There are two sliding scales at work here. First, there is the relative importance of a given issue and second the relative clarity of the issue. I have no uncertainty about the orthodox doctrines of the trinity and the incarnation though one would be hard pressed to find something more challenging to understand. On the other hand, the doctrine of election is one that has divided believers for centuries, yet I haven’t the faintest doubt that God, from all eternity, determined who would be gifted with saving faith. Important doctrine, zero uncertainty for me.
Such is not the case with respect to the sign gifts. I have boodles of uncertainty. Some time ago I wrote on the very short journey I’ve taken on the issue. I went from being a leaky cessationist to a careful continuationist. That is, for decades I believed the sign gifts had ended with the apostolic age, but didn’t want to deny that God works in mysterious ways. Now I believe the sign gifts haven’t ended but that not everything that claims to be a sign gift actually is. One can, of course, be not only redeemed but a hero of the faith while embracing either view. In that sense it scores low on the relative importance scale. On the other hand, stifling the Spirit is not a good thing, nor is attributing something to the Spirit something He disavows.
Second, I have precious little confidence on the question of the proper recipients of baptism. That may surprise some as I have been in the past rather a strong proponent of paedobaptism. Now I’m not so sure. I take great comfort, however, in acknowledging that there are great thinkers on both sides of this issue. Not only that, I’ve seen people I respect move in both directions on the issue. I have ex-baptist friends and ex-paedobaptist friends alike.
Third, I am not confident in my views on the kind of church government we are called to have. I still believe in rule by a plurality of elders. What I’m less certain about is the necessity and/or virtue of connectionalism, of church governments beyond that of the local church.
Finally, for decades now I have had a short list of things I’d never want to publicly debate. The first is James White. The second is the Lord’s Day/Sabbath debate. I’ve had friends who were deeply committed to Seventh Day worship (which is embraced well beyond the Adventist church). I’ve spent hours and hours studying the issue. And haven’t reached a confident conclusion.
What these areas of uncertainty have in common is that for each one there is no definitive biblical statement one way or the other. God hasn’t left us, however, alone in the dark. We are commanded to not only believe all that the Bible says, but all that is teaches through good and necessary consequence. The question is, are any of these positions a necessary consequence of what the Bible teaches. They may be, but the journey through the syllogisms doesn’t leave me overpowered with confidence. As noted, there are redeemed and plenty smart people on all sides of all these issues. Some of them are right, and others wrong. I, I suspect, am sometimes right and sometimes wrong. And so are you.
On the topic of the continuation of speaking in tongues, I have a question. If the gift of tongues as practiced today which is not in accordance with the Apostle Paul’s directions (one at a time, no more than 3, must interpret, must edify) and which I do consider to be a false manifestation of the Holy Spirit……….if tongues were still a gift today designed to be practiced by the church, then why would the practice be concentrated almost completely in charismatic churches and completely absent from huge numbers of churches? Take Baptists………very very few practice speaking in tongues. Doesn’t the Bible say that all gifts are spread among the body as the Holy Spirit determines? Would He completely keep the gift of tongues from so many doctrinally orthodox churches?
I don’t think the “unequal” spread of a doctrine say of tongues in the body of Christ offers valid grounds to challenge it, reason being that the blessings of God are only experienced by those who know about them ,accept and want them -see how anyone else could have been healed of Jesus in Mark 5 but only the woman with the issue got healed because she said to herself n” If I may but touch the hem of his garment”…she knew he could heal and she wanted it …Apostle Peter said – ” many throng about thee ….” yes they did , and perhaps had better contact with him but was there a desire to translate the contact into healing… Again John 1 vs 12 clearly shows it is them who accept a truth who benefit of it ..The crux of what I am saying nos – they predominance of tongues in the charismatics can easily be explained on the grounds that they have accepted that the blessing is for today
Here is one that I get unsure about. The birth of a child is miraculous, but frequent. A common grace? yes! But none the less miraculous. The conversion of a soul, same, I think, maybe less frequent than the birth of a child. Now, raising the dead instantaneously on command…I don’t see it happening anywhere, but I do hear of claims. If I give the benefit of the doubt to half of the claims, we see it still be infrequent to say the most! My question is , do we have a biblical responsibility to properly categorize miracles? Can we? Where do we draw lines from common grace miracles and super natural ? Should we? I have no evidence that the apostolic gifts remain (instantaneous healing of all diseases etc) , But because I have uncertainty of categories , I land (as a great man with clay feet once said) “like a butterfly with sore feet” on much of this issue. As far as baptizing babies, I lean with MacArthur on it, but I am puzzled by His book “Safe in the arms of God” …Wish I could corner him on that one day hehe.
While thinking it through, I am certain of a couple things. 1. John MacArthur and RC Sproul both would never knowingly baptize a non believer. 2. Both men have baptized non believers unknowingly. 3. Both men prayed for those they baptized. At the end of the day…score cards are equal in this respect. Well done good and faithful servants!
I really appreciate this article. I was a credobaptist yesterday but today I am a paedobaptist. Tomorrow I might be a credobaptist again. Up until two or three years ago, I believed the apostolic age has continued to this day. After studying thoroughly and seeing what I felt was a gross misunderstanding of the use of tongues, I now believe the apostolic age ended with the apostles. Ever notice in Acts 2:42-43, many were devoting themselves to the apostles teaching, but all the wonders and signs were being done “through the apostles” not all the believers. It doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit cannot heal and perform many wonders today, but it seems the apostles were special and the LORD had a specific plan and purpose for them. But guess what, I might have a different understanding tomorrow. We must seek that beautiful wisdom continually and never be wise in our own understanding right? All glory be to God Almighty!
You want to debate James White (if so, what about?), or debate about James White? (Is he good for the church? How much does he really hate Aquinas? Will he still be biking miles a day in this 90s?)
No, I don’t want to debate James White, about anything, because he’s amazingly good at it.
Id bet on you, if you debate good sweaters and bad sweaters.