Matt Slick vs Dr. Sam Waldron: Does the Bible teach that the charismatic gifts are for today?

And finally, I'll just say this debate is part of an ongoing lecture and debate series we have.

We call it First Word. So we've had three or four debates already and we look to keep it going.

So if you're interested in this sort of thing, you did not get an email about it already and you want to hear about future debates, write your email on that question card and send that in and I'll know it's your email to be, so you'll be notified of future events.

Anything I'm forgetting other than I'm going to say a prayer and our first speaker will come up.

Since it's a Christian debate, I can pray without worrying about offending anybody. Well, why don't we gather in prayer?

Heavenly Father, we give you thanks for gathering us tonight. We give you thanks for the church that you have instituted.

We give you thanks for sending your Holy Spirit at Pentecost and we give you thanks that your spirit has been given over to each and every one of those you call your sons and daughters.

We pray that your Holy Spirit would be with us here tonight as we look at the scriptures and we discern the truth as we have been called to do.

Give us your peace, Lord, that passes all understanding in all that we do. Bless this time tonight that we might always draw closer to the truth that you have revealed.

In the name of your Son, Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen. Well, without further ado, let us begin with our first speech of the night by Mr.

Matt Slick. So whenever I preach and I teach,

I always ask people how they're doing. So how are you doing? Let's try it again.

How are you doing? That's much better. All right. First of all, I want to thank you all for coming.

I really appreciate that you are here. And Dr. Waldron and I, we had dinner tonight. We disagree on some things and agree on a lot more.

And so he's a good guy. And we'll be debating the issue of whether or not the continuation of the charismatic gifts is for today or not.

And I do take the affirmative position and I hope to demonstrate that from scripture. Let's just see if I can do that tonight.

So my tendency is to speak quickly. It's how I've always spoken. So I'm going to slow it down quite a bit.

If I'm getting to the point where you can't really understand me, just do this and I'll slow down again because that's just, it'll help me out.

All right. So I affirm that all of the charismatic gifts are experienced today in the body of Christ.

However, I deny that Christians have the same authority and ability as the apostles of Christ did.

And I also deny that such charismatic gifts affect the closing of the canon. Now a charismatic gift is a manifestation of the

Holy Spirit. Paul says in 1 Corinthians chapter 12 verses 4 and 7, quote, now there are a variety of gifts, but the same spirit and verse 7, but to each one is given the manifestation of the spirit for the common good, close quote.

The English word here for gifts is from the Greek word charisma, and that's where we get our term charismatic, charismatic gifts.

Paul then lists these charismatic gifts in 1 Corinthians 12, the next few verses and verses 12, excuse me, verses 8 through 10 as the word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, distinguishing of spirits, various kinds of tongues and interpretation of tongues.

Now notice that these are charismatic gifts, right? In addition, when we turn to Romans chapter 12, verse 6, we find more information on the charismatic gifts.

Paul says, quote, we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, close quote here.

The word gifts is again from the Greek word charisma. Paul then lists those charisma in verses 6 through 8 as prophecy, service, teaching, exhortation, giving, leading, showing mercy and cheerfulness.

These are charisma. So we could say that the list of charismatic gifts provided by Paul the apostle includes word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, distinguishing of spirits, various kinds of tongues, interpretation of tongues, service, teaching, exhortation, giving, leading, showing mercy and cheerfulness.

Now that's a total of 16 charismatic gifts listed in these two chapters. But wait, there's more.

If you turn to Romans 6 .23, something very interesting is written there. We should know this verse as Christians, for the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our

Lord. The word gift there again is charisma. Eternal life is categorized as a charismatic gift.

The word gift here is the same word used in the other areas that I've mentioned already in 1

Corinthians 12 and Romans 12. So quite simply, logically, if the charismatic gifts are not in operation today, then all of the charismatic gifts have ceased.

This would mean that the charismatic gift of faith, exhortation, giving, leading, showing mercy, cheerfulness and eternal life are also not in operation today.

But that of course is not true. Therefore I must conclude that according to the biblical declaration of what the charismatic gifts are, they have not ceased.

But some might say that there are differences among the charismatic gifts given to the church and that only the miraculous ones have ceased.

And how can such a differentiation be justified? Isn't eternal life a miraculous gift from God?

Yes, it is. Isn't our believing in him also a miraculous gift? It would seem so, especially when we consider that Philippians 1 .29

says that God grants that we believe. And Jesus said in John 6 .28 .29 that our believing is the work of God.

Both of these are miraculous because they are the work of God that results in our salvation. Now Ephesians 2 .8

says, for by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourself, it is the gift of God.

Now the word gift there in Greek is doron. It just means a standard gift, not listed as a charisma.

There are different words in Greek for gift, we'll go over that a little bit. So I cannot pick and choose which of the charismatic gifts

I affirm are for today, such as faith and eternal life, and say that other charismatic gifts have ceased, such as prophecy and tongues.

Our debate is not about a subset of charismatic gifts. It is instead charismatic gifts.

Logically, if any of the charismatic gifts are in the church today, then the charismatic gifts have not ceased.

They either ceased or they do not cease. Let me now turn to where Paul writes to the

Corinthian church and says, quote, to all who in every place call on the name of our

Lord Jesus Christ, close quote. He's addressing the universal church.

That means he's addressing us. He then says in a few verses later in 1 Corinthians 1 .7,

quote, so that you are not lacking in any gift awaiting eagerly the revelation of our

Lord Jesus Christ, close quote. The word gift in verse 7 is the Greek word charismati, which is from the word charisma.

In Greek, words change form like actor, actors, actress, actress. So it's charisma.

It's the same word used earlier when listing the charismatic gifts of word of wisdom, faith, healing, tongues, interpretation of tongues, and eternal life.

So we, the church, are not to lack any charismatic gift while we wait for Jesus to come back.

This means the charismatic gifts have not ceased. In addition, when we turn to Acts 2 .17,

we find Peter quoting Joel chapter 2. He says this, quote, and it shall be in the last days,

God says, that I will pour forth my spirit on all mankind and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and your young men shall see visions.

Peter then goes on to say in Acts 2 .33, therefore, having been exalted to the right hand of God and having received from the

Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured forth this which you both see and hear, and what they were seeing and hearing was the manifestation of speaking in tongues.

Then, the same chapter, verses 38 and 39,

Peter said to them, repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift, dorea, of the

Holy Spirit, for the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the

Lord God will call to himself. The promise reveals, is the revelation of the

Holy Spirit to us in the church. So the gift is a Holy Spirit, according to Acts 2, who is for all who are far off, as many as the

Lord God will call to himself. So I am forced to summarize that since we're in the last days, they didn't end with the apostles, there will be prophecy.

We, the church, are not to lack any charismatic gift while we wait for Jesus' return and that includes eternal life, faith, helps, tongues, interpretation of tongues, and they're all categorized as charismatic gifts.

Therefore, the charismatic gifts have not ceased. Now, Dr. Waldron, I read his book, it's over there, it's a nice book, his book,

To Be Continued. I read his book, and I went through it extensively, and he has what's called the

Cascade Argument. So in his discussion on this, or his debate with Dr. Michael Brown, on November 7th, 2013, excuse me, at 21 minutes and 14 seconds, he said, quote, my argument against the continuation of the miraculous gifts is called the

Cascade Argument. It goes like this, there are no apostles of Christ on earth today. Because there are no apostles of Christ, we may cogently argue that there are no prophets on the earth today.

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

Dr. Waldron starts with the issue of the apostles and their obvious cessation and says that because the apostles are not with us, then there are no more prophets, tongues speakers, miracle workers, and concludes that the charismatic gifts have ceased.

Now on page 78 of his book, To Be Continued, he says this, quote, if biblical prophecy exists today and can be verified as such, it is canonical.

If it is canonical, then the canon is not closed, but opened. Now I understand his point, but I believe it's quite wrong.

In Acts 19, verses 6 through 7, there are 12 men who are speaking in tongues and prophesying, but there is no record at all that what they said was canonized.

Five minutes, wow. I'm reading slowly, remember? And when Paul had laid his hand upon them, this is what it says, the

Holy Spirit came on them and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. There were in all about 12 men.

In 1 Corinthians 14, 22 and 24, Paul says, so then tongues are a sign not to those who believe, but to unbelievers, but prophecy is a sign not to unbelievers, but to those who believe.

But if all prophesy and an unbeliever or ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he's called to account by all.

In these verses, tongues and prophecy were present and there is no indication that such revelations were canonized or needed to be canonized.

In addition, in Revelation 11, 3, and this is important, and I will grant authority, this is

God speaking, to my witnesses, my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1260 days clothed in sackcloth.

The two witnesses of Revelation 11 are from God and they will be prophesying. This proves that Dr.

Waldron's position that prophecy has ceased is wrong. And this seriously undermines his assertion that if biblical prophecy exists today, then it is canonical.

Furthermore, on page 47 of his book, he says, quote, I was also making the point that the question before us was not whether there is prophetic revelation in the church today.

We agree most heartily with every charismatic and continuationist that there is, close quote.

How is it that Dr. Waldron affirms that prophetic revelation exists in the church today and seems to also say there is no prophetic revelation in the church today, lest it be canonized?

I think that's a contradiction. Furthermore, in his debate with Dr. Brown, when he was explaining his own position, he said at 21 minutes and 50 seconds, apostles of Christ were a gift to the church.

He then referenced Ephesians 4, 8 through 11. Now in addition, on page 15 of his book, he says this, quote, the

New Testament makes clear that apostles of Christ are not given to the church today. They lived only in the first century.

We know for sure, therefore, that one gift and the greatest gift has ceased to be given.

On book, excuse me, on his book, page 42, he says, quote, if according to the clearest teaching of the

New Testament, the greatest gift is not in the church today, then surely it is possible that other gifts may also have ceased.

Let me restate my point. Since we know in the clearest biblical evidence that at least one miraculous gift has ceased, this knowledge provides the crucial premise for the biblical argument for the cessation of the miraculous gifts.

Close quote. Now, Dr. Waldron has stated that if the greatest gift of the church, the apostles, is not in the church today, then other gifts may have ceased.

Notice he says may. He's not asserting a logical necessity, but only a possibility. This weakens his argument even more, but I disagree that the greatest gift is the apostles.

I think the greatest gift is the blood of Christ shed on the cross. If we were to look only after that, we would say then that the

Holy Spirit is a greater gift than the apostles because the Holy Spirit is God and the apostles are not.

Consider Acts 10, 45 through 46. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed because the gift of the

Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also, for they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting

God. Close quote. In addition, we could use his reasoning against him. When Dr.

Waldron says that if the greatest gift to the church is not with us, and this implies the charismatic gifts have ceased, then we could say that on the other hand, if the greatest gift is still with the church today, then the charismatic gifts have not ceased.

If the Holy Spirit is a greater gift to the church than the apostles, and he's also present with us, then the charismatic gifts are still with us, and his argument fails.

After all, the charismatic gifts depend on the presence of the Holy Spirit, not the presence of the apostles.

So let me conclude by saying that first, the biblical classification of the charismatic gifts includes such things as speaking in tongues, word of wisdom, prophecy, faith, and eternal life.

Since faith and eternal life are still in effect today, then by logical necessity, all of the charismatic gifts have not ceased.

Two, our debate is not about specific charismatic gifts, such as the prophetic ones, but charismatic gifts as a whole.

After all, our debate is titled, does the Bible teach that the charismatic gifts are for today?

Third, in 1 Corinthians 1 .7, Paul tells the church universal that it will not lack any charismatic gift while waiting for the return of Christ.

Therefore, we can conclude that we're not lacking any charismatic gift today. Fourth, in Acts 2 .17,

it says that prophecy will occur in the last days. It doesn't say it will stop within the last days.

The last days did not end with the apostles, so we should expect prophecy in the church in these last days, even as Dr.

Waldron has affirmed occurs on page 47 of his book when he said, quote, that prophetic revelation occurs in the church today, close quote.

Fifth, by not distinguishing between the different kinds of gifts that are articulated in the Greek, such as doma, use of the gift of the apostles, and charisma, use of the charismatic gifts,

Dr. Waldron's analysis and cascade argument is incomplete and therefore is undermined. Sixth, Dr.

Waldron in numerous places in his book says that the greatest gift is the apostolate, which I don't believe is the case.

The Holy Spirit is a greater gift than the apostles. So I conclude that the charismatic gifts are still in the church today and that Dr.

Waldron's cascade argument, no offense meant, has too many problems in it to be convincing.

Thanks. It is customary for speakers to begin by thanking the organizers of the event they're speaking at for inviting them to speak and for organizing the event.

I am thankful for the work of Evan and others here at First Evangelical Lutheran Church and the love of the truth which this evening exhibits.

But I do choke a little on thanking them for the opportunity to debate.

I am kind of the anti -debater. I take the opportunity to speak at debates only when asked and only because it gives me the opportunity to teach and expound what

I believe to be the truth of God's word. What I do not like about debates is the tendency and even the motivation they create in the debaters to say anything to win, whether they know it to be true or not.

I hope never to be guilty of that kind of violation of the commandment, thou shalt not bear false witness.

And I take this evening to be about truth, not winning, and will try to say nothing that I do not verily believe to be the truth of God's word.

My exposition of the truth about this question must be brief this evening, and so I encourage you therefore to obtain my book entitled

To Be Continued for a fuller and more careful statement of what I will say tonight.

I'm thankful to say that in looking at Matt Slick's helpful website, I noticed a moderate and wise tone on this issue, which leads me to hope that we can have a fruitful discussion, one that will serve the interest of truth.

All that being said, let me summarize in my remaining time my response to the question of the hour.

That question is, and here I have to just, well

I have to say something a little bit different than it has been said. That question is, have the gifts of prophecy and tongues and healing ceased?

And I thought I was responding in the affirmative to that, because I do affirmatively believe the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and healing have ceased.

But I do not believe it is best to begin by directly addressing the question related to prophecy and tongues.

As with so many questions, the answer to this question is profoundly influenced, if not wholly decided, by the answer to more foundational questions.

I think that is true in this case. Charismatics and continuationists often seem to operate with the assumption and presumption that none of the gifts of the spirit have ceased, and that to say so is virtually to depart from New Testament Christianity.

Their assumption seems to be that we must attempt to recreate the situation of the first Christian churches in the first century of the

Christian era. But this assumption is simply wrong. It is wrong because at least one gift, and the greatest gift of all given to the church, and by that I'm referring, by the way, to 1

Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4, and not to the, of course, greater gifts of God like the blood of Christ and the

Holy Spirit, but the greatest gift mentioned in both 1 Corinthians 12, 28 to 31, and Ephesians 4, 8 to 13, the

New Testament identifies as the apostles of Christ. The greatest gift in Ephesians 4, what begins the list, the greatest gift in 1

Corinthians 12, what begins the list there in 28 is the gift of apostles of Christ.

The New Testament identifies apostles of Christ as a gift of Christ to the church.

He ascended on high, he gave gifts to men. And this means that one of the gifts of the

Holy Spirit and of Christ to the church has ceased unless one maintains that there are living apostles of Christ in the church today.

But the gift of apostles of Christ no longer exists in the church today, and this is plain from the

New Testament. I think Matt Slick agrees with me on that. Before I present that evidence, an important distinction must be made.

When the question is asked, are there apostles in the world today? The first question which must be asked in response is, apostles of whom?

The word apostle in the Bible means sent one, and refers to an authorized representative who is empowered to speak for the one who sent him.

When I assert that there are no apostles in the church today, I mean to say that there are no living apostles of Christ.

The New Testament uses the term apostle to refer to apostles of churches, 2

Corinthians 8 .23 and Philippians 2 .25. I believe there are still apostles of the churches in the world today.

We call them missionaries and associational representatives. But my claim is that there are no apostles of Christ.

Apostles of Christ possessed and had to possess three crucial distinguishing marks.

First, they had to be directly appointed to Christ, by Christ. In Acts 1 .24,

Peter makes this clear. In Acts 1 .2, Luke speaks of the apostles which

Christ had chosen. Yes, there was an election of apostles of Christ, but in that election only one person could vote,

Jesus Christ himself. Second, apostles of Christ must be physical eyewitnesses of the resurrected

Lord Jesus. First Corinthians 9 .1, Acts 1 .22,

Acts 10 .39. First Corinthians 9 .1 summarizes the perspective when

Paul says, am I not an apostle? Have not I seen Jesus Christ, our

Lord? And third, apostles are able to confirm their apostolate by doing miracles.

Second Corinthians 12 .12, the signs of a true apostle were done among you with all perseverance.

So as men possessing these crucial distinguishing marks, these men spoke authoritatively for Jesus Christ.

The Jews had a saying, the apostle of a man is as the man himself.

And the apostles of Jesus Christ were as the man himself. What they said, he said.

To receive him, you had to receive them. Now four arguments may be gleaned from the

New Testament for the cessation of living apostles of Christ in the world today.

And those arguments are these, and this is why I think my opponent admits the cessation of apostles, but not its implications.

Ephesians 2 .20, which says the church has been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, along with Matthew 16 .18

and Revelation 21 .14, speak of apostles as the foundation of the church of Jesus Christ.

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

First Corinthians 15 .8 is speaking of the apostles and where Paul says that in speaking of the apostles, let me read the passage.

First Corinthians 15 .8, verse 7 begins, then he appeared to James and then to all the apostles and last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared to me also, for I am the least of the apostles.

To be an apostle of Christ, you had to see the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul here says that he is the last apostle of Christ and he had to be because he was the last one to whom

Jesus appeared in his resurrected glory. Galatians 2 .7

-9 teaches us that the original twelve apostles gave their imprimatur to the apostolate of Paul.

No erstwhile apostle in the world today can claim that. And then Ephesians 2 .20

affirms, to go back to that passage, that the church is built foundationally on the apostles and prophets of Christ.

This teaches that the form of the New Testament canon is apostles and prophets.

If there are apostles today, the canon would be open as those apostles continue to speak authoritatively for Christ.

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

Now after looking at Matt's website, I have the impression that he agrees with me that there are no living apostles of Christ in the world today.

He might wonder then, and you might wonder as well, how what I am saying is relevant to the question this evening.

I hope perhaps that some of the things he says already begin to indicate why it's so relevant.

And I want to respond to this question in two ways. First as I said earlier, the fact that there are no living apostles of Christ in the world today changes and must change the assumption with which the question being discussed this evening is addressed.

The cessation of the apostolate means that one gift, and that the first and greatest gift given to the church, of course in the context of Ephesians 4 and 1

Corinthians 12, the first and greatest gift given to the church no longer exists in the world today, has ceased to be given to the church.

Now if such a gift can cease, then it is not weird or unreasonable to argue that other gifts may cease.

It's the beginning point, not the end point, but the beginning point of my argument.

Furthermore, the New Testament teaches that the other miraculous gifts like prophecy, tongues, and healings were given through the ministry of the apostles of Christ.

You have that remarkable historical narrative in Acts 8 which connects the giving of the signed gifts to the presence of apostles in Samaria.

Now this raises the possibility that with the cessation of the apostolate, these other gifts would also die out.

The fact of the cessation of the apostolate therefore changes everything about the way the question disputed tonight must be approached.

Second, the cessation of the apostolate is then the first and foundational presupposition of what

I call the cascade argument against continuationism. Matt has made the issue of the continuation of the charismatic gifts an all or nothing issue, but it's not an all or nothing issue, and the cessation of the apostolate shows that it's not an all or nothing issue.

One gift has ceased of the charismatic gifts given to the church. Christ gave gifts to the church, and the first of those gifts, according to Ephesians 4, was the gift of the apostles, and therefore one of the gifts has ceased, and it's not an all or nothing issue, and it's the beginning of the cascade argument.

The cascade argument is that there are no apostles of Christ on earth today, and this allows us to argue that there are no prophets on earth today, and because there are no prophets, this allows us to argue that there are no tongue speakers, and because no tongue speakers, that there are no miracle workers.

Now, before I proceed to explain in a little more detail the cascade argument, let me make clear another assumption

I bring to this argument and to this debate. My argument is for the cessation of apostles, prophets, tongue speakers, and miracle workers.

I am not arguing that there are no miracles in the world today, or that God has ceased to act supernaturally on planet earth.

God never locked himself out of his creation, and it is not necessary to cessationism, especially the form of cessationism

I defend, to hold such an idea. I am arguing for the cessation of the miraculous gifts of prophets and tongue speakers and miracle workers.

I am not arguing for the cessation of miracles. I am not arguing, for instance, for the cessation of miraculous healing, but for the cessation of miraculous healers.

But why do I believe in the cessation of prophets in the world today? Well, for three very simple reasons.

First, the New Testament prophets were foundational. We noted that in Ephesians 2 .20,

apostles were the foundation of Christ's church, but prophets are also foundational there.

We are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. If we may argue that the apostolate is historically past, from their being foundational in Ephesians 2 .20,

then we must also argue that prophets are. The New Testament prophets were infallible.

As defined by the Bible, the prophetic office conferred divine and infallible authority on the true prophet.

Prophecy is defined in Deuteronomy 18 .15 and following, and that definition of prophecy has never been altered, and there is no other definition of prophecy in the

Bible. And that definition in Deuteronomy 18 defines prophets as the very mouth of God speaking the very word of God.

And since most prophecy, as confessed by continuations today, does not even claim to meet such standards, it cannot claim to be biblical prophecy.

Finally, the New Testament prophets were canonical. The form of the

Old Testament canon was Moses and the prophets. Seventeen times, the

New Testament describes the Old Testament as either Moses or the law and the prophets.

Indeed, in some cases, the entire Old Testament is referred to as the prophetic word.

While not all prophecy in the Old Testament found its way into the canon, all such prophecy was in principle canonical and carried canonical authority with the people of God.

Similarly, not all apostolic writings were preserved by the Holy Spirit to be put into the

New Testament as we know it, yet all apostolic writings as the words of Christ -inspired representatives were in principle canonical.

If they had been preserved, of necessity, they would have been part of our New Testament. And here

I must draw to a close. What is the point? It is simply that if biblical prophecy exists today and can be verified as such, it is canonical.

It is simply that if biblical prophecy exists today, then the canon is not closed but open.

The fact is, however, every Christian knows and the contents of the New Testament plainly testify that the canon of the

New Testament is closed and has been closed for almost 2 ,000 years. The choice for continuation is to start.

They may maintain their claims to continuing prophecy in the church, or they may have a closed canon.

They may have continuing prophecy, or they may have the witness of the New Testament that the principle of canonical authority departed from the church nearly 2 ,000 years ago.

Thank you very much. Now before I get started,

I just want to say that I actually like Sam. And nothing personal, but it's going to tack the arguments, we're going to get going, all right?

We're going to shake hands afterwards. We love each other, okay? And I think he's bigger than me, so I'm not going to challenge him to a wrestling match.

So all right. Now he, I think, makes a mistake. In that he says, have the gifts of prophecy, miracle workers, the prophetic stuff stopped.

But that's not what the debate is titled. The debate is titled, does the Bible teach the charismatic gifts are for today?

That's what we're debating. I debate a lot of atheists, I debate a lot of people on a lot of different issues.

Now let me tell you, the title of the argument is very precise, and it's always important to pay attention to the debate title.

We're not debating whether or not the apostles are for today. They're not, okay? We don't have any disagreement on that whatsoever.

The issue is, are the charismatic gifts for today? Now as I've gone through the scriptures, and I let the scriptures teach us, the scriptures tell us that the charisma, our word of wisdom, knowledge, prophecy, tongues, faith, healing, cheerfulness, eternal life.

Have those gifts ceased? If you're going to say, well part of these have ceased, but part of these have not, then the charismatic gifts have not ceased.

The issue is not have part of the, or some of the charismatic gifts ceased, it's have they ceased?

They have not. Now what I think is really important, and I don't know how many of you have ever studied

Greek. I know he has, I have. Let me tell you, Greek is very specific. There are different words in Greek for the word gift, at least four different words.

The word doma is used to describe the gift of the apostles. Charisma is used to describe the charismatic gifts.

To say that the doma gifts, that the apostles, the doma, have ceased, is like saying, because there are no red presents under the

Christmas tree, there are no green presents also. Because there are no doma, there's no charisma.

But that's not how it's spoken of in the original language. That's not the argument that you can hold from the scriptures.

Now again, we're not arguing whether or not the apostles are for today. That's not a problem.

But the Bible says, in 1 Corinthians 1, 7, to the church, and therefore to us, that you are not to lack any charisma while you're waiting for the apocalypsis of Jesus.

You are not to lack any charismatic gift. Well, I'm arguing that this is what it says, that's what it means, we're not to lack any charismatic gift.

That's what I argue. As a church, we're not supposed to lack it. Why? Because Paul says so.

If the apostles are the tying, the place where we tie the argument to, if they've stopped and the charismatic gifts have ceased, then how is 1

Corinthians 1, 7 still true for us? And we haven't even gotten into 1 Corinthians 13, 8 through 13, which

I'd love to get into, we just don't have the time here. But it's another place where Paul the apostle ties the perfect as being, not the closing of the canon doesn't work, folks, but as the return of Christ, which he admits in his book.

And there's also Revelation 11, 3. You see, Revelation 11, 3 says that the two prophets, excuse me, yeah, the two prophets, the two witnesses are going to be prophesying for over 1 ,200 days.

That is a charismatic action, a charismatic gift. They're going to be here when the church is here.

They're going to be here for what's going to be happening. They're going to be prophesying. If the argument is that prophecy that we know is from God challenges the closing of the canon, then by his logic, the canon can't be closed because it means that the two prophets are going to be speaking inspired words from God.

They're going to be killed, they're going to be dead, and they're going to rise from the dead. There are two men that this is going to happen to, and they're going to be prophesying.

If the canon is closed, and I agree that it's closed, but the logic doesn't work. The apostles are done, therefore prophecy can't be, because prophecy, if it were here, would mean that the canon can't be closed, but that's not a sound argument.

You see, the scriptures teach that they're going to be prophesying, and I'd like him to address this.

Maybe we'll get this in cross -examination. In his book on page 47, he says, quote, I was also making the point that the question before us was not whether there is prophetic revelation in the church today.

We agree most heartily with every charismatic and continuationist that there is, and when I read that,

I'm like, am I getting this right? Maybe I misunderstood, and that's certainly possible. I never intentionally misrepresent anybody.

I've misunderstood people, and he can put context in that, no problem.

But when I read that, and I read it again today, that's what it says, and I remember it's on the right -hand side of the book, and it's near the beginning of the chapter.

Now, you know, and also in his book, we didn't have time to get into this, but he was making notes about the issue of if it's prophetic, and he was talking about this in the book, and we just need more time to go through this, in Deuteronomy 13 and Deuteronomy 18, that the signs of the prophet, when you speak and it comes to pass, that's how you know there's a true prophecy, and he was saying that you have to keep the

Old Testament and the New Testament standards of prophecy together, because there's no distinguishing between them. Well, 1

Corinthians 14, verses 24 and 25 says, but if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he's called into account by all.

The secrets of his heart are disclosed, and he will fall on his face and worship God. The secrets of his heart are disclosed by predicting the future?

Now, the whole church is prophesying, which doesn't have any inclination that there's canonization of the words that are inspired, and we see that prophecy here in 1

Corinthians 14, 24 and 25, deals with the issue of disclosing the secrets of someone's heart.

How is it then that prophecy is a prophetic future -forthtelling if it deals with the person right sitting there and the conviction of his own heart?

Something's up with that. There's a slight differentiation between the New Testament use of prophecy and the

Old Testament condition out of Deuteronomy 18, and I'm not saying they're opposite, I'm saying this is more revelation and it needs to be worked into the overall definition of what prophecy is in the

New Testament. So this is my position. I hope that I've made the case.

The two verses I really think you've got to look at, 1 Corinthians 1, 7, that we not lack any charisma while we're waiting for the return of Christ, and Revelation 11, 3.

The two witnesses will be prophesying. If prophesying means that the canon's closed, then by his argument the canon's not closed.

Well, we know it's closed, so the argument can't work. Done? Out of time? Okay, thanks.

With my brother, I feel the lack of time to say everything that one would want to say, and so I'm going to be bullet point in what my remarks during this time of rebuttal.

First of all, I wasn't able to continue the, because of lack of time, the cascade argument, and let me just tell you why it follows that tongue speaking, for instance, has ceased today if apostles and prophets have.

Tongue speaking, according to the New Testament, is a form of prophecy.

In fact, Paul says that tongue speaking is as great as prophecy if one interprets.

And so tongue speaking is a subset of prophecy, and you can see this in the book, and there are a number of,

I think, cogent New Testament arguments for this, so that if prophecy is ceased, then tongue speaking as a subset of prophecy has also ceased.

Now let me say a couple of other things in response to things that my brother has said.

First of all, let me give you the full context of that enormously apparently damning statement that I believe that there's prophecy in the church today.

Here's what follows on substantially. The book of Revelation is a prophecy.

You have Bibles in front of you. We're in a church. The book of Revelation is prophecy.

There's prophecy in the church today. That's what I was saying. That's all that I was saying, and I'm surprised that I was so unclear in my writing that Matt didn't understand that.

But if you check the context, you'll find out that all I'm saying is that there are the written remains and writings of prophets in the church today because the

New Testament and the whole Bible contains prophecy, and we have the Bible today. This is why

I stress, by the way, that there are no living apostles of Christ in the church today because we certainly have what

Justin Martyr called the memoirs of the apostles in our New Testaments. And so in our

Bibles, we have the authority and the continuing ministry of apostles and prophets.

We just don't have living apostles and prophets. Now, one key in what

I think to be fallacious assumption in Matt's arguments for the continuation of prophecy, and by the way,

I think he got the debate question wrong.

The debate question is that was sent to me, says, have the gifts of tongues, prophecy, tongues, and healing ceased, and was not as he said it was to you.

I think he's mistaken there. But one key in what I think to be fallacious assumption in his argument for the continuation of prophecy today is that Matt assumes that there are two kinds of prophecy in the

Bible. There's a canonical kind and a non -canonical kind of prophecy. Unlike most other continuationists today,

Matt seems to think that both kinds are inspired revelation. First, he gives the cessationist argument as he understands it on his website, and then he responds, this is a faulty argument because the scripture itself recognizes inspired revelation as that is not to be added to the

Bible. And he quotes 1 Corinthians 14 and says, this shows that there were, for lack of a better word, different kinds of revelation.

One from the prophets and apostles meant for canonization, and another through the spirit to be used in the church for edification.

Well, I thought the canon was edifying, but leaving that aside. So in my opinion, for someone to maintain that revelation today is a threat to the canon and does not consider 1

Corinthians 14, 26 is not applying scripture properly. Now, here's my question in response to this.

How does Matt know that modern inspired revelation does not belong in the canon? There are claims to prophecy today.

He acknowledges that there are two kinds of prophecy. Well, how does he know that modern prophecy doesn't belong in the canon?

On what basis does he distinguish this kind of modern prophecy that belongs in the canon or that does not belong in the canon in his view, and then those that does?

He's given us no principle of distinction here. Matt's argument amounts to saying that there is a distinction between canonical prophecy and non -canonical prophecy because canonical prophecy is in the

Bible. But this begs a key question which demands an answer. Why does some prophecy belong in the

Bible and some not if both are inspired revelation? In this way,

Matt's response to the canonical question is superficial and I think circular. It seems to me that he is saying that all prophecy is not canonical because all prophecy is not in the canon.

Well, of course, but this does not tell us why some prophecy does not belong in the canon or on what basis the early church recognized some prophecy is canonical and some is not canonical.

I suspect that behind Matt's statements, there is a hidden assumption, but one which he shares with other modern continuationists.

This assumption is that there's a difference between New Testament prophets who are not canonical and Old Testament prophets who were.

But the church is built, notice the order, upon the basis of the apostles and prophets.

You hear the order, apostles first, then prophets. Paul is not saying, though it'd be true in a sense, that the church is built on the

Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles. The order is significant, apostles and prophets.

In Ephesians 3 .5 and in Ephesians 4 .11 and in 1 Corinthians 12, it's clear that what he's talking about in Ephesians 2 .20

are New Testament prophets and the church is built on them.

Well, there's much that could be said about the biblical definition of prophecy, but let me conclude by saying this, and this is kind of a personal note.

What really helped me to understand the issue before us this evening was teaching the doctrine of the word for the last 30 years to students.

When I teach the doctrine of the word and when you teach it, you are forced to think about how God gave us his word.

You can no longer naively assume that the canon just hangs on a skyhook or is just there.

You have to recognize how God gave the canon and what the canon is.

And when you start asking questions like this, it makes clear that the Old Testament is

Moses and the prophets, and the New Testament is the apostles and prophets.

God gave his word through historically accredited messengers, and in the Old and New Testaments, those messengers included prophets.

Prophets are by definition the mouth of God, and what they speak is by definition the word of God, and thus the infallible standard rule, and therefore canon, because that's what canon means, of God's people.

Prophets are canonical by definition. And if there are prophets today, the canon is open.

So what we're going to do is move into the cross -examination time. So each speaker will have 10 minutes to ask questions, and I will let y 'all know when you're running out of time.

And we'll do 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 10 minutes, and 10 minutes. And we did build in a lot of time for cross -examination, but that did leave the time for speaking to be very short.

So hopefully as we move into this next phase, we'll grow in our depth. So go ahead.

All right. Can you hear me okay? Yes? All right. Okay, so I get to ask you questions, right?

Yes, that's right. All right, I'm enjoying this. Good. So let me ask you, do you agree with the scriptural classification of the charismatic gifts, including eternal life and faith as being charismatic?

I was basing my definition of the charismatic gifts on 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4, which don't mention eternal life and the blood of Christ.

Of course, I acknowledge that the blood of Christ and the eternal life are gifts from God, sovereignly bestowed by His Holy Spirit.

But in the key discussions of the charismatic gifts in 1

Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4 that I was using as the basis of my assertions, those gifts are not mentioned as charismatic gifts.

But do you agree that eternal life, Romans 6 .23, is a re -gift, it's a charismatic gift?

Yes, I do. Okay. And faith is also a charismatic gift. That's right. Okay. So, we have to conclude, you believe in the continuation of at least some charismatic gifts.

I do. That's, in fact, my whole point, that some continue and some don't. Good. Okay. I guess you're a partialist,

I'm a completist. Okay. I'm not sure quite to make of that, but that's all right.

I believe in the complete listing of them, they're still there, you believe in the partial, I guess. All right.

So, if you single out only miraculous gifts, or revelatory gifts, and say they have ceased when other charismatic gifts are for today, then you've already gone on with this, that means that you still believe that there are charismatic gifts for today in the church.

Yes, some of the things that are designated in the testament as charismatic gifts are for today. Okay. You also said that if there's prophecy today, including tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, that that would mean the canon is jeopardized.

Yes. Okay. You and I have a very high, just so you know, folks, both of us have a very high view of scripture. I defend it all the time.

I believe the canon is closed. However, by your argument, that if there's prophecy, that it's canonizable, the canon is threatened.

Yes. Revelation 11 -3. Yes. The two witnesses will prophesy for 1 ,200, I think it's 1 ,260 days.

And they'll be, as it says, they will be dressed in sackcloth, be killed, their dead bodies will rise in the street for three and a half days, they'll be dead for three and a half days.

They'll rise from the dead, be resurrected, stand on their feet, and ascend into heaven. Yes. Those are definitely two people. They're going to be prophesying.

Would you say that their prophecy is inspired of God? And if so, doesn't that affect the canon by your argument?

Well, look, Matt, that's a great question, but I'm really kind of surprised by it in some ways, since we're both amillennialists.

We both, I think, would agree that massively the book of Revelation is written in apocalyptic and figurative language.

And so, I think you already know what I'm going to say to that argument, and that is that I think that the account in Revelations chapter 11 is an apocalyptic, is apocalyptic language, and the language of two men prophesying is language that's going to be understood figuratively.

In fact, I take it with William Hendrickson and other amillennialists to be figurative of the church, and it's bearing witness to the truth of the word of God contained in the prophetic word throughout this age.

And I take the three and a half, I'm trying to remember, how many days is it that they prophesy?

Forty -two months? Something like that. A long time. Or 1260 days.

I take that to be figurative for the entirety of the inter -eventual period, and the three and a half days that they're falling, they're fallen dead in the streets to be figurative of the tribulation.

And so, it doesn't bother me that the text says that they prophesied, because I think it's speaking of the church as it preaches and proclaims the prophetic word.

And I think you're pressing this in a literal way that's kind of surprising to me. Well, I'm a charismatical amillennialist, and when it says they will be killed, their dead bodies will lie in the street, people are going to send presents to each other, three and a half days, and be resurrected, stand on their feet,

I don't see this being symbolic. Okay. But let's move on. All right. It's in your book, page 77.

I got it someplace. There it is. And, boy, I marked this thing up. I got a lot of stuff in here.

He signed it for me. Thank you. He said, page 77.

I'm pushing this book, too. Get it. Check it out. A true prophet possesses and must possess both of two infallible marks.

First, what he prophesies must come true. Yeah. Agreed. Second, he must not contradict previous revelation.

Agreed. But teach people to follow the true God. Absolutely correct. Very good stuff.

He's a systematics professor. Very good. Now, in light of 1 Corinthians 14, 24 through 25, and I'm going to admit,

I'm not exactly sure how to take these verses, because what they say, to me, is really kind of interesting.

It says this, but if all prophesy and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all.

He's called to account by all. The secrets of his heart are disclosed. Now, that's the phrase that gets me to think.

Yeah. I'm of the opinion that every word in the Bible is inspired in every order. Christ Jesus, Jesus Christ, everything.

Now, the secrets of his heart are disclosed. That is not how, as I've read through the Bible, it's not how prophecy is described, but as a future, forth -telling thing, as what you say.

How, then, is this prophecy fitting that model that you describe, when it says that the secrets of his heart are disclosed?

I'm kind of surprised by that, because I think all of the word of God, including the prophetic word, which is what

Peter calls the Old Testament, is constantly involved in the revelation of the hearts of men.

And I think if you looked at the Old Testament writing prophets, you could find many places in which, first of all, their prophecy was not necessarily predictive.

And secondly, that it was also foretelling.

It was authoritative of forth -telling, as well as foretelling. So, I think the word of God is always revealing of the nature of men's hearts.

The Old Testament prophets revealed the nature of men's hearts. And in specific ways, in a number of places,

I think they exposed the nature of men's hearts. And when you come to something like Elijah's words to Ahab, and Elijah's words to him, there are many places where it's clear that the hearts of men are being exposed.

I don't see anything really that different about 1 Corinthians 14, 24, and 25, as opposed to all biblical prophecy and the word of God.

Now, but remember, I quoted you when you said that it was, that it must come to pass and not contradict.

So, and you have a looser definition of prophecy than what you said in the book, then. That's what

I would conclude. Well, I'm talking about the signs that confirm the prophecies of these prophets.

Obviously, prophets, and it's clear from the Old Testament itself, wrote a lot of things that were true, besides the signs that they gave to confirm their status as prophets.

And so, yeah, of course, there I'm talking about the signs they gave, which of course consisted in things that they foretold, because that was what would be miraculously significant of the fact that they were true prophets.

But they did many other things, and in the process, I think they could both foretell and expose the hearts of men at the same time.

Okay, we've got time for one more question. All right. So I went over the Greek extensively, and charisma is not used to describe the apostles.

Doma is a different gift. And so I'm curious why you didn't reflect that examination in your book, which

I think would be highly significant. Sure. So how come you didn't? I'm trying to bring the accusation, but politely.

Well, you know, I said at the beginning that I'm not going to assert things I don't know. And so I have not,

I've never read that kind of, or been confronted with that kind of distinction between charisma and doma.

And so I have not, I have not done the word studies to be able to assert, to be able to either agree or disagree with what you're saying.

And I'm just going to have to admit that right now. I doubt, I doubt that there's that kind of distinction either between the nouns or the verbal roots of the nouns.

But I can't, without a few minutes to do the word studies, comment on that.

I doubt if there's that kind of distinction. The fact that these two words are different, and the one happens never to be used of apostles, if that's true, and I take your word for it right now, it doesn't seem significant to me.

It doesn't mean, I think it's worth an examination. Doma, durea, and charisma.

I think those are important. I need to do the study. While I'm getting to my notes, let me ask you this question.

When you actually read 1 Corinthians 1 -7, it seems to me that, well it doesn't seem to me, it's clear, and it seems to me, and I'm asking you, isn't 1

Corinthians 1 -7 descriptive rather than imperative? And you know the passage, so that you're not lacking in any gift awaiting eagerly the revelation of our

Lord Jesus Christ. I would say that it's declarative, because he says in verse 4, I thank my

God always concerning you for the grace of God which is given to you in Christ Jesus, that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, even as the testimony concerning Christ is confirmed in you, so that you are not lacking in any gift, any charisma, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our

Lord Jesus Christ. Two more verses. Who will also confirm you to the end. That's eschatological.

Blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. He ties them with the arrival of Christ. And verse 9.

God is faithful through whom you're called into fellowship with His Son Christ Jesus. This is all for us. We're called into fellowship.

Are we going to say that 1 Corinthians 1 -7 is not for us today? But two verses earlier it is, and two verses earlier it was.

So it has to be declarative in that it's for the church today. Yes, but is it imperative? Of course it's declarative, but is it imperative?

Yes, I would say so. I mean, I could look and see if it's an imperative mood, but I would say off the top of my head, it's what we're supposed to have, he says, so that you're not going to lack it.

We have to do further study. But it seems pretty clear. The next question.

What is the difference between canonical and non -canonical prophecy, besides the fact that one is in the canon and the other is not?

Well, I would say that one's in the canon and one is not, and that the Holy Spirit can certainly guide us through a revelation, through certain aspects, as you say, can happen, even though you don't, well, that's another topic, the hope in a can of worms.

You do admit that certain kinds of things like that can occur today. So if certain things like that can occur today and they're from God, they're not intended to be canonical.

And I'm with you. The apostles are the ones who wrote the scriptures, and so therefore the canon's closed.

There isn't going to be any more canonical revelation, but it doesn't mean that charismatic gifts have ceased. Are all the

New Testament books written by apostles? Apostles enter in Manuensis, or Luke and Mark.

They were disciples of Peter and Paul. So we would say in one sense yes, in another sense no, depending on how you define apostle in this context.

Isn't that what Paul meant by saying the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and the New Testament prophets?

Well, that's what's really interesting, because if New Testament prophets are there in the New Testament, then we would have to go through and see what is he saying about that, because if the church is built on it, it's not a canonical sense that the prophets in the

New Testament church are going to be inscripturated, because we know that isn't the case out of 1 Corinthians 14. We know that Paul teaches us that prophecy occurs, and it's not canonized.

So by necessity, there have to be different kinds. Of course, the question isn't whether all prophecy makes it into the list of books we call canon.

The question is whether all prophecy is in principle the Word of God and canonical in that in principle sense.

And is all prophecy in principle canonical in the Word of God? Is it all prophecy the Word of God? Well, there's a lot of questions there.

All prophecy that comes through the charismatic movement of the Holy Spirit empowering somebody is in that sense from God.

But there are such occurrences that are not to be canonized, as 1 Corinthians 14 clearly tells us.

Is it the Word of God? Yes, it is. Then if it's the Word of God, isn't it equal in authority to the

Bible? But now you're equivocating. Because the Word of God can be used as Jesus is the Word of God. The Word of God is inspired in scripturation.

But also the Word of God in the looser sense of what you're saying is it's the Word of God that comes through a tongue in a prophecy. And so that's the fallacy of equivocation.

We've got to be careful. So let me see if I have this right and ask you another question. How do we know that modern prophecy, which is inspired revelation, which is the

Word of God, does not belong in the canon? The same way we know that the two male witnesses in Revelation 11 -3, and it's not going to be symbolic because they're dead, their bodies are there, they're going to rise from the dead, stand on their feet.

We know that that isn't going to be canonized. But you have to assume that that's all symbolic in order to hold the position that you do.

I don't. I just believe Revelation 11 -3 necessitates a literal understanding of what it is that they're saying.

Pursuing the same line of thought, would Paul's first epistle to—would Paul's lost epistle to the

Corinthians and his epistle to the Laodiceans, if preserved, have been canonical? I would assume so.

So you're saying that there are some things that would have been canonical if they had been preserved.

Yeah, and God ordained by His sovereignty to not have them be preserved. And so couldn't we say the same thing about the prophecies of 1

Corinthians 14? Absolutely. So you do agree they're prophecies, not canonized. I—well, now you're asking me a question.

Do I get to respond? No, I didn't. I said it was a statement. My point, since you've asked me a question, is that there are some things that are in principle canonical that were not preserved and put in the

Word of God. Okay? So that's the point I'm making. Who are the prophets in Ephesians 2 .20?

I would say the Old Testament prophets. The Old Testament. Well, that's apostles and prophets.

I'm not exactly sure who that would be. Doesn't Ephesians 3 .5 say that, in the immediate context, that in other generations the mystery was not made known to the sons of men as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the

Spirit? Doesn't that identify the prophets, the apostles and prophets, in the preceding context as New Testament apostles and prophets?

I don't know. I'd have to do an analysis on it to see. The prophets might not be registered as the Old Testament prophets because there is a sense in which it's the

Old Testament situation. We know that the prophets in the Old Testament as a whole and the apostles in the

New. I believe the apostles are listed primarily because they have more authority than the Old Testament prophets since they represent

Christ in that direct sense. Are tongues human languages, angelic languages, or both?

I would say both. Doesn't Acts 2 clearly identify tongues as human languages?

I would say so, yes. And so doesn't this suggest that the tongues of 1

Corinthians 14 are also then human languages? Sure, I have no problem with that. But also 1

Corinthians 13 says, if I speak with the tongues of angels. So I think that's a possibility that there are angelic languages because they have to communicate.

But isn't it possible that 1 Corinthians 13 .1, when it says, if I speak with the tongues of men and angels, is hypothetical and hyperbolic?

Sure, it could be. It could also be literal. But isn't this the key passage that's used to prove that some biblical tongues are angelic?

I wouldn't say prove, I would say suggest. So you're not sure that biblical tongues are in some cases angelic?

I wouldn't know. I don't have the gift of interpretation or discernment to be able to tell you if it were to occur.

If you want me to try it, I could try it. Do you agree that tongue speaking is a form of prophecy?

Yeah, loosely yes. I agree with your analysis there, yeah. On what basis or by what principle is the canon closed?

Because the apostles are no longer with us. So you're asserting that the canon is closed because it was written by apostles?

Yep. What about the books in the New Testament that were not written by apostles? I said earlier by their amanuensis or those who were disciples of the apostles, like Luke and Mark, who wrote and under the guiding of the apostles, the church recognized that they were inspired as well.

Isn't it possible that these men wrote the New Testament because they were New Testament prophets? I'm sorry, I missed one word.

Isn't it possible that these men are authors of New Testament books and recognized as canonical because they're actually

New Testament prophets? Well, then we're redefining New Testament prophet a little, or it could be in that category.

I think it's a possibility, yeah. I need to check for another question

I wanted to ask you. You spoke of eternal life as a miraculous gift.

Yeah. How do you define miracle? Wow. I've never been asked that question.

I would say something that God does. I have been asked it before. I'm not sure how to answer it quickly and efficiently.

What God does out of the norm by His sovereign grace that could not be achieved any other way.

That's a loose definition. I wouldn't die on that hill, but for now. Yeah. So let me pursue that just one more time.

Isn't it actually biblical to say that a miracle is an external manifestation of God's redemptive activity that goes beyond the normal kind of things that we're used to?

Not sure you mean by external. I know that when I got saved, that was a miraculous work of God because I was not, just one minute earlier, not in the mood to be saved, let's just say.

Rebelling against God. It was a miraculous work. Doesn't, by that definition, miracle have such a broad meaning that it becomes insignificant?

No, not at all. How many of you would, wouldn't you say that your own conversion is miraculous?

You're reformed like I am. You must say yes. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry about that.

Oh, sorry. Okay. We'll speak into the mics for you, Evan. Actually, I think the

Sith were right. He's a continuationist in the dark side.

Sorry about that. I guess, yeah. All right,

I'm going to turn to Acts 2 .17. I'm going to question you for a while, right? Is that what's happening here?

Okay. Okay, that's right. This is what was spoken through Joel the prophet.

And it shall be in the last days, God says, I'll pour forth my spirit on all mankind, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions.

And it goes on. And I know that you, if I'm hoping I'm representing you accurately, that your position is that what that specific issue was, was

Pentecost. And only Pentecost. Is that correct? I'm trying to represent you.

Well, okay. You're asking me, is my position that this is Pentecost and nothing but Pentecost?

That when it talks here about prophecy, your daughters shall prophesy, men shall see visions, men shall see dreams.

Yeah. Okay. And it goes on. Well, let me answer your question.

I guess the best, to be honest, not exactly.

I don't think this is Pentecost and nothing but Pentecost, unless you allow me to include the period of time in which, what

I'll call the apostolic era. But I do, but go ahead.

Okay. Making notes for a possible question here.

Okay, so it goes on to say in verse 18, Even on my bond slaves, both men and women, I will in these days pour forth my spirit, they shall prophesy.

I will grant wonders in the sky above, the signs of the earth below, blood and fire, vapor and smoke, sun turned to darkness, moon into blood, the great and glorious day.

This is the last days, which we're still in. And it goes on to verse 33. And he says,

Therefore, having been exalted, this is Peter's sermon continuing on. Therefore, having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the

Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, as he poured forth this which you both see and hear.

And I did this in my opening statement, verse 38. Repent, you baptized, in the name of Jesus, you'll receive a gift of the

Holy Spirit for the promise, the promise of the presence of the Holy Spirit, in the context of the last days, in the context of the prophecy, the visions and stuff.

For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord God will call to himself.

Don't you think that this suggests that the charismatic gifts of prophecy is for today, in the last days, since we're in the last days?

No. As the Spirit is for today? No, I don't at all. And let me say a couple of reasons.

First of all, it does not say throughout the last days. The language is really clear.

It's in the last days that this will happen. Are we in the last days? I agree that the last days commenced with the resurrection of Christ and with his return.

But the language does not say throughout the last days. It says in the last days.

One could equally well have said that Christ would be crucified in the last days, or that Christ would be raised from the dead in the last days, or that the resurrection would take place in the last days, and all of these things were true, but it wouldn't mean that they were happening throughout this inter -eventual period.

Secondly, Acts 2 .38 is not talking about the gifts of prophecy in tongues, per se.

It says you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is being given. This gift is given to everyone who repents and receives the forgiveness of sins.

Now, clearly, Paul teaches that God sovereignly gives the charismatic gifts as he pleases, and so Paul can't possibly be saying here that they'll all receive the gift of the

Holy Spirit in its manifestation in prophecy in tongues. And so, no, I don't think this proves anything.

I would assume that you would think it wouldn't prove anything. I've got kind of a technical question here.

I don't know if you've ever been asked this kind of a question before. So you say that the charismatic gifts have ceased with the death of the last apostle.

That would be your position. Not exactly. Let me run this logic by you, and just grant me a little bit of leeway in this.

Let's just say that John the Apostle was the last apostle, and he died at 90 A .D. Let's just use that as an argument.

And it was January 1st, 90 A .D., let's just say. Alright, so there were people before who had the charismatic gifts.

When he died, did they suddenly lose the ability to have charismatic gifts? No. So then the charismatic gifts continued after the death of the last apostle.

Yeah, I assume that there were people upon whom the apostles laid their hands that outlived the apostles, and that the gifts of prophecy and tongues gradually died out in the church.

You already see manifestations of this in the utter absence of any mention of the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and healing in, for instance, the pastoral epistles, 1 and 2

Timothy and Titus. And the absence of any mention of tongues except in the book of Acts and 1

Corinthians and the New Testament. Alright, I'm going to sidestep a little bit because I'm curious about something.

And I want people to be aware of this as well. But I want you to understand, when I read this, I am not asserting that any experience throughout history has any sufficiency over Scripture.

However, John Knox, you and I are both Reformed in our theology. We're both Calvinists, okay?

And John Knox, this is out of a book called Scott's Worthings, and he foretold both the manner of their surrender and their deliverance from the

French galleys. He thus addressed himself to Queen Mary, husband Henry, it's hard to read this because it's all in English, Lord Darnley.

The Lord shall strike both head and tail. Both king and queen died violent deaths. He likewise said, when the castle of Edinburgh held out for the queen against the regent of the castle, which should spew out the captain, meaning

Sir, Mr. Grains, Kirkcaldy, excuse me, with shame that he should not come out of the gate.

He shall be pulled out of the next and brought down over the wall with shame and his carcass shall be hung before the sun so God hath assured me.

This is John Knox. Now he's the founder of Presbyterianism. He was called one of the

Presbyterian divines. And I'm only going to read John Knox now. We have George Wisher, we have John Fleming.

I have other quotes from these guys. The truth seemed to appear in a short time thereafter. Anyway, it goes on to say, it did happen just as he said.

All right. Now again, I'm not saying that experience trumps scripture. Don't anybody say that or misquote me.

But I am curious, what would you say about this? And I could read George Wisher, John Fleming, the voice of God prophesying things happening.

What do you say about this? Well, what I say about this is that John Knox never claimed to be a prophet.

And I make this distinction in my book, as you know, between miracles and miracle healers, or between miraculous healing and healers.

And similarly, Charles Haddon Spurgeon in his ministry at Metropolitan Tabernacle in London in the late 1800s, on a number of occasions uttered statements that were amazingly found to be true and identified people in his audience with amazing accuracy.

And the kind of statements he made seemed to be miraculous. I admit that these statements may be,

I don't know, may be miraculous. But in order for them to prove the gift of prophecy in the church today, the men who made the statements would have to claim to be prophets.

And neither John Knox nor Charles Haddon Spurgeon ever claimed to be prophets or claimed to give miraculous signs proving their prophetic state.

Well, you said, though, that if it's prophetic, it's prophecy, in Deuteronomy 18 you reference in your book, it comes to pass that it's okay.

I said no such thing. I thought you did. I said no such thing. I said if the prophet gives a sign, but for the prophet to give a sign, he must claim to be a prophet and the sign must come to pass.

John Knox never claimed to be a prophet, nor did Charles Haddon Spurgeon. So given that this is accurate information, did he prophesy?

Say that again? Given that this quote is accurate, historically it happened, which seems to be the case, did he prophesy?

No. Even though he predicted the future? Yeah, prediction is not prophecy. Accurate prediction does not make someone a prophet.

If that were true, Nostradamus and a lot of other people would be prophets. So an accurate prediction does not make someone a prophet.

Well, I've read all of Nostradamus, and at best he's, at best, interpretation of 15 % accuracy.

Sure, but 15 % accuracy doesn't make him a prophet. He has to be 100 % accurate all the time.

But you said that it's that revelation that comes from God and a prophecy of the future, and you're the one who represented the accuracy of it, depending on Deuteronomy 18.

That has to come to pass, which I read earlier. Yeah. So he did do that. It did come to pass. So therefore, wasn't it from God?

Was the prophecy he gave from God? No, to be a prophecy, it would have to come from God. The point is not whether it's a prophecy, if you want to use your language.

Did he predict the future? The point is whether John Knox or Charles Haddon Spurgeon claimed to be a prophet and gave a sign of being a prophet.

They did not. And therefore, it may be an accurate prediction of the future. But look, if John Knox and Charles Haddon Spurgeon claimed to be a prophet and they predicted other things that they didn't come to pass, they would be proved to be false prophets.

It would be a debate if they did or did not do that. But the point is that they never claimed to be prophets, and so the whole discussion of whether the things they said came true or not is irrelevant.

I would say, on the contrary, because it's from God, it's prophetic. It occurred there were godly men, so prophecy exists in the church today.

I have to admit, I must have not read the instructions because I get two times the cross -examination.

Yeah, I didn't know that either. We could wrestle. Yeah, we could do arm wrestling. I think

I might win that. I think you're going to win. After all is said and done,

Matt, whether it's Charisma or Doma, doesn't the fact that one of the gifts mentioned in Ephesians 4, one of the gifts, let me read the passages because I think this is relevant.

Ephesians 4, it says, Therefore it says, Now this expression, isn't the fact that you admit that there are no apostles today, but there are prophets, evangelists, and pastor -teachers, isn't that inconsistent with your notion that all the charismatic gifts continue?

No. And why not? The word gifts there is Doma, not Charisma, and Paul differentiates between Doma and Charisma.

He's the one who says the charismatic gifts, for example, eternal life, cheerfulness, faith, and various things like that.

When he talks here, he says the gifts that have been given by God, the apostles are listed as being something different than the

Charisma. As I said earlier, the analogy, there are no more red gifts under the Christmas tree, therefore that means there are no more green gifts.

No, that's not correct. Just because the Doma aren't here doesn't mean the Charisma aren't, because the Charisma are dependent upon the presence of the

Holy Spirit, not the presence of the apostles. To use your distinction, are prophets listed as Doma here?

Yes. And evangelists? Yes. And so how do you know that the kind of distinction you're making between Charisma and Doma actually carries the weight it does, and that these words are as distinct as you say they are?

Because I did a lot of homework on them. Isn't it possible that Charisma might be a subset of Doma?

Well, it depends how then you would define Doma and Charisma, because you could define them in such a way that one could be a subset of either one.

Yeah, that's exactly my point. That would, based on your presuppositions, you presuppose the charismatic gifts aren't here.

Well, let me ask you another question. Let's go to back to the book of Revelation. That was fun. Where are we going?

Oh, Revelation. Revelation 20. You were insisting on Revelation 11 being literal.

I want to know, since you're a non -millennialist, if you think Revelation 20 is literal.

Which part? The key, the chain of Revelation 20 by which

Satan is bound. I think the chain is symbolic. Do you think it's a thousand years, literal or symbolic?

Symbolic. So, why do you think that the two witnesses in Revelation 11 is not symbolic?

Because of what it says. And what does it say that makes you think that?

Very good. That's a good question. And I will grant authority to my two witnesses. They will prophesy.

Two witnesses. They will prophesy 1260 days. If you know about Daniel, you'll know about times, times, and half of times.

We'll get into that. There are two olive trees and two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the Earth. And if anyone wants to harm them, fire flows out of their mouth and devours their enemies.

So, if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this way. So, fire comes out of their mouth. We know that's not a literal, you know, unless you've got really bad breath.

Something's happening where they're prophesying, they're speaking, and something bad is happening to the critics. They have power to shut up the sky, so that the rain will not fall during those days of their prophesying.

And they have power over the waters to turn them into blood and strike the earth with every plague as often as they desire.

Now, is this the Christian church or the Old Testament? No. When they have finished their testimony, the beast came out of the abyss, will make war on them, will overcome them, and kill them.

Their dead bodies will lie in the street in the great city, which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their

Lord was crucified. Those from the peoples and tribes and nations, I'll try to get this done without hogging all your time.

Their dead bodies will be in the streets for three and a half days. They will not allow their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb.

Those who dwell on the earth will rejoice and celebrate, send gifts. After three and a half days, the breath of life of God came into them.

They stood on their feet, they're resurrected, and they rose into heaven. That sounds like it's going to be two guys. Well, just a second.

So, you're taking the two guys, literally. But you take the beast that comes from the bottom of the abyss, literally here, the same passage.

Yeah, there's an abyss and he's going to come out. Is he a beast? Well, whatever a beast means. Is he a literal animal?

Well, I don't know. What kind of definition of beast do you want to restrict it to? A little animal? I wrote a book called,

The Influence. And in there I talk about demonic forces and have descriptions of things. And I could use the word beast of them and their spiritual beings.

But that would be a figurative use of it, wouldn't it? Exactly. So, isn't it rather arbitrary for you to take the one thing literally in the same passage, take the other thing figuratively, and insist that the first thing must be taken literally?

It would be arbitrary if I had no reason for doing so. Let's do something else.

We're both amillennialists here. Yes, which you should all be. Which, yes, that's right. Isn't there a surprising similarity between Revelation 11 and Revelation 20?

Look, in Revelation 20 you have the thousand years and then the short period. And then you have the return of Christ and the destruction of the dragon and of the evil one.

And you have this structure of long time, brief period. And then you have what includes the resurrection with the return of Christ.

And here in Revelation 11 you have the 1260 days. Then you have the three and a half days.

And then you have the resurrection of these servants. Isn't that a strangely similar structure?

And doesn't it suggest that the language of 1260 days, three and a half days, and therefore the two servants should be taken figuratively of the church as you do yourself in Revelation 20?

Well, I wouldn't say that their similarity is problematic, particularly if you were to hold a heptatic view of Revelation, which is an orthodox view that there are seven cycles of the same thing being told in different ways.

And we would have, for example, a differentiation described in 20 per 11.

So we both know that Revelation is highly symbolic. If Revelation 11, 3 describing two witnesses who prophesied, who are dead, they're sitting there for three and a half days, and their bodies are in the streets, they're not allowed to be buried in a tomb, unless you want to say the street is symbolic, the tomb is symbolic, the three and a half days is symbolic, the gifts given are symbolic, and everything else is symbolic, you would be the one who would have to go in and show me that it's symbolic.

And that all this doesn't mean, and that's like saying nothing in Revelation is literal. We know that much of it is.

No, but it's not necessary to my argument to say that. It's only necessary to say that it's possibly symbolic, and if it's possibly symbolic, it can't be used as a proof for the continuation of the charismatic gifts.

But if it's possibly literal, then it can be. No, possibilities aren't arguments, they're just possibilities.

But that's what you did in your book, when you said they may, may or may not suggest.

You're misquoting me. Never intentionally. You're misunderstanding me. I was talking about the beginning of an argument, and therefore

I used the term may. I'm done, sir.

Well, let's give a round of applause. Well, I want to thank you both, you've done such a great job, given that you arrived to discuss different questions.

So, we're going to move into the Q &A section. We'll go until about 9 .30, so about 20 more minutes or so.

We'll get to as many questions as possible. If you have a question, write it down right now in your question form.

Send it to the guy in the white shirt there. Okay, just send it down the aisle to the middle aisle.

And I'll get to as many questions as I can. They need to be legible. It's hard to read, really bad handwriting, so.

Give it to our brother, he has to give it. Oh, that's, yeah, what does

Paul describe that gift as? While you write your questions and send them in,

I'd like to ask a couple of questions, and could we agree to a one -minute answer and then a 30 -second response?

Would that work? You mean one quick and slick? Quick and slick, I like that, I like that. By the way, if I were you,

I would have changed my last name, given the business you're in. Let me tell you,

I moved a lot when I was a kid, and I paid for that name, so I'm keeping it. Besides, it sounds so cool to say

Reverend Slick. Yeah, it really cares about it. Yes, it is. Okay, I'd like to kind of popularize this topic.

Y 'all have done a fantastic job of looking at relevant Bible passages, which seems to be the appropriate thing to do.

A lot of us, I think, have questions about maybe some of the more popular expositions of the charismata or perceived expositions of charismata in the church today.

So this actually is a question to both of y 'all, so how about one minute for each of you, and then I've got a question or two for each.

So, don't feel like you need to do this, but my question is, would it be possible for us to agree and even name some false teachers who incorrectly use these gifts to impress and build an audience?

And since you've gone first tonight. Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, Kenneth Hagen, Benny Hinn.

You've probably got some others you could list that are heretics. And I can back up what

I'm saying too. Actually, you've named the names that I would give, and I haven't spent a lot of my time.

Sorry. What's that? Charles Capps, another one. Sorry.

And so you probably know those circles a lot better than I do. I focus more on the theological end of things, so I'm not sure

I can add a lot to that. I'm trying to think of anyone I might want to add, but they'd probably be historical figures more than contemporary figures.

Joseph Smith. Yeah. Yeah. Mary Baker Eddy. Mary Baker Eddy. Charles Tate Russell.

Charles Fillmore. Yeah. Yeah. Clinton. So, y 'all would agree, though, then, that,

I mean, at the very least, that we would agree that there needs to be, I would say, more discernment in the church to figure out which of the charismata are legitimate or not.

How would you know? This is a separate question, but how would you know when the charismata are employed, that they are employed rightfully or not?

Well, 1 Corinthians 14 tells us let others judge what is being said.

We would judge it by Scripture. I've had some incredibly profound experiences of the presence of the Holy Spirit, and I mean what

I believe is the actual presence of the Lord Jesus himself, and I subject even that to the Word of God.

It has to be by the Word of God. Okay. Same question? Yeah, although, since you would say, well, let me ask this of you, because you would say there are.

I don't have to, with regard to the miraculous gifts, because there's these. Right, right, exactly. But let me just say,

I do think there are some other indications when even claims to the miraculous gifts are going over the top.

For instance, Paul gives very clear, I think they're very clear at least, guidelines for the use of these gifts like tongue speaking in the church, which

I think are widely ignored. I mean it's clear from 1 Corinthians 14 that if tongues are going to be spoken in church, even when that gift was in the church, in the early church, that it had to be only two or three.

It had to be interpreted. And I would add it could only be by men and not by women. Because I think that's what

Paul means when he forbids women to speak. The term speak in that context has been used 19 times with regard to speaking in tongues.

That's sagavo or hesokia? Oh, never mind, not speak. I'd have to check.

No, I'm talking about the word laleo. Laleo is used like 25 times in 1

Corinthians 14. And about 18 or 19 of those times it's used in speaking in tongues.

So that's the context in which Paul forbids women to speak in 1 Corinthians 14.

It's also used in prophecy. And so I think that at least Paul is saying that women should neither speak in tongues nor prophesy in church.

I can see that. Mr. Matt, would you go as far as some

Pentecostals or Charismatics would in insisting that if a person does not speak in tongues, they do not have the

Holy Spirit or may not have been saved, or what would you say to that exercise of authority in the church, the need for speaking of tongues as evidence that the person has a spirit?

It's un -evidence, not the evidence. And anybody who would require that, in my opinion, couldn't exegete his way out of a wet paper bag.

Amen. Amen to that. I knew there was more agreement here than maybe we'd gotten to, but any response other than amen?

Would you repeat the question, please? The claim that some Pentecostals or Charismatics make that if a person does not speak in tongues, then they do not have the

Holy Spirit. The question leaves me speechless, because clearly

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12, for instance, that the Spirit is sovereign in terms of which gifts he gives to which

Christians. And secondly, because it takes a few extraordinary instances in the book of Acts that are descriptive and not imperative and makes them universally required of Christians in a way that the book of Acts and no place else makes them.

There's just no rationale for that, frankly, in the New Testament. I've got questions here, so let me get to these.

I'll try to go back and forth evenly here. Dr. Waldron, what about people or the mass amounts of people who have seen miracles like legs growing, the lame walking, the blind seeing, etc.?

What would you say when people would say, look, I've seen these miracles? Well, first of all, usually what you hear is not that they've seen them, but they know someone who's seen them.

And so that's often the way that's communicated. But secondly, and I've said it many times today,

I'm not here to deny that there are miracles in the world today. I do not deny miraculous healing.

I deny that there are miraculous healers. And I don't deny that godly men can say things that are very predictive.

I only deny that there are prophets. And so I don't even deny that on an occasion some modern missionary, without ever claiming to have the gift of tongues, might say something in a language that he never learned.

I don't even deny that. I don't think it's the gift of tongues, but I think that that kind of miracle might be possible.

But it doesn't prove anything. Okay. I didn't know you were charismatic. I thought you were arguing the other side.

Matt, would the two witnesses of Revelation 11 not be akin to the two testaments?

This would mean canonical Scripture is the sole modern prophecy.

Well, if that's possible, then how did both the Old and New Testament die? Why in a street? People gave gifts when they were dead, be resurrected from the dead, they're not laid in a tomb, incidentally.

It just doesn't fit what the statement requires or talks about. Okay. Sam, for you, does 1

Corinthians 13 8 teach that tongues will cease at a time before that which is perfect comes when prophecy and knowledge will be done away?

So this is the perfect or the imperfect argument. Well, Matt and I didn't get into 1

Corinthians 13, did we? Actually, and you'll see this, it's a difficult passage.

It needs careful, careful statement and careful exegesis. But let me just say that I agree, and this puts me in opposition to a lot of cessationists.

I agree with Matt and a lot of continuationists that the perfect there has reference to the second coming of Christ.

The problem that creates for me is that that means, that sounds like it means that the gifts of tongues and prophecy continue until the second coming of Christ.

I argue in my book it means no such thing, because Paul does not say that the gift of prophecy, that the gift of prophecy is the partial that continues till the perfect comes.

He says that the content of the prophecies, or the content of the word of God given through the prophecies continues.

So my argument is that the partial is not the gifts of tongues and prophecy. It's the knowledge and the revelation communicated through those things.

And so what Paul asserts is that that partial knowledge continues till the perfect, the second coming of Christ.

He does not assert that the gifts through which that partial knowledge was given continue.

Paul actually, I think in 1 Corinthians 13, leaves the time of the cessation of the gifts of tongues and prophecy completely open.

Frankly, I think that the most plausible argument for continuationism would be one based on 1

Corinthians 13. But I think there's an adequate answer to it. So I don't base my argument for cessationism on 1

Corinthians 13, because I don't think the perfect is the completed canon. I base my argument on the cascade argument of the cessation of the apostolate.

And so that's the way I deal with it. The perfect is not the perfect gift, and the partial is contrasted with it, therefore it's not the partial gift, i .e.

tongues and prophecy, but the content, or the word of God given through that prophecy, that's the partial that continues to the perfect, and not necessarily the gifts of tongues and prophecy.

Yeah, we both kind of didn't address that. And he's right, there's a lot that had to be looked at in there.

And within a very short period of time, I really can't get into even enough to really talk about it, but I believe the perfect, like he does, is the return of Christ.

And that tied with it, seeing face to face, it means a personal encounter. And that it is upon the arrival of Christ that we will not need the charismatic gifts anymore, because we will have the completion of our arrival and our intimacy with Christ then and there.

And the rest of the stuff that is there for the equipping of the body, for the furthering of the gospel, won't be an issue anymore.

And so that's why it'll end at the return of Christ. That's a loose statement, but we have similar views on that.

Related to that, Matt, during your opening you mentioned that we are in the end times. Based on your opening and your arguments that spiritual gifts currently exist, such as speaking in tongues, seems to partially hinge on that statement being true.

Do you feel that if it is false that we are in the end times, or if we are not in the end times, that this would have a serious impact on your position?

If we're not in the end times? Yeah, if we're not in the end times, would that impact your position of continuation?

Yes, but we are in the end times, and we are in the last days. He says why or why not.

Oh, why or why not? Well, because the prophecies that are spoken of in Acts chapter 2, verses 17 through 30, well, basically through 39 in this whole issue, tied to the last days.

If I go with Scripture, if the last days are ended, then what's said in there must end. So mine is just as biblical as I can be.

I'm not saying that he's not being biblical or he's not being sincere to Scripture, but as I see it, the end times have not ended, the last days are not ended, and the gifts are for that time, so therefore they cannot have ended.

Okay. That's my argument. Okay. Let's do two more questions. I think I've covered most of them, some various other questions, but for you,

Sam, I've read about and have heard testimony from various missionaries, Heather Mercer in Afghanistan and Brother Yun or Yun in China, that Jesus has appeared in dreams to the local population.

What is your viewpoint on this? I don't know. I'll just make the point that in order to be an apostle of Christ, it wasn't sufficient to see a dream.

The Bible distinguishes very carefully between the inner eye, which sees dreams and visions, and the outer eye, and what was necessary to be an apostle of Christ was not to have a dream or vision of Christ, but to have seen physically with your eyes the resurrected

Christ. That's what Paul saw on the road to Damascus. That's what qualified him to be an apostle.

Any comments on that? Okay. I have a question for you, Mr. Slick. Is it possible that some of the charismatic gifts ceased?

I mean, you had the, what did you call it, the all -or -nothing approach, and you're willing to concede that some of the gifts have continued and some ceased, but is it possible that some of the gifts, especially the miraculous of prophecy, healing, and tongues ceased because they had a particular function that simply came to an end?

That's if you define the particular function that requires a particular end before the return of Christ.

Then it would be true. So the issue is whether or not the assumption that you're going to aim for is the right one.

So be guilty of begging the question. So the issue is what are the gifts for? For the equipping of the body of Christ.

That's why the apostles were given to bring this up. And as we go out forth and we're trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ, he moves through us.

I've experienced them myself. Not that that makes it right or true, but I've experienced it. It's not second -hand.

I have done it. And that's not why I believe in them either. It has to do with Scripture. So we're going to look at all these kind of issues of what happens and how is to happen by the

Word of God. And I would say that that wouldn't require that question or issue. Okay. Any thoughts on that?

Would you repeat the question? Is it possible that some of the charismatic gifts like tongues, healing, and prophecy ceased because they had a particular function?

And the function for those particular gifts has come to an end. Yeah. I think that's exactly right.

They had a particular function of founding the Church of Jesus Christ on the

Word of Christ that was given centrally through his apostles, but also through prophets and tongue speakers to the early church.

And so that once brought to positive truth was communicated through apostles and prophets.

And once communicated, that foundation no longer needed to be laid. It simply needed to be used, expounded, and built on.

Okay. I think one more question for Sam, and then we'll call it a night if you would like to respond as well.

If a word from the Lord necessitates that it be included in the canon, then why aren't all the words spoken by Jesus included in the canon?

Does this mean that our canon falls short? The answer to that question is given by the

Bible itself in John 20 and 21. Let me read the passages that are so relevant here.

Therefore, many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.

But these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, that believing you may have life in his name.

Now, I think it says many other signs Jesus performed. As signs, they were clearly redemptive revelation.

As Jesus' signs, they clearly would have been authoritative for the church. And therefore, in that sense, canonical.

Why weren't they included? Well, John himself tells us at the end of his gospel.

This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things.

And we know that his testimony is true. And there are many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail,

I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

So the reason that some things that are principle canonical are included in the

Bible is because the world couldn't have contained the books that would be written if they had never included every last piece of redemptive revelation that God ever gave his people.

A selection needed to be made. That selection was made by the Holy Spirit and the providence of God.

And it gives us the Bible, which gives us a complete synopsis of the redemptive revelation by which we must be saved.

And so that's the reason they're not included. Not because they're not in principle canonical, but because the

Bible would have become too big a book if everything had been included. That's what the scriptures teach.

That would just mean that there is a kind of revelation that's not inscripturated. The very revelation given by Christ, the word that he would speak, by default, every bit of it would be inspired.

So it's not in the canon. Therefore, there is inspired revelation that's not canonizable, which is my position.

Can I just pursue that? The term canon means rule. And the canon of the church is, well, it is a list.

It does refer to the list of the books included in the Bible. Ultimately, the canon of the church is divine revelation.

It's the word of God. And the canon, therefore, is

Jesus Christ himself. The books we have in scripture simply give us access to the doings and deeds and words of Jesus Christ.

And the foundation laying principles he gave to his church. And so I think we have to understand it.

I think a study of the canon would show that canon means rule. It means

God's rule. And therefore, it means, first of all, the word of God. So anything that's the word of God, and that includes all prophecy and all apostolic utterances in the name of Christ, are necessarily canonical in principle.

Because the canon is the word of God. The list of the books we have is simply our access to the canon, which is the word of God.

Can I ask one more question? You just did. Okay. If the scriptures are sufficient, and I think all three of us would agree that they are, for the building up of the church, for the knowledge that we need to come to faith, why would we need the gifts, the particular gifts of tongues, healing, and prophecy?

Why would we even need them if the scriptures are sufficient? 1 Corinthians 14 tells us the unbelievers are convicted, conversions occur.

There are lots of cases in modern times that are documented through missionary efforts where the charismatic gifts work, and people are saved as a result of it.

You can get a book called Bruchco that documents some of this stuff, the issue of tongues. Again, that's subservient to the word of God.

But I did, I don't do this very often, I did 2 1⁄2 years of swap meet ministry back in the 1980s.

And there were times, several times, where we would get, like Buddy and I would get, I don't know what else to call it, but words of knowledge on individuals, and we'd tell them specific things.

It wasn't normative. It didn't happen all the time. I think it happened like three, maybe four times in 2 1⁄2 years. But I can remember one specific that it was incredible, and the guy stumbled backwards.

He was so shaken by what I told him about him. It was in his own heart. He knew it, and he could see he was affected.

I can tell you about the presence of the spirit in a whole bit. I don't judge truth by that, but it was in the process, in the context of evangelism, preaching to teach that gospel message, and sometimes that's what

God can use. That's what God can use. That's my opinion on that. Last word? Well, my last word is, do you claim to be a prophet?

Nope. Then that wasn't prophecy. That was word of knowledge. But I can tell you about the prophecy

I gave over ago that did come to pass, if you want. That'll be round two of the debate.