Cessationist Conference with Multiple Guest Speakers | Day 2 | Afternoon

We're going to get started on our remaining evening sessions.

Would you please stand? And we're going to sing Christ our hope in life and death. What is our hope in life and death?

Christ alone, Christ alone. What is our only confidence?

That our souls to Him belong. Who holds our days within His hand.

What comes apart from His command. And what will keep us to the end.

The love of Christ in which we stand. Hosanna, hallelujah.

Our hope springs eternal. Hosanna, hallelujah.

Now and ever we confess. Christ our hope in life and death.

What truth can calm the troubled soul? God is good,

God is good Where is his grace and goodness known?

In our great Redeemer's blood Who holds our faith when fears arise

Who stands above the stormy trial Who sends the waves that bring us nigh

Unto the shore, the rock of Christ O sing hallelujah

Our hope springs eternal O sing hallelujah

Now and ever we confess Christ our hope in life and death

Unto the grave what will we sing? Christ he lives,

Christ he lives And what reward will heaven bring?

Everlasting life with him There we will rise to meet the

Lord Then sin and death will be destroyed

And we will feast in endless joy When Christ is ours forevermore

O sing hallelujah Our hope springs eternal

O sing hallelujah Now and ever we confess

Christ our hope in life and death O sing hallelujah

Our hope springs eternal O sing hallelujah

Now and ever we confess Christ our hope in life and death

Now and ever we confess Christ our hope in life and death

He will hold me fast When I fear my faith will fail

Christ will hold me fast When the tempter would prevail

He will hold me fast I could never keep my hold

Through life's fearful path For my love is often cold

He must hold me fast He will hold me fast

He will hold me fast For my Savior loves me so He will hold me fast

Those he saves are his delight

Christ will hold me fast Precious in his holy sight

He will hold me fast He'll not let my soul be lost

His promises shall last Bought by him at such a cost

He will hold me fast He will hold me fast

He will hold me fast For my Savior loves me so He will hold me fast

For my life he bled and died Christ will hold me fast

Justice has been satisfied He will hold me fast

Raised with him to endless life He will hold me fast

Till our faith is turned to sight When he comes at last

He will hold me fast He will hold me fast

For my Savior loves me so He will hold me fast

He will hold me fast He will hold me fast

For my Savior loves me so He will hold me fast

You may be seated. On your table, you probably saw some 3x5 index cards, and this was not going to be our plan to do an open

Q &A with those as we have in times past, but one of the filmmakers was given the instructions to write down a whole bunch of topics and subjects and questions for the final roundtable, and that one job he had, he dropped and didn't do it.

So we need you to fill in for him and fill out some questions. If something has been raised by the things that have been said in the presentations thus far, after my final, after the final session, which

I'm going to give here in a few moments, you can bring those cards after I'm done speaking up here to the table and drop them off right before the roundtable discussion, and then we'll do sort of, it'll be somewhat impromptu in that way and do a

Q &A. I'm going to bring the filmmakers up on the stage here in a couple of moments to introduce them, but before we do,

Peter, are you ready? Okay, we have the trailer here, and it's possible to dim the house lights when we do that.

This is the trailer of the movie that they're working on that we're here to cooperate with. If somebody has the gift of miraculous healing, surely all he needs to do is to prove it.

But let's face it, we've been battling with COVID and the so -called miracle workers went into hiding together with us.

Cessationism is the view that certain miraculous gifts that stood as signs of an apostle, speaking in tongues, healing, prophecies, interpretation of tongues, gifts like that, ceased with the apostles.

Cessationism has fallen out of favor because commitments to the authority of scripture has fallen out of favor.

Turn on Christian TV. You don't see expositors of scripture,

John MacArthur or Steve Lawson. You see Joel Osteen, Joseph Prince, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Paula White.

That's who you see because that's the mainstream. Speaking in tongues. You're going to speak out of your spirit.

Don't worry about what it sounds like. Sib -o -ra -ra -ra -ba -ka -sh. Our understanding of speaking in tongues must be guided by the scriptures, not our feelings.

They were known languages that were capable of interpretation and not everybody speaks in tongues.

If God speaks, it must be infallible, inerrant, and authoritative. And the Lord said to me, will you howl for me?

I said, don't ask me to do that, Lord. There's no longer the need for the gift of prophecy speaking forth divine revelation from God.

We have now the whole counsel of God. This word is the final word.

The apostolic gifts have gone. They were never intended for our generation. We have everything that we need from the

Holy Spirit today. It's hard to get anyone who's gone through that to come back and take a serious look at faith in Christ focused on the gospel rather than focused on these phony miracles.

That looks fun, doesn't it? The actual video won't have that clip of me in it.

It'll just be a different clip. All right, can I have the four filmmakers come up here real quick and I'm going to have you guys introduce yourselves, talk a little bit about the film that you're making, why you're making it maybe.

And just so we're clear, one, two, three, number three, he was the one who was supposed to come up with the questions.

Are we on? Hello, my name is Josh Vandermeer. I am the cinematographer for Cessationist.

I'm originally from South Africa. That's where I was born and raised and moved to the States in 2004. I'm married to my wife,

Anna, and we have three kids, live in the Louisville, Kentucky area, moved there about six years ago to attend seminary.

I lead worship at my church most weeks of the month and I think my chief desire for the film is that it would be a beautiful film.

It's unfortunate that a lot of Christian filmmaking is known for just mediocre image quality and I really want this to be a striking and beautiful film that puts no other obstacle in people's way other than the gospel itself.

So that's a little bit about me. I'm Tim Cannon. I'm from also the similar area, not

South Africa, apparently, clearly. I'm from Southern Indiana, but I was told I look like I'm from Idaho, so I think

I did okay. I've got, I am the producer of the film. David and I, and Les were the three amigos, but I am the producer of the film.

I have a wife, Lauren, with four children and one on the way, so that's five children, technically, so.

And the sound of David being run over by a Kootenai bus was pretty cool, so I appreciate that.

He totally ran him over, which is awesome. We find this film to be something that is very important and David and I, when we came up with the idea, it was like we have to make this movie.

We're only going after the biggest denomination in the world, so it's important we get it right.

So me writing the questions was contingent. Upon Jim wearing the shirt that you saw in the trailer, the yellow traffic cone shirt, which he has hanging in his office in a frame now.

My name is David Lovey. I have a son. His name is

Martin. He's named after Martin Lloyd Jones. And I'm so glad to be here.

And I just want to say I'm super grateful. All of us are super grateful to your pastor,

Jim, and to all of the speakers, and to all of you for coming here and supporting this.

We believe that this is a really important doctrine and our true hope for this film.

I know people laugh when I say it, but my hope is that it will be a catalyst for the destruction of the charismatic movement in the world.

And I believe that the material that we have gotten from the greatest theological minds in the world on this subject really is irrefutable.

And our prayer is that God is going to use this in a mighty way in this generation to bring people back to a biblical pneumatology, to a biblical understanding of God.

And so please be in prayer for the filmmakers and for the film itself to be used by God toward that end.

My name is Les Lanphier. I am the director of the movie. I live down in Florida.

I haven't been cold for many years. And thank you. I'm also a Presbyterian.

Any other Presbyterians in the audience? Oh, we got one. There's another one? Where's the other one?

No, it's just... It's not a popularity contest or anything, though. So it's fine. Presbyterians don't raise their hands.

Good, good point. I've made a couple of movies. I made a movie called

Calvinist about sort of the resurgence of Reformed theology in like sort of my generation.

That was a few years ago. And then I made Spirit and Truth, which is about Reformed worship. And now these guys came up with the idea.

And then Josh was on board. So I'm the latecomer to this party. But they asked me to help out.

The subject matter, like cessationism, I consider myself a cessationist, but I wasn't really that interested.

I'm like, I guess I'll help you guys. And then I saw the trailer and started working with the material and I sort of fell in love with it.

And now that we've been doing all these interviews, it's not only a fascinating subject, but way more important than I would have ever thought beforehand.

So I think it's going to be a pretty great movie. David's got high hopes.

The absolute destruction of a massive part of what you'd call the

Christendom today. And Netflix. He wants to win an

Academy Award, actually. He really thinks that we might win an Academy Award. Spoiler, that's not going to happen.

Thank you guys so much. Thank you so much for having us. This has been a huge blessing for us.

We're getting more content, recording interviews while we're here. And that's all because you guys have been so gracious to allow us to come.

So thank you. Thank you very much for having us. Give the microphone to my wife there. That's good. Thanks, guys.

All right. Will you please turn your Bibles to the book of... Yes. Turn your

Bibles to the book of 1 Timothy chapter 4, please. 1

Timothy chapter 4. When my wife eats a meal that consists of multiple courses or multiple items on the plate, she always sort of evenly nibbles away at every portion that's there until she gets down to the last little bit.

And she will habitually save herself a little bite of all of the things that are on her plate. And then she will always end with a thing there that tastes the best to her that she likes the most.

The reason being is because she wants that to be the last flavor in her mouth that just rings with her for the rest of however long she's going to think about that meal.

For that reason, nobody ever wants to be the last speaker at a conference like this because we know that whatever you walk out of here with, you're probably going to have what

I'm about to say as the last flavor lingering around in your mind. And given the great content that we've had so far, nobody wants to play mop -up as I get to do here this morning or this afternoon.

1 Timothy chapter 4. I'm going to read this passage and then I'll open us in prayer. Beginning at verse 6,

In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following, but have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women.

On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness, for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.

It is a trustworthy state deserving full acceptance. For it is for this we labor and strive because we have fixed our hope on the living

God who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. Prescribe and teach these things.

Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity show yourself an example of those who believe.

Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching. Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you which was bestowed on you through the prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.

Take pains with these things. Be absorbed in them so that your progress will be evident to all.

Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things.

For as you do this, you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you. Let's pray.

Our great God, it is our desire today that we would, in contemplating all that we have heard to this point, that we would meditate and reflect upon Your goodness to us in all that You have provided for us in Your Word.

You have time and again cast our affections upon Christ and made us to look upon Him and the fullness that is in Him, the sufficiency that is in Your Word, the greatness and the grandeur, the glory of the

Gospel. And so we, having reflected on these things for these last many hours, our hearts are full, and we pray now that You would fill them even fuller with a further appreciation for Your Word and for Your truth.

Help us to think clearly and precisely regarding who You are and what You have said so that we may honor

You as You have prescribed that You would be honored and that You would be glorified and receive the glory that You are due for all of Your good provision for us in Christ, in whose name we pray.

Amen. What I'm about to do is not give you an exposition of the passage that we just read, and I say that so that you know that I know that I'm not doing an exposition.

So this is a little out of keeping. It's going to be somewhat similar to what John did in that I'm going to be trying to take the concepts and the ideas that we have had laid out here in this conference and bring them all together.

It's my job with the last session to kind of tie a bow of sorts on what we have gone through to really answer the question, why do we care about this issue?

This conference has had a purposeful and a very discernible structure. If you've been observing, you may have noted what it is that we have done and how we have done it.

We started out in part one by defining cessationism, and Kevin did that by laying for us a good foundation of what it is that we're talking about and what it is that we are not talking about.

We sought to answer, he did I should say, some of the common misunderstandings of the doctrine of cessationism.

And then Justin gave us an overview of some of the false teachers and leaders inside of the charismatic movement in its more modern resurgence in the late 1800s and early 1900s, some of whose doctrines and practices and teachings and followers still influence continuationists today.

Then in part two, we took a more theological approach as we approached the New Testament to show that the

Scriptures themselves in the way that they describe the miraculous gifts, particularly and singularly the gift of miracles, shows that they had a specific purpose and that purpose is connected to the giving of revelation.

And if miracles are common, then they're not miracles. They're just another day that ends in why. It's just the ordinary way that God works, business as usual.

And then Dan and John presented more of a theological approach to answering the charismatic issue.

John from the perspective of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Dan from the perspective of the doctrine of the sufficiency of the

Son. And then with part three, John Sampson kind of kicked us off with a real life example of one who was steeped in the continuationist error, but whose mind and practice was changed by the

Word of God and by understanding sound doctrine and particularly hermeneutics. Now there are a number of other presentations that could have been given throughout the course of this conference.

And inevitably that will be the critique that will be raised by many who will watch these sessions either on the live stream or later on if they're ever published online.

They'll watch these sessions and they will say, well, you didn't explain tongues thoroughly. You didn't explain exactly what a word of knowledge was.

What is the gift of discernment? You didn't explain how it is that those things are continuing revelation.

You didn't define them. You didn't explain this experience. Or my great aunt's uncle had a missionary friend, brother, who went to the mission field and he had this happen and you didn't answer how that could possibly happen.

Well, fair enough. And to those who would raise that objection, you're right. We haven't answered everything.

It's not intended to be a comprehensive treatment of this subject. It couldn't be a comprehensive treatment of this subject.

So if that would be anybody's criticism, then I would just say, congratulations, Columbo, you figured out that not all of the errors of the charismatic movement can be answered in two days.

And that's a true statement. There are a lot of errors and a lot of things that we could have addressed that we are not addressing.

Now in this final session, I want to answer the question, why do we care about this? Is it really that big of an issue?

Why would we put so much effort, so much energy, so much work and study? And for those who have funded the movie project and for those who have been involved in the movie project, it's a lot of money that is involved in flying these men into a conference like this and bringing them into one location and then doing the filming and the editing.

The time, the energy, the money, that is a big expenditure. So why would we do that? The men who are here who have presented at this conference are committed to the doctrine of cessationism.

And it's not something that we hold to in a casual way or in a quasi -serious fashion. We think this is important and we care deeply about it.

We have all been involved in making this project in some way or another. We have done the interviews and prepared for this week and each of us has prepared a session on top of preparing for the interviews.

They've prepared sessions to share with you while they're here. And so we might ask the question, we obviously care about this, but why?

And somebody could raise the objection, aren't there greater, bigger, theological, and cultural, and societal issues for the church to address?

And the answer to that is, yeah. And we don't shy away from addressing those things. But just because there are bigger theological issues does not mean that this one is not a big one.

And just because the church is facing greater threats and greater theological errors does not mean that this is not a significant one that ought to be addressed and needs our time and our attention.

It doesn't mean that this issue does not have far -reaching theological implications that work themselves out in the everyday lives of people who hold to some of the continuationist doctrines.

I do not believe that the cessationist, continuationist theology is an essential issue.

And by that I mean it is not a gospel issue. You are not going to hell just because of your view of spiritual gifts.

That is not what sorts the sheep from the goats. And we're not making that claim. And please don't misunderstand what we're saying.

We're not saying that this is an eternal, destiny -determining issue like justification by faith or the deity of Christ or the resurrection of Christ, because that's not our claim.

I don't question the faith or the salvation of my well -meaning brothers and sisters in Christ who are continuationists, who

I think have an aberrant view of the spiritual gifts. I don't question their sincerity, their love for the

Lord, their genuineness, their desire to serve and honor Christ. I have a number of friends who would not agree with me on the issue of the continuation of the cessation of the miraculous gifts of the

New Testament. But that doesn't keep me from being friends with them. I still love them. I still pray for them.

I have done ministry with them as far as our common ground is able for us to go. And we have had, don't be shocked by this, non -cessationists who would not agree with me on every nuance of spiritual gifts take this pulpit and preach from time to time.

They don't preach on that subject, but they have taken the pulpit and they have preached from time to time.

All of this is to say that this is a non -essential issue, but it is important, and I think it's very important.

This is a secondary issue, but of all the non -essential and secondary issues, this subject of cessationism is always bumping up against the bottom of the top -tier issues, looking as if it has ambitions to become a first -tier issue.

And that is because this issue lies at the heart of answering the question, what does it mean to live the

Christian life? And while I'm starting here with a couple of disclaimers of sorts, let me offer just one more.

I know that not every non -cessationist is open to all of the criticisms that we have raised here.

I think it was Dan who said that continuationism or charismatic theology exists on a spectrum, and that is true.

There are mild charismatics, which I'm going to address here in a few moments, and then there are the extreme charismatics on the other side of that.

We understand that there is a continuum of sorts upon which the different charismatic manifestations lie.

Some are more extreme than others. But I can already anticipate that one of the critiques of this conference will be the charge that we have painted with too broad of a brush because this is a standard charismatic response.

You're just painting with too broad of a brush. For instance, if I say that the charismatics and the continuationists are far too slow to identify the wolves, the charlatans, the hucksters, the liars, the false teachers, and the grifters in their midst, which they are far too slow to do that, and there are plenty of them in their midst.

As Justin said last night, charismatic theology is a breeding ground for some of the worst heretics that walk the

Christian scene today. That's not to say, again, that all charismatics are the extreme heretics, but it is to say that they find a warm welcome inside of that theological camp.

But if I point that out, then one of the immediate rejoinders will be, well, no, that's not true. That's not true because I had a pastor one time 20 years ago who was not a card -carrying cessationist who was able to identify

Kenneth Copeland as a false teacher. Therefore, what you're saying about that particular criticism does not ring true of him.

Therefore, it's not true across the board. You're painting with too broad of a brush. They think that if they can find one lone exception or even a small handful of exceptions, that that disproves the rule.

That's how the charismatic disclaimer game works. But that is not how this works at all. Ideas have consequences.

And just because you can find one person or even a small group of people where bad ideas have not come to full bloom in their lives does not mean that the bad ideas are not bad ideas, and it doesn't mean that the bad ideas do not have serious and deleterious effects upon their

Christian life. To illustrate, since 1937, almost 1900 people have jumped off the

Golden Gate Bridge and only 35 have survived the impact with the water below. But none of us would say that jumping is no big deal because we can identify a few survivors.

Would we? No. Setting aside those survivors, you would be well justified to say that jumping off the

Golden Gate Bridge is foolhardy, wicked, evil, stupid, and it will certainly result in your death.

And it would be foolish for somebody to point to the lone survivor and say, well, it didn't result in his death, therefore it must not be a bad idea.

This is the game that charismatics play. It doesn't seem to affect his life. He's not a wingding.

He's not an extremist. He's not a false teacher, and he holds to these doctrines. And so we need to make a distinction between the extremes of this movement and what is taught there and those who are affected by it.

Not everybody is going to be affected by these bad ideas to the same degree. So yes, it is in this vein that I will paint with a very broad brush because I believe that though it is not an all -inclusive brush,

I do believe that this doctrine and these issues that I want to point out this morning are very broadly true of those in the continuationist and charismatic movement, those who embrace non -cessationist doctrines.

So, why do we care? I said earlier that of all the non -essential issues that we could talk about, this one has the most profound implications.

This is a most important of secondary doctrines because it touches on the issue, answers the question, what does it mean?

How is it that we live the Christian life? This issue is at the heart of the proper understanding of the person and the work of the

Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit seals us, each and every believer. He is the indwelling, sanctifying presence of God in the life of the

Christian. Our experience of God, our tasting of divine realities are communicated to us by the

Holy Spirit. The work of God and the believer through His Word is mediated to us through the Holy Spirit.

The empowering of the believer for service, the strengthening of the believer against indwelling sin and temptation, and the partaking of the believer in the divine nature come to us through the person of the

Holy Spirit. So, it is important that we get that right. This is the means by which we experience

God in our day -to -day life. And if our doctrine of what that means and what that looks like is off, then our experience of God is not going to be biblical to the degree that we get these issues right or wrong.

So, really we are discussing the work of the Holy Spirit. What does He do for the believer? If we are to hold firmly to the conviction that God has inspired

His Word and that it is authoritative and inerrant and infallible and complete and sufficient for all of life and godliness, then the only consistently doctrinal position, the only doctrinally consistent position is the cessationist position.

It is my contention that the continuationist position, sorry, the only doctrinally consistent position is the cessationist position.

I think I said that wrong. It is my contention that the continuationist perspective undermines the authority of Scripture in the life of the believer, the centrality of Scripture in the life of a believer, and the sufficiency of Scripture in the life of a believer.

Now listen carefully. This is not what the continuationist intends. He does not intend to undermine the authority of Scripture.

He doesn't intend to undermine the centrality of Scripture or the sufficiency of Scripture in the life of the believer.

I don't believe it is their intention to outright deny these things, but whether they intend it or not, that is the logical consequence.

And if you believe that God continues to give revelation today, then that belief cannot help but insinuate itself into your view of Scripture and into your view of divine revelation, including your view of the written

Word of God. If God speaks today outside of Scripture, then that cannot help but undermine your view of Scripture.

And I want to show you today that the belief in continuationism inevitably must affect one's view of the written

Word of God. Now I'm not going to focus on tongues. I'm not going to focus on miracles. I'm not going to focus on healing, words of knowledge, or any of the other sign gifts or the gifts that the seven speakers here today would contend have ceased.

I'm going to focus on one practice, the issue of receiving private revelations apart from and outside of Scripture.

That's my focus. Now here's another charismatic shell game that happens in situations like this.

If I take one of these particular issues and focus on it and go deep on it to show the errors and the problems with it, then they would say, okay, well yeah, that's all good and fine, but you didn't address healing, you didn't address miracles, you didn't address all these other things, and therefore it's okay.

You haven't tipped over the charismatic house of cards as it were because you didn't deal with everything else. But if I don't focus in and we zero out and we just deal with all of these things broadly speaking, then the criticism is, yeah, you might have said a whole bunch of things, but none of those things convinced me because you didn't go deep on any one of those particular things.

This is the shell game and how it's played. That's not how this works. So what I want to do is

I do want to focus in on an aspect of continuationism that is present and practiced, embraced and loved and defended by people in cessationist churches.

It is the practice of hearing the voice of God through still small voices, promptings, nudgings, impressions, signs, circumstances, etc.

You see, you can be in a cessationist church. Call it a Baptist church where the pastor would get up front and he would say, look, we're against all them charismatics.

I don't know why I had to do that southern accent. We don't like all those charismatic craziness that goes on. We're not charismatics.

We reject that. That's false doctrine. Those people are false teachers. Meanwhile, that same pastor will teach his people that you can hear the voice of God through the still small voice, the nudging, the prompting, the impression, and that to make decisions like who to marry, what house to buy, where you should live, what ministry to give to, etc.,

that you should wait until God reveals that to you through a sign or through an inner voice.

However fallible you might admit that that is, however subjective you might admit that that is, that is, in fact, a belief in continuing revelation.

If you think that that is how God speaks to you, you are not a cessationist. And the difference between you and Benny Hinn is one of degree, not one of substance, because you have adopted his presuppositions.

You have adopted his view of divine revelation. And the little steps that you will take between where you're at now and Benny Hinn, at no point can you give a theologically consistent argument that would keep you from adopting all of his theology.

So, I want to deal with an issue of continuationism that plagues and has infiltrated otherwise cessationist churches.

It is my contention that continuationism in this regard undermines the authority of Scripture, the centrality of Scripture, and the sufficiency of Scripture in the life of the believer.

Now, really, this has to do with the nature of what divine revelation is. I believe I'm probably speaking to a group of people, all of whom,

I would be willing to bet, all of whom believe that the 66 books of Scripture are inspired, that they are authoritative, that they are inerrant, and that they are infallible.

I'm not going to ask you to raise your hand. I'm going to assume that if you are here at a cessationist conference in a church for two days that you would affirm those doctrines.

We affirm that these things, that these 66 books are given to us by God by inspiration, that they are authoritative, that they cannot err, and that they are without error.

And it's my conviction that any true believer instinctively understands this. This is the instinctive, natural position of a born -again believer in Christ.

They affirm these things about God's written truth. But while most Christians would affirm these things, very few take the second -level step of asking themselves, why do

I believe that that is true of Scripture? Why do I believe that the 66 books are authoritative, inerrant, inspired, and infallible?

Why should we regard those 66 books as inspired? Because others have said so? Do we regard them as inspired because the church has always seen them as to be inspired?

Is it just because most Christians have always viewed it that way? Or is it because the books are old? Why should we regard them as authoritative?

Because others have said that they are authoritative? Do we regard these books as authoritative because when they are translated into the

Queen's English, they sound really authoritative and special and Shakespearean? Is that why we regard them as authoritative?

Why should we believe that they are inerrant and infallible, that is, without error and unable to err? These books were written by fallible and fallen human men, sons of Adam, men of the dust, just as we are.

They were the vehicles through which that revelation came. So why do we regard those books as infallible and inerrant?

What gives these 66 books these qualities that sets them apart from every other writing on the planet?

What makes Scripture authoritative, inerrant, and infallible? Is it because this revelation is written down?

See, those who hold to a continuing revelation today, they would say, I get my prophetic still small voice,

I get my whisper, my divine impression, my thought ringing between my ears, but I want to make sure that you understand that that's not the same as Scripture.

Scripture is the written Word of God. This is the language that they will use. I know this because I spent two years reading almost exclusively their books on this subject.

That's the written Word of God. That's not the same as the prophetic voice that comes into my heart and to my mind.

It's not on the same par as Scripture. Scripture is over here. Scripture is out there. This is the inner voice of God.

So it's not the same. And so the average person sitting in the pew, hearing the still small voice whispered in their consciousness who equates it to be

God's revelation, would never say that it is in fact divine revelation on par with Scripture.

In fact, most of them would be very uncomfortable with any attempt to make their personal and private revelations equate

Scripture in terms of authority and inerrancy or infallibility. But, if we take their private revelation and we write it down, does not the

Word of God in the mind then become a written Word of God? And once it is the written Word of God, do we regard it as canonical?

In other words, what gives Scripture that quality of being inspired, authoritative, and inerrant? Is it the fact that it is simply written down?

Or is it the fact that Scripture is old? It just happens to be an old revelation. It sort of stood the test of times.

Even the most recent New Testament book is 1 ,900 years old. So why do we regard those writings that are authoritative in Scripture?

Why do we regard the writings of Scripture as authoritative? Is it just because those books happen to be old?

Or, do we regard them as infallible and inerrant because of the men to whom that revelation was given?

Is it because the Word of God came to prophets and apostles that we regard that as authoritative and inerrant?

So why does Scripture have these qualities? Is it because it's written down? Is it because it's old?

Or is it because of the men to whom it came? I would submit to you that that which gives Scripture these qualities is not anything outside of Scripture in terms of recipient, time, or mode.

Scripture is inspired. Scripture is inerrant. Scripture is authoritative. Not because it is old.

Not because of to whom it came. And not because it is written down. But because of its source. That's it.

That is what gives Scripture those qualities. Its source. It comes from Yahweh.

It comes from God. Age, mode, and recipients are irrelevant factors in determining whether a revelation is authoritative or inerrant.

Scripture is authoritative not because it is written down, but because God gave it. It's inerrant not because it is old, but because God gave it.

It is infallible not because it came through apostles and prophets, but because God gave it. That is what gives it those qualities.

If a revelation comes from God, it cannot be anything but authoritative, inerrant, and infallible.

It must be because God, when He speaks, speaks authoritatively always. And it must be that because God speaks when

He speaks, He speaks inerrantly always. And He speaks infallibly always. God cannot fail.

He cannot not succeed in what He sets His mind to do. Therefore, if He speaks,

He speaks to be obeyed. If He speaks, He speaks with clarity. He speaks and is able to be heard.

And He speaks inerrantly and infallibly. He cannot err, and He cannot make a mistake, and He cannot fail.

And that means that the recipients of Scripture, apostles and prophets, if God spoke it, they could not misunderstand it.

They could not get it wrong. And they could not fail to hear Him. Because God is able to ensure not only that the revelation that He gives is clear, but that the revelation that He gives is able to be understood by those to whom

He gives it, because He intends for it to be obeyed and listened to. There's not a single point in all of Scripture where somebody thought they heard the voice of God, but weren't sure about it.

Where they had to test it. Think about it. Weigh it out. Confirm it in some other means.

Consult the inner voice. All of that is nonsense. Now along comes the continuationist who claims to be hearing the

Word of God, and who claims to be receiving divine revelation, even prophecy and words of knowledge and personal direction.

You know, just your average hearing the voice of the shepherd kind of stuff from John 10. And we would challenge them and say, well, the revelation that you're given then, or that you're getting, must be on par with Scripture.

And the continuationist would quickly demur and say, no, no, no, that's the voice of God to me, in my mind, that is not the written

Word of God, and these two things are not the same. But I ask you this, how is that possible?

How is that possible? How does God speak authoritatively on this occasion, and on this occasion, nah, not so much.

How is it that He can speak infallibly here, and then err over here?

He cannot. God cannot do that, because He cannot fail to be understood.

He cannot fail to be heard by those to whom He is speaking. If He intends to speak,

He can communicate absolutely clearly. So there can be no such thing as a non -authoritative revelation from God.

There can be no such thing as an errant communication from God. And there can be no such thing as a fallible revelation from God.

If a revelation comes from God, it must have the same qualities of Scripture. And the continuationist wants to affirm the authority of Scripture, while also believing that God sometimes speaks in a non -authoritative way.

But this is inconsistent. It's a theologically inconsistent position to say that Scripture is authoritative, but other times that God speaks, it's not authoritative, it's not inspired, it's not inerrant, and it's not infallible.

And if that is your view of divine revelation, and listen, Scripture gives no quarter to that idea or that philosophy of revelation.

No quarter to it whatsoever. There is no category of revelation from God that is errant and fallible and non -authoritative.

That category of revelation does not exist. And since that category of revelation does not exist, it is inconsistent to say that the

Word of God is authoritative and has these qualities, must be obeyed, but what He speaks to me does not equal this in terms of the qualities.

Listen, the written Word of God has those qualities again, not because it's written, not because it's sold, not because of whom it was given.

It has those qualities because of its source. And if the private revelation that pops into your head is from God, then it must have those same qualities as well.

But only the most ardent and extreme continuationist would make that statement.

Most of your average little old ladies sitting in the back view of the Baptist church who's waiting to hear from God as to which missionary to give her money to this month, she would never suggest that the idea that pops into her head that she's been told is the voice of God is in fact on par with Scripture.

But if we suggest that God will sometimes speak authoritatively and at other times non -authoritatively, then this cannot help but introduce the possibility that maybe

Scripture itself contains some non -authoritative portions. How do you know that they got it right?

How do you know they got it right? Just because they wrote it down? That doesn't guarantee anything, does it? How do you know it's authoritative?

Were you there? You weren't there. You couldn't talk to those people. You can't make that judgment call.

So what makes you think it is authoritative? Continuationists will say that sometimes modern revelation just gets it wrong.

This moves on from the authority issue to really inerrancy of Scripture. Modern continuationists will say sometimes the revelation is just wrong.

Matt Chandler, you've probably seen that very famous clip of him talking about the pirate ship dream that he had and giving the revelation to somebody else.

He exegeted the whole dream he had about a pirate ship. And he introduces that whole clip by saying, he's doing this in front of his entire congregation by the way, on a

Sunday morning. He introduces that entire clip by saying, now listen, this is not to say when we hear God speak like this, that this is on par with Scripture.

Scripture is the written Word of God, authoritative, inerrant. That's over here. That's sealed. That's stopped up. Then Chandler says, the best thing that we can say to somebody else when

God is giving this revelation is to say, I feel, I sense, I kind of get the gist that God might be saying this through me to you.

You know, that's the kind of language Moses used, right? That's what you read in the prophets all the time. Hosea is saying,

I've got a sense that this is what God is going to say to Israel today. It's not how

God speaks. But what Chandler does in that clip, what Chandler does in that sermon, is he introduces to his people two different views of revelation.

He might get it wrong if he gives you a dream about a pirate ship being chased by sharks. That may or may not come out.

We'll just have to see how that works out. That might not be revelation at all. But Chandler says we should be open to that.

We should welcome that into the church. We should use that as a means of encouraging one another. We should receive that, he says, as revelation and pass that on to other people in best hopes that maybe

God might use that in some way to encourage someone else. This undermines the uniqueness of Scripture.

For it suggests that God is not able to ensure that He is infallibly understood. That He is not able to guarantee infallible communication.

Is it God's intention to be understood? And if it is, is He hampered or hindered by the recipients of the message, the fact that we get it wrong?

The authors of Scripture, they were fallible people too. They weren't perfect. Yeah, they had the office of apostle and prophet.

But if these men who also made mistakes, if they could get it wrong and we can get it wrong, then how do

I know that what God said to them, they got right? Unless the only reason I can know that they got it right is because it comes from God.

And He can ensure that the message is received, that the message is understood, and that it is communicated accurately.

How do I know that the authors of Scripture got it right? Now some people, continuationists, will say, well, the authors of Scripture, we know that they got it right because God authenticated their message with signs.

Oh, really? Do signs continue today? Well, yeah, they would say. Okay, then the revelation that is given today then must be what?

Just as authoritative as Scripture. So you either take the entire ball of wax or you take none of it.

I suggest that you take none of it. The continuationist theology of revelation undermines our confidence in the authority of Scripture, the inerrancy of Scripture, because it makes

Scripture's qualities dependent on something other than the fact that it comes from God.

And I could make the same argument for infallibility and inspiration, but I don't need to. Scripture provides no category for a revelation from God that is not authoritative, inerrant, and infallible because God is not trying to communicate.

He is not trying to get a message to us. He is not trying to reveal anything. God does. God does not try.

Watch for a book with a similar subject coming soon. The non -cessationist does not intentionally try to sow the seeds of doubt regarding the

Word of God. They're not necessarily maliciously or nefariously attempting to compromise these doctrines concerning the

Word of God. They're simply being inconsistent. Second, the continuationist view undermines the centrality of Scripture in the life of a believer.

The continuationist view of ongoing revelation outside of Scripture undermines the centrality of Scripture because they believe that God meets us in His Word, but they also believe that God gives us

His Word outside of Scripture. And therefore, if we believe that God has given to us in His Word all the precious promises, all the comfort and encouragement and direction and exhortations and rebukes that you and I need to live holy and consistent and God -honoring lives, then we must honor

Scripture above anything else, and we cannot allow for any kind of a revelation outside of Scripture that might remove from the centrality of our lives the written

Word of God. We can never overemphasize the centrality of Scripture for the life and well -being of the believer.

And while a continuationist would affirm these statements, that Scripture is central and all the continuationists that I have read want to give a hat tip to that doctrine and say that this doctrine of the centrality and the sufficiency and the authority of Scripture, this is central.

This is what it means to be a Christian. While they will give a hat tip to that, they will undermine it with the very next sentence that comes out of their mouth, which begins with a three -letter word that starts with B and rhymes with what?

And what is that word? But, God also speaks to me through the still small voice and the impressions, the promptings, the nudgings, the signs, and the confluence of life's circumstances.

To put it simply, the degree to which I believe that God is going to reveal to me outside of Scripture the path for my life, the way which

I should walk, specifically tailored to me and my life, that is the degree to which

I will not rely on Scripture and keep it central in my life. These things are connected.

Let me give you an illustration. If God is going to give to me the name of the woman that I am supposed to marry through a sign or an impression or to reveal it through a fleece, then why would

I rely upon the teaching of Scripture and the wisdom contained in it to memorize that, to study it, to meditate upon it, the dozens and dozens of passages that pertain to marriage and men and women and relationships and wisdom?

Why would I put all of that effort into that study if ultimately God is just going to simply flash a name in my mind?

Why would I do that? If I'm going to hear a still small voice or receive a revelation or discern a sign or see a confluence of circumstances that are going to indicate the woman

I am to marry, why would I spend the time figuring it out from Scripture? Ultimately, I don't need the truth of the

Word of God or the wisdom of the Word of God if God is going to simply download it to me through private revelation.

Therefore, the degree to which I think God is going to do that with that decision or listen, any other decision in life is the degree to which

I take the Scripture out of the center of my life and my behavior and set it to the side so that I could get something far more personal and far more intimate.

What good is a revelation that was given thousands of years ago in a different cultural context to a different people that I have never met if God is going to simply direct my steps by whispering in my ear?

Which would you prefer? Would you prefer an ancient revelation given in a context that you really cannot relate to, that you have to read and meditate upon and seek to understand, and then you have to work to apply that to your life, remember it at the right time, seek to govern your life by it, your choices, and your decisions in light of what you read and study and memorize and meditate upon each and every day?

Would you prefer that? Or would you prefer a fresh, personal, private, you -centered, you -specific revelation straight from God that removes all doubt?

Which one would you prefer? Most of us would opt for the second one because it's easy.

If you opt for the second one, that is the degree to which you take the Word of God out of the center of your life and you slide it off to the side in favor of something else.

This can be so clearly seen in an example given by Bill Hybels in his book The Power of a Whisper. Hybels talks about a time in his life when he was going through a very difficult season at Willow Creek where he was pastoring.

And he was very down and dejected and discouraged and he took the day off and left the office of church, went out on a sailboat and sailed around the middle of the lake there in Chicago waiting to hear from God.

He was listening intently, really wanted to hear from God. He needed to hear from God. It was a very dark season of his life and he just needed a fresh word, something to lift his spirits.

So he listened and he waited and listened and he spent the entire day out on the boat listening and waiting to hear some whispers, some impressions, some promptings, something that would pop into his mind.

And he was ready to write it down. He was ready to exegete it. He was ready to think it through. He needed to hear from heaven, but by his own admission at the end of the day, he had heard nothing, so he took his sailboat back into the harbor and on his way to the dock he saw a beer can floating in the water and he asked himself,

I wonder if there's a message from God in the floating beer can. Bill Hybels was willing to exegete a floating beer can in a lake because he wanted to hear from God.

What about Scripture? Are there not dozens upon dozens of Psalms that deal with discouragement and dejection and rejection and difficult times and depression?

Are there not dozens of Scriptures that deal with that? Could he not have just spent the entire day reading over and over again through 2

Corinthians and listening to the heart of a pastor who also was going through a difficult time? He could have done that.

He could have read of Paul's trials and tribulations in the book of Acts and somehow gleaned some message from God out of that.

But Bill Hybels didn't attempt any of that. You know why? Because he needed a fresh revelation from God and Scripture was not enough.

And the degree to which you and I desire something outside of Scripture is the degree to which we will slide

Scripture out of the center of the table and replace it with something fresh, something personal, something intimate.

Something that's just for me. And guess what? It's usually all about me. There is no theological argument for keeping

Scripture at the center of the life of a church, a family, or an individual if it has to compete with dozens of other sources of revelation.

Now that is not to say that the continuationist would argue that the Word of God should not be central. But it is to say that he has no theological reason, no theologically consistent reason to keep it at the center of his life.

So it therefore undermines the belief in the authority of Scripture and the centrality of Scripture and third, the sufficiency of Scripture.

And this is unavoidable and this is really the crux of the issue. If Scripture is sufficient, if it contains everything we need for life and godliness, then all other avenues, all other sources, and all other attempts at discerning and divining revelation are completely useless and unnecessary.

Does Scripture contain everything I need or not? No continuationist wants to say,

No, I reject the sufficiency of Scripture. Scripture is incomplete.

In many of the books that I read in preparing for my own book, God Doesn't Whisper, I read continuationist after continuationist, charismatic after charismatic, affirm the sufficiency of Scripture and then turn it right around and deny it when it comes to decision making and personal guidance.

If Scripture is sufficient, then hearing the voice of God today, modern revelations, private internal directions from the voice of the shepherd, they are unnecessary.

There is no need for them and they serve no purpose. Now the continuationist would object. And they would say that these private revelations, though they are not necessary, they should be received as private revelations and then we should always test them against the written, authoritative, inerrant, infallible

Word of God to see if they're true or not. So we should be open to them but cautious enough to test them against Scripture.

And they would say that if it matches what we find in Scripture and is in keeping with the truth that is already revealed there, then we can embrace it and accept it as it comes from God.

But if it doesn't comport with Scripture, then we should reject it. But, if it matches what we find in Scripture and is in keeping with what has already been revealed, then the private revelation was unnecessary.

Why would God give it? He already gave me what I find in Scripture, right? Therefore, the private revelation, if I have to go to Scripture to test it,

I might as well just go to Scripture to find out what He says about this subject. I already have to go to Scripture to test the private revelation, so if the revelation agrees with what is in Scripture, then the revelation was unnecessary.

I didn't need it. I should have just gone to Scripture. But if the personal, private revelation does not comport with Scripture, then the best thing we can say about it is that it is useless and we could also say that it was demonic since Satan is the father of all lies.

This is the kind of revelation that the continuationist movement says we should be open to. I reject that.

We should not be telling people that these things are necessary or helpful, nor should we be telling people that they should expect them or be pursuing them or seeking them.

There is nothing in Scripture that suggests that we should expect them. We do not need them because Scripture is sufficient.

Most continuationists would not overtly say that Scripture is insufficient, but that is in fact what their theology leads to.

They want to say that Scripture is sufficient at the same time say that we need private revelations.

If I need the private revelation, then what has been given to me is not sufficient. So I would just ask my continuationist friends let's pull the cloak off of this and just say what we're really talking about.

We're really talking about continuing revelation. Whether you're talking about Benny Hinn and his visions and his dreams, or whether you're talking about the little old lady in the back row of the

Baptist church who's waiting to hear from God about which Chinese restaurant to go to for lunch. It's the same approach to revelation.

This only serves to undermine our confidence in the authority of Scripture, the centrality of Scripture, and the sufficiency of Scripture.

So back to our question, why do we care about this? We care about this because we care about the truth. That's why.

We care about this because it affects our view of the authority of Scripture and the centrality of Scripture and the sufficiency of Scripture in the life of the believer.

We care about these things and if we care about these things then we have to care about the cessationist and continuationist issue.

It is a secondary issue, but it is a very important secondary issue.

It answers the question what is the role of the Word of God in the life of the child of God? And the impact of your answer to that question will be felt in every area of your life, every day of your life for the rest of your life.

So if we care about the truth then we have to care about what we teach concerning the nature of the truth. We have to care about what we say regarding the source of truth, the way in which truth is communicated, the way in which truth is revealed, the sufficiency of that truth, and just as importantly how the truth is handled from the pulpit by those who do the teaching and preaching in a local church.

It is my earnest hope and prayer that God will use these sessions and the time that we have had here together and we've invested here to increase your love for the truth.

May He firmly establish you in the truth and the faith once for all delivered to the saints and may He give you an abiding confidence in His Word removing from you all doubt regarding its authority, centrality, and sufficiency and may the

Lord cause us all to walk consistently with that conviction. Let's pray. Our Father, we are so grateful for Your goodness to us in giving us

Your Word. We thank You for the mercy that You have shown us in revealing Yourself. We thank You for the mercy that You have shown us in drawing us to Your Son and then

You have provided for us everything that is necessary for life and for godliness. We can live holy lives, obedient lives, and all we need is

Your Word, the indwelling of Your Spirit, trusting in Your providence and Your sovereignty to sanctify us according to Your truth.

We pray that You would continue to strengthen our hearts and our convictions regarding these things and help us to live in a manner that is consistent with this high and holy calling and with the truth regarding Your sufficient authoritative

Word. We ask this in the name of Christ who is the living Word. Amen. We'll have a 10 minute break and then we'll begin with our final session.

Alright, if you've found your place, come on in and sit in and we'll get started on this last and final session.

Let's do a test on everybody's mic. Check, check, check. Can everybody hear me? Hello?

There we go. Test one, two. Aleph, Beth, Gimel, Daleth, Hewa, Zion. Say that again.

Aleph, Beth, Gimel, Daleth, Hewa, Zion. That's it. That's a tongue. It's a

Hebrew tongue. Alright. Okay, so we have some questions here that have been submitted by the audience.

Some of this is going to be some rather straightforward questions. Some of the more... Those are mine. ...of a discussion. Dibs. We'll fight over that.

Alright. I said first. First, this question, and Dan and I were discussing this during the break here actually.

How does one stratify error in categories like non -essential and secondary?

Isn't all error essential? Or isn't error, all error, an essential issue?

You can speak into that. That's why we did the test. If I want to be heard. Yeah. Well, I think probably the way functionally people do it is those errors which will determine a person's eternal destiny, whether they are take this position and you're not a

Christian, take this position and you're within the Christian pale. So essential issues, first -tier issues would be the doctrine of God, the doctrine of salvation, even the doctrine of Scripture, I'd say.

Yeah, so Dan, you said you wanted to argue with me sometime about whether cessationism is a secondary or primary issue.

And we talked a little bit about what makes something a secondary or primary issue. I made the statement that cessationism is though it's a secondary issue.

This issue of continuationism, cessationism, always feels like it has ambitions to become a primary issue because it affects something that is so practical and has to do with the outworking of our lives.

So if you're talking about theologies that have more influence upon our day -to -day life,

I wouldn't say there's any theology that affects our day -to -day Christian living more than the cessationist, continuationist issue.

But it does not affect whether or not we're a Christian. So if we're talking practical, we would say it is a primary issue in that sense.

But if we're talking about salvation, we'd say it's not a primary issue. But then you had kind of a rejoinder to that. Well, first of all,

I thought that was a really excellent point and really well made. I wrote that down. That was a really, really good point. And then

I thought, okay, it's true that in terms of the scope of doctrine, this is not a primary issue, but it is a primary practical issue.

The doctrine of justification, your view on that determines on whether you're believing the true gospel or not. But this issue determines how you marry, where you go to church, how you make decisions, how you think things through.

And then I thought, but then doesn't it also sneak back around and determine and affect the way you think about primary issues?

So that often a person in that camp, you present them with the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, or you present them with what

Scripture says about the perfection of Christ's work and predestination, election.

And they don't feel right about it. They don't feel a witness in their spirit about it. So they don't accept that doctrine because really the locus of authority has been relocated from Scripture to me.

Where I rest really is how I hear God's voice and not what Scripture says to me.

So that secondary issue comes back and affects the way I think about primary issues.

So if my secondary view of cessationism affects how I view Scripture, then that can become a primary issue because it becomes my view of Scripture.

Would you say that the doctrine of Scripture is a primary issue? Yeah. What one believes about the word of God? Well, I would.

I think God in grace has saved people who have defective views of Scripture, like C .S. Lewis had a defective view of Scripture, but somehow he muddled out the lordship of Christ and the need to believe in him and looked to him alone for salvation.

God is very gracious. I know we all would thank God for that. But if it were thought through consistently, it would lead to a heretical conclusion.

So really maybe what makes something a primary or secondary issue is the degree to which we work that out.

And that's kind of where I was going at with this session. If we take this approach to Scripture, hearing still small voices, to its logical conclusion, then that's where it bleeds into primary issues.

Absolutely. That was a really excellent point. Thank you. Would you like to tell me

I had an excellent point? That's an excellent point. That was the thought between my ears. Justin, anything you want to add to that before we move on?

Yeah, no, I agree. I give a hearty amen to all of that. Mostly that that was an excellent point I made? Mostly that that was an excellent point.

Well, do you agree with my agreeing with the point? That's what I wanted to know. I agree with your agreement and everything. Kumbaya all around.

Yeah, it's, you know, men like Wayne Grudem and Sam Storms and John Piper, they would agree with all of us here with a high soteriology, high view of God's sovereignty.

They're right on the gospel, but they are continuists. And let me say this, though, and maybe this is a little bit of a rabbit trail.

I fully expect to see those men in heaven. They're right on the gospel. But they are the fringe of the charismatic movement.

You need to understand that. They are the fringe. Jim was talking about in his message painting with a broad brush and that's one of the common criticisms that has come our way as cessationist, strange fire conference.

Oh, you're lumping all the charismatics in. You know, there's painting with this broad brush and you're lumping them all in with Kenneth Copeland charismatic.

I mean, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, all those kind of guys. You need to understand that the fringe of the charismatic movement is not

Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland. The fringe of the charismatic movement is

Sam Storms, Wayne Grudem, and John Piper. That's the fringe. That's the fringe.

The few men who are continuists who have a right understanding of gospel, that's the fringe.

But sadly and practically, it is their position that opens the door to Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer and Kenneth Copeland and Joseph Prince and Andrew Wommack and all these others.

It's a very, very slippery slope from where Wayne Grudem and John Piper are. It's a very slippery slope down right into Benny Hinn land.

And there's no practical, there's no logical, theological reason to put on the brakes once you take their position, to put on the brakes and not slide right into word of faith and you have solid reformation.

But the difference is one of degree and not of substance. It's one of degree and not of substance. That's right. But let me just also tack on the second generation phenomenon.

So you'll have a man who is fundamentally sound, but he'll teach these aberrant positions. And because he's fundamentally sound, he won't follow them through to their horrible conclusions, but his students will.

Lacking his anchor, they'll take these things and they don't have his restraints. I mean, you see that in the history of Fuller Seminary.

Its defection in the error started with men who were fundamentally Christian, but they were weak and inconsistent in their doctrine of scripture.

And the disciples they taught, the students they taught, lacked their core and followed the doctrines, followed the aberrant positions to their bad conclusion.

The second generation, third generation phenomenon. Where these folk are sound, they are sound because of influences outside of charismatic land.

They're sound because they've been instructed by reformed theologians through the centuries, not because somebody has prophesied something.

Yeah, I made the point last night. Men like Matt Chandler, we recognize that they are sound in terms of their doctrines of salvation and God.

And they hold to a reformed structure in terms of theology, though they have these continuationist and charismatic leanings.

But they're like men who see the boundary around where they should be standing. They see the barriers in which they are theologically, and they acknowledge them and we're all grateful that they acknowledge them, but then they step over them.

They transgress those barriers. And a lot of people give them a pass in doing so because they affirm that the barriers are there.

They don't realize that they're transgressing and going outside of the confines of reformed theology, historic reformed theology, by holding a continuationist perspective.

So they acknowledge the parameters, but then they step right over them and transgress them. But then, like you say, the next generation is not going to do that.

And as a great and sad example of what Jim's just saying, just a few weeks ago,

Sam Storms, who is as careful of a continuous as you can be, and as there is, he's as careful as they come.

But just a few weeks ago, he was being interviewed by this YouTube channel called Remnant Radio. And the whole subject of their particular video was called something like The Benny Hinn Prophecy.

And not a prophecy that came from Benny Hinn, but about Benny Hinn. But anyway, in this video, Sam Storms said, and he acknowledged that Benny Hinn has some serious error in his theology and practice.

But he said, but I believe that he loves Jesus and he's a brother. And I'm like, are you serious?

I mean, if Benny Hinn is not a false prophet, then the term has no meaning. The term has no meaning.

And so here you have Sam Storms who is as careful as a charismatic as there is.

And he thinks Benny Hinn is our brother in Christ. So it's a shocking, shocking lack of discernment.

This is kind of along the same line. Naming names amongst the more orthodox. And I just throw this out in case you want to add anything to this with some of these names.

What do you do with the continuationist John Piper, Bill Farley, etc. in the church? The Blackabee experiencing

God in the Southern Baptist Church. How do we approach those men? What should our stand toward them be?

How do we approach them? How do we deal with them? Do you quote them in a sermon?

Yes, to refute. Yes, to refute them I do. I've written about the

Blackabees at Pyromaniacs. And I would refer to that, but to Warren as a cautionary tale.

Sometimes I will quote something that's good from some of those men. But I, as a pastor, don't want to provide the name.

But rather than saying, I said it, say someone said. I just don't want to point people to someone that, should they go further and deeper into their blog and their ministry, will be then faced with deep and dark errors to deal with.

That's with my pastor hat on. So I still want to, not everything they've said is bad, and a lot of what they've said is good.

But I don't want to point people to secondary issues, perhaps, but issues that, as we've brought out already, are very, very vital and important.

I don't want to send folk to something that could really hinder them. Justin, any of that?

I would not, just because I know how, and I'm not trying to disagree here, but I wouldn't simply because it's so, even if I were to quote someone who is absolutely right on whatever subject matter we're dealing with, but they're a charismatic or they're a continuous.

Nowadays it's so easy to just do a Google search of that quote, and then you find out who it is, and oh, well this must be okay.

I'm just very, very careful about that. I think you can find the same information just as good from people who don't have that charismatic baggage.

I agree with that. I'd be very reluctant to do what I just said. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So you wouldn't follow your counsel at all?

No, no. I'd listen to another voice inside here competing with the first voice.

I may have misunderstood the question. If it's somebody who is influential,

I might name them to warn against them. That's the way I took the question at the outset, but I think

I may have quoted a John Piper now and again saying, no, I have some significant concerns about his teaching, but on this

I think he's exactly right and may quote him, but there's a risk in that. But if I do, it's always with a disclaimer in a case like that.

Always with a warning. But usually you can find somebody else saying it who is sound, who says the same thing, and just quote that.

You can't just litanize the quote and quote it without making any reference to who said it at all. That's true.

Do we all know the three laws of quotation? The first time you quote, you say as the Reverend R .T.

Barnaby said. Second time you quote, as someone once said, the third time you quote, like I always say.

Do word faith charismatics ever use, oh, use the verse, the books could not contain all that Jesus ever said or did, from John 21, 25, to defend the frequency of miracles that the writer just didn't write them all down.

So would we ever say that Jesus did more miracles than are recorded in the New Testament? Well, yeah.

I mean, clearly Jesus did a lot of things and taught things that are not recorded in Scripture.

That's what the Apostle John was talking about. There are passages where his many miracles are not delineated in terms of he did this and he healed this person, he did that, cast a demon out of this person, but just he healed all who were brought to him, the sick, the lame, the demon possessed, et cetera.

And they're just grouped into these passages, particularly Matthew, I think that you find that quite frequently, that he just was healing everybody who was brought to him with all of these various illnesses where they're not necessarily specifically enumerated.

So for instance, Scripture doesn't say he did 52 miracles in this day and 48 miracles the next day and 10 the next day. You don't get anything like that.

So you just get these groupings of miracles or references to miracles in general. So if Jesus...

Could you then say that that is an argument against what Andrew presented in terms of the fading of New Testament miracles?

No. I think it would buttress Andrew's point in that you would even have more miracles then, but still done in that same period of time by Jesus and by the apostles.

Yeah, it would always support it. Yeah. Now they do quote the fact that there are prophecies that are not recorded in Scripture.

There's allusions to, obviously in the Corinthians church, people were prophesying and we don't have those all written down.

So that's a good thing to be ready to respond on and to understand what we believe.

We don't believe that the doctrine of sufficiency means that Scripture contains every word that God has ever said.

We believe that Scripture contains every word from God that we need on any given subject.

And that's the way I think theologian John Frame puts it. And I wouldn't recommend him on everything.

But I think... See, that's how you do it. But I think his statement...

You just framed the quotation. Moving on. No, I think the way he puts it is very good that the doctrine of sufficiency of Scripture means that Scripture contains every word from God that we need on every subject.

What is the difference between, or the distinction between hearing the voice of God and the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit? John?

Illumination is the present day work of the Holy Spirit and the believer. We do not believe

God is speaking in the same way that we would say Scripture is. I don't believe

He is speaking. He has spoken. Hebrews 1, verse 1 seems to, as I understand it, speak of Jesus as the final word.

Revelation at the back of our Bibles says if anyone adds to this book, and it's certainly true of the book of Revelation, but I think there's a reason why it is at the back of the book.

We're not adding to Scripture anymore. So I'm not sitting in a chair hearing from God as a believer now.

But I'm asking the Lord to illuminate what He has spoken in inspiration.

Another way would be to say that Revelation is receiving a word straight from God. Illumination is receiving light on a word already given by God.

And the latter is happening rather than the former. Scripture is the product of Revelation and Scripture is the subject of illumination.

Yes. That's a good way to say it. I don't come up with stuff like that very often. Did Piper say that?

I don't think so. I think I said it. As he likes to always say, right?

Yes, that's what he always says. Another key thing to remember is that if you're reading

Scripture and you suddenly see the meaning of that passage in a way and to a degree that you've never seen before, that's not

God speaking something new to you. That's God opening your eyes to what was already there. That truth is already there.

It's already contained there. It's already clear there. It's already been revealed there thousands of years ago. When you come to understand it, you're not learning anything new in terms of something new that's been given.

It might be new to you because you see that passage now in a way that you have never seen it before. But here's a key to remember.

If you're seeing something new in that passage that that passage is not teaching, that's not illumination. If you're misunderstanding the passage, that's not illumination.

You're still confused about the passage. And that's not Revelation because God's not taking a passage that means one thing and revealing to you a meaning that that passage never had.

Or new information. New information from that passage. So, for instance, what's the...

I forget the guy's name who wrote Frequency Batterson. Morris. Morris, Robert Morris.

Robert Morris talks about reading in a passage of Scripture and having a phrase jump off of the page at him and takes on a whole new meaning, giving him instructions to build his church or what to name his church.

And that meaning was not contained in that passage of Scripture. When God wrote that, that is not what he meant. That is not the meaning of the passage in its context.

That's not illumination. So don't think that. That's not what we mean by illumination. Nor is that continuing Revelation.

That's perverting Scripture is what that is. It's twisting the meaning. When I was in the charismatic movement, there was a pressure, especially if you're going to speak at a conference, to come up with something new.

Something that no one's ever heard of. But do you think that through? And it is pride in a massive way to think that God was waiting for me to come along before he kind of stopped this

Revelation from coming until I showed up. Ladies and gentlemen, that's how cults get started.

Joseph Smith. Everyone else is wrong but me. And so I believe in going to the

Scripture with the church. One of the things that the Lord has done in Ephesians 4 is he's given gifts to men which are not simply people in our time but pastors and teachers through the centuries who've labored in the

Scriptures for decades of their lives. And we're impoverishing ourselves if we don't take into account what did

Jonathan Edwards do as he looked at this passage for 15 years? What are the

Lucis and the Calvins? These guys are not in any way would they themselves nor we would say that they're infallible.

But if the big guns in church history have never seen what we're seeing, it could be that the

Lord was waiting for us to come along but more likely we're out to lunch and we're missing it.

So read the Bible with the church. How does the Holy Spirit move today outside of the illuminating work?

He sanctifies us both judicially and positionally. He changes our desires.

He changes our affections. When you go from darkness to light, your desires are changed.

Your affections are changed. You begin to love what God loves.

You hate what God hates. You hate every false way because God hates every false way. You have a love for the brethren.

And some of you may have heard me say this. By God's grace, I've been able to preach all around the world.

And it does not matter what country I'm in, what culture I'm in. It doesn't matter what language is spoken.

It doesn't matter how much or how little melanin we have in our skin. When I'm with like -minded believers in Christ, there is an instant bond, an instant fellowship, and an instant love for these people.

Even though we may have just met, but we love each other because we've been adopted into the family of God.

They're my family. They're my brothers. They're my sisters. And we love each other. So that is one of the beautiful works of the

Holy Spirit in our lives that I've been able to experience. Not that you can't experience it domestically, but it's just a beautiful thing to see it around the world.

He changes our desires and affections. We hate sin. We grieve over our sin.

And I think it was Paul Washer that said, one of the surest ways you know you have a new relationship with the

Savior is if you have a new relationship with sin. If you grieve over, if you have that godly sorrow over sin that Paul speaks of in 2

Corinthians 7. So all of these things, all these are elements of our sanctification and it's the work of the

Spirit in our lives. Did you add to that? No, I just affirmed that.

I think I can attest to the fact that you can go to places in this world where there is nothing in common but Christ.

There's not a language that's similar. There's not a dress. There's not a culture that's similar.

But none of it matters because you're in Christ. They're your brothers and sisters. There was an experience

I had in India where there were folk from a different denomination and I was going there as I was.

And knowing that I was going to a place that could possibly mean great persecution and them the same, it did not matter that there were denominational differences between us.

We prayed together and we happened to come back the same day. I didn't know that would take place.

And we were able to hear of what the Lord did with them in their mission and they heard what happened with us.

And it was just this camaraderie that you cannot have in any sports community or political club.

We're brothers and sisters. And when they win, we win. We're on the same team. Amen to all that.

The Holy Spirit is the agent of our new birth. He's the efficient cause of our being born again.

And His Word is the instrumental cause of our new birth. And He powers us to walk in accord with the

Word of God. That's what it means to walk in the Spirit. He's the power by which we grow in holiness.

If you by the Spirit put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. He produces

His fruit, as Justin said, in us. And He's the

Christian's life in Christ. He glorifies Christ to us. Well, as I always like to say,

Charismatics have an under -realized and an over -realized pneumatology. It's under -realized in the sense that in their mind, the only thing the

Spirit of God ever does is give to them special revelations. It's the supernatural stuff.

They don't see any of the long -term sanctification, the hidden work of the Spirit, the things the Scripture says that we're not necessarily feel each and every single day.

So they have a very diminished view of the Holy Spirit, a very diminished theology of the Holy Spirit because they have no room for Him.

Yeah, a very truncated view of the Spirit. But at the same time, it's over -realized in the sense that they try and attribute to the

Holy Spirit every random thought, every circumstance, everything to turn it from being ordinary into extraordinary.

And so then when you come along and you correct them and you say, no, the random thought that you had just popped into your head, that's not the voice of God speaking to you.

That circumstance is not God trying to get a message to you. That's not the work of the Spirit of God. That's not how the Spirit of God works. They think you've taken the

Holy Spirit entirely out of the equation and removed Him. And then they say, well, what then do you think the Holy Spirit does?

And see, that demonstrates the truncated view of the Holy Spirit that they can't envision Him doing anything except for these supernatural things that they try and attribute to Him.

So they attribute to Him all these works that He's not necessarily doing to make them supernatural.

And then they fail to see all of the things that He is doing that are not supernatural that end up having supernatural effects and results upon us over the course of time.

If I can tag on, and I want to go back to what you said earlier just a moment ago about illumination.

So it's the work of the Holy Spirit that takes that Bible out there and makes it God's word to me in here.

He applies it personally to me. And so like you're saying, when a Christian reads through it, and I've had this happen to me many times, it's very dear and very important.

You're reading through Scripture, you see something you've read a dozen times, you've believed it without any reservation, and suddenly you see how that's for you.

The truth that you've always believed out here, you see, oh, this is where that goes. That's what I call that phenomenon.

The, oh, this is where that goes phenomenon. You see God's love as that verse portrays it. You see

God's care, God's providence. That's the Holy Spirit taking His word. I mean, one of the great crimes of the charismatic movement, ironically, is their depreciation of the

Spirit's greatest work apart, well, how do you say the Spirit's greatest work, but His magnum opus in producing

Scripture, and Scripture is given by the pneuma of God, by the breath, the

Spirit of God, and the Holy Spirit takes that living word and makes it life to us.

So that's how that, you know, they dismiss as a form letter becomes a personal letter without changing a bit.

It's just exactly what it means. It's just me saying, oh, yes, that's God speaking to me in that word.

The Reformation was a back -to -the -Bible movement, as we all know, and the formal principle was sola scriptura, who or what speaks for God, and for Rome, it was the

Roman Catholic Church, and for Protestants, it's the Bible alone is the word of God, and charismatism actually challenges that because it's not the

Bible alone. The Bible is good. You need the Bible, but it's not enough, and that is the beginning of the serious error.

Can or does God use dreams and visions at the present time to lead Muslims to himself by directing them to his word and by seeking out a

Christian believer to witness to them? So this is a continuationist, cessationist issue.

Is God leading Muslims by the millions to faith in Christ apart and outside of Scripture through dreams and visions?

No. We'll take a poll. No. John? Because I believe in the sovereignty of God, can, could

God give someone a dream whereby they have Scripture come to them?

It has to be that, or else how can they be saved when the Scripture says you're born again by the incorruptible seed of the word of God?

I don't want to say God can't do that, but if that would be true, why would we need to evangelize?

Why would we lay down our lives to get the gospel to someone when we can just say, Lord, show up and give someone a dream?

Go into all the world and pray that people have dreams? Is that what your Bible says? Well, that, oh, sorry.

Go ahead, Dan. Flip a coin? Go ahead, Al. Are you in Romans 10? I am in Romans 10.

Take it. That's just where I was going to go. Did you have the same thought between your ears?

Yeah, there you go, there you go. Great minds think alike. Yeah, first let me just say quickly, are

Muslims having dreams about Jesus? Well, yeah, probably, because Jesus is part of their religious fabric.

They believe he was a prophet. They do not believe he was God, but he is part of their religious fabric. So I've had a dream about Muhammad before, but I don't think that was

Muhammad trying to show up to me and reveal himself. It's just a stupid dream. You know, we dream about weird things all the time.

But Romans 10, 14. And this is the... I mean, this puts on the brakes, along with Hebrews 1, but this really puts on the brakes for this whole notion.

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in him whom they have not heard?

And how will they hear without a... Preacher. Preacher. Dream or vision?

Yeah, not a dream or vision, a preacher. How will they hear without a preacher? God has not only ordained the ends, he has also ordained his means to his ends, and the ordained means to God's ordained end of the salvation of his elect is preaching and evangelism.

And so bring it home. And so faith comes by hearing. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. So not dreams and visions.

And kind of tagging off what John said too, if I were

Satan and I wanted to come up with something to throw cold water on the evangelism of Muslims, I could honestly think of nothing better than to get it in the heads of evangelicals that Jesus is showing up to Muslims in dreams and visions.

Because hey, if Jesus is showing up to Muslims in dreams and visions and they're getting saved that way, you know, I don't need to go off to the mission field.

I don't need to witness to my Muslim neighbor. I don't need to share the gospel with them because, you know,

Muslims, they've been known to be kind of trigger happy and kind of, you know, violent.

So hey, Jesus has got it covered. He's just showing up in dreams and visions. Honestly, I think this whole notion, and sadly,

David Platt has forwarded this amongst Southern Baptists as well. I think it is a satanic deception.

I think it's demonic, and I think it's an extremely injurious thing for evangelicals to believe.

We have a great commission, and we're to go out in the whole world preaching and teaching the gospel.

So do you have any firm opinion about this? Other than that, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. Isn't there a passage in the book of Acts where someone is instructed to go hear someone with the gospel, and it says, and he will tell you words by which you will be saved.

That's right. Even the angel wouldn't bring that to Cornelius. He said, you get Peter, and he'll tell you how to get saved.

Exactly, that's a really good point. So faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, except if you're a

Muslim. You see, it doesn't say that. And listening to you, I think you see Satan really scoring a two for there.

On the one hand, he discourages evangelism, and on the other hand, he does downplay the word of God, the necessity of the word of God, which that's why this doctrine is so under attack today from every part, because if you want to defeat an army, what's one of the best way to do that?

Destroy the supply line. No army can survive without a supply line. And what's our supply line?

You say, well, it's the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit dealing with us how? If you continue in my word, you're my disciples, we still have to continue in his word.

And if he succeeds in getting our eyes off the word, and like you said, that was such a good talk you just gave.

The degree to which we look elsewhere is the degree to which we don't look to God's word. Thank you. John agrees.

Good, there we go. Justin, still hold on? It's not just evangelism, it's

Bible translation into languages. That would be curtail. I would say that Muslims can have dreams.

There's nothing in my theology that says a Muslim can't have a dream and can't have a dream about a spiritual subject. I think probably everybody who's spent time contemplating spiritual subjects in the word of God has probably had some religious type of a dream with religious symbolism.

But then when that Muslim ends up getting saved, in a Muslim theology, their theology, the theology is a theology of dreams where dreams must be interpreted and God speaks through dreams.

So a lot of times a Muslim will have an experience, they have that dream, then they get saved later on. They're going to interpret that dream in light of the syncretistic approach to bringing their

Muslim theology into their Christian theology and blending them. And then they're going to be taught by well -meaning but very uninformed missionaries on the field that, oh yeah, that was the means by which

God saved you. He gave you that dream, he revealed this to you, that's how you got saved. And then you take that story and that story becomes even more elaborate the more that it's told and then it gets brought back across the ocean to American shores and the telling gets even better when it comes to raising funds for our ministry and outreach to the

Mormon community because we've got to give Bibles to these people and do things to these people because God's saving them and they're without a church. And there's that secondary doctrine just bumping up more and more.

All right, sometimes it's easy to see the lie when miracle workers fleece people for money or live totally immoral lives, but sometimes it seems tricky, as with stories of miracles authenticating the gospel to Muslims or other religions.

Is there truth to these reports of miracles? What is your interpretation of Matthew 12 when the Pharisees attribute

Christ's miracles to Beelzebub? Do the miracles happen?

Are miracles happening overseas? Are miracles happening overseas? Are miracles happening?

Well, I think it's convenient that that's where they're happening where nobody has a camera phone and nobody has a camera.

And it's always, you know, that my brother's sister's hairdresser's aunt went to a church where somebody told a story that they'd heard happen in a missionary.

And again, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. To say faith in God does not require us to be credulous, does not require us to put our discernment aside.

There is a universe of difference between saying, I'm not necessarily going to buy a 30 -second -hand story about a miracle and, you know, hootootoo or whatever to make up a...

I hope I made up a place. There's a universe of difference between saying that, I'm not necessarily going to buy that, and saying over Jesus' whole career of miracles,

I know where he got that supernatural power. That's Satan. That's what the Pharisees did.

They're a brilliant answer for how he was able to do what nobody else could ever do. And this is, you know, it'd be a poor one for a charismatic to point to, because the situation in Jesus' ministry was exactly the opposite of what the charismatic situation was.

In Jesus' day, his enemies were all in a flutter trying to explain away his miracles.

Today, charismatics are in a flutter trying to explain away their lack of miracles. So for them to look at that lifetime of miracle and to say, oh yeah, you know, we figured out where that power comes from, because we can't deny the power.

It must come from Satan. And that's not at all related to saying I don't necessarily believe 27th -hand stories.

So you're saying that's a great observation. And I'm not even required to say that they're of the devil.

I don't necessarily believe they happen. Yeah, so in the life of Jesus, they tried to take the supernatural things for which there was no other explanation and explain them some other way.

Charismatics take things for which there are a dozen possible explanations and attribute them as a miraculous thing to prove miracles still exist.

And as you said, that's a great observation. 180 degrees the opposite. No unbeliever could deny Jesus miracles.

No unbeliever would affirm charismatic miracles. That's excellent. That might be the money paragraph of the whole conference right there.

That's a rock in somebody's pond. Say that again. I don't think I could. That's the thing.

No, I think what I said was... Like Dan Phillips always says. As I said once.

Well, no unbeliever could deny Jesus miracles. No unbeliever would affirm charismatic miracles.

There are not papers, panicked papers coming out. There would be, if these were Jesus -level miracles happening today, there would be panicked papers coming out in medical journals and Huffington Post and New York Times and every one of them trying to find some alternative explanation for this undeniably supernatural event.

And that has never happened since the first century. The very fact that there is a debate today as to whether or not the signed gifts continue is inherent proof that they don't.

That's right. Because if they were, if the signed gifts were operative today, there would be no question.

There would be no question about it. No believer certainly would doubt it. No believer would stand against it.

They'd be happening in all our churches. Yeah, they'd be happening in all our... They'd be undeniable miracles.

Not Todd White lengthening your leg by a half an inch kind of a miracle. Real miracles.

Acts chapter 3 miracles. One of the points I heard John MacArthur say, which

I thought was very profound and as normal for him, but he said, if you're God, it's hard to even go there in your head, but if you were

God, wouldn't you give your power to someone who at least proclaimed the true

God and the true gospel? Yeah. Selah. Yeah, that's right.

That's something really profound I was going to share, but I forgot what it was. We can wait. Churches until what?

Oh yeah, continuationists will make the claim that these miracles are continuing today and that they're happening just like they did in the time of the apostles.

But then when you compare that with what went on in the time of the apostles, they're not the same thing. Another statement that they will also make is that I believe that these gifts are continuing in the church, but we don't see any miraculous gifts at Kootenai.

And you don't see any miraculous gifts in your church. I'm assuming the churches that you gentlemen attend, you don't have miracle workers, but those gifts exist out there in the church somewhere else.

And so, therefore, though they're not happening at Kootenai, I still believe that those gifts are being given. And my rejoinder to that is, other than the signed gifts, what other gifts do you say are given by the

Holy Spirit that are not present in every church? Because I think you could walk into every church of every guy that's spoken here this weekend, and you would see the gift of teaching, the gift of encouragement, the gift of faith, the gift of giving, the gift of helps.

You would see all of those gifts of service and helps manifested. So what is it about the other spiritual gifts, that if we need them, why are they not taking place in the churches of the guys that are here?

The fact that you don't see those gifts in every church, I think is an evidence that those gifts are not genuine in any church.

Amen. See if I can get Justin to set me up here. What would their response to that be? Oh, because you don't believe in them.

Now I have a question. Thank you. Of the original tongue speakers, how many of them believed in tongues?

If your number is greater than zero, it's the wrong answer. Not one original tongue speaker believed in tongues.

Second question, follow up. Of the original tongue speakers, how many of them were seeking the gift of tongues?

Again, if your number is greater than zero, it's the wrong answer. Yet the Holy Spirit gave them because, well, why would he do that?

If only there was a scripture telling us how the Holy Spirit decides to give gifts. But wait, there's 1

Corinthians 12. He distributes his gifts as he pleases. What prevents him from doing that today?

Now if they say a lack of faith, the only faith that affected where Jesus chose to do miracles was whether or not they believed in him.

So are you going to tell me that all these churches preaching the whole word of God and the whole truth of Jesus and the whole gospel, none of them has any faith in Jesus?

They don't have even a mustard seed? Jesus says that's all it takes. You tell me John Calvin didn't have a mustard seed of faith?

Charles Spurgeon didn't have a mustard seed of faith? John Knox? John Owen? You could just go all the good

Johns, you know. John MacArthur! And we can leave John Piper out sadly.

But I said good Johns. But at any rate, you see, that just is an answer that doesn't answer anything.

It's an evasion. I think I heard Kevin Hay say that to be an apostle you must have been a witness to the risen

Christ. Is that correct? Kevin, is that what you said? No, he's right back there in the room. He's here.

Do you believe that any miracles performed by Charismatists can be attributed to demonic activity? And how should

Christians articulate a biblical explanation for demonic activity? The answer is what miracles do.

In the 70's In the 70's? It was popular to explain away and to wrestle with this issue are these demonic miracles or not?

Now I think we're in a position to say what miracles? Why are we working so hard to explain away something that has not yet been demonstrated?

That's right. What's John Sampson's favorite football team? I'm sure I got that in there.

Liverpool Football Club. It's an illumination that everybody needs.

Given the connection between tongues being heard by the Israelites and judgment is there any theological significance to the fact that 1

Corinthians predates Paul's last trip to Jerusalem and that it was written in the window before the worship in the temple came to a close via the judgment of God?

So I think the connection is to the 70 A .D. Is that the judgment that tongues forecast and when tongues are for a sign to unbelieving

Jews, 1 Corinthians 14, is there a connection to that coming in Corinthians being written before Paul's final arrival in Jerusalem and the eventual destruction of Jerusalem?

Is there a connection there? I think it's a both and.

I think the tongues were, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14, 20 -22 tongues were for a sign not to those who believe but to unbelievers.

It was a sign of God's judgment I believe in two different ways. One, the partial hardening that God brought to Israel, the judicial hardening against the gospel that God brought to Israel that remains to this day.

One day, Romans 11, I think is very clear, God will return to Israel in a very dramatic way, but until that time comes,

God has brought a partial hardening to the nation of Israel, to Jews against the gospel.

That's one way but I think it also foreshadowed the destruction in AD 70, so I think it was a two -fold.

What would you say to a friend whom you believe is saved but who claims to receive visions and dreams? Hey friend, that's how

I'd start. That's how you'd start? Anything beyond that? I'd have to think about it.

I would discourage them from seeking visions and dreams.

I mean, look at even, not only the Scriptures but the man God used most in church history.

Luther summed up the Reformation and he said, I sought neither dreams nor visions. All I wanted to do was preach the word of God and it was not anything but the word that weakened the papacy and that was his recollection.

So, what is it that's, what I would ask my friend would be, what is it that motivates you to want that?

What is it that motivates you to think that is more of an insight than what you have in the

Scripture? Again, I think it's a faulty understanding of what Scripture is. Again, this is not enough.

It's kind of a dead book until the Holy Spirit comes upon it. I don't know what I would challenge them. What's their view of Scripture?

Because if it isn't Jesus' view of Scripture, you're in error. Jesus is not only the

Son of God, God the Son, he's the truth and everything he said was true and his view of Scripture, if we esteem him to be

Lord, we need to come under his view of Scripture and that was not his view.

He did not teach the pursuit of visions of dreams. Friend, why are you?

Regarding family and close friends, how would you deal with those in your life who attend a church that tries not to take a stand on essential doctrines?

Tries not to take a stand on essential doctrines? That's what it says. Then I would look at them as prospects for evangelism because if a church will not take a stand on the essential doctrines, then that's not a church.

That's a goat farm. How about non -essential doctrines? They're evangelistic prospects.

They don't love Jesus. Jesus said, unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.

That's Jesus, John chapter 8. Jesus through Paul. We have the book of Galatians, which is all about Jesus through Paul making it clear that if you add to the gospel in any sense, justification by faith alone, it's a false gospel and those who proclaim that false gospel are pseudo -Adolphoi.

They are false brothers and that's Jesus through Paul who in the same book said, the fruit of the

Spirit is love. And so there's no contradiction in Paul's mind between calling out those who proclaim a false gospel as non -brothers and walking in love.

And a church that will not take that stand doesn't love people. I might try to say to them, well you're actually not going to a church.

You need to find a church because the definition of the church to Paul is it's a pillar and bulwark of the truth.

And if the church won't take a stand, these are far too serious and dangerous times to be in a non -serious religious organization.

You just raised a great verse because that verse is teaching that the church's mission is to hold something up other than itself, the truth.

And if they're not doing that, they're not functioning as a church. So Paul's express charge to Timothy is preach the word, be instant in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, for the time is coming when they will not endure sound doctrine.

They'll have itching ears. And in the context he said dangerous times are coming. Well, if the church isn't being led by people who are willing to be that person, then it's not the church for this time if it's a church at all.

A lot of churches refuse to take stands on secondary issues because their desire is not to divide the church body.

So that's at least their stated desire. They say we don't want to sow division here by taking a stand on eschatology or baptism or assurance of salvation or eternal security or election or any of these other issues.

And so we're just not going to be all over the Bible. Yeah, we're just not going to be solid on any of these because we want people to come and we want to have unity here and the minute we take a stand we're going to divide the church on this issue.

What they fail to realize is that if everybody in your church agrees on every last one of those things, there is unity.

But if everybody in your church disagrees on all of those things, they may come, but there's no unity.

And so the minute something gets raised, the disunity is there, not because the issue is raised, but because you collected a bunch of people who don't agree with each other, never have, and thought that that was unity just because you met in the same building.

So if you have a church that is precise on their doctrine where every last thing is spelled out, as it is here in this fellowship, the people who come here, though they may disagree on a few of the minor things here and there, for the most part, we've spelled out everything we teach and everything we believe.

The people who come here, they agree on all of that and there is a level of unity here that is not seen in a lot of other places, simply because it's all out on the table and we say, this is what we're going to unify around and it's all clear.

But when you haven't laid that out on the table, there's nothing to unify around. So you collect a bunch of people and then somebody says,

I believe this about the millennium and all of a sudden you have a church exploding and the elders don't know what to do with it.

You've been disunified the whole time, but nothing has exposed it. Whereas a precise and clear doctrinal statement taking a stand on those essentials, sows unity and creates unity because it puts all of those things out and asks people to unify around them all the time, every single

Sunday, and that's the key to biblical unity. And a church that does what you said is a church that has given up its birthright.

It's important to know because that church has said that here's how I'm going to define our church mission, but that's not how

God defines the church mission. The church's mission, according to God, is to preach all the counsel of God that people agree on.

Remember that place where Paul says that? Never. He says, I didn't shrink back from preaching you the whole counsel of God.

So if it's in the Bible, that's what we ought to be teaching and if it makes people mad, well, praise our reward's great in heaven.

But we're not here to make people happy, we're here to make people whole. If it's been true, it's been true for more than ten minutes, more than ten years, more than a hundred years, and the creeds and the confessions of the church, while not infallible, are faithful.

I would say going around a mountain, there are these boundaries, these fences that tell you where the road is and where sudden death will be, and there's no power in those rickety fences around Switzerland.

I remember this trip I went on with my mother, the one and only time we went on a trip of that length together, and it was harrowing, and I'm thankful that those rickety fences were erected to show the drivers where they could drive and where they would die.

And so are these creeds. Rather than Alan and Steve making up something in the garage last night, that's what we believe.

If it's been true, it's been true for a while, and there's safety in going back to these creeds while they're not infallible.

When Christians through the centuries, sometimes those were the last words they ever spoke. I believe in God the

Father, I believe in God the Almighty. They go through the Apostles Creed, the

Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and this is historic Christianity.

That's a safety, because truth does divide, but it also unites. While in agreement theologically, this is our last one, while in agreement theologically with everything in the cessationist ideology, what do

I do with unexplained things that seem in line with the Word of God, things

I've experienced on the mission field, and yet disagree with cessationism? In other words,

I have an experience that I cannot explain. This happened, and I have no explanation for this, but I agree with everything that you guys are saying.

What do I do with that experience? Well, I guess

I would be curious as to the exact nature of that experience. Okay, so let's say the experience was somebody who had learned a little bit of a foreign language, sat down at a table on the mission field where this foreign language was spoken, and though they could not have probably before they left

America have articulated anything clearly in that language, they sat down and was able to communicate clearly in that language.

Or they saw an exorcism that worked out, or they saw something that's just a supernatural looking thing.

Yeah, you hear these reports that so -and -so was a missionary, went out to wherever, Burkina Faso or some deep dark jungle somewhere, and all of a sudden they were able to communicate to the natives in their native tongue.

You hear these reports, but they're kind of like Bigfoot. There's lots of rumors, lots of grainy photos, but no proof that these things actually exist.

There's no proof that that actually happened. Even if something like that specifically were to happen, if someone were to go to some foreign country and be able to speak that language fluently, having never been taught it before, that would certainly be a miracle.

I don't know that that's ever happened, but let's just say for the sake of argument it has, which I'm not convinced of, but that would be a miracle, but I would still not call that the gift of languages as it's described in the

Book of Acts, as it's described in 1 Corinthians, because that gift had a specific purpose as a sign of judgment.

That's not what would be happening in this example of a mission field.

That would not be a sign of judgment. Let me think aloud about this and see if you can make my answer better, assuming there's anything to work with here.

The way you premised it, though, is somebody's saying this happened to me. This is not a 34th -hand story. I experienced this.

What am I supposed to make of this? I think the first thing I'd say is God in Providence can do anything

God wants to do. I'm not obligated to explain every act of Providence.

There are many incredibly intricately timed things God has done over history.

God can do whatever God wants to do. One time Paul sent out sweatcloths to people and they were used for healing.

One time. We never read that he ever did it again. People we know take that and they make an industry out of that.

What I'm saying is when you look at something like that and you say, my God is good.

Isn't God gracious? It doesn't change a thing that Scripture teaches. It doesn't change a thing about how

I'm to live my life or what I'm to preach. It doesn't have an impact on the sufficiency of Scripture. God is a great and powerful

God. I'll just add a brief word about the open but cautious. If you can make this into a better answer, then please do.

I don't believe in open but cautious at all. The open but cautious says we should accept something but test it by Scripture.

My response to that is how about if we test that by Scripture first? How about if we test by Scripture the idea that I'm to be open to anything but just test it by Scripture?

I don't find that in Scripture. That doesn't work for me. What did

Paul do? Isn't it wonderful we've actually got a letter preparing a pastor for the post -apostolic era?

Where do we live? Post -apostolic era. We've got a letter where Paul tells a pastor like me, like y 'all what to do in those days.

What does Paul say to Timothy? Does he say, now remember God will give you visions and dreams as you need them?

Nothing like that. Does he say well remember everything I taught you about listening for God's voice in your heart?

Things are going to be very difficult. You're really going to need to get those continuing words from God. He doesn't say anything like that.

What does Paul say to Timothy? Remember what I taught you and teach other people that.

And he says remember from your mother's breast you've known the Old Testament the sacred writings.

And remember that all Scripture, and there he takes in the Scripture of the apostles as well, it's all

God breathed, it's profitable for teaching reproof, correction, training in righteousness that the man of God may be equipped, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

He doesn't point Timothy forward to the slightest notion of further information or thoughts.

He says stick with what you've already been given you keep preaching that even if nobody listens to you. Amen. Alright.

We are done. I will close in prayer and then we'll be dismissed with a couple of instructions. Our Father we are so grateful for your word and again for directing our hearts and our minds and our affections toward it.

We pray that the effect of this conference and our time here would truly be to ground us in the truth of your word that you would grow us in the grace and the knowledge of Christ through it, that you would sanctify us according to your truth.

We know that in your word you have provided everything that is necessary for us for life and godliness. And we pray that we would trust in that rest upon it and may your word characterize all that we say and that we do that you would be glorified in and through us in your church both now and forever.

We thank you for this time that we have had. It has been a blessing to us and we pray that that blessing may rest upon us as we go from here.

In the name and the power of Christ and of your spirit we ask these things in the name of your son. Amen. Well thank you everyone.

Thank you. I want to thank... applause I want to thank again and I did this privately but I want to do this in front of all of you

I want to thank again the filmmakers for giving us the opportunity to do this and for the speakers.

Each one of these guys flew up here. They didn't need to do that. We could have had this conference at any one of the seven churches that have been represented here.

But these guys took time away from their families, in many cases their wives and their children and their churches and their ministries to come here to be part of this to help out with this.

So my thanks to all of the speakers who were part of this. From Kevin Hay all the way to the last one

Oh that was me, never mind. Everybody except for me who traveled to come to this.

Thank you very much. Let's give them a round of applause. Alright.

We have to clean up the tables and move chairs around. I think a couple things to note for the filming.

The guys need to get Justin. Are you sitting up in here for Justin Les? Okay. The guys need to get Justin out for his interview.

He was wearing a horrible outfit last time he was interviewed so they're going to re -interview him in another room.

So allow Justin to get out there as soon as we can for that interview. And then we're going to set this up for church like we normally do.

Pick up the tables and roll them outside. So any help from those who know how to do that would be greatly appreciated.

Alright? Thanks everyone. Yes. ... ...

... ...

... ... ...