola Scriptura issued to me. But for example, Jude, we know was not written by an apostle.

No one claimed that it was. Mark was not written by an apostle. No one claimed it was. So the questions were, initially, is it written by an apostle?

Is it attached to an apostle? Does it have that mark of divine authority? But these things are still debated.

You know, Shepherd of Hermas was considered canonical in some of the early church circles.

There were questions about some of the other books, whether they were or not. The authorship of Hebrews remains unknown.

Origen famously said, only God knows who writes it. So these were important guidelines, but ultimately it was in the sovereignty of God that these were established.

But I want to reiterate one more time. It is your inductive argument, your inferences about the

Scriptures, and that these other things are therefore in competition to the Scriptures, which makes a point of this.

Even if I said they have to be written by apostles or connected to apostles to be received as canonical, fine.

The authority of Scripture and the finality of the canon has zero to do with the ongoing manifestation of the gifts of the

Spirit, which continue until Jesus returns. But brother, you just said that you believe in the existence of apostles of Christ today.

And if there are apostles of Christ today, and one of the marks of canonicity is apostolicity, then you have to admit that in principle the canon is open, don't you?

No, of course not. Because I'm not saying that the 12 apostles exist today. I'm saying that there are others in the

New Testament already, as you know, who are also called apostles. The identical Greek word is used.

You know, it's used apostles, prophets, and the dachae. In the second century, there was no sense of competition.

And Ephesians 4 says that these things will continue until we all come into the unity of the faith.

There's nowhere where Paul separates evangelists, pastors, and teachers from apostles, prophets.

So these were to be ongoing. There was a unique calling. They're called the 11, if we notice this.

They're called the 11 in Acts, the second chapter. Peter stood with the 11. But it doesn't just say these were, quote, the apostles, period, because apostles was used for others in the

New Testament as well. Did the 12 have a unique function? Yes, we all accept that and agree with that.

But many of them also contributed nothing to Scripture as well. And we have no witness of any of their words preserved.

So their only function was not producing Scripture. Well, just a second, though.

How can you appeal to apostolic authorship in any way, shape, or form for the canon of the

New Testament, but not make a clear distinction between the apostles of Christ and other apostles, and not explain to us what that distinction is?

Well, you've made the distinction with an understanding of, we would call it, capital A apostles and small a.

But again, here's my issue. You are, again, constructing arguments that the text nowhere gives us.

The New Testament text nowhere gives us these arguments that you're making, nor does it connect ever the ongoing gifts of the

Spirit with apostolicity. And in fact, Acts 2 plainly says the opposite of what you said during your rebuttal time.

It is now the Spirit poured on all flesh. The Spirit is now poured on the 120, not just the 11.

The Spirit poured on all flesh. Your sons and your daughters will prophesy, Acts 2 .39, the promises to you and your children and all that are far off, as many as the

Lord our God will call. That is the gift of the outpouring of the Spirit with prophecy, dreams, and visions for the period of the last days.

So again, I'm fundamentally challenging the validity of your cascade argument as having any bearing whatsoever on the continuance of the gifts of the

Spirit for today. And what's interesting is having traveled in charismatic Pentecostal circles for 42 years,

I've never met a leader, a pastor, a believer, unless it was some weird messed up person, who ever thought there was any conflict or challenge to the authority of the

Scripture as God's Word, period, and ongoing gifts and continuation of the

Spirit testifying to the resurrection of Jesus. My question is not, brother, whether you believe in a closed canon, but whether you can justify it.

And on what basis you justify it and distinguish it from the ongoing gifts of the

Spirit today, but we're not making progress here, so I'm going to move on to another question. 1 Corinthians 15, 7 and 8 says, then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all is to one untimely born, he appeared to me also.

Do you agree that this teaches that Paul was the last apostle? That Paul was the last apostle in that unique sense of the word, or one of those entrusted with that revelation?

He refers to himself as the least of the apostles, sure. But Jesus has appeared to many people since then, and many

Muslims are coming to faith through this, and Jesus is being glorified through it. He doesn't say that Jesus will never appear to anyone else whatsoever, he's just talking about post -resurrection appearances with this unique calling, or physical appearances, whatever you want to call it.

But even if I say that of capital A apostles, Paul's the last of them, fine, there are others in the

New Testament also called apostles. So based on biblical language, he was not the last of people called apostles, you well know there are others in the

New Testament given that exact title, rather he was the last of the twelve who were considered eyewitnesses.

Do you believe there are people today that have the qualification of having seen Jesus our

Lord in his resurrected condition, that have that particular qualification of an apostle?

Not in that particular qualification, but again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of our debate, except by your inference.

In no way, Paul never ever connects these things. He never connects the gifts of the

Spirit given to the Corinthians to this. In fact, when he writes to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4, and the time of his departure at hand, he doesn't say, hey, there are only a few of us left, and when we're gone it all changes.

There's not a hint of it, rather, everything continues. The Great Commission is disciples making disciples.

And again, the promises to you and your children and all that are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call. So the explicit testimony of Scripture undermines the whole emphasis that you're seeking to make with the apostles played a certain role, and when they died, everything ceased.

So answer this for me, then. Do you believe that there are living apostles of Christ on earth today, yes or no?

As the New Testament defines apostles other than the twelve, of course, sure. But you don't believe there are any apostles like the twelve on earth today?

Exactly. All right, don't you hold, then, a form of cessationism? No. Why does that have to do with cessationism?

Well, apostles were a gift to the Church, and at least in some sense, some apostles have ceased to be given to the

Church. Isn't that a form of cessationism? Well, no, no more than I say that there are no first century Jews living anymore.

That's not a form of cessationism, where Jesus is no longer on the earth. What I do believe is this, that it says plainly, he gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, teachers, to equip the saints for the building up of the body of Christ until we all attain to the unity of the faith, the knowledge of the

Son of God, to mature manhood, etc. So that hasn't happened yet, and therefore I believe these are still on the earth.

But let me say this, I could say, fine, there are no apostles and prophets in the earth today, which I don't believe, but I could say that it still does not touch on the issue that everyone can potentially prophesy, because that wasn't just for prophets, that the outpouring is for the last days on all flesh, and that the gifts are to continue until Jesus returns.

So I do believe there are apostles and prophets in the earth today. I think many people would recognize them differently or call them differently, but even if I accept it, any of your argument has nothing to do with cessationism, any more than I say, yeah, there are no first century

Jews living anymore. Is that a form of cessationism? Of course not. I mean, you've just said that if you admitted that there were no apostles and prophets today, that would have nothing to do with cessationism?

Exactly. All right. Do you affirm that there are two kinds of prophecy?

Two kinds of prophecy, meaning an Old Testament prophet speaking to people who did not have the

Spirit, and now the potential of anyone in the New Testament speaking, and everyone having to judge whether it's true prophecy or not, surely, because in the

Old Testament, the people as a whole did not have the Spirit the same way. You did not have the profusion of prophecy, you did not have prophets that submitted to other leaders, they could just speak authoritatively to a king, etc.,

whereas everything functions very differently in the New Testament. And you didn't have to tell the

Old Testament Israelites don't despise prophecies in the same way, and they didn't have the ability to test except for, does the prophet's word come to pass, or does he say to follow other gods?

So now, with the profusion of gift of prophecy in the New Testament, and everyone can potentially prophesy, it has to be judged and looked at much more clearly, and then one can speak, sits down when another speaks.

Obviously, it's not a matter of, thus saith the Lord, oh, hang on, I have a word, okay, you stop, and I bring mine.

It's a matter of, let us hear what the Holy Spirit is saying, let's weigh it carefully, and then let's hold fast to that which is good, and reject that which is bad.

So you believe that there are true prophets today who sometimes get it wrong and utter false prophecies?

That's debatable, and it's really immaterial. I thought you just said that. No, no,

I'm saying because anyone can potentially prophesy that it all has to be judged. So I didn't say that about a true prophet, but this is all actually basing things on experience.

If I never heard a prophecy, if I never spoke in tongues, if I never saw anyone heal, I'd still believe what

I believe because the soul is scriptura. But in point of fact, because anyone could potentially prophesy, now everything has to be tested.

So I didn't say, in fact, that there are true prophets who speak false prophecies. I said that everything has to be tested to see who's really speaking for the

Lord or not. It's actually a theoretical debate in terms of what I believe for today or not, because we're simply looking at what

Scripture says. All right, so does the standard of Deuteronomy 18, for what constitutes true prophecy, hold today or not?

Well, it holds in terms of is it true or not. Does it hold in terms of death penalty? Of course not.

The same way 1 Corinthians 5 quotes repeatedly from Deuteronomy, which says, purge the evil from among you, meaning put the person to death.

Here it's now a matter of excommunication for persistent rebellion sin. Also, Deuteronomy 18 is speaking of the one who speaks presumptuously and speaks either in the name of other gods or declares something will come to pass.

If prophets, alleged prophets, do that today, they speak presumptuously and they speak things falsely, they should be dealt with, they should be held accountable.

There's no question about that whatsoever. So there should be a high level of accountability, but do

I believe there should be a death penalty? Absolutely not, and I do not believe that someone speaks with the same authority that everyone has to follow.

In other words, there's the absolute authority of Scripture, period, that's universal and binding for all people for all time.

Indisputable, we just have to exegete it properly as for its application. If someone brings a prophetic word, if I was convinced

I had a prophetic word for you and you were a fellow charismatic, you would then prayerfully consider it as also a believer full of the

Spirit. And by the way, even though you're non -charismatic, I look at you as a believer full of the Spirit as well. And then it would be a matter of determining what the

Spirit is actually saying, because it is not universally binding, only Scripture is. Okay. Unfortunately, we are out of our 15 minutes there.

It goes very, very quickly when you're having an excellent conversation back and forth, and I appreciate both of the participants there.

Now, we only have 10 minutes left in the debate. We are going to have five minute closing statements.

Five minutes is not a long period of time, unless the other guy's talking, then it's a very long period of time, actually. But five minute closing statements, and we're going to go in the same order.

Dr. Waldron, if you could mute your microphone during Dr. Brown's presentation, and vice versa, just remind you of that.

And Dr. Brown, five minutes for your closing statement. All right, thank you so much.

And again, I want to make plain that every time I hear Sam refer to me as brother, it's a reminder that we are brothers.

And as passionately as I differ, sir, with your arguments, I mean no disrespect. I know these are very serious arguments to you.

I know you've actually written a book about this and have talked about it. So in no way do

I want to demean the study of Scripture that you've done and your desire to esteem the uniqueness of Scripture and the uniqueness of the role of the 12 apostles.

So I stand with you in that. But I respectfully say that you are undermining

Sola Scriptura in the process and undermining the centrality of the Word and undermining the authority of Scripture, and on that level, picking and choosing what to follow and what not to follow.

So in conclusion, I want to reiterate what I feel has not been dealt with whatsoever.

And my final question is for my cessationist friends to consider, when did the coming of the kingdom change in terms of its effect?

If the kingdom of God is not a matter of words only, but of power, and that power includes miracle -working power to heal the sick and drive out demons to the glory of the name of Jesus, when in fact did that change?

Scripture is clear that it has not changed. When in fact did the revelation of the will of God through Jesus to heal and deliver change?

Why would we be so suspect today of healing in the name of Jesus, or even the expectation of healing in any normal level, whereas it's something very commonly spoken of in James, the fifth chapter, and comes to us by revelation of the will of God in Jesus.

If you've seen me, he says, you've seen the Father. That was not dealt with. And also,

I do not see how John 14, 12, 13, and 14 can be just applied to the apostles.

It is spoken to them, but there are things spoken to the Jewish crowds in John 6, which we apply to ourselves, and to the

Jewish crowds of John 7 that we apply to ourselves, and say to those at the gravesite of Lazarus in John 11 that we apply to ourselves.

Why? Because they have the words, whoever, whoever believes in me, those have been preserved in the wisdom of God for all of us.

I want to reiterate that nothing that I brought out from Acts chapter 2 was in any way undermined or even touched whatsoever.

The outpouring is on all flesh. It is absolutely not for the apostles only.

Already it was on the 120. Now your sons and daughters will prophesy. This is the thing that Joel spoke of.

When? For the period of the last days. According to 1 Corinthians 10, Hebrews 1, 1

Peter 1, James 5, 1 John 2, and other passages, we have been in the last days, even the last hour since Jesus died and rose from the dead.

It continues until the end. That's why Paul commended the Corinthians who were not lacking in any spiritual gift, waiting for the return of Jesus.

And we see plainly that these gifts given in 1 Corinthians 12 are given for the common good.

It remains an expression of the goodness of God. It remains an expression of the grace of God, the charismatic expression of the charis, the grace and empowerment of our loving

God. And this is just fundamentally a matter of Jesus being risen from the dead.

And he continues to do the same things he did on the earth because he is, in terms of his essential nature, the same yesterday, today, and forever.

And the reason that these things are done is because the Holy Spirit has been poured out. And that outpouring remains active until the end of the age.

And the Holy Spirit always glorifies Jesus. And these things that we speak about are for the glory of the

Lord Jesus. That's what's sacred to us. That's what's so important, that it's to his glory.

And this is how he's being revealed around the world today as signs, wonders, and miracles are done in Jesus' name to draw people to him.

Show me where, please, there's explicit scripture that says, no longer seek to prophesy.

Now forbid speaking in tongues. Show me the explicit scripture my esteemed brother said, there is none.

And when we think, in closing, of the many other promises that include the ongoing gifts and power of the

Spirit for today, and the manifestation of the kingdom, and the nature of the Spirit, and the fellowship of the

Spirit, and my sheep hear my voice, Jesus says, of course, he's a God who speaks and acts. He continues to do so.

We should welcome and embrace all that he is doing in the earth today. All right, thank you very much to Michael Brown, who obviously has a radio program and is used to time limits and utilization of timing devices.

And so, for our final statement of the debate this evening, I hope you have enjoyed the back and forth.

I'm sure many of you will be going back to listen to what is said at a more slower pace.

But for the final portion of our debate this evening, Dr. Sam Waldron, your five -minute closing statement, sir, thank you very much.

Thank you, brother. Thank you, Dr. Brown, for debating and confessing Baptists and dividing line for hosting this.

Thank you for your gracious spirit, brother, and it's been a delight to talk with you and to discuss these issues with you.

Let me just make several points in closing. First of all, I appreciate my brother's emphasis on the fact that the kingdom continues.

It is not still breaking in, and Satan is not still being bound.

That happened at the beginning of the gospel age. But I do appreciate his emphasis on the ongoing kingdom of God.

All I want to say is that's certainly true. We're not denying the possibility of the miraculous or miraculous healing in the world today.

We are simply denying the presence of miracle workers. We're not denying that other strange things may happen that we cannot explain or that can only be explained supernaturally.

We're simply denying that there are apostles of Christ, tongue speakers, and prophets in the world today.

And I just have to underscore that my brother has never sufficiently explained why some writings are viewed as canonical

Scripture by the Church, and why some others are not. What really needs to be examined by people that are taking this position, they really need to examine into the doctrine of the

Word, and they have to ask the question. Ask it of Scripture. Ask clearly the question, what is the form of the canon?

And if the form of the canon is Moses and the prophets in the Old Testament, and the apostles and prophets in the

New Testament, we simply cannot maintain that there are prophets of Christ in the world today without opening the canon.

And if we are going to maintain that there are prophets today, but they are not prophets as existed in the

Old Testament, or as existed in the New Testament times and wrote part of the

New Testament, then we have to admit that we really do believe in a second -level prophecy, and a split -level prophecy, and that it's possible to be a true prophet, and yet violate explicitly the commands of Deuteronomy 18, 15, and following, and the standard of what counts as prophecy, and Scriptural prophecy.

In a similar way, I would like to call upon my brother, and Charismatics everywhere, to stop turning what the

Bible makes a very clear distinction into a spectrum of things with regard to apostles of Christ.

Either there are apostles of Christ in the world today, or there are not. If you believe that there are apostles of Christ in the world today, then the canon is open, because apostles of Christ have a right to say, if anyone thinks that he's a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize the things

I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. So if there are apostles of Christ in the world today, the canon is open.

But if there are no apostles of Christ in the world today, then the first and greatest gift Christ gave to his church is ceased, and we are all then cessationists of some variety or another.

And then what I want to say in closing is this, the denial of the miraculous gifts frees us to focus on preaching the living

Word of God and the canons of the Old and New Testament. That living Word of God is self -authenticating, and it's self -interpreting.

The canon does not need modern miracles to confirm its authenticity or to interpret its meaning, and what we need to do is go back to preaching with confidence and power the written

Word of God, 1 Peter 1, 23 -25. You have been born again, not of seed which is perishable, but imperishable.

That is the living and enduring Word of God, and this is the Word that was preached to you.

Hebrews 4 -12, for the Word of God is living and active and sharper than any two -edged sword, piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit.

Luke 16 -31, but he said to him, if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded, even if someone rises from the dead.

Thank you, brother. Thank you, James. Thank you, Michael, for hosting this. All right, thank you very much,

Dr. Waldron and Dr. Brown, for your participation in this debate this evening. I hope everyone was able to hear clearly and able to understand the issues that are presented.

Obviously the recording of this will be made available pretty much immediately on YouTube, and we would encourage those who were involved, especially

Confessing Baptist, who took the lead in putting this all together, but also

I'm sure Dr. Brown and his folks will want to utilize that recording, as well as MCTS and everyone that was involved.

We want everyone to hear how this kind of topic should be handled, as far as the discussion and the means that we utilized,

I think, worked out very, very well. So I want to thank both of you for your participation this evening. Thanks to all the hundreds of people who were listening live via YouTube.