The Salvation of Infants

Baptist Bible Seminary

the Salvation of Infants

a Research pAPER SUBMITTED TO

DR. Michael Stallard

IN PArTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COURSE

Dispensational Premillennialism

(th501)

BY

Joel Mitchell

Clarks summit, pennsylvania

March, 2009

Dedicated to Diedre Jael Mitchell

CONTENTS

Does God Save Infants?..................................................................................................... 1

The Need for the Salvation of Infants............................................................................. 1

The Possibility of Infant Salvation................................................................................... 2

Scriptural Examples of the Salvation of Infants................................................................ 3

John the Baptist.................................................................................................... 3

David’s Illegitimate Son.......................................................................................... 4

Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 6

Does God Save All Infants?............................................................................................... 7

Views Regarding the Salvation of Only Some Infants....................................................... 7

Baptized Infants.................................................................................................... 7

Children of Believing Parents................................................................................. 8

Elect Infants........................................................................................................ 10

Agnostic View...................................................................................................... 11

Scriptural Evidence for the Salvation of All Infants......................................................... 11

The “Relative Innocence” of Infants..................................................................... 11

The Nature of Judgment and Condemnation........................................................ 12

The Words of Christ............................................................................................. 13

Conclusion................................................................................................................... 13

Postscript......................................................................................................................... 14

Works Cited....................................................................................................................... 15

Does God Save Infants?

One of the most heart-wrenching experiences any parent can undergo is the death of an infant.[1] Such a tragic, untimely separation often leads grieving Christian parents to ask, “Will we see our baby again in heaven?” No passage in the Bible explicitly teaches the eternal destiny of infants. However, by examining a number of passages relating to infants, salvation, or both the Christian can come to a firm conclusion on this matter that is so near to the hearts of so many parents.

The Need for the Salvation of Infants

The teaching of Scripture which brings trepidation to the hearts of many parents who have lost an infant is that of “original sin.” This concept is taught most clearly in Romans 5:12-21 which begins, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—“[2] and goes on to describe the guilt and corruption that every human inherits from Adam in contrast to the righteousness available to all through Jesus Christ. Alan H. Hamilton summarizes this doctrine as, “…the entire human race was plunged into a state of separation from God by the act of its first parents, and…every member born into it is subject to its condemnation (I Cor. 15:21, 22; Eph. 2:3; Job 14:4; Ps. 51:5; John 3:6).”[3]

The Possibility of Infant Salvation

Because no sin can enter heaven, the question is: does God provide a means of cleansing from sin for infants? Dr. Kenneth Gardoski answers, “If children who die in infancy are to be saved, it must be in the same way as any other person: on the basis of God’s grace offered as a free gift through the shed blood of his Son Jesus Christ on the cross as payment for the sins of all mankind, including the inborn sin and guilt of infants.”[4] This assertion is supported by the previously mentioned Romans 5:12-21. Verse 18 states, “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.”

Passages such as John 3:14-18, Romans 5:1-11, and Ephesians 2:8-9 make it clear that this gift of salvation is accepted through faith in Jesus Christ. Of course, infants are mentally incapable of exercising the faith referred to in these verses. However, this does not necessarily mean that God cannot or does not apply the freely offered gift of salvation to infants. Regarding the recurring emphasis on faith in salvation/justification passages Hamilton notes, “Since the Scriptures are intended to be read and heard by those capable of such functions, it is to be expected that the usual statement of the way of salvation includes the requirement of faith on the part of reader or hearer, but this must not outlaw the possibility that God is free, on the just basis of a salvation complete in Christ, to save whom He will.”[5] Dr. Myron Houghton further clarifies, “Both faith and election are mechanisms by which the benefits of Christ can be [and under normal circumstance, would be] applied to individuals. However, if infants are not capable of saving faith, election alone becomes the mechanism by which people are chosen to salvation (2 Thessalonians 2:13).”[6]

These statement are certainly in line with the teaching of Scripture that salvation, including the faith placed in Christ by which it is accepted under normal circumstances, are entirely the work of God (John 6:44, Rom. 3:11, Eph. 2:8-9). Robert P. Lightner explains, “…apart from the work of the Holy Spirit no one would ever believe the gospel and receive Christ as Savior. God the Holy Spirit moves upon the stubborn will of man, enabling him to respond in faith to God’s offer of salvation.”[7] God can surely apply the work of the atonement to infants and still remain entirely consistent with its character as an act of grace.

Scriptural Examples of the Salvation of Infants

Finding even a single example in Scripture of an infant who was saved would demonstrate that God does indeed apply the benefits of the atonement to at least some infants even though they are mentally incapable of exercising faith. Some theologians claim to find a large number of clear examples of infant salvation (Robert A. Webb, for example sees as many as 18 possible references to redeemed infants[8]). However, many of these could be easily dismissed as references to election which, for all saved individuals, occurred “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). This paper will confine itself to the two clearest examples: those which most clearly do more than reference God’s choosing and future plans for an individual.

John the Baptist

Though John the Baptist did not die as an infant, there is evidence that he was saved at that time. In Luke 1:13, an angel declares to Zacharias, “For he [John the Baptist] will be great in the sight of the Lord…and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.” The activity of the Holy Spirit in the life of the unborn John is evidenced later in the chapter as he responds to the presence of the unborn Jesus. Luke 1:41 records, “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit[9].”

Though the Holy Spirit did not yet indwell all believers at this time (this would not occur until Pentecost – John 16:7, Acts 2), His presence and ministry in the life of John the Baptist would seem to indicate that John had indeed been cleansed from sin (i.e. possessed salvation). This conclusion is based on II Corinthians 6:14-18 and similar passages which indicate that God does not dwell where there is sin.

Some would disagree that this is an example of a redeemed infant. Gadoski (who appears to believe this to be a legitimate example of a saved infant) notes, “An alternate explanation of John the Baptist is that while the Spirit may have come upon him in the OT sense for his particular task as the Messiah’s herald, this does not necessarily mean he was saved at that point.”[10] While this is one possible interpretation, it should be noted that those whom the Spirit came upon “in the OT sense” could generally be referred to as saved individuals (though some, such as King Saul, are debatable).

David’s Illegitimate Son

King David’s illegitimate son is, by far, the clearest example of an infant who died and was saved. This unnamed child was born out of the adulterous relationship of David and Bathsheba (whose husband, Uriah, David arranged to have killed). One of the consequences of this sinful behavior was the death of this infant. II Samuel 12:15-23 records the events immediately surround the death of this child. King David refused to eat, wept, and pled with God to spare his son’s life. To the surprise of his servants, when the child died seven days later David returned to his normal routine rather than falling into complete despair. When questioned about his behavior, King David replied, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (vv. 22-23). David’s calm assurance that he would one day be reunited with his son is strong proof that God does indeed save at least some infants who die in infancy.

Many have objected to this understanding of David’s statement and claim that David was referring only to joining his son in death or in the grave. Such a claim does not do justice to the passage or to David’s faith in God.

The very idea that David had cause to stop mourning at the thought of never again personally meeting his son but experiencing his same fate is illogical. No parent who had lost an infant would find comfort in such a thought. If anything, the idea of never personally seeing their child again would increase the parents’ anguish (which is clearly what David’s servants were expecting). As Webb states, “The idea of meeting his child in the unconscious grave could not have rationally comforted him; nor could the thought of meeting him in hell have cheered his spirit; but the thought of meeting him in heaven had in itself the power of turning his weeping into joy.”[11]

That David was comforted by the thought of joining his son, not merely resigned to his own eventual demise, is also evident from his reaction to the death of his rebellious son, Absalom. Lightner points out, “Neither does this weak explanation [that David was referring merely to joining his son in death] account for the contrasting attitude which David had when his son Absalom died…He wept bitterly. In fact, he even wished he could have died instead of his son (2 Sam. 18:33).”[12] In the case of Absalom, David only stopped his mourning when his general, Joab, pointed out that it was severely harming the morale of his people (II Sam. 19:1-7). If David were merely resigned to death or the unconscious grave, there should not have been such a marked difference in his reaction to the deaths of his sons even though one was an infant and the other a rebellious man.

Additionally, David elsewhere expresses his faith that he will consciously live with God even after death. For example, Psalm 23 ends with David’s confident statement, “I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever,” and in Psalm 16:10 David rejoices because “You will not abandon my soul to Sheol.” A mere sharing in the fate of death does not adequately account for the consolation of this man who had the assurance of a blissful eternity. Surely, David was confidently expecting a personal reunion with his son who had gone before him.

Conclusion

These two examples show that God does indeed apply the benefits of Christ’s death to infants, even though they are mentally incapable of personal faith. They do not conclusively prove that God saves all those who die in infancy. However, Frederick Howard Wines poses the pertinent questions, “if one dying child has been received into heaven, what reason have we to doubt that all departed infants are there? Where shall we draw any line of distinction between dying infants?”[13] The remainder of this paper will examine whether there is “any line of distinction between dying infants” that would cause God to save some and not others.

Does God Save All Infants?

Though only a very small minority of Christians (theologians or otherwise) have ever claimed that no one dying in infancy is saved, many have placed limits on which infants they believe to be clearly saved. Many other Christians believe that there is solid Scriptural evidence for the salvation of all who die in infancy.

Views Regarding the Salvation of Only Some Infants

There is often a great deal of variety and ambiguity within views limiting which infants are clearly saved. What various individuals holding any of these views believe happens to infants who do not meet the supposed criteria can vary significantly. However, these views appear to fall into four broad (somewhat overlapping) categories.

Baptized Infants

Some denominations, most notably Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism, teach a form of baptismal regeneration (i.e. baptism imparts salvation in some sense). This logically leads to the conclusion that it is only baptized infants who are saved. The Roman Catholic Counsel of Trent even stated in Session VII, Canon V on Baptism, "If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.”[14] Nevertheless, those holding to baptismal regeneration have generally sought to mitigate the implied condemnation of unbaptized infants.

Until recently, most Roman Catholic theologians taught that unbaptized infants were indeed excluded from heaven, but they were sent to a place, neither heaven nor hell, commonly known as limbo. However, this teaching was rescinded by Pope Benedict XVI. On April 21, 2007, a story on Time.com reported, “Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report released Friday that says there were ‘serious’ grounds to hope that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven.”[15] This declaration seems to place the Roman Catholic Church in the position of agnosticism regarding the fate of infants who die unbaptized (which, according to Hamilton, is also the official position of the Lutheran Church[16]).

This view has major problems in that Scripture clearly teaches that salvation is “not of works” (Ephesians 2:9). In other words, no action performed by (or, in this case, on) an individual can cause him to gain salvation. While there are some passages which, divorced from their context, could be interpreted as teaching baptismal regeneration, such an interpretation goes against the teaching of clear, extended passages on salvation (e.g. Rom. 3-4, Gal. 3-4). In every recorded instance of baptism in the Bible, baptism is preceded by faith. As Lewis and Demarest explain, “Baptism outwardly expresses a person’s inner faith. No human rite can determine whom the Holy Spirit will regenerate.”[17]

Children of Believing Parents

Some denominations or theologians holding to Reformed theology teach that only the infants whose parents are Christians are sure of salvation. D. B. Knox expresses the view as follows: “I believe that God normally forgives the sins and regenerates in baptism only those infants for whom prayer is made, that is to say, children of Christian parents who by virtue of birth are members of the covenant and are God’s already (1 Cor. 7. 14).”[18] Hamilton indicates that adherents of this view do not usually hold baptism to be necessary and have widely varying opinions regarding the children of unbelievers (ranging from the condemnation of all such infants to agnosticism to the belief that some are saved).[19]

This paper does not offer the space for an in-depth evaluation of Reformed or Covenant theology, but one major objection will be briefly summarized here. In the Old Testament, the Abrahamic (Gen. 12:1-3), Mosaic (Deut. 29:1ff), Davidic (II Sam. 7:8-17), and New (Ezek. 36:22-38) Covenants were all directed toward the Jewish people/national Israel. With the exception of the Mosaic Covenant, these covenants made with Israel were unconditional (Gen. 15:1-21, Ps. 89:30-37, Ezek. 36:22, 32). While the church may participate in some of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant,[20] it cannot be viewed as a replacement or continuation of Israel (Rom. 9-11, especially 11:11). The church is not a theocratic kingdom in a covenant relationship with God, but a new entity (completely unknown in the Old Testament) comprised of all who have individually been saved by grace through faith in Christ (Eph. 2-3). This understanding of the church renders moot the spiritual status of an infant’s parents.

In the specific verse referenced by Knox (I Corinthians 7:14), Paul is writing to the Christians in Corinth about married couples in which one spouse is not a believer. In this verse Paul writes, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.” Just as the verse is certainly not saying that the unsaved spouse is saved by the faith of the believing spouse, it is not saying that the children would be saved by the faith of a parent. It is much more likely that this verse is referencing the positive effect that the believing spouse would have on the children. David K. Lowery offers the interpretation that “…the Christian spouse was a channel of God’s grace in the marriage. Within the ‘one flesh’ relationship the blessings of God which came to the Christian affected the family as a whole…. It is in this sense that the unbelieving spouse was sanctified and the children were holy.”[21]

Elect Infants

Some Calvinist simply state that God chooses (elects) which infants will be saved and human beings have no way of knowing which infants are thus chosen. Those holding this view often imply that God chooses to save some infants and allows others to face condemnation because of their inherited corruption. Thus, a parent has no way of knowing whether their child was one of the elect and must, instead, take comfort in the sovereignty of God.

Belief in election need not lead to this conclusion. Those who believe that all infants are saved simply believe that all infants are elect. While God’s choice is what ultimately determines whether someone is saved, the non-elect live in a way that ultimately leads to their judgment (since God does not choose to work in their lives in a way that leads them to salvation). One biblical example of this is Esau who was not chosen (Romans 9:11-16) and as a result was not granted repentance for the sins he committed in despising his birthright (Hebrews 12:16-17). Gardoski explains, “…God will not judge the lost on the basis of his not choosing them, but rather on the basis of their works, the sinful deeds they committed as responsible moral agents during their lives (Rev 20:12–13; cf. Matt 16:27; Ps 62:12; Prov 24:12; Rom 2:6).”[22] This will be discussed in more detail below.

Agnostic View

Some Christians believe that since no Scripture explicitly states the eternal destiny of infants, it is a subject on which the Christian must remain agnostic. Many of those holding the above views also fall into this category.

Scriptural Evidence for the Salvation of All Infants

While understandable, the agnostic approach dismisses strong Scriptural evidence simply because the salvation of infants is not the primary thrust of the given passages. Evidence for the salvation of all infants can be found in examining the moral state of infants, the basis of condemnation, and the words of Christ.

The “Relative Innocence” of Infants

Though they have inherited a corrupt nature which requires redemption, infants are incapable of committing personal acts of sin. It is clear from Scripture that God recognizes the mental incapability of infants (or very young children) to commit such acts. Deuteronomy 1:39 speaks of very young children as having “no knowledge of good or evil,” and Isaiah 7:16 refers to a very young child as being too young to “know enough to refuse evil and choose good.” Ronald H. Nash describes the situation as, “Infants are innocent in the sense that whatever their natural disposition to sin may be, their status as infants makes it impossible for them to know or understand the things that would be necessary for them to perform good or evil acts.”[23]

This relative innocence includes innocence of the sin of unbelief, which in John 3 is the sin specifically mentioned as leading to condemnation. John 3:36, which sums up the chapter, contrasts belief with disobedience or active resistance (απειθεω) to Christ. An infant does not possess the cognitive development to understand, let alone choose to disbelieve, the claims of the Gospel. A lack of faith due to cognitive inability is not the same thing as willful rejection of the Gospel.[24]

The Nature of Judgment and Condemnation

As previously noted, throughout Scripture it is clear that God judges and condemns unsaved people based on their own sinful actions.[25] One passage of note in this regard is Ezekiel 18. In this passage the LORD confronts Israel and strongly rebukes those who suggest that He judges people for the sins of their fathers rather than their own personal deeds. Because infants are incapable of good or evil deeds, they cannot face this judgment.

This conclusion is further backed up by the account of the “great white throne judgment” in Revelation 20:11-15. At this judgment, all the unsaved from all of history are judged and subsequently condemned to the lake of fire. Houghton points out that no one dying in infancy could be involved in this judgment because “Revelation 20:12-13 clearly teach that a vital part of this judgment involves the personal works of these people. Yet infants who die in infancy have no personal works.”[26]

These passages lead to the conclusion that God chooses to apply the atonement to all infants rather than condemning them on the basis of inherited guilt and sin. Webb observes, “…damnability is converted into damnation only upon the grounds of actual, personal, and conscious sins—a kind of sin which no infant dying in infancy could commit.”[27]

The Words of Christ

The actions and words of Jesus Christ himself provide additional evidence for the salvation of all infants. The synoptic Gospels record at least two separate events (Mat. 18:1-14 and parallels; Matt. 19:13-15 and parallels) in which Jesus demonstrated his deep love for little children and set them up as examples of the humility and acceptance (faith) which characterizes those who will be citizens of “the kingdom of heaven.”

Hamilton states, “The verse of Scripture which appears to come the nearest to stating the salvation of all dying in infancy is Matthew 18:14.”[28] In this verse Jesus states, “So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.” Some would argue that a similar expression is used in II Peter 3:9 in which God is described as “not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance,” yet many people do indeed perish. However, as discussed above, there are profound differences between the ability of an adult and an infant to accept or reject the gospel and to perform other righteous or sinful actions. Hamilton points out, “From the human angle, the will of an adult can reject God's grace, but in the case of a little child there is no willingness to reject His offer.”[29]

Conclusion

The evidence for the salvation of all who die in infancy is clearly summed up by Wines. He states, “Infants do not consciously and willfully sin against God. Infants do not reject Christ. Infants do not resist the Holy Spirit. Infants cannot destroy themselves. What, then, will destroy them? Not the Savior; for he who is not willing that any should perish, loves children with a peculiar love.”[30] The grieving parent can, with David, confidently say, “I will go to him, but he will not return to me!”

Postscript

Mourning and Joy

by Joel Mitchell

Our hearts are filled with sorrow

Our unborn child departed

We’re glad that she’s in heaven

And yet we’re broken-hearted

We never got to hold her
Never saw her smile
Never heard her voice

Now we’re parted for a while

God must have a plan in this

Of that we can be sure

Though she will not return to us

Someday we’ll go to her

Baby in Heaven

By Karen Mitchell

Baby in heaven how my arms ache to hold you;
Kiss you and cuddle you close to my heart.

Baby in heaven how my ears want to hear you;
Soft sighs, happy coos, so sweet and so dear.

Baby in heaven how my eyes long to see you;
Tiny hands, little toes, every small part.

My baby in heaven O how I love you!
My arms feel so empty, my eyes full of tears.

But baby in heaven I know that God holds you;
Gently and tenderly close to His heart.

And baby in heaven someday I will see you,
Hear you and hold you, hold you so near!

Works Cited

Council of Trent. Session VII. http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm (accessed February 26, 2009).

Gardoski, Kenneth M. The Salvation of Infants.
http://faculty.bbc.edu/kgardoski/SubPages/SalvationInfants.pdf (accessed April 24, 2007).

Hamilton, Alan H. "The Doctrine of Infant Salvation." Bibliotheca Sacra 102, no. 405 (Ja-Mr 1945): 99-

109.

Hamilton, Alan H. "The Doctrine of Infant Salvation." Bibliotheca Sacra 101, no. 403 (Jl-S 1944): 342-356.

Hamilton, Alan H. "The Doctrine of Infant Salvation." Bibliotheca Sacra 101, no. 404 (O-D 1944): 470-

482.

Houghton, Myron J. “The Destiny of Those Who Die in Infancy.” The Faith Pulpit (May/June 1999).

http://www.faith.edu/seminary/faithpulpit.php?article=./faithpulpit/1999_05-06 (accessed

February 26, 2009).

Knox, D. B. Original Sin and Justification by Faith: The Substance of a Lecture at the Oxford Conference of

Evangelical Churchmen. 1953.

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_067_4_Knox.pdf (accessed February

26, 2009).

Lewis, Gordon R., and Bruce A. Demarest. Integrative Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Lightner, Robert P. Heaven for Those Who Can't Believe. Schaumburg: Regular Baptist Press, 1977.

Lowery, David K. "I Corinthians." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, edited by John F.

Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, 505-549. Colorado Springs: Victor, 2000.

Nash, Ronald H. When a Baby Dies. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999.

Webb, R. A. The Theology of Infant Salvation. Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1981.

Wines, Frederick Howard. Children in Paradise. Philadelphia: William S. & Alfred Martien, 1865.

Winfield, Nicole, and AP. "The Pope Banishes Limbo." Time.com. April 21, 2007.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1613390,00.html (accessed February 26, 2009).

---

[1] For the purpose of this paper, this includes the loss of an unborn child through miscarriage or stillbirth. There are many passages in Scripture in which unborn children are spoken of in terms that could be applied only to a human being (e.g. Ps. 51:5, 139:13; Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:15, 41; Rom. 9:10ff)

[2] All Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible unless otherwise noted.

[3] Alan. H. Hamilton, “The Doctrine of Infant Salvation,” Bibliotheca Sacra 102, no. 405 (Ja-Mr, 1945): 102.

[4] Kenneth M. Gardoski, The Salvation of Infants, http://faculty.bbc.edu/kgardoski/SubPages/Salvationinfants.pdf (accessed April 23, 2007), 5.

[5] Hamilton, “The Doctrine of Infant Salvation,” 106.

[6]Myron J. Houghton, “The Destiny of Those Who Die in Infancy,” The Faith Pulpit (May/June 1999), http://www.faith.edu/seminary/faithpulpit.php?article=./faithpulpit/1999_05-06 (accessed February 26, 2009).

[7] Robert P. Lighter, Heaven for Those Who Can’t Believe (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 29.

[8] R. A. Webb, The Theology of Infant Salvation (Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications, 1981), 12-27.

[9] Elizabeth’s filling with the Holy Spirit allowed her also to recognize the presence of the Messiah (vv. 42-45)

[10] Gardoski, The Salvation of Infants, 6.

[11] Webb, The Theology of Infant Salvation, 21.

[12] Lightner, Heaven for Those Who Can’t Believe, 33.

[13]Frederick Howard Wines, Children in Paradise (Philadelphia: William S. & Alfred Martien, 1865), 31.

[14] Council of Trent, Session VII, http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/chy.htm (accessed February 26, 2009).

[15]Nicole Winfield and AP, “The Pope Banishes Limbo,” Time.com April 21, 2007, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1613390,00.html (accessed February 26, 2009).

[16] Alan H. Hamilton, “The Doctrine of Infant Salvation,” Bibliotheca Sacra 101 no. 403 (Jl-S, 1944), 355.

[17] Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integraive Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 285.

[18] D. B. Knox, Original Sin and Justification by Faith: The Substance of a Lecture at the Oxford Conference of Evangelical Churchman, 1953, http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_067_4_Knox.pdf (February 26, 2009), 5.

[19] Alan H. Hamilton, “The Doctrine of Infant Salvation,” Bibliotheca Sacra 101 no. 403 (O-D, 1944), 473-474.

[20] Some would even argue that the church experiences only very similar “covenant-like” blessings as a result of her relationship with Christ who is the mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 8:6).

[21] David K. Lower, “I Corinthians,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Colorado Springs: Victor, 2000), 518.

[22] Gardoski, The Salvation of Infants, 4. Emphasis original.

[23]Ronald H. Nash, When a Baby Dies (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), 60.

[24] Romans 1-2 indicates that those who have not heard the Gospel are still "without excuse" on the basis of rejecting God's revelation of Himself in creation. This cannot be applied to infants any more than rejection of the Gospel since they do not possess the cognitive development to infer anything from nature.

[25] For sample references see quote by Gradoski above in “Elect Infants.” Also note that that those who are saved (which is by grace) face a trial of their works for the purpose of determining rewards (I Cor. 3:11-15).

[26] Houghton, “The Destiny of Those Who Die in Infancy.”

[27] Webb, The Theology of Infant Salvation, 42. Emphasis original.

[28] Hamilton, “The Doctrine of Infant Salvation, 108.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Wines, Children in Paradise, 33.

The Art of Spiritual War

Baptist Bible Seminary

The Art of Spiritual War
Joel Mitchell
12/14/2008

A theological issues paper submitted to Dr. Gary Gromacki in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the class “Exposition of Ephesians” (BI607).

Contents
The Enemy. 4
----His Identity. 4
----His Strategy. 5
The Battle Plan. 6
----Attack. 7
--------Spiritual Mapping. 7
--------Stronghold Breaking. 9
--------Conclusions on Aggressive Strategies. 10
----Defense. 11
Conclusion. 12
Works Cited. 14

The Art of Spiritual War

The art of war is of vital importance….It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence, it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.[1][2] –Sun Tzu

In Ephesians 6:10-11 Paul urges Christians to “be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.”[3] These verses begin an extended military metaphor which portrays the Christian life as a sort of spiritual warfare. No good soldier would go into battle against human enemies without the proper materiel and preparation; how much more must the Christian, whose enemy is the devil, be prepared for battle!

The Word of God must serve as the foundation for the Christian’s understanding of spiritual warfare. This paper will examine what the Bible has to say on the subject, with special attention given to Ephesians 6:10-18. It will also seek to evaluate some practices and interpretations of spiritual warfare that are popular today.

The Enemy

All War is based on deception.[4] –Sun Tzu

Christians have as their enemy the father of deception (Jn. 8:44) and his minions. When Christians understand who their enemy is and his strategy of attack they are better able to discern his actions and “stand firm against the schemes of the devil.”

His Identity

In relation to learning about the enemy, C. S. Lewis warned, “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe and feel an unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors….”[5] This caution is certainly borne out by Scripture. The Bible warns of the existence of Satan and his demons, unmasks some of their schemes, and equips Christians to deal with them. However, it provides only the most basic details of their identity and never encourages interaction with them in any form other than resistance.

The devil (lit. accuser or slanderer), also commonly referred to as Satan (lit. enemy or adversary), is a formidable enemy. Warren Wiersbe cautions, “Never underestimate the power of the devil. He is not compared to a lion and a dragon just for fun!”[6] Walter Sundberg states the case even more forcefully when he says, “Scripture ascribes to the devil enormous powers which rival the powers of the divine,” and goes on to cast Satan as almost the opposite of Jesus Christ.[7] Sundberg’s view is certainly an overstatement of Satan’s power, bordering on dualism. Satan is not God’s “evil twin” possessing equal or slightly lesser power. Rather, he is an angel who fell and was condemned because of pride (I Tim. 3:6). Ezekiel 28:12-19 and Isaiah 14:12-15 may even indicate that he was an exceedingly beautiful and powerful angel named Lucifer (or Star of the Morning) who tried to overthrow God.[8] This led C. S. Lewis to correctly conclude, “Satan, the leader or dictator of devils, is the opposite, not of God, but of Michael [the archangel].”[9]

Though powerful and dangerous, Satan is only a created being. Wiersbe points out, “Since he is a created being, and not eternal (as God is), he is limited in his knowledge and activity. Unlike God, Satan is not all-knowing, all-powerful, or everywhere-present.” [10] Despite these limitations, Satan is still able to carry out his schemes in many places at once with the help of other fallen angels (often referred to as demons or unclean spirits). In Ephesians 6:12 Paul identifies these evil spirit beings as the Christian’s primary opponents when he states, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers against the powers, against the world forces of darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” There is insufficient data (and no practical purpose) to formulate a classification system or hierarchy of demons from this verse (or other similar verses). The point being made is that powerful forces of darkness actively oppose the Christian.

Despite this formidable array of foes, Ephesians 4:13 confidently declares that the Christian who dons the whole armor of God “will be able to resist in the evil day” and “stand firm.” Peter O’Brien points out, “The fundamental reason for this confidence (though not presumption) is that the decisive victory over the powers has already been won by God in Christ ([Eph.] 1:19-22; cf. 4:8).”[11] Christ’s death, resurrection, and exaltation made salvation available to fallen humans and sealed the fate of the fallen angels. On this subject, Steven Voth comments, “A theology of spiritual warfare should retain the paradox that Satan is active but defeated.”[12] Satan is not bound today (that does not occur until the Millennial Kingdom – Revelation 20:2), but his days are numbered.

His Strategy

As God’s enemies, the aim of Satan and his minions is to oppose the purpose of God in any way they can. Their schemes can take many forms. Max Turner lists just a few specific schemes of the devil that can be found throughout the book of Ephesians: “He seeks to alienate humanity from God by disobedience (2:1–3; 4:18b–19) and by ignorance and corrupted thinking (4:17b–18). He tries to separate people from each other through the alienating sins of greed (4:22, 23), falsehood (4:25), anger (specifically related to the devil in 4:27) and related sins (4:25–31).” [13]
While some of these schemes are aimed at the unsaved, Satan’s scheming attacks are also aimed at Christians. Because of Christ’s victory and power over “all rule and authority and power and dominion and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the one to come” (Eph. 1:21), Satan cannot do anything to remove the Christian from their eternal destiny of glorification and conformity to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:28-39). However, he does attempt to lead Christians into sinning, which is acting in a way inconsistent with their position in Christ (Eph. 5:7-8). This can include temptation to any of the sins listed above. Giving in to these, or any, temptation to sin can hinder the Christian’s spiritual growth, dull his effectiveness in serving God, and even cause his actions to advance Satan’s objectives rather than God’s (e.g. a hypocritical lifestyle turning an unsaved person away from God).

Satan’s utilizes various weapons in his attacks on the Christian. Two primary channels of temptation about which the Bible warns are the world (the current evil world system under Satan’s influence) and the flesh (“left over” sinful desired from the believer’s old way of life). I John 2:16 points out, “…all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world,” and James 1:14 states, “…each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.” Wiersbe sums up these weapons of Satan by saying, “Satan wants to use our external enemy, the world, and our internal enemy, the flesh, to defeat us. His weapons and battle plans are formidable.”[14]

In addition to the world and the flesh, Satan sometimes attacks the Christian with physical and/or emotional trials in an attempt to discourage him, cause him to doubt God, or hinder his effectiveness in serving God. Two scriptural examples of this sort of attack are the tragedies that befell Job and Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” (II Cor. 12:7). In I Peter 5:7-8, Peter specifically links suffering (in this case, probably as a result of persecution) with the need to resist Satan. He warns, “Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world.”

The Battle Plan

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory[15]. –Sun Tzu
No good soldier rushes into battle without a strategy. The Bible provides God’s battle plan for assured victory in the Christian’s struggles against Satan and his minions. With such a strategy available, it would be foolish for the Christian to expect victory in daily battles by just “winging it” or making up strategies of his own. However, exactly what strategy (or strategies) the Bible teaches is a matter of some dispute. The Christian must be discerning and carefully evaluate what approach to spiritual warfare most closely conforms to the teachings of Scripture.

Attack

…in the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact….[16] –Sun Tzu

One approach to spiritual warfare is for the Christian to go on the offensive against the forces of darkness. Within this approach are various strategies, most of which feature aggressive confrontation of evil spirits with the purpose of wresting parts of Satan’s kingdom from his grasp. Two of the currently popular aggressive strategies are evaluated below.

Spiritual Mapping

C. Peter Wagner, one of the leading proponents of spiritual mapping, defines it as "an attempt to see our (fill in the region to be mapped) as it really is, not as it appears to be."[17] Essentially, it is an attempt to determine the geographical distribution of the forces of darkness in order to attack them through prayers of binding or expulsion. Steven Voth fills in some of the details with this description: "The methodology followed is first to identify the territory and name the demon which exercises dominion over this territory. If possible, it is advisable to discover the demon's proper name. If this is not obtained, an attempt is made to identify the demon with a functional name such as 'spirit of doubt' or 'spirit of deception.' The possibility of naming the demon gives to the one involved in a prayer battle certain advantages and powers to attack [the demon]." [18]

Wagner admits, "We are acutely aware that spiritual mapping, along with strategic-level spiritual warfare, are relatively new innovations being introduces into the body of Christ."[19] Nonetheless, he is confident that this is a valid approach to spiritual warfare. He sees "some spiritual precedents for spiritual mapping" in "the evil occultic design of the Argentine City of La Paz" and "the first known map of a city, the city of Nippur."[20] Apparently it does not bother him that these maps showing what spirit/god controls what territory are, by his own admission, pagan in origin. The only Scriptural precedent he gives for the practice of spiritual mapping is in Ezekiel 4:1-3.[21] However, a reading of the passage in its context shows that the model city and model siege engines constructed by Ezekiel were merely one of a number of object lessons foretelling the judgment of Jerusalem; absolutely no mention is made of demons, territorial spirits, or even prayer.

Some would argue that the lack of scriptural precedent (and existence of pagan/occult precedent) does not invalidate this method. Proponent believe that the individual elements of spiritual mapping (the existence of territorial spirits, increased effectiveness through discovering demonic names, and binding demonic forces in prayer) are taught in the Bible.

The existence of territorial spirits may be hinted at in the Bible. Wiersbe notes, "Daniel wrote that Satan's angels struggle against God's angels for control of the affairs of the nations (Daniel 10:13-20)."[22] This passage mentions an apparently demonic entity called "the prince of Persia" who fights against an unnamed holy angel who is assisted by Michael, "one of the chief princes" (not by Daniel or any other human being!). This passage, along with New Testament designations for demons such as rulers, powers, and world forces of darkness (Eph. 6:12), may indicate that at least some demons are organized along geographic or geopolitical lines. However, this is very scant evidence on which to base a whole doctrine of the widespread existence of "territorial spirits." Voth points out, "the literature that supports this classification is not always clear or coherent in its treatment of the subject. There exists much exegetical flexibility on the subject."[23]

Scriptural evidence in favor of Christians discovering the identity of territorial spirits or other demons[24] in order to have more power over them is very slim indeed. The only example of anyone in the Bible discovering the name of a demon is Jesus' asking the name of "Legion" who possessed the Gerasene demoniac (Mk. 5:9, Lk. 8:30). When read in context, it is apparent that this did not give Jesus any "extra power" over the demon since the possessed man was already groveling at his feet with the demons begging that their punishment be postponed (Mk. 5:7, Lk. 8:28). In relation to spiritual warfare in the book of Ephesians, Turner points out, “Writing to an area which had strong associations with magic…and knew myriad names for the powers, it is noteworthy that Paul does not launch himself into a detailed speculative demonology.”[25]

This lack of Scriptural support does not deter those involved in spiritual mapping. They claim to discover the names and locations of demons by observing the sorts of sins and non-Christian religions prevalent in a city as well as "ask[ing] the Lord for prophetic words and visions concerning churches and cities."[26][27] Some examples of names thus "discovered" are: Beelzebub, Belial, the Dragon, the Slayer of Souls, Apollyon, Asmodeus, Jezebel, and Androgyny.[28] This is certainly an eclectic mix with names coming from a variety of sources.[29]

Even if the widespread existence of territorial spirits whose names can be discovered were valid, no passage commands God's people to specifically attack them or bind them in prayer. The two frequently cited verses which mention binding on earth what is bound in heaven are in the context of who is allowed into the kingdom (Matt. 16:19) and what should be done with the unrepentant, erring brother (Matt. 18:18). Neither passage has anything to do with the binding of evil spirits. The subjectivity and eclecticism of this approach coupled with the complete lack of Scriptural support should raise serious doubts in the Christian's mind about its soundness.

Stronghold Breaking

A second aggressive spiritual warfare strategy is the breaking of stronghold, not in geographical regions, but in the lives of Christians. Many of those who espouse spiritual mapping would also practice some form of this strategy. Aggressive stronghold breaking views repeated sin in a Christian’s life not as an area in need of greater defense (see next section), but as a demonic stronghold that must be confronted. Neil T. Anderson explains, “Many Christians today who cannot control their lives…should be resisting Satan in an area where he has obviously robbed them of control. Anything bad which you cannot stop doing, or anything good which you cannot make yourself do, could be an area of demonic control.”[30]

Proponents of this battle plan believe that the demon(s) causing the Christian to sin must be confronted. This confrontation often takes a verbal form where the Christian makes a declaration along the lines of, “I command Satan and all evil spirits to release me in order that I can be free to know and choose the will of God.”[31] Anderson insists that there must be a verbal command for the stronghold to be broken. He says, “If you only tell Satan to leave with your thoughts he won’t leave because he can’t hear you. You must defeat Satan by speaking out.”[32] Some in the stronghold breaking movement would even say that some Christians are “demonized” to the extent that other Christians must confront the demons which are in almost complete control and manifesting themselves through convulsions, cursing, supernatural strength, etc.[33]

This whole approach to spiritual warfare leads to the question of whether a Christian can be possessed or controlled by demons. The Bible clearly teaches that Christians are owned by God and indwelt by the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 6:19) Who is far greater than any demonic power in the world (I Jn. 4:4) and Who will have no fellowship with Satan (II Cor. 6:14-15). Sin and Satan no longer have any rights over the Christian (Rom. 8) who is now “Light in the Lord” (Eph. 5:8). These truths preclude the Christian completely losing volitional control to a demon, and it makes no difference whether the demonic control is termed possession, demonizing, or even a stronghold. Of course, this does not mean that the Christian cannot be severely tempted or oppressed by demons (as discussed above under The Enemy: His Strategy).

The question remains of whether the Christian who repeatedly falls into sin must verbally confront the demonic forces who are tempting him. There are no explicit commands in the Bible to do so, and no record of anyone doing so (other than Jesus who was verbally addressed by Satan during his temptations and responded by quoting Scriptures). It may prove helpful to the Christian to quote Scripture when tempted, but to insist on a verbal rebuke of the forces of evil before victory can be achieved is an unwarranted leap that minimizes the power of God to protect His children when they humbly rely on Him (Jas. 4:7-8).

One final aspect of stronghold breaking that must be discussed is that of “generational curses.” Many espousing this battle plan believe that a Christian can be subject to demonic oppression because of sins committed by their ancestors. Anderson states, “The last step to freedom is to renounce the sins of your ancestors and any curses which may have been placed on you.”[34] The only prooftext given for the concept of generational curses is Exodus 20:4-5 which refers to God (not a demonic curse) “visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me.” This passage speaks of the consequences of covenant-breaking affecting the entire family, but does not call for repentance for the sins of one’s ancestors. Debby Dewart points out, “This view [generational curses] is one that denies the tremendous power and privilege of being adopted as God’s own child (Ephesians 1:5; Romans 8:17).”[35]

Conclusions on Aggressive Strategies

Both spiritual mapping and bondage breaking have little Scriptural support. There is no indication in the Bible that Christians should seek to directly attack demonic forces. Those who do so often begin to focus on demonic activity to the point of becoming paranoid. For example, Wagner speaks of his falling off a ladder as the result of demonic activity, his wife seeing a demon in their bedroom, his friends exorcising multiple demons from his living room, and a coworker sensing a demon attached to a souvenir statuette of a puma in his house.[36] Alvin Reid was not too far off the mark when he said, “The current emphasis on generational curses and territorial spirits sounds more like pagan shamanism than like biblical truth.”[37]

There is a sense in which Christians do “take Satan’s territory” or “free captives” by bringing unsaved individuals to the point where they put their faith in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:1-9). However, this is done through proclaiming God’s Word, not directly confronting demonic powers (Matt. 28:18-20, Rom. 10:13-15).

Defense

The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable[38]. –Sun Tzu

Rather than piecing together verses with debatable interpretations or formulating a battle plan and then looking for Scriptural support, the Christian should seek what the Bible has to say in passages that directly reference spiritual warfare. Of these passages, Ephesians 6:10-20 is the most detailed by far. A reading of this passage in context clearly gives a defensive battle plan with repeated admonitions to "stand." Turner notes, "...Paul has a particular sort of battle in mind: one to hold a strong position. His exhortation does not prepare soldiers to make a quick moving attack (and the Roman soldier's key attack weapons, the twin javelin, are missing), but to take a stand (11), to stand your ground (13) and to stand firm (14)."[39] Paul explains that the Christian is able to stand by being "strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might" (v.10) which is fully appropriated by putting on or taking up "the full armor of God" (vv.11, 13).

The armor of God is more than a list of virtues which the Christian must cultivate. Paul Eckel points out, “But what of the other items: peace, salvation, and the Word of God[as opposed to truth, righteousness, and faith]? This set cannot be grouped under the heading ‘virtues.’ They are, in the absolute sense, acts of grace and gifts of God. They represent the Lord's mercy, not the believer's accomplishments.”[40] Though God makes his armor available to all Christians, not all make use of it in their daily lives. Wiersbe explains, “Once and for all we have put on the armor at the moment of salvation. But there must be a daily appropriation.”[41] Such an understanding is consistent with Paul’s command to the Ephesians to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called” (Eph. 4:1). The Christian’s daily lifestyle should reflect the position he has in Christ (e.g. Eph. 4:20-32).

The first piece of armor the Christian is to don is the belt or girdle of truth (v.14). The girdle on a Roman soldier’s armor was the protective undergarment to which most of the other pieces attached. This piece of God’s armor refers not only to God’s truth providing the basis of the Christian’s life, but also to the resultant truthfulness which should characterize the life of the believer. O’Brien explains, “’Truth,’ which occupies a prominent place in Ephesians, refers to the truth of God (4:24; 5:9) revealed in the gospel (1:13, 4:15, 21, 24), which has its outworking in the lives of believers.”[42]

The next piece of God’s armor is the “breastplate of righteousness” (v. 14). The Roman soldier’s breastplate protected his heart and other vital organs from bladed weapons or arrows. The Christian’s heart is protected as he seeks to live righteously before God (Eph. 4:19), which is made possible by the imputation of God’s own righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21-22).

The Christian’s feet are to be “shod…with the preparation of the gospel of peace” (v. 15). Many view this as a preparedness to share the gospel with anyone at any time. While this should be true of the Christian (I Pet. 3:5), it is not the best understanding in this context of spiritual warfare. Hoehner offers the interpretation that “…rather than preach the gospel of peace, believers are ready or prepared to stand against the onslaught of the evil forces because they are firmly grounded in the gospel of peace.”[43] The more the Christian knows and understands about his position in Christ, the more secure his “footing” will be when he faces trials and temptations.

The whole body is to be covered by the “shield of faith” (v. 16). The word for shield used here refers to the Roman soldiers’ large shields which could be used to form a wall, virtually impenetrable to arrows. Paul states that the Christian’s faith is able to “extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.” The Christian’s spiritual life begins with faith and faith should continue to characterize his life. Turner comments, “Faith in this letter is the radical openness to God that allows Christ’s full indwelling and brings a deeper grasp of his unfathomable love (cf. 3:17).”[44] As the Christian demonstrates unwavering faith in God, Satan’s attacks of temptation and discouragement will “fizzle.”

The next piece of armor is the “helmet of salvation” (v. 18). The Roman helmet had long cheek guards and protected the entire head. Salvation from sin and condemnation is God’s gift received by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8-9). The Christian is assured of his ultimate glorification and eternal life in heaven. O’Brien notes, “As they [Christians] appropriate this salvation more fully and live in the light of their status in Christ, they have every reason to be confident of the outcome of the battle.”[45]

The final piece of armor is the “sword of the spirit, which is the Word of God.” The Roman gladius was a short sword used for close hand-to-hand combat. Jesus himself demonstrated how the Word of God can be used in defeating Satan. When Satan tempted him (Matt. 4, Lk. 4), he responded to each temptation with a Scripture quotation and proceeded to obey that Scripture. Turner lists some of the situations in which the Bible is the Christian’s weapon, point out that it can be used “to strike back with the truth when we are personally tempted to evil…when the church is attacked by false teaching…when the powers seek to pervade the world around us with alien philosophies and ethical teachings; and finally to strike vigorous blows for freedom with the fearless proclamation of Christian truth such as Paul encourages in vs 19-20.”[46]

Finally, Paul exhorts Christians, “Pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints” (v. 18). This prayerful lifestyle enables the Christian to rely on God in all things and daily practice truth, righteousness, and faith while always seeking to grow in their knowledge and understanding of their salvation, the gospel of peace, and the Word of God.

Conclusion

A lifestyle of being on guard against temptation and discouragement while actively seeking to live a life in accordance with one’s status as a child of God is not nearly as glamorous as binding demons, breaking generational curses, or mapping out Satan’s territory. It is, however, what God has called his children to do in their struggle against the forces of darkness. “Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.”[47]

Works Cited
Anderson, Neil T. The Bondage Breaker. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1993.
Dewart, Debbie. Bondage to Demons...Or to Sin? Discernment Publications, 1997.
Eckel, Paul T. "Ephesians 6:10-20." Interpretations 45, no. 3 (July 1991): 288-293.
Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Lewis, C. S. The Screwtape Letters and Screwtape Proposes a Toast. New York: The Macillan Company, 1961.
Mallone, George. Arming for Spiritual Warfare. Wheaton: InterVarsity Press, 1991.
McGregor, Mark, and Bev Klopp. "Mapping and Discerning Seattle, Washington." In Breaking Strongholds in Your City, edited by C. Peter Wagner, 197-222. Ventura: Regal Books, 1993.
O'Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.
Reid, Alvin L. Radically Unchurched. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2002.
Sjoberg, Kjell. "Spiritual Mapping for Prophetic Prayer Actions." In Breaking Strongholds in Your City, edited by Peter C. Wagner, 97-119. Ventura: Regal Books, 1993.
Sundberg, Walter. "Satan the Enemy." Word & World 28, no. 1 (Winter 2008): 29-37.
Turner, Max. "Ephesians." In New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition (electronic version), edited by D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer and J. Gl. Wenham. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Tzu, Sun. The Art of War. Translated by Lionel Giles. London: Arcturus Publishing, Limited, 2008.
Voth, Steven M. "La Guerra Espiritual: Realidad o Ciencia-ficción." Kairós 30 (January-June 2002): 7-32.
Wagner, C. Peter, ed. Breaking Strongholds in Your City. Ventura: Regal Books, 1993.
Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary: New Testament. Vol. 2. Colorado Springs: Victor, 2001.


[1]Sun Tzu, The Art of War, trans. Lionel Giles (London: Arcturus Publishing, Limited, 2008), 20.
[2] This book (written c. 500 BC) is widely regarded as one of the greatest treatises on military tactics ever written.
[3] All Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible unless otherwise indicated.
[4] Tzu, The Art of War, 23.
[5]C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters and Screwtape Proposes a Toast (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961), 9.
[6]Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary: New Testament (Colorado Springs: Victor, 2001), 2:57.
[7]Walter Sundberg, “Satan the Enemy,” Word and World 28, no. 1(Winter 2008): 30.
[8] Whether these passages refer to the fall of Satan or not is heavily debated. They are prophetic judgments directed primarily against pagan kings, but the prophets appear to be comparing the pride and resultant fall of these kings to that of Satan. Phrases such as “the anointed cherub” in Ezekiel 28:14 and “fallen from heaven” in Isaiah 4:12 more aptly describe an angelic being than a human king. However, some would argue that the prophets are merely sarcastically exaggerating without any historical allusion in mind.
[9] Lewis, The Screwtape Letters and Screwtape Proposes a Toast, V.
[10] Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary: New Tetsament, 2:57.
[11]Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), 464.
[12]Steven M. Voth, “La Guerra Espiritual: Realidad o Ciencia-Ficción,” Kairós 30 (Jan-Je 2002): 37.
[13]Max Turner, “Ephesians,” in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition (Electronic Version), ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994).
[14]Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary: New Testament, 2:58.
[15] Tzu, The Art of War, 44.
[16] Ibid., 34.
[17]Peter C. Wagner, Breaking Strongholds in Your City (Ventura: Regal Books, 1993), 14. – Italics original
[18]Voth, “La Guerra Espiritual: Realidad o Ciencia-Ficción,” 20. – Translation mine.
[19]Wagner, Breaking Strongholds in Your City, 19-20.
[20] Ibid., 20-21.
[21] Ibid., 20.
[22] Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary: New Testament, 2:57.
[23]Voth, “La Guerra Espiritual: Realidad o Ciencia-Ficción,” 19. – Translation mine.
[24] This approach is also used by some involved in “stronghold breaking.”
[25]Turner, “Ephesians.” – Italics original.
[26] Kjell Sjoberg, “Spiritual Mapping for Prophetic Prayer Action,” in Breaking Strongholds in Your City, ed. Peter C. Wagner (Ventura: Regal Books, 1993), 106.
[27] Many, would take issue with the idea that prophetic words, visions, and other sign gifts are in use today. These authenticating gifts ceased around the time of the completion of the canon. For a fuller treatment see my paper entitled The Purpose of Miraculous Gifts: Edification or Authentication?
[28]Mark McGregor and Bev Klopp, “Mapping and Discerning Seattle, Washington,” in Breaking Strongholds in Your City, ed. Peter C. White (Ventura: Regal Books, 1993), 218.
[29] Most of these names, when viewed in their scriptural context, appear to be simply other names for Satan. In addition, Asmodeus is from the Apocryphal book of Tobit, Jezebel was an evil human queen in the Old Testament, and Androgyny and The Slayer of Souls appear to be completely extra-biblical.
[30]Neil T. Anderson, The Bondage Breaker (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), 180.
[31] Ibid., 187.
[32] Ibid., 85. – Italics original.
[33]George Mallone, Arming for Spiritual Warfare (Wheaton: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 81.
[34] Anderson, The Bondage Breaker, 205.
[35]Debbie Dewart, Bondage to Demons…Or to Sin? (Discernment Publications, 1996), 38. – Italics original.
[36] Peter C. Wagner, Breaking Strongholds in Your City, 62.
[37]Alvin L. Reid, Radically Unchurched (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2002), 112.
[38]Tzu, The Art of War, 75-76.
[39]Turner, “Ephesians.”
[40]Eckel, “Ephesians 6:10-20,” 290.
[41] Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary: New Testament, 2:59.
[42]O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, 473-474.
[43]Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 844.
[44] Turner, “Ephesians.”
[45]O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, 481.
[46]Turner, “Ephesians.”
[47] I Corinthians 15:57

Theology of Outreach and Church Growth

Joel Mitchell

11/11/08

Theology of Outreach and Church Growth

Opening Considerations

The Definition of the Church

The term church is generally used in two different ways in the New Testament. The first way it is used is to refer to all saved individuals from the day of Pentecost until the rapture. This is usually referred to as the universal church. This is the church Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 16:18 when he promised, “…I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” It began on the day of Pentecost (c.f. Acts 2, I Cor. 12:13, Acts 11:15-16) and is often spoken of using terms such as “the body of Christ” (I Cor. 12:12ff). The universal church grows every time someone trusts in Christ as their savior.
The second way in which church is used is to refer to the Christians who meet in a given location, usually organized with church leadership (e.g. Acts 20:17, Gal. 1:2, Rev. 2:1). This is usually referred to as the local church. This is the most commonly occurring meaning of church in the New Testament and the meaning that will be the focus of this discussion. The local church grows when saved individuals join its membership (Acts 2:47).

The Mission of the Church

The mission of the church is found in Jesus’ last instructions to his followers before his ascension. It is found in Matthew 28:18-20 and is usually referred to as the Great Commission. In these verses Jesus said, “…All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you…” The main imperative in this verse is to make disciples, which is accomplished with Christ’s authority through going, baptizing, and teaching. As the main thrust of this discussion is outreach, the focus will be on the first step of disciple-making: leading the lost to a decision to become a follower of Christ (outreach- going) rather than on the maturation process (baptizing and teaching).

The Message of the Gospel

The message which the church must share with the world is the Gospel (literally: good news). The heart of the Gospel is Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins (I Cor. 15:1-4). The free gift of salvation is accepted by faith (Eph. 2:8-9) and results in a changed life (II Cor. 5:15-17) and eternal life with God (Jn. 3:16).

A Caution Concerning the Book of Acts

It should be noted that Acts records the history of the early church, and, as such, the book is primarily descriptive (telling what did happen) not prescriptive (telling what should happen today). Today’s Christians can certainly learn from the example of these early Christians but should be careful about basing any doctrine solely on occurrences in the book of Acts. Because Acts covers a transitional period (from being under the Law to the firm establishment of the church) many practices and occurrences are not normative for today (e.g. speaking in tongues in 2:4, communal living in 2:44, raising the dead in 9:40, etc.)

Outreach Methods Recorded in Acts

An examination of the book of Acts, shows that the early Christians shared the Gospel in a number of ways. All of these methods were empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit who descended on the Christians (marking the beginning of the church) on the day of Pentecost.
The first one to share the gospel after the church began was the apostle Peter, and he did so through preaching (Acts 2). Preaching and teaching (e.g. Acts 19:9 – Paul in the school of Tyrannus) were the primary methods of outreach used by the apostles throughout the book of Acts. In their preaching and teaching (as well as personal evangelism), the Christians sought to present the Gospel in a way that was understandable to their audience. The great variety in Gospel presentation can be seen by comparing Peter’s sermon to the religious Jews (Acts 2) with Paul’s address to the thoroughly pagan Athenians (Acts 17).
The unsaved were also drawn to Christ through various miracles performed by the apostles (e.g. Acts 3 – healing the lame man at the temple, Acts 14:3 – various authenticating signs). These miracles served as God’s authentication of the new message of the Gospel. This method of spreading the Gospel seems to have ended around the time of the completion of the canon. (A detailed argument for the cessation of the sign gifts, such as healing and tongues, is a subject best left for another time.)
The early Christians also attracted the unsaved to Christ through their lifestyle. They demonstrated what it meant to be a follower of Christ by their joy in worship, care for one another (e.g. Acts 2:44-46 – the Jerusalem church), and help for the poor (e.g. Acts 9:36-39 – Tabitha/Dorcas). These Christians truly were known by their love for one another (Jn. 13:35).
The early Christians did not stop at letting their lives be a silent witness to the Gospel’s transforming power. They verbally engaged in personal evangelism of the unsaved (e.g. Acts 8:26-39 – Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch). This was not confined to the apostles and other church leaders. Rather, as the Christians were scattered by persecution they carried the Gospel throughout the Roman Empire (Acts 8:4).
With the exception of miracles, these outreach methods can (and should) be used in the church today. Preaching and teaching in the church should not only encourage and edify the Believers, but should also communicate the Gospel to the lost. Christians’ lifestyle and words should communicate the Gospel to the unsaved. Principles found in the epistles give further instruction on how outreach should look in the local church and in the lives of individual Christians.

Outreach Principles Found in the Epistles

As with any aspect of the Christian life, outreach should not be undertaken without God’s help and guidance. The apostle Paul, probably the church’s greatest missionary ever, recognized the need for prayer. In Ephesians 6:18-20 he exhorts the Ephesians to pray for all Christians and requested that they pray specifically for him that he would have boldness and the right words to speak.
Outreach is not something that is done solely by the leadership of the local church. In Ephesians 4:11-12 Paul points out that the leadership of the church should be actively equipping the church members to carry out “the work of the ministry.” This certainly includes training in evangelism as this contributes to the “building up” of the church.
Every individual Christian is instructed to be a witness. One aspect of this outreach is nonverbal: the Christian living a godly lifestyle (Phil. 2:15). A second aspect is verbal witnessing (often called personal evangelism) as the Christian should “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (I Pet. 3:15). In witnessing, the Christian should attempt to take into account the spiritual background and culture of the hearer and present the Gospel in a way that will be understandable to them (I Cor. 9:19-23). Some Christians are content to let their lifestyle be their only witness to the unsaved. While this is a good start, it ignores the obvious fact that the lost will not be able to deduce faith in Christ from observing a godly lifestyle unless there is some form of verbal communication (Rom. 10:17).
Some Christians do not witness for fear of looking foolish (or fanatical, or intolerant, etc.). Others do not witness because they feel they will not see results, or they have stopped witnessing because they have not seen results in the past. Such attitudes ignore the nature of the Gospel. In Romans 1:16 Paul states, “I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.” The Gospel may indeed appear foolish to some (I Cor. 1:18) and sometimes produce ridicule (or worse – I Jn. 3:13), but that does not absolve Christians of their responsibility to be witnesses and make disciples (Matt. 28:18-20, Acts 1:8, Gal 6:9). (And what of compassion for those who are on their way to hell? – Jn. 3:18) Neither should a lack of immediate visible results discourage the Christian. Ultimately, conviction and conversion is the work of God (Jn. 6:44, 16:4-11) and the Christian can trust that His plan and timing is perfect. Christians are called to be bold (Eph. 6:19-20) yet gentle and respectful (I Pet. 3:15) in sharing the God-empowered Good News of salvation, both as part of the church’s ministries and in their daily lives.

Church Growth

The question that then arises in this discussion is: Will local churches that faithfully seek to fulfill the Great Commission through outreach (and discipleship) be always (or almost always) characterized by rapid, sustained, numerical church growth?

Church Growth in Acts

Rapid (even explosive) growth certainly seemed to be prevalent throughout the book of Acts. The Jerusalem church increased quickly from 120 to 3,000 to 5,000 (Acts 1:15, 2:41, 4:4) as more people became Christians and were added. Other local churches appear to have organized and grown very quickly with reports of the number of disciples multiplying (Acts 6:7, 9:31) and multitudes coming to the Lord (Acts 5:14). This book shows that God can indeed cause local churches to grow numerically at an astounding rate as Christians do their part in fulfilling the Great Commission. Due to the descriptive, transitional nature of the book of Acts these descriptions alone, while inspiring, should not be seen as conclusive evidence that all healthy churches grow numerically.

Variations in Responsiveness

Scripture as a whole speaks of times of varying responsiveness and receptivity in different times and places. In some times and places (e.g. most of the book of Acts) receptivity and responsiveness to the Gospel (and resulting numerical growth as new Christians join local churches) are very high. Sometimes this is because others have gone before and prepared the way for those who come later and “reap the harvest” (Jn. 4:35-38). Other times God may simply work in the hearts of those who will respond (Acts 16:14, 18:9-10).
At other times and places receptivity and responsiveness to the Gospel may be low (with resulting slowing or lack of numerical local church growth). This can be the result of firmly entrenched false religion in a given area, such as Paul encountered in Athens (Acts 17 – some new Christians, but far fewer than elsewhere). It can also result from a culture that would rather here “nice” things than God’s truth. In II Timothy 4:3 Paul warns, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” In the Old Testament, there was even a time when virtually no one would listen to God’s Words, yet He still commissioned His prophets to declare it (and even explicitly told Isaiah that he would see no results! – Isa. 6:9-12).
Ultimately, God determines who will respond to the Gospel, when they will respond, and the amount of growth any given local church will experience as a result. In I Corinthians 3:5-7 Paul points out, “I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.”

Church Growth: Not a Cut-and-dry Indicator

Since many factors go into whether a local church grows or not – not least of all, the sovereign plan of God – a cut-and-dry approach of steady growth almost always indicating health and lack of steady growth almost always indicating problems appears to be unsound. However, numerical growth or lack thereof can help a church know what sort of areas to focus on in evaluating whether their church is healthy.

A church experiencing steady/rapid growth should evaluate whether that growth is the result of:

1. Demonstrating solid, biblical commitment to the Great Commission - if so, keep up the good work

Or

2. Focusing only on outreach - only fulfilling part of the Great Commission

Or

3. Compromising the Gospel to accommodate “itching ears” (II Tim. 4:3)

A church experiencing little/no growth should seek to evaluate whether its ministries are:

1. Demonstrating solid, biblical commitment to the Great Commission - if so, keep up the good work

Or

2. Focusing only on teaching Christians - only fulfilling part of the Great Commission

Or

3. Clinging to the past to the extent that “outreach” is conducted in a way that is incomprehensible to the culture around them - the “we’ve never done it that way before” attitude (Matt. 15:8-10).

Conclusion

Share the Good News! Plant! Water! God will give the increase. It may or may not take the form of numerical growth in your local church . . . our concern is in doing what He has called us to do.

New Testament Canonization Criteria: Arbitrary or Scriptural?

BAPTIST BIBLE SEMINARY



NEW TESTAMENT CANONIZATION CRITERIA
ARBITRARY OR SCRIPTURAL?



A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO
DR. KEN GARDOSKI
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COURSE
FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH
(TH500)



BY
JOEL MITCHELL



CLARKS SUMMIT, PENNSYLVANIA
MAY, 2008

CONTENTS
INSPIRATION AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON............................................ 1
Scripture...................................................................................................................... 2
Inspiration................................................................................................................... 3
Canonization............................................................................................................... 3
CRITERIA IN DETERMINING THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON............................ 4
Apostolic Authority.................................................................................................... 4
Biblical Basis....................................................................................................... 4
Application in the Early Church......................................................................... 6
Application to the Gospel of Thomas................................................................. 7
Orthodoxy................................................................................................................... 8
Biblical Basis....................................................................................................... 8
Application in the Early Church......................................................................... 9
Application to the Gospel of Thomas............................................................... 11
Widespread Acceptance............................................................................................ 12
Biblical Basis..................................................................................................... 13
Application in the Early Church....................................................................... 14
Application to the Gospel of Thomas............................................................... 15
The Closure of the Canon......................................................................................... 16
WORKS CITED............................................................................................................... 18


INSPIRATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON
Most Christians today take for granted that the New Testament is comprised of the 27 books listed in the table of contents at the front of their Bible. While most recognize that these books were written by various human authors (under God’s guidance) over a period of decades, very few take the time to consider just how those 27 books came to make up the New Testament. Steven M. Sheeley points out that because this matter is seldom considered or discussed by the average Christian “…many people are unprepared for questions that continue to arise concerning the nature of the canon and the possibility of considering other ancient writings of equal value for matters of faith and practice.”[1]

Such questions have indeed arisen and the notion that perhaps other books should (or at least could) be added to the New Testament canon is quickly gaining popularity. This distrust of the New Testament canon takes a number of forms. On the more radical side is the view popularized by Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code which presents the New Testament canon as little more than a conspiracy by “historical winners” to squash competing (but equally authoritative) forms of Christianity.[2] On the more moderate side are those who believe that the Bible is indeed the Word of God, but wonder if the criteria used for canonization were not somewhat arbitrary and/or some books were somehow overlooked in the process.

This paper will attempt to demonstrate that the process of canonization was neither arbitrary nor a conspiracy by examining the criteria used by the early church in the formation of the New Testament canon. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, one of the “trendiest” choices for possible addition to the New Testament, will be used as an illustration throughout. Bart Ehrman describes the Gospel of Thomas as “…a collection of Jesus’ sayings that claims to have been written by Didymus Judas Thomas.”[3]

Scripture

Before the criteria for determining canonicity are discussed, however, it is necessary to clarify some terms. First, canonization did not cause a book to become Scripture. Scripture is the very Word of God in written form, and it does not need the acceptance of man to become such. This claim is not something imposed on the Bible. The Old Testament, which the early church accepted as Scripture[4], repeatedly claims to be the very Word of God. That this understanding of Scripture continued in the New Testament is confirmed by Paul’s statement in II Timothy 3:16 that “All Scripture is inspired by God”[5].

Inspiration

Inspiration, as used in reference to Scripture, is more than a synonym for genius or “the quality of being beyond the usual skill of a human being.” In II Timothy 3:16 it translates the Greek word θεοπνευστος which literally means God-breathed. Though the writers of Scripture maintained their individual personalities[6], they were in some way guided by the Holy Spirit so that they wrote down the very Word of God. This process is described in II Peter 1:21 which says, “For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

Canonization

It was this quality of inspiration (the Word of God perfectly recorded by men of God who were moved by the Spirit of God) that made a book canonical. While the early church used three main criteria in determining whether a book was canonical, they were merely officially recognizing its canonical nature. They were not conferring upon the book any quality it did not already possess.

Charles C. Ryrie explains canonization in this way: “People and councils only recognized and acknowledged what is true because of the intrinsic inspiration of the books as they were written.”[7] Thus, canonization was the recognition that a book was indeed Scripture and, as such, should officially be included in the canon.

CRITERIA IN DETERMINING THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

The three main criteria used by the early church in determining whether a book was canonical were: apostolic authority, orthodoxy, and widespread acceptance in the church. Far from being arbitrary, all three of these criteria have biblical bases.

Apostolic Authority

The first test of a book’s canonicity was whether it was written with apostolic authority. This meant that the book was either written by an apostle or by someone directly authorized by an apostle to do so. Two examples of the latter are the Gospel writers Mark and Luke. Mark was the companion of Peter, and Luke of Paul.

Biblical Basis

There are two aspects of this criterion that can be found in the Bible. The first aspect is the eyewitness status of the apostles. As Paul D. Wegner points out, “The apostles, being eyewitnesses to Jesus and his life, could speak authoritatively about that which they wrote….”[8] The apostle John emphasized this point in I John 1:1-3 when he wrote,

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our
eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of
Life…what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also…

The second, and possibly most important, aspect of this criterion is that Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them in properly remembering and proclaiming the gospel. This promise is most clearly found in John 14:26 where Jesus tells his disciples,

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will
teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

This promise clearly gives God’s authority to the apostolic message, and certainly resembles Peter’s description of inspiration. Roger R Nicole nicely sums up the reason for this qualification when he notes, “This criterion points to the obvious fact that the apostles were appointed by Jesus to carry on and perpetuate his teaching ministry under the guidance of the Holy Spirit….”[9]

There are two examples of apostles referring to a contemporary’s writings as Scripture even before the writing of the New Testament was complete. The first example is found in II Peter 3:15-16. In this passage Peter puts Paul’s epistles on the same level as “the rest of the Scriptures.” Ryrie points out that, “‘Scripture’ was a designation in Judaism for canonical books, so when it is used in the New Testament of other New Testament writings, it designates those writings as canonical.”[10] The second example is found in I Timothy 5:18 where Paul prefaces two quotes, one of which is Luke 10:7, with the phrase “For the Scripture says.” The Lucan quote closely resembles various Old Testament passages, but Ryrie points out, “To be sure the sentiment of Luke 10:7 is found in the Old Testament, but the form of quotation is found only in the Gospels.”[11] This is a clear example of a book not written by an apostle having apostolic authority.

Application in the Early Church

Because the early church was much closer to the time of the apostles (some of the church fathers such as Polycarp having actually sat under their teaching) it was possible to ascertain whether a book was apostolic in origin with a fairly high degree of certainty. B. B. Warfield states that for canonical books whose apostolic authority was doubted “in no case was it more than a respectable minority of the church which was slow in receiving…And in every case the principle on which a book was accepted, or doubts against it laid aside, was the historical tradition of apostilicity.”[12]

One very obvious application of the criteria of apostolic authority is that no book written after the last apostle died could possibly have apostolic authority. Ben Witherington points out,

It is noteworthy that not a single document written after about 120 was ever
considered for inclusion in the canon, not least because such documents were not
written by people in direct touch with the apostolic tradition, much less with
the apostles themselves.[13]

Wegner points out an example of this principle at work in that “The [Muratorian] fragment makes very clear that the Shepherd of Hermas was not accepted as canonical, citing that it had been written only recently.”[14]

Application to the Gospel of Thomas

At first glance, the Gospel of Thomas appears to meet the criteria of apostolic authority. After all, Thomas who was called Didymus (“the twin”) was one of the twelve disciples.[15] However, there is good reason to believe that the Gospel of Thomas is pseudonymous.

The first problem is that, according to Ehrman, there is a legend attached to this Didymus Judas Thomas, that he was the twin brother of Jesus. If this legend is indeed attached to the Thomas who wrote this book, he is clearly a fictitious person, not the disciple/apostle Thomas. A second problem with the Gospel of Thomas is its late date. Ehrman notes,

Some scholars have maintained that the sayings of Thomas may be closer to what
Jesus actually taught than what we find in the New Testament; others, however,
have pointed out that the theology implicit in the Gnostic teachings cannot be
dated with confidence prior to the beginning of the second century.[16]

Even Ehrman, a champion of the “historical winner” understanding of the canon, admits that the Gospel of Thomas was written “…possibly in the early second century.”[17] Since John, the longest surviving apostle, is widely believed to have died around the year AD100, the Gospel of Thomas is clearly not old enough to meet the criterion of apostolic authority.

Orthodoxy

The Second test of a book’s canonicity was whether its teachings were orthodox. This meant that nothing in the book in any way contradicted teachings found elsewhere in Scripture.

Biblical Basis

This qualification flows directly from the doctrine of inspiration and an understanding of the character of God. Because God is omniscient[18] and completely truthful[19], it is impossible for one part of His inspired Word to contradict another part. That is, if there was a contradiction, at least one of the two statements would have to be untrue, and an untruth in Scripture is impossible since God can neither lie nor be mistaken.

The principle of rejecting teachings that contradicted the message of the Gospel is demonstrated in the writings of a number of canonical books. For example, in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians he wrote against Judaizers who sought to add works to faith as a condition for salvation. In 1:8 he instructed the Galatian Christians,

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary
to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Other New Testament examples include John’s warning against those who denied the incarnation in I John 4:1-3 and Jude’s epistle which is almost entirely devoted to the condemnation of “ungodly persons who turn the grace of God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”[20]

Application in the Early Church

In recent years there has been a denial that the early church could have used this criterion. The theory has been advanced that there was not one single standard of orthodoxy in the early church. Proponents of this view propose alternate Christianities (usually of a Gnostic variety), having equal authority with New Testament Christianity but eventually being suppressed by what came to be known as “orthodoxy.” Ehrman sums up this view as follows,

Historians today realize that it is over-simplified to say that these
alternative theologies are aberrations because they are not represented in the
New Testament. For the New Testament itself is a collection of books that
emerged from the conflict, the group of books advocated by the side of the
disputes that eventually established itself as dominant and handed the books
down to posterity as “the” Christian Scriptures.[21]

By theorizing multiple valid, yet contradictory, “Christianities” this view essentially denies that any form of Christianity is ordained by the true God. The logical conclusion of this theory in regards to the Bible is summed up by “Professor Teabing,” a character in The Da Vinci Code. He states, “The Bible is the product of man, my dear. Not of God…Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions.”[22]

Besides being a blatant attack on Christianity, this theory does not line up well with historical data. Witherington points out that “there is no strong evidence to suggest that gnostic Christians vied with the orthodox from the beginning”[23] In fact, most scholars agree that there is no clear evidence of Gnostic Christianity prior to the second century. The canonical books written in the first century were accepted as Scripture very early on (as evidenced partly by Paul’s quotation of Luke and Peter’s citation of Paul as Scripture). Wegner points out, “Since certain books of Scripture were considered canonical almost immediately (e.g. the Gospels and Paul’s Letters), their teaching could be used to evaluate that of the other books.”[24]

Thus, the criterion of orthodoxy helped the early church weed out books that claimed apostolic authority but whose teaching indicated they were, in fact, pseudonymous. Any book containing Gnostic teachings would have been rejected on this basis. Gnosticism clearly contradicts the teachings of the New Testament that salvation is made available through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ[25]. Witherington explains that “Gnostics taught that the soul’s salvation depended on the individual possessing quasi-intuitive knowledge (gnosis) of the mysteries of the universe and of magical formulas.”[26] In addition to a faulty understanding of salvation, Gnosticism rejected the Old Testament as Scripture. It should come as no surprise that there is no evidence that any Gnostic book was seriously considered for inclusion in the canon. Witherington points out that, “When the church accepted the Hebrew Scriptures, it implicitly rejected Gnosticism before it had a chance to get started.”[27]

Application to the Gospel of Thomas

As already stated, the Gospel of Thomas contains teachings of a Gnostic character. Not only does this give the book too late of a date to have apostolic authority, but it also disqualifies the book as canonical on the basis of not being orthodox.

The Gnostic understanding of salvation is clear in the Gospel of Thomas from the first saying which states, “And he [Jesus] said, ‘Whosoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death.’”[28] Ehrman points out that “What ultimately mattered for the author of Thomas was not Jesus’ death and resurrection, which he does not narrate or discuss, but the mysterious teachings that he delivered.”[29]

A number of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas blatantly contradict Scirpture. One such example is saying 114 which says,

Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of
life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to maker her male, so
that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every
woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”[30]

This conflicts with both the Old Testament teaching that women are human beings created in God’s image[31] and the New Testament teaching of equality in Christ.[32] In fact the Gospel of Thomas is not even internally consistent as this saying appears to conflict with saying 22 which teaches that among other mystical requirements for entering the kingdom is the necessity to “make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female”[33]

D. Moody Smith nicely sums up the orthodoxy of the Gospel of Thomas. He states, “Thomas was composed not for biblical religion but, so to speak, for another, new, esoteric religion. It presupposes neither the biblical narrative of the Hebrew scriptures nor the narrative of Jesus' ministry.”[34] Clearly, the Gospel of Thomas fails the criterion of orthodoxy.

Widespread Acceptance

The third test of a book’s canonicity was whether it was widely accepted as Scripture by the early church. To some extent, this criterion built upon the other two in that it measured whether a book was regarded as apostolic and orthodox by the majority of God’s people.

Biblical Basis

There are two biblical bases for this criterion. The first aspect is described by Arthur G. Patzia who explains, “…believers accepted certain Christian writings as authoritative for their faith because they transcended the immediate or particular situation for which they initially were written.” [35] Not everything written by the apostles was preserved as Scripture.[36] However, their writings which were preserved as inspired Scripture did indeed have value beyond the immediate context in which they were written and were “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” as stated in II Timothy 3:16.

The second, and perhaps more important biblical aspect of this criterion is the teaching that the Holy Spirit who indwells all believers[37] enables them to understand and discern the truth of God’s Word. The apostle Paul describes this in I Corinthians 2:14-15 saying,

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are
foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually
appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things…

The apostle John makes similar statements about the “anointing from the Holy One” in I John 2:20 and 27. The Holy Spirit superintended the process of canonization, guiding His people to correctly discern the truth.

Application in the Early Church

As already noted, many of the books of the New Testament were widely accepted very quickly, slowed only by the fact that, as Warfield points out, “The Bible was circulated only in handcopies, slowly and painfully made.”[38] Warfield further describes this widespread acceptance of many canonical books as dating “from the beginning of the second century (and that is from the end of the apostolic age).”[39]

Wegner demonstrates that a comparison of the Muratorian canon (c. AD 190); extensive Scripture quotations by Tertullian (c. 160-220) and Hippolytus (c. 170-235); and canon lists made by Origen (c. 185-253), Eusebius (c. 265-339), and Athanasius (c. 296-337) seems to indicate that the only books frequently disputed (the disputes were resolved by the middle of the fourth century) were some of the general epistles (Hebrews, James, II Peter, II John, III John, and Jude) and the book of Revelation.[40] The two longer books in this list, Hebrews and Revelation, are of special note in that this criterion figured heavily in their inclusion in the canon. Hebrews, somewhat disputed in the Western church, was widely accepted in the Eastern church and this led to its acceptance by the Western church as well. Similarly, the Eastern church laid to rest its doubts over the book of Revelation because it was widely accepted in the Western church.[41]

Such widespread agreement of the early church should give the Christian today confidence in the soundness of the New Testament canon. Nicole gives an excellent illustration of how this criterion should be understood,

My speedometer registers the speed of my car, but it does not cause it.
The cause of the speed is to be found in the motor. The consensus of
churches on the NT is an index and evidence of the Holy Spirit’s guidance.
The Holy Spirit is the moving authoritative force.[42]

Application to the Gospel of Thomas

The Gospel of Thomas also fails the criterion of widespread acceptance. This is demonstrable on two counts. First, there is no evidence that it was ever seriously considered as a canonical book. This is not surprising due to its failure to meet the criteria of apostolic authority and orthodoxy. C. Marvin Pate notes, “There never was a time when any known Christian church recognized Gnostic texts as legitimate representatives of the Christian faith. This can be seen from the fact that no Gnostic texts were included in any of the early canon lists.”[43]

Second, the Gospel of Thomas was not preserved by the early church. As stated by Ehrman, “The document was unknown except by name before 1945.”[44] While there are over 5,000 original language manuscripts[45] containing all or part of the canonical books of the New Testament, the Gospel of Thomas is preserved in only three Greek fragments and one Coptic translation.[46] Any book allowed to become “lost” in this way clearly was not respected as Scripture by the church at large.

The Closure of the Canon

Clearly the Gospel of Thomas is not canonical, but could it be that other books could be discovered which would meet all three criteria for canonization? It does not seem possible for such a book to exist when one thinks about how the criteria would be applied.

Apostolic authority would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine. Writing style, vocabulary, syntax, etc. could be analyzed, but this could only yield a tentative conclusion. There would be no firsthand witnesses to give definitive testimony. No one is alive who was among the original recipients (or even had any sort of contact with the original recipients) of the book.

The criterion of orthodoxy offers less of a problem. However, any new doctrines would probably be regarded with great suspicion even if they did not directly contradict any other Scripture.

The criterion of widespread acceptance seems insurmountable. It would seem that the early church did not consider the book important enough to preserve if it had so thoroughly disappeared for such a long time. Additionally, as Nicole points out in relation to widespread acceptance by the church today, “The likelihood of an almost unanimous acceptance of additional books is indeed minimal.”[47]

Because the criteria for New Testament canonization are grounded in the doctrines of inspiration, the character of God, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Christian can be confidant that he possesses “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”[48] He can rejoice as the apostle Peter did that,

His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness,
through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and
excellence.[49]

WORKS CITED
_____. The Gnostic Society Library. "The Gospel Of Thomas Collection: Bibliography Of Manuscripts And Translations Of The GTh." http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/gth_bibliography.htm. (accessed April 23, 2008).

Brown, Dan. The Da Vinci Code. New York: Doubleday, 2003.

Ehrman, Bart. Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Nicole, Roger R. "The Canon of the New Testament." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 2 (June 1997): 199-206.

Pate, C. Marvin. "Current Challenges to the Christian Canon." Criswell Theological Review 3, no. 1 (Fall 2005): 3-10.

Patzia, Arthur G. The Making of the New Testament. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995.

Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.

Sheeley, Steven M. "From ‘Scripture’ to ‘Canon’: The Development of the New Testament Canon." Review and Expositor 95, no. 4 (Fall 1998): 513-522.

Smith, D Moody. "When Did the Gospels Become Scripture." Journal of Biblical Literature 119, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 3-20.

Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970.

Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1999.

Witherington, Ben. "Why the 'Lost Gospels' Lost Out." Christianity Today 48, no. 6 (June 2004): 26-32.



[1] Steven M. Sheeley, "From ‘Scripture’ to ‘Canon’: The Development of the New Testament Canon," Review and Expositor 95, no. 4 (Fall 1998): 513.
[2] Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 231-235.
[3] Bart Ehrman, Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 19.
[4] As evidenced by frequent quotations from the Old Testament by Jesus and the apostles.
[5] All Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible unless otherwise noted.
[6] As evidenced by the many differences in writing style between authors.
[7] Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 119.
[8] Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1999), 148.
[9] Roger R. Nicole, "The Canon of the New Testament," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 2 (June 1997): 200.
[10] Ryrie, Basic theology, 123.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970), 415.
[13] Ben Witherington, "Why the 'Lost Gospels' Lost Out," Christianity Today 48, no. 6 (June 2004): 31.
[14] Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations, 142.
[15]See Matthew 10:2-4, John 11:16
[16] Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, 20.
[17] Ibid. - Gnosticism will be further discussed under the next criterion.
[18] See Psalm 147:5, I John 3:20
[19] See Romans 3:4, Titus 1:2
[20] Jude 4
[21] Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, 2. (emphasis in the original)
[22] Brown, The Da Vinci Code, 231.
[23] Witherington, "Why the 'Lost Gospels' Lost Out", 28.
[24] Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations, 149.
[25] See I Corinthians 15:1-4
[26] Witherington, "Why the 'Lost Gospels' Lost Out", 28.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, 20.
[29] Ibid., 19.
[30] Ibid., 28.
[31] Genesis 1:27
[32] Galatians 3:28
[33] Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, 22.
[34] D Moody Smith, "When Did the Gospels Become Scripture," Journal of Biblical Literature 119, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 14.
[35] Arthur G. Patzia, The Making of the New Testament (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 104.
[36] e.g. Paul's letter to the Laodiceans, mentioned in Colossians 4:16
[37] See John 14:16-17, I Corinthians 6:19
[38] Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, 414.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Wegner, The Journey form Texts to Translations, 142-145.
[41] Ibid., 146.
[42] Nicole, "The Canon of the New Testament", 206.
[43] C. Marvin Pate, "Current Challenges to the Christian Canon," Criswell Theological Review 3, no. 1 (Fall 2005): 9-10.
[44] Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, 19.
[45] Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd Ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 36.
[46]_____. The Gnostic Society Library, "The Gospel Of Thomas Collection: Bibliography Of Manuscripts And Translations Of The GTh," http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/gth_bibliography.htm. (accessed April 23, 2008).
[47] Nicole, “The Canon of the New Testament”, 205.
[48] Jude 3
[49] II Peter 1:3

Miraculous Gifts: For Edification or Authentication?

BAPTIST BIBLE SEMINARY


THE PURPOSE OF MIRACULOUS SPIRITUAL GIFTS
EDIFICATION OR AUTHENTICATION?



A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO
DR. KEN GARDOSKI
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COURSE
PNEUMATOLOGY
(TH801)



BY
JOEL MITCHELL



CLARKS SUMMIT, PENNSYLVANIA
DECEMBER, 2007

CONTENTS
THE REASON FOR STUDYING PURPOSE............. 1
The Charismatic Focus on Miraculous Gifts. 1
The Cessationist Implications of Miraculous Gifts as Signs... 3
THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR AN AUTHENTICATING PURPOSE............. 5
Acts.... 5
Authentication of the Gospel 6
Authentication of the Acceptance of All Kinds of People 7
I Corinthians......... 8
I Corinthians 1:4-9. 9
I Corinthians 14:20-25 9
II Corinthians 12:12 10
Hebrews 2:3-4. 10
Conclusion....... 11
WORKS CITED 12


THE REASON FOR STUDYING PURPOSE

In the ongoing debate over the cessation or continuation of the miraculous spiritual gifts such as tongues, healing, and prophecy, these gifts are frequently referred to as sign gifts. This term denotes the primary purpose of these gifts as authentication. This paper will attempt to demonstrate the implications of and biblical basis for this designation.

The Charismatic Focus on Miraculous Gifts

The continuation of the more spectacular or miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit is central to the Charismatic movement. Edgar describes the movement by saying, “[E]mphasis is placed on phenomena and subjective experiences. These experiences which transcend doctrinal considerations and doctrinal boundaries, are the raison d’etre of the movement.”[1] These miraculous gifts and experiences are earnestly sought as described by former-Pentecostal Roger Olson who states from his own experience, “Until [speaking in tongues] occurred you were considered spiritually unfulfilled. Everything centered around that experience.”[2]

The question that arises as thousands of people seek and experience these seemingly miraculous gifts is: are these really the same gifts described in the New Testament or has the Holy Spirit ceased to distribute those gifts? As Ferguson points out, this question is not “a sign that we have betrayed supernaturalism to the rationalism of the enlightenment.”[3] It comes from the fact that these gifts were practiced only very sporadically (and often by groups of doubtful orthodoxy) after the time of the apostles. Edgar points out, “The entire controversy [over cessation] exists because the miraculous gifts of the New Testament age did cease and did not occur for almost 1,900 years of church history….”[4] This time lapse gives legitimate cause to question whether the resurgence of sign gifts is valid. Edgar adds, “Chrysostom, a fourth-century theologian testified that they had ceased so long before his time that no one was certain of their characteristics.”[5] If a theologian only two or three centuries removed from the original cessation of the sign gifts was unsure of their exact mechanics, care is needed in examining the modern movement.

Any attempt to determine the validity of the resurgence of the miraculous gifts in the Charismatic movement must be based on the infallible Word of God rather than fallible personal experience. This need not be seen as an attack on the character of those practicing the gifts. Creamer states, “Whether a certain practitioner of a sign gift is sincere or not, deceived or not, or even a Christian or not, is not the issue.”[6] The true test of any doctrine is whether or not it is in line with Scripture.

Because the miraculous gifts are practiced in widely varying ways throughout the Charismatic Movement, it is somewhat difficult to argue that these gifts in general are valid or invalid based on how closely they resemble what is known of New Testament practice.[7] However, an examination of these gifts’ purpose in the New Testament may very well indicate that they have already served their purpose and the Holy Spirit no longer needs to distribute them to believers.

The Cessationist Implications of Miraculous Gifts as Signs

While the Bible records many miraculous events, this does not mean that miracles were a common occurrence. In fact, the majority of miraculous events occurred during one of three time periods: the time of Moses and his successor Joshua, the time of Elijah and his successor Elisha, and the time of Christ and his apostles. Walvoord notes, “A period of miracles is always a time when special testimony is needed to the authenticity of God’s prophets.”[8]

This is an apt description of these three time periods of increased miracles. The time of Moses, the exodus, and the conquest of Canaan was a period of transition as the Children of Israel received the new revelation of the Law and took up residence in the land of Canaan. The time of Elijah and Elisha was a period when almost the whole nation of Israel (the Northern Kingdom), including those who should have been its spiritual leaders, had turned away from God and needed to be brought back to Him. The time of Christ and the apostles was a period of transition from the dispensation of Law to that of Grace as well as the establishment of the church, which was to include both Jews and Gentiles.

During these times God provided miraculous signs to authenticate His messengers and the new revelation they proclaimed. Once the new revelation was firmly established and largely accepted by the people of God, authenticating signs ceased to be necessary. Ferguson points out, “[T]hese sign-deeds were never normative. Nor does the Old Testament suggest that they should have continued unabated even throughout the redemptive-historical epoch they inaugurated.”[9]
Cessationists maintain that the miraculous gifts practiced by the apostles and the early church had this primary purpose of authentication. Creamer explains, “Whether prophecy, healing, tongues, or word of knowledge, the gifts involve the supernatural and some purpose in addition to their manifestation. They are, in short, signs.”[10]

If this is indeed the case, it is no longer necessary for the Holy Spirit to distribute these gifts. The canon has been complete and widely recognized by Christians for approximately 1,900 years. Because no new revelation is being added to the Scripture and God has not been completely abandoned by all but a handful of people, no further authenticating signs are necessary.

THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR AN AUTHENTICATING PURPOSE

Only a few New Testament books speak of miraculous signs performed by Spirit-indwelt Christians during the church age.[11] However, those books give evidence of the authenticating purpose of these gifts.

Acts

The book of Acts is frequently cited by those in the Charismatic Movement as a pattern for the practice of the miraculous gifts. This approach ignores the transitional nature of the book. In Acts, the revelation of Jesus as the Christ/Messiah, Son of God, and Savior of the world is still very new and very different from traditional Judaism. Likewise, the concept of the church comprised of both Jews and Gentiles is an entirely new revelation. As Burns points out, “Acts 2:22 reveals that the Incarnation inaugurated a new period of attestation. Peter spoke of ‘Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through him in your midst.’”[12] God continued to perform these authenticating signs, primarily through the apostles, throughout the book. These authenticating signs generally fell into two major categories.

Authentication of the Gospel

The majority of the miraculous events recorded in the book of Acts served the simple purpose of authenticating the new revelation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As signs and wonders were performed and unbelievers saw the power of God at work they were forced to consider the truth of the gospel.

The first instance of this immediately followed the arrival of the Holy Spirit in Acts chapter 2. As the Christians in Jerusalem began to speak in foreign languages[13] previously unknown to them, the Jews were amazed. Over 3,000 were saved after the Spirit-empowered Peter explained to them what was happening and preached the gospel. Speaking in tongues was a clear sign that God was at work in this new “sect.”

This same pattern continued with various healings and unspecified signs by the apostles as a group (2:43, 5:14). The same response to the gospel preaching occurred as a result of healings and other unspecified signs performed by Philip in Samaria (8:6-8). Likewise, Peter’s healing of a lame man and raising of a dead woman resulted in many coming to faith (9:35,42). Saul’s vision of Christ, blinding, and subsequent healing by Ananias resulted in his conversion (9:1-18, 22:1-21, 26:9-20). Saul/Paul’s miracles such as striking Elymas the sorcerer blind (13:8-12) and healings and exorcisms through some sort of “aprons” (19:11-12) resulted in salvation decisions and “the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified” (19:17). Additionally, Acts 14:3 clearly states that the Lord was “testifying to the word of His grace, granting that signs and wonders be done by their hands.”

This authentication of the gospel message by the power of God through tongues, healings, and other signs was sometimes rejected, as the Jewish religious leaders did with the healing of the lame man (4:16). Other times it was improperly understood as with the Gentiles who mistook the miracle worker for a god (14:8-18, 24:3-9). Nevertheless, the purpose of these miraculous gifts clearly went beyond the act of healing to the authentication of the gospel message.

Authentication of the Acceptance of All Kinds of People

On several occasions, speaking in tongues served as a sign to the Jewish Christians. As various non-Jewish converts received the Holy Spirit, they spoke in tongues. This is only recorded as happening with the first group of converts from each new segment.

The first Samaritan converts gave some sort of evidence (usually believed to be speaking in tongues) that they had received the Holy Spirit following the arrival of the apostles to confirm Philip’s evangelistic work (8:17). Likewise, Cornelius and his house, the first gentile converts, spoke in tongues when they received the Holy Spirit as Peter was preaching the gospel to them (10:46). Some disciples of John the Baptist, Jews but not part of mainstream Judaism or the church, also spoke in tongues at the time they believed and were approved of by Paul (19:6).

That these instances were a sign that these various groups were accepted into the church is apparent from Peter’s arguing that very point in 11:17 and 15:8 when other Christians object to Gentile Christians. Burns points out, “…the startling effect of the phenomena on those who in difficult circumstances desperately wished to [believe] otherwise (as in Acts 4:13-16; 10:28-29; 11:1-3, 15-18; and 15:1-12) supports the purpose of authentication (and not edification) for the sign gifts”[14]

Many in the Charismatic Movement argue that these three instances prove that Spirit baptism is always accompanied by speaking in tongues. Without going into the definition of Spirit baptism, Ryrie easily refutes this view from I Corinthians. He points out, “Paul said that all the Believers in Corinth were baptized (12:13) but not all spoke in tongues (v.30).”[15] As the reactions of Peter and other Jewish Christians clearly show, these instances of speaking in tongues were a sign to Jewish Christians.

I Corinthians

I Corinthians is another favorite book of those who believe in the continuation of the miraculous gifts. Burns indicates, “…Williams, O’Connor, Ramm…among others would cite I Corinthians 12-14 as indicating most strongly that sign gifts (especially glossolalia) were for edification.”[16]
While it is true that chapters 12-14 do point out the edifying result of prophecy and tongues, this does not undermine their primary purpose of authentication. Pettegrew points out that “…the content of the gift ….was a message from God,”[17] which resulted in the edification of the church, but “the form of the gift was a sign to unbelieving Israel.”[18] That the essential purpose of tongues and prophecy in I Corinthians is the same as the signs in Acts can be demonstrated from two passages within the book.

I Corinthians 1:4-9

In Paul’s opening prayer of praise he thanks God that the Corinthians “are not lacking in any gift” (1:7). He appears to connect (using ωστε/thus/therefore) these gifts, which would have included tongues and prophecy, to the fact that “the testimony concerning Jesus Christ was confirmed among you” (1:6). Burns explains, “[T]heir need for confirmation of truth resulted in the manifestation of extraordinary sign gifts in addition to normal functional gifts.”[19]

I Corinthians 14:20-25

The authenticating nature of tongues and prophecy is even more clearly pointed out within the very chapters so loved by continuationists. While explaining that prophecy is more profitable than tongues because its message is understandable by all, Paul explicitly states in 14:22 that both are signs. While the tongues and prophecy in the Corinthian church obviously resulted in edification when used correctly, this clearly does not change their primary purpose as signs.[20]

II Corinthians 12:12

Paul’s follow-up letter to the Corinthians contains another reference to signs and miracles. In II Corinthians 12:12, Paul states, “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.” Along with the book of Acts where most miracles were performed by the apostles, this passage connects signs and miracles primarily with the authentication of the apostles and their new message.

Even most charismatic groups recognize that the office of the apostle (which is itself a gift given to the church[21]) ceased with the death of John. After all, one qualification of an apostle was that he had seen the resurrected Christ. Edgar points out, “Paul explicitly states that he was the last one to see the resurrected Lord (I Cor. 15:8), and he specifically connected this fact with his apostleship.”[22] If this foundational ministry[23] ceased, there is no reason to believe that the sign gifts, which confirmed the apostles’ authority and new message, did not cease as well.

Hebrews 2:3-4

The final New Testament passage mentioning signs and wonders performed by church age saints is Hebrews 2:3-4.[24] The author of Hebrews says in relation to the message of salvation received by his audience, “After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.” Here again the authenticating purpose of the sign gifts is clearly spelled out. Burns points out, “Thus these verses contain all essential elements of the non-Pentecostal emphasis: subject (new revelation), scope in time (Christ and the apostles), and purpose (authentication).[25] Many cessationists even take the fact that the author of Hebrews speaks of these signs as something that occurred in the past as an indication that signs were becoming less common even before the completion of the canon, as the message of the gospel became more widely accepted.

Conclusion

A study of the New Testament indicates that sign gifts is indeed an appropriate designation for the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. Since signs were given to authenticate God’s messengers in times of transition or complete apostasy (as demonstrated in the Old Testament), there is no reason to believe that the Holy Spirit continues to distribute these sign gifts today. Christians today can praise God that these signs are no longer necessary. With the completion and acceptance of the canon He “has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness.”[26]

WORKS CITED
Burns, J Lanier. "Reemphasis on the Purpose of the Sign Gifts." Bibliotheca Sacra 132, no. 527 (July-September 1975): 242-249.

Creamer, Barry K. "The Incompatibility of a Christian Perspective and Sign Gifts." Criswell Theological Review 4, no. 1 (Fall 2006): 55-72.

Edgar, Thomas R. "The Cessation of the Sign Gifts." Bibliotheca Sacra 145, no. 580 (October-December 1988): 371-386.

Ferguson, Sinclair B. The Holy Spirit. Contours of Christian Theology, ed. Gerald Bray. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Olson, Roger E. "Confessions of a Post-Pentecostal Believer in the Charismatic Gifts." Criswell Theological Review 4, no. 1 (Fall 2006): 31-40.

Pettegrew, Larry D. The New Covenant Ministry of the Holy Spirit, 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2001.

Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Walvoord, John F. The Holy Spirit: A comprehensive Study of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954.

[1] Thomas R. Edgar, "The Cessation of the Sign Gifts," Bibliotheca Sacra 145, no. 580 (October-December 1988): 371.
[2] Roger E. Olson, "Confessions of a Post-Pentecostal Believer in the Charismatic Gifts," Criswell Theological Review 4, no. 1 (Fall 2006): 34.
[3] Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Holy Spirit, Contours of Christian Theology, ed. Gerald Bray (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 222.
[4] Edgar, The Cessation of the Sign Gifts, 372.
[5] Ibid.,373.
[6] Barry K. Creamer, "The Incompatibility of a Christian Perspective and Sign Gifts," Criswell Theological Review 4, no. 1 (Fall 2006): 56.
[7] However, the very lack of homogeneity and clear violation of Scriptural principles (e.g. I Corinthians 14:27-31) by many groups seem to argue against the validity of the movement.
[8] John F. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit: A comprehensive Study of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954), 173.
[9] Ferguson, The Holy Spirit, 224.
[10] Creamer, The incompatibility of a Christian Perspective and Sign Gifts, 55.
[11] Some cessationists see this as evidence that the sign gifts were becoming less important or frequent even before the completion of the canon.
[12] J Lanier Burns, "Reemphasis on the Purpose of the Sign Gifts," Bibliotheca Sacra 132, no. 527 (July-September 1975): 244.
[13] As opposed to a heavenly "angelic language" claimed by most modern proponents of speaking in tongues.
[14] Burns, Reemphasis on the Purpose of the Sign Gifts, 245.
[15] Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 431.
[16] Burns, Reemphasis on the Purpose of the Sign Gifts, 246.
[17] Larry D. Pettegrew, The New Covenant Ministry of the Holy Spiri,t 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2001), 172.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Burns, Reemphasis on the Purpose of the Sign Gifts, 247.
[20] In the same was that the people healed in Acts benefited from the miracle, but the miracle primarily served as a sign to all of the authenticity of the gospel.
[21] Ephesians 4:11
[22] Edgar, The Cessation of the Sign Gifts, 381.
[23] Ephesians 2:20
[24] This paper assumes a pre-tribulational rapture. Even in the time of the Tribulation the two witnesses in chapter 11 are the only saints explicitly stated to perform signs and wonders.
[25] Burns, Reemphasis on the Purpose of the Sign Gifts, 245.
[26] II Peter 1:3