John Piper wrote that, "Everybody knows that with the right personality, the right music, the right location, and the right schedule you can grow a church without anybody really knowing what doctrinal commitments sustain it, if any."

Right now, I am zooming in on a rather controversial aspect of the church- worship.

Almost everyone has heard of the "Worship Wars". What can we sing? What about music? Although by no means this is my definite position, I explore a bit of what I think is right in this post, or, more precisely, what I think is the wrong style of worship.

I have lost count of how many times I have sung the rather popular (or shall I say "staple") worship song, namely, Heart Of Worship. The question is, then, what is the heart of worship? I partially agree with the assesment that it is, "All about You..."

J. Ligon Duncan writes that,"...worship is declaring, with our lips and lives, that God is more important than anything else to us, that he is our deepest desire, that his inherent worth is beyond everything else we hold dear."

MacArthur states it in more detail:"A few years ago while preaching through the gospel of John, I was struck by the depth of meaning in John 4:23: "An hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers." I saw as clearly as I had ever seen before the implications of that phrase, "worship . . . in spirit and truth." The phrase suggests, first of all, that true worship involves the intellect as much as the emotions. It underscores the truth that worship is to be focused on God, not on the worshiper. The context also shows that Jesus was saying true worship is more a matter of substance than of form. And He was teaching that worship embraces what we do in life, not just what we do in the formal place of worship."***

J.P. Holding, in his article on worship, quotes several authors that expresses this view more thoroughly,"Roberts adds after a study of worship in Isaiah: "The trend to simplify worship -- by removing theological complexity, to make it more popular by emphasizing entertainment at the expense of education and to increase its appeal by stressing religious experience -- has little in common with the ideal of worship envision by Isaiah." As he wryly adds, "Isaiah does not appear to have been entertained by the worship service in which he experienced his vision of God, and, at least in the short run, it does not seem to have made him feel better about himself or his neighbors"! As Torrance notes, one may as well say that one gets married for the purpose of having someone around to cook, clean house, or fix the plumbing!"

How many times have we come across Christians who cry, kneel down, lift their hands, jump up and down during "worship" services only to find them no different than the world after church is over. As James aptly wrote,"From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so."- James 3:10

I've always avoided worship sessions with loud music (Drums and Electric Guitars being compulsory). Why so? To state a rather subjective argument, it was never really my cup of tea. To put it in another way, I'd much prefer to sing theologically rich hymns for 3 minutes than to slog through standard CCM lyrics for 3 hours and come out none the wiser in "knowing God", in regards to the latter style of worship. Duncan could not have stated it better:

Many churches are aspiring, first and foremost, to be “contemporary” and “seeker sensitive” in their worship. Thus sermons, pastoral prayers, hymns and psalms are out, and sharing, skits, talks, videos, technology, praise teams, choruses and “CCM” (contemporary Christian music) are in. The churches who take this approach sincerely see this as the best way to reach people for Christ and as the best way to cater to the preferences of their own congregants. However, we in the PCA don’t share this philosophy of congregational worship. We aim for a worship service that would be recognizable to the Apostles – an historic form of Christian worship. Interestingly, there is much evidence to suggest that this is more attractive to “seekers” than some of the contemporary forms that are so popular in many churches today. W. Tullian Tchividjian, son-in-law of Billy Graham has observed: “Because the modern world is in a constant state of flux, … people in the modern world are open to, and desirous for, things traditional and historical, ancient and proved. They are up to their necks in ‘up-to-date’ structures and ‘cutting-edge’ methodologies. …Their cry is for something completely unique to this world, something otherworldly, something only the Church can truly offer… We should be encouraged and challenged by the historical reminder that the Church has always served the world best when it has been most counter-cultural, most distinctively different from the world.

He writes further that,"By historic we do not mean old-fashioned, quaint, or traditional for the sake of tradition. We mean that we do not try to re-invent worship as though we were the first Christians ever to worship. We seek to learn from the church through the ages as it has sought to offer God-centered, Biblical worship."

Duncan also add that,"In some churches, there is such an emotional display in worship that reverence is lost completely. In other churches, the congregation appears to have been caught at a stranger’s funeral. Deadpan and flat, they go through the customary motions. Both of these tendencies reflect serious deficiencies in the practice of true Christian worship of God. Our aim, then, is to worship God with both reverence and joy."

So then, "worship", as popular Christianity defines it, is not just a time to sing some songs, but rather, encompasses our entire lifestyle. Our songs should be filled with theology (and theology proper). I've heard of people who have said that it's not wrong to "have some fun while worshipping." This is half-true: We have fun when we worship God in spirit and in truth. This is merely a product of true worship. However, when we seek to change worship into something that at least, "gives us some fun", then we err.

My main point is this- Worship is not about us, it's about God. Worship should not be conformed to the styles of the world, but rather should be under the rule of theology. This then, I believe, is how we should worship.

I recommend that you read these articles (All of them cited here):

Worship Wonderings

How Shall We Then Worship ?

From Worship Wars To Biblical Consensus

Ah yes, I finished my tuition, and am now relaxing in front of the computer.

Nothing much that I could comment on today, except for a laugh out loud article on a gay church. I think this statement speaks for itself, "It took me a long time to figure out that it's okay to be gay and Christian in Singapore."

I wonder how long it would take for them to realize that heaven would be a little hotter than they would expect =). Seriously speaking though, I would like to see their "exegesis" of problem texts in the Bible, and how the church in Singapore handles this. But I would go really cuckoo if a church like this existed across the Causeway.

My response to John Piper would hopefully be smoothened out by Sunday; so, Hedonese, don't respond just yet!

Take care and God bless, to all my brothers and sisters.

Right now, I'm happy I convinced my parents to give me 300 bucks for my birthday. Now I finally get to splurge on those books :)

I was at Evangel today to see what books would interest me. Nothing really new was added since I was last there. I think I might get Mounce's "Greek For The Rest Of Us", and a book on Systematic Theology. Wayne Grudem (and Louis Berkhof) is at the top of the list, though I'm sure I'll be heading for Berkhof since Grudem goes way off track when it comes to the Gift of Prophecy. I'm not gonna waste money on THAT!

Steve Camp has written a great article on the Four Spiritual Laws that really shows how far Evangelicalism today has missed the gospel. To quote his new "revised" version of the laws:

LAW ONE: God's hated burns against you and your sin and He has a terrible plan for your life.

LAW TWO: There is nothing you can do about it. Man is sinful and utterly lost. He is totally depraved, conceived in sin, and is incapable of saving himself by his own merits or his own efforts of works righteousness. God's anger burns against us and our sin and there is nothing we can do in our own strength, goodness, acts of kindness to please Him and earn eternal life.

LAW THREE: But Christ came and died in our place and fulfilled God's law and all righteousness, took all of the sin, its guilt and penalty that would ever be committed by everyone that would ever believe; and all of the wrath of God that burns against our sin on the cross; so that by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, on the Word alone, to the glory of God alone, we would have the hope, surety and promise of eternal life.

LAW FOUR: May God grant you saving faith and the grace to repent of your sin and receive Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior for eternal life so that you may have peace with Him forever! His love, mercy and grace no one can ever take away once your life is hid in Christ.

Steve Hays at Triablogue points out Robbins (In my opinion, heheh) nuttiness. Here's a sample of Robbins' post:

Now, most of what we colloquially call knowledge is actually opinion: We "know" that we are in Pennsylvania; we "know" that Clinton – either Bill or Hillary – is President of the United States, and so forth. Opinions can be true or false; we just don’t know which. History, except for revealed history, is opinion. Science is opinion. Archaeology is opinion. John Calvin said, "I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, nor what is by diligence acquired, but what is revealed to us in the Law and the Prophets." Knowledge is true opinion with an account of its truth.

It may very well be that William Clinton is President of the United States, but I do not know how to prove it, nor, I suspect, do you. In truth, I do not know that he is President, I opine it.

Robbins is chasing me away from Gordon Clark with his every word written, starting from his bashing of Piper for siding with the NPPs. And to think of Piper defending the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in his book "Counted Righteous In Christ". Wow.

I didn't get to go to the Reformed Baptist church today, as I followed my father to his AOG church. (Yes, my family goes to different churches. Three, to be exact)

The message was quite good, the speaker being someone from an AOG church in Colorado... although, like many Pentecostals, he couldn't get very far from talking about something related to healing :-)

I've added an modified a bit of my response to John Piper. I plan to increase my response as I do some more thorough referencing on different sources. I've not lost any respect for Piper though...he's still among my favourite Christians list!

Not to state the obvious but... once again, its homeschooling!!! Groaaaan... Well, actually, I do enjoy it.

Piper's words in bold, other sources quoted in blue.

I thought that responding to John Piper, a man whom I enormously respect, in regards to cessationism, would be very adequate. Why? Because he believes that signs and wonders are for today, to accompany the preaching of the gospel. This view, in my opinion, is unnecessary. Piper starts with this quote from Lloyd-Jones:

"It is perfectly clear that in New Testament times, the gospel was authenticated in this way by signs, wonders and miracles of various characters and descriptions. . . . Was it only meant to be true of the early church? . . . The Scriptures never anywhere say that these things were only temporary – never! There is no such statement anywhere. (The Sovereign Spirit, pp. 31-32)"

If that is so, why aren't any miracles and signs and wonders accompanying the preaching of the gospel? This is a common argument against cessationism: The gifts haven't ceased, the Bible never said they were. If so, where are they to be found? The Charismatic Movement? But their gifts don't match up to the biblical standard! As one person writes of Martin: "In his zeal for revival, Martin Lloyd-Jones failed to give a proper contextual exegesis in his explanation of “sign gifts”—and thereby gave credibility to the Charismatic movement." We must be careful not to fall into this fallacy.

The reason I take this question so seriously is that it is rooted in Biblical texts. Romans 1:16 says, "The gospel is the power of God unto salvation." The gospel, not signs and wonders. Paul says, "Jews demand signs, Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified . . . the power of God . . ." (1 Corinthians 1:22-23). The "word of the cross is . . . the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18). Sign-seeking is a diversion from the power of Christ crucified. Thus Jesus himself said, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign" (Matthew 12:39; 16:4).

But there is a fatal flaw in bringing these texts against every longing for signs and wonders. They would prove too much. If desiring signs and wonders dilutes the power of the gospel–then the early Christians and the apostles themselves were wicked and adulterous, because they so passionately wanted God to do signs and wonders alongside their powerful preaching.

For example, Peter and John and the disciples prayed in Acts 4:30, "Lord, look upon their threats, and grant to thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus." Here we have godly men and women praying for signs and wonders to happen in the name of Jesus. And Luke does not portray them as a "wicked and adulterous generation" for doing so. They are exemplary.

Not only that, Luke himself labors in the book of Acts to show how valuable signs and wonders are in winning people to Christ. He does not portray them as a threat to the gospel, but as a witness to the gospel. The reason the church prayed so passionately in Acts 4:30 for signs and wonders to happen is because God was using them to bring multitudes to Christ.

The verses that Piper put forths to defend the use of signs and wonders are inadequte. Peter and Paul merely pray for signs and wonders to occur, not due to the requests of the unsaved. It is true that signs and wonders bring people to Christ. But, are they necessary? Many people have been saved even without signs and wonders. Is the gospel adequate in and itself? Definitely yes!

One more thing that is noteworthy about Acts 4: 30, as Edgar writes:

In reaction to the interrogation and subsequent release of Peter and John, the church prayed, "Grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, by stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done in the name of thy holy child Jesus."

The stretching forth of God's hand to perform miracles was to occur while the word was spoken. "By stretching forth" should be translated "while stretching forth," since the Greek denotes contemporaneous time. Nor does the Greek text seperate "healing" from "signs and wonders," as the KJV does. The proposition eis should go with the infinitive ginesthai. Thus the translation should read, "Give to your servants to speak your Word with all boldness while you stretch forth your hand to perform healing and signs and wonders through the name of your Holy servant Jesus." In this translation the word "while" (en to... ekteinen) denotes contemporaneous time. (Satisfied By The Promise Of The Spirit, Thomas R. Edgar)

The Bible is very clear on the use of signs and wonders in regards to the Law:

Luke 16:31 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'

If someone were to reject the gospel, not even miracles would persuade them. This implies an authority present with the gospel that is not present with miracles. Signs and wonders are important, but are pretty much meaningless compared to the gospel. If people refuse of the Word, they will likewise refuse all the signs and wonders thrown at them.

The fact that the early Christians prayed so earnestly for signs and wonders (Acts 4:30) is all the more striking when you realize that they, of all generations were in least need of supernatural authentication. This was the generation whose preaching (of Peter and Stephen and Philip and Paul) was more anointed than the preaching of any generation following. If any preaching was the power of God unto salvation and did not need accompanying signs and wonders, it was this preaching.

The problem is though, that Piper concedes in another part of his article, is that miracles can be easily counterfeited to fool people into following a counterfeit gospel. Not to mention that in today's rationalistic age where space travel is fact, how many people who, living in their sins and enslaved by their sinful nature, would not rationalize these miracles away? That's why, as I have said to others, apologetics is more useful than a mountain moved!

Also, as stated earlier, they prayed for God to empower them in regards to preaching. The miracles were left to God to be done. The ESV Bible (Whom Piper was involved in translating) goes as follows:

Acts 4:29-30 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus."

In this case, the apostles did not ask for miracles. They merely asked God to help them speak the word in boldness.

In 2 Corinthians 12:11-12 Paul is defending his apostleship. He says, "I am not at all inferior to these superlative apostles, even though I am nothing. The signs of the apostle were performed among you in all patience by signs and wonders and miracles." Note the wording carefully. The "signs of the apostle" are not equated with signs and wonders. The "signs of the apostle" are done "by (or with) signs and wonders and miracles." (Beware: the NIV misses the Greek construction entirely!)

Piper seems to dodge the issue. The signs of the apostle were PERFORMED among you BY signs and wonders and miracles. I think it can't be more clear. The "signs and wonders" can only correspond with the "performed" which clearly corresponds with the "signs of an apostle". Belleville writes regarding 2 Corinthians 12:12:

Not only had the Corinthians seen that he was not one whit inferior to the other apostles, but they had also witnessed in Paul's ministry the things that mark an apostle (v. 12). The Greek is literally "the signs of the apostle." The basic meaning of shmeia is a mark or token by which a particular person or thing is recognized (Hofius 1976a:626). Paul undoubtedly is thinking of deeds that validated his preaching. What deeds would these be, though? The NIV, TEV, JB and Phillips understand them to be the signs, wonders and miracles that Paul says were done among the Corinthians with great perseverance (v. 12). This fits the biblical data. Jesus' own ministry--and that of his disciples--was accredited by "miracles, wonders and signs" (Mk 3:13-15 and parallels; Acts 2:22).

Signs and wonders also regularly accompanied the early church's proclamation of the gospel (Acts 2:43; 5:15-16; 8:6-8; 9:32-42; 15:12). In this respect Paul's ministry was no different. That word and mighty deed were inextricably linked is clearly attested in Luke's account of the missionary journeys. Miracles were performed in virtually every city that Paul visited (Paphos [Acts 13:6-12]; Iconium [14:3]; Lystra [14:8-10]; Philippi [16:16-18]; Thessalonica [1 Thess 1:5]; Corinth [1 Cor 2:4]; Ephesus [Acts 19:11-12]; Troas [20:9-12]; Malta [28:1-10]). In fact, Paul in his letters says repeatedly that his preaching was not merely one of word but of "power and the Spirit" (for example, Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 2:4; Gal 3:5; 1 Thess 1:5).

But since he wants to play the grammatical game, I'll happily oblige. Edgar writes that,

If this were a dative of association, meaning "along with", it would usually occur with a verb of association, which is not the case in this passage. In addition, if this were the meaning [that signs and wonders followed the signs of an apostle], it must relate to or be in association with the noun "signs". Thus, on grammatical grounds alone the associative interpretation is improbable. In addition, in the New Testament, katergazomai, the verb used in 2 Corinthians 12:11, takes the accusative as direct object and the instrument or means by which the action is performed is in the dative case as here. Thus, the construction used here is exactly the construction we would expect if the verse means that the signs of the apostle were performed by means of signs, miracles and wonders.

Piper demonstrates an analogy (Already refuted above):

The text does not require that "signs and wonders" be unique to the apostles. For example, if I say, "The sign of a professional biker is strong thighs," I do not mean that no non-professionals have strong thighs. I only mean that professionals do, and when taken together with other evidences, this can help you know that a person is a professional biker. Paul is not saying that only apostles can perform signs and wonders. He is saying that apostles certainly can, and together with other things this will help the Corinthians know that he is a true apostle.

The thing is, nobody would agree that the sign of a pro-biker is strong thighs. Because it could also be a sign of a footballer, an athlete etc. In this case, it could not be a sign that would be unique in and itself. In the case of miracles (which are very hard to counterfeit, unlike strong thighs!), they authenticated the apostles and thus are the sign of the apostles.

There are good Biblical reasons for thinking that signs and wonders are not meant by God to be unique to the apostles. I'll mention four.

1. Jesus sent out the seventy, not just the twelve apostles, "to heal the sick" (Luke 10:9). And when they returned, they said that the demons were subject to them in Jesus' name (Luke 10:17). These miracles in Jesus' name show that apostolic signs and wonders are not unique to the apostles.

2. In the book of Acts, Stephen "did great signs and wonders among the people" (Acts 6:8), even though he was in the "deacon" category not the apostle category (Acts 6:5). Similarly it says that "the multitudes gave heed to what was said by Philip, when they heard him and saw the signs which he did" (Acts 8:6). Philip was not an apostle, but performed miraculous signs.

These two cases are invalid because they were unique. The seventy were merely told to "heal"; not to do signs and wonders. Plus they were specifically sent out by Jesus, not by their own doing. Stephen and Philip were also unique cases because they were specifically anointed by the apostles. (Acts 6:5-6)

In regards to Galatians 3:5 which Piper appeals to as another reason, the overall context prefers the meaning of God working miracles in regards to a person's life (See Philippians 2:13). Galatians 3:5 goes as follows:

"Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith"

The fact that Paul contrasts "works of the law" and "hearing with faith" possibly means that he is referencing to salvation. In this case, the reference could be regeneration. And even if it could be proved miracles occured among the Galatians, it would put a heavier burden on Piper to explain why there were so few miracles working in the church, throughout the centuries. Considering that Paul writes that "God works miracles" because either "from the works of law" or by "hearing", this shows that miracles occur because the church believes the gospel, not seeks for it.

For the fourth reason, Piper refers to a commentary on 2 Corinthians 12:12. I have already quoted Edgar above in this regard.

In the end, there is just one question: What could really be considered the signs of an apostle? Only miracles, signs and wonders fit that criteria. Other signs can be too easily counterfeited and people can easily claim they are apostles as well. Just because a few other people did miracles in the Bible does not rule out the fact that signs and wonders are limited primarily to the apostles.

Piper assumes in 1 Corinthians 13 that prophecy and tongues are the GIFTS OF and not merely the product of them. For example, Isaiah and his gift of prophecy is long gone, but his prophecies still remain. He fails to consider that it is the prophecies, tongues and knowledge (Not the Gifts Of!) that will cease when Jesus returns. But even if this is not so, there are other alternate views available. Consider, for example, Farnell, regarding 1 Cor. 13:8-11:

Much of the controversy surrounding spiritual gifts, particularly the miraculous gifts like prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, has concentrated on 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 as providing a crux interpretum regarding the continuance or cessation of the gift. Both sides have centered on this passage to argue either for or against the cessation of the prophetic gift.

All groups would agree that 1 Corinthians 13:10 indicates that gifts such as prophecy, tongues, and knowledge are temporary. That such gifts will cease is not at issue so much as when those gifts will cease and what particular time is being indicated by the phrase o{tan deV e[lqh/ toV tevleion in 13:10. Whenever toV tevleion arrives, then these gifts will no longer be necessary. While the analyses of the passage have produced a variety of interpretations, the major views essentially reduce to two possible ways of rendering to tevleion.

The first view understands toV tevleion in an absolute sense of "perfect" and has reference to Christ's Parousia. Here the significance of toV tevleion is identified as "the perfection" that will exist after Christ returns for His church, as seen in 13:12. At that time, all spiritual gifts, not just prophecy and knowledge, will cease. The only virtue which has permanent significance, is love (v. 13).

Several arguments are advanced in favor of this view. First, this view is the only one that adequately satisfies the explanatory confirmation of 13:12 where the ideal, final state is in view. Second, the meaning of "perfect" best describes the period after Christ's return. Third, the verb e[lqh/ can refer only to the precise moment of Christ's second coming. Fourth, Pauline statements of eschatological hope center in Christ's return (1 Cor. 1:7-9; 15:20-34; 1 Thess. 4:13-18). Fifth, Paul and other New Testament writers used the related term, tevlo", of the same period (Rom. 8:18-30; 1 Cor. 1:8; 15:24; Matt. 24:6, 13-14). Sixth, maturity and the end are related in Paul's writings (Col. 1:5, 22, 27-28).

The second view is that toV tevleion refers to what is "mature" or "complete" rather than "the perfect state." Understood in thissense, toV tevleion draws on the figure of the church as Christ's body collectively growing up during the age since the day of Pentecost. The gifts of 1 Corinthians 13:8-9 gradually ceased with the close of canonical revelation and the increasing maturity of the body of Christ (cf. Eph. 4:11-16, esp. v. 13, eij" a[ndra tevleion, "the mature man").

Admittedly any decision on these two options is not easy. However, the second view ("maturity") is the more viable. Arguments for the second view also constitute a rebuttal of the first view. First, Pauline usage of tevleio" never conveys the idea of absolute perfection, and such a philosophical meaning is also questionable in the rest of the New Testament. Only this view allows tevleio" a relative sense. Second, Paul's constant use of the nhvpio" . . . tevleio" antithesis supports this interpretation. Tevleio" elsewhere always possesses a relative meaning of "mature" when used in proximity to nhvpio" (13:11, o{te h[mhn nhvpio", "when I was a child"; cf. 1 Cor. 2:6; 3:1; 14:20; Eph. 4:13-14). Furthermore the occurrence of tevleio" is what suggests the nhvpio" illustration of 1 Cor. 13:11 (cf. Heb. 5:13-14). Whenever the adjective is used in connection with nhvpio", it always carries the connotation of gradual increase, not of an abrupt change. Third, this view gives an adequate sense to the illustrations of 1 Corinthians 13:11 and 12. In verse 11 a relative maturity is signified, while verse 12 indicates an absolute maturity. Provision also exists here for the ultimate state after the Parousia, according to the demands of verse 12, in that maturity is of two kinds: one that is constantly changing and increasing (v. 11), and the other that is final and absolute (v. 12). The latter type is viewed in 13:12 as a future goal.

Fourth, Ephesians 4:13-14 more explicitly presents the picture of the maturing of Christ's body collectively. A number of striking resemblances between 1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 4 tie these passages together in reference to gradual maturity. The parallels between these two
passages are strengthened also by the historical connection of the writing of 1 Corinthians while Paul was ministering at Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8). Since Ephesians 4:13-14 pictures a gradual development of Christ's body from the beginning to the end, Paul's picture in 1 Corinthians 13 would also convey the same concept. Fifth, this view provides for Paul's uncertainty as to the time of the Parousia and status of a written canon. Sixth, as already suggested in note 69, the
contrast with ejk mevrou" in 13:9 requires a quantitative idea ("complete") rather than a qualitative idea ("perfect").

In light of this, Paul's development from childhood to adulthood in verse 11 illustrates the progressive growth of the church through the critical period of its history. Ultimate maturity is another matter, as is illustrated in verse 12, when growth reaches its culmination at Christ's return. Thus this view is comprehensive enough to embrace the relative maturity implied by the illustration in verse 11 as well as the absolute maturity depicted in verse 12. It pictures believers collectively growing up together in one body, beginning with the birth of the church on the day of Pentecost. The body of Christ attains different states of maturity during this period until complete maturity is reached at the Second Coming of Christ. The contrast in verse 13a is that gifts of the earlier part of the paragraph were possibly to extend only through a portion of the church's
existence, whereas faith, hope, and love would characterize the entire earthly ministry. Beyond this, only one of the three virtues will survive the Parousia, and that is love itself. For this reason, it is declared to be the greatest gift. As Thomas concludes,

"When the mature comes" gathers together into one concept both the period of church history after the need for the gifts of direct revelation has ceased to exist (relative maturity illustrated in v. 11) and the period after the return of Christ for the church (absolute maturity illustrated in v. 12). By comparing these gifts to the maturity of the body of Christ Paul shows their temporary character (in contrast with love). A certain level of maturity has been reached once the N.T. canon has been completed and is in hand, and so the result is almost the same as that of [the completion of the New Testament canon view]. Yet Paul expected an imminent return of Christ and could not know, humanly speaking, that there ever would be a complete N.T. canon of 27 books before Christ returned. Hence, he was guided by the Spirit to use the more general language of maturity to allow for this.

Thus the gift of prophecy, along with tongues and knowledge, was a temporary gift which is no longer operative today.

A more thorough cessationist treatment of this passage can be found here. But even if we are to grant Piper his interpretation, a heavier burden would be placed on his shoulders, as Edgar states:

If the miraculous gifts of the New Testament age had continued in the church, one would expect an unbroken line of occurrences from apostolic times to the present. If they are of God, why should such miracles be absent for centuries?

The entire controversy exists because the miraculous gifts of the New Testament age did cease and did not occur for almost 1,900 years of church history and certainly have not continued in an unbroken line. Questions about their presence today as well as differing opinions, even among charismatics, regarding the nature of tongues, prophecy, and certain other gifts are due to the fact that they ceased. Chrysostom, a fourth-century theologian, testified that they had ceased so long before his time that no one was certain of their characteristics.

History contradicts the charismatics. Though some have attempted to prove that tongues and other miraculous gifts have occurred in the postapostolic history of the church, the very paucity and sporadic nature of alleged occurrences is evidence against this claim. Referring to alleged instances of tongues-speaking, Hinson, a church historian, sums up the situation this way: "The first sixteen centuries of its history were lean ones indeed. . . . if the first five centuries were lean the next were starvation years for the practice in Western Christendom and doubtful ones in Eastern Christendom."

After a few alleged instances in the second century there is a gap of almost 1,000 years before a few more occur. Obviously it would not have been difficult to produce evidence for these gifts during the apostolic age. Why then is there such a dearth of evidence if the gifts continued throughout church history? The alleged instances are even more rare if restricted to genuine believers, and if hearsay evidence is omitted. If instances of the gift of healing rather than supposed answers to prayer are considered, the alleged instances all but vanish. That these miraculous workings ceased in the past can hardly be refuted, and this is recognized by many charismatics. Dayton feels that many charismatics actually prefer to grant that certain gifts ceased, since they regard today's phenomena as a latter-day pouring out of the Spirit.

Explanations are unrealistic. It is one thing for a doctrine such as justification by faith to be temporarily lost due to man's frailty. It is another thing entirely for miraculous signs and wonders to be missing. Those at Pentecost were not expecting to speak as they did.

In Acts no tongues speaker was previously aware of the existence of the gift; yet they spoke. They could hardly have had faith in their ability to perform miracles or to speak in tongues, since they were unaware of such gifts. They did not obtain or lose the ability because of their belief or lack of belief in the charismata. If God gave these gifts during the history of the church, they would have occurred regardless of man's frailty. To argue that the gifts faded away in the postapostolic church because of a failure to believe in miracles evades the facts of history and has no biblical support.

First Corinthians 12-14 implies that the early church was only too inclined toward such gifts rather than against them. In almost every religion men have been inclined toward the miraculous rather than toward rejecting obvious miracles. And yet some argue that miracles ceased or nearly so in the early church—an era when belief in the supernatural was rampant and when the signs and wonders actually occurred—because of disbelief in miracles! Yet it is claimed that in the most rationalistic of ages, when no miracles were occurring, 19- and 20th-century Christians believed to the extent that the gifts reoccurred, and reoccurred on the scale of today's claims. Since modern Christians are so receptive to signs and wonders and modern man is so willing to believe the charismatic claims, on what basis can one assume that the early Christians would refuse to do so? Those willing to believe religious miracles are always plentiful. To claim that this "miraculous infusion" of the Spirit gives joy, purpose, power for service, and revitalization of the church, and at the same time claim that such a tremendous working was ignored, rejected, and allowed to drop out of the early church which experienced it, is illogical. The only reasonable explanation for the lack of these gifts in church history is that God did not give them. If He had given them, they would have occurred.

Since these gifts and signs did cease, the burden of proof is entirely on the charismatics to prove their validity. Too long Christians have assumed that the noncharismatic must produce incontestable biblical evidence that the miraculous sign gifts did cease. However, noncharismatics have no burden to prove this, since it has already been proved by history. It is an irrefutable fact admitted by many Pentecostals. Therefore the charismatics must prove biblically that the sign gifts will start up again during the Church Age and that today's phenomena are this reoccurrence. In other words they must prove that their experiences are the reoccurrence of gifts that have not occurred for almost 1,900 years.

Piper continues:

Now add to this conclusion the forthright command in 1 Corinthians 14:1, and you will see why some of us are not only open to, but also seeking, this greater fullness of God's power today. This command says, "Make love your aim, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy." And it is repeated twice: "Earnestly desire the higher gifts" (12:31); "Earnestly desire to prophesy and do not forbid speaking in tongues" (14:39).

I wonder how many of us have said for years that we are open to God's moving in spiritual gifts, but have been disobedient to this command to earnestly desire them, especially prophecy? I would ask all of us: are we so sure of our hermeneutical procedure for diminishing the gifts that we would risk walking in disobedience to a plain command of Scripture? "Earnestly desire spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy."

Of course our church prays that God will do mighty signs and wonders. But all evidence suggests that doesn't seem to be happening. Earnestly desire may be so, but then, why is God not giving us miraculous gifts? Also Piper fails to mention another interpretations: that the Greek word may not denote desire, but rather, attitude toward something. I contend that we are not told to desire the gifts (In the sense of wanting it, or seeking it to obtain it), as Paul could have easily used these kind of words that were available to him- (zeteo, orego, thelo, epithumeo and boulomai) but he didn't. Instead, he used "zeloo" (The negative meaning is "to be jealous "). Edgar writes:

Biblical usage, including the twelve occurences in the New Testament, indicated that "zeal" is the best translation for "zeloo" rather than the more interpretive meaning "covet" or "desire." In any case, "zeloo" expresses attitude (zeal) rather than action (seek).

I believe that it is God's doing "as he pleases", not as we please, if he wants to give us the miraculous gifts. Consider these verses:

1Corinthians 12:15-18: If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.

They show that we must be content with what we are, as it is God who arranges the members. Why then is Piper asking us to want more? I am rather disappointed that Piper mentions the worn out "desire" and "seek" verses without considering the evidence against it. We should keep in mind that, "All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills."- 1 Corinthians 12:11. It is the Spirit who gives, as he wills. Not us.

I will end here, though some will argue that I have not adequately demonstrated my case, I believe that the danger lies in not so much as cessation, but that with validation. How do we know that the signs and wonders we witness are real? Piper seems to think that the church needs this things, but, do we? The Reformation church did pretty well without signs and wonders, and in fact, would seem to be in a much better shape than the majority of churches today who are in dire straits. The issue then, is not so much as desiring signs and wonders, but are that of are these: Are signs and wonders effective today? Does the gospel still need to be confirmed by them ? and finally, Is it the will of God that signs and wonders are for today?

If so, then God would have equipped His bride for this, whether or not we seek or desire it. Sinful man may not desire salvation, yet God in his mercy predestinates him to eternal life. Why not the same thing in regards to spiritual gifts? God is the giver. But where are the gifts?

Piper's article can be found here.

Update- Somebody has recently replied briefly to my post. His comments as follows:

You run against the very grain and kernel of Paul's concept of gospel power in Romans 1:16 when you disagree with Piper's assessment. Study the OT understanding of God's divine power as accompanying the message or act of redemption and you will be at least mildly surprised to find out just how right Piper is on this matter.

I have a few words to spare.

Firstly, I don't see why Romans 1:16 agrees with Piper. I think it supports my thesis better- that the gospel in and itself is a miracle, and does not necessarily has to be accompanied by other miracles. As for the OT Miracles I likewise see no connection. They do indeed tie in with redemptive history- but we must remember it was climaxed in Jesus Christ 2000 years ago- and is now on the decline. My major issue with Piper here is that he seems to elavate the need for miracles to confirm the gospel today (I see none) to help buttress his claim that miraculous gifts are for today. I for one, agree that miracles (if it is God's will) can accompany the gospel (as with missionary testimonies I have heard). But I don't believe their presence necessitates that miracles must accompany the gospel nor does it mean that the miraculous gifts are for today.

John Hendryx of Monergism has just written a rather intriguing post. I think it applies to the situation of many of the churches now in Malaysia. I'll post a part that I see rather relevant:

That day there was an important guest missionary preacher and so I was most interested in what he had to say given that missions was our personal vocation overseas for over ten years. I want to share a little about what he preached on that morning because it is important to see an obvious trend in both our churches and in the Christian publishing industry.

The Text he chose was the encounter Jesus had with the Rich Young Ruler. He read the story … but only the first part of it:

“And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The young man said to him, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.”

“Excellent”, I thought.. This happens to be one of the most interesting events that took place in Jesus life. If we obey the commandments, Jesus says, we will have eternal life. The man said that he did so. I noticed immediately, however, that our guest speaker did not finish the story as it was written in the text but I was still eager to hear what he had to say. But instead of preaching from the word, he began speaking of another "ruler" who he claimed actually did obey our Lord’s voice in this way when he gave all his possessions toward the advancement of the kingdom. He said this person was the head of a missionary movement in the 18th century and I immediately knew he meant the Moravians, and more specifically, Count Zinzendorf. He then went on to tell a very inspiring story from history about Zinzendorf’s obedience to God and thus doing what the Rich Young Ruler did not do. I even learned some very encouraging new things like a painting entitled “First Fruits” which showed people’s from every culture that had come to know Christ through the missionary efforts of the Moravians. Those who were surrounding Christ’s throne in the painting were the actual paintings of the first convert from each specific nation or people group after they had gone to be with the Lord, so they were actually, at that moment, in Christ’s presence as the first fruit of a particular people group (as the painting depicted). Now I must admit that I got a lot out of this as a history lesson even though I had read much about this before. And even though it was a positive story which I would recommend anyone read about, something bothered me about the preaching. It bothered me in the same way many of the sermons in contemporary evangelical churches bother me. What was it you ask? It was the fact that the text of Scripture preached upon really had little to do with the sermon at hand, and also, that the Text was actually saying the very opposite of what the preacher was trying to make it say. While the Moravian missionaries are to be commended for their spending their lives and in many cases deaths for the work of the kingdom, that is not what the story of the rich young ruler is about. It is my conviction, from many years of careful study, that the Text of Scripture contains either law or gospel wherever you look. When we preach from any Text of Scripture we can always find law, which condemns us and the gospel of Christ which redeems us. This is true for both Old and New Testaments. Luther once said, “The law is for the proud but he gospel is for the brokenhearted.”

Well, what was preached to us that Sunday I concluded, was really just ended up being a spiritual pep-talk. While there may have been very encouraging content, but was it the gospel? Is the pulpit meant to rally the troops or be a place to preach Christ crucified? The message to us, if you think about it, really was, “We all just need to be more like Zonzendorf and then Christians would have a greater impact on society.” But if you think about this closely, when we just give examples about how to live, we are setting people up for a fall because it is the preaching of the law without gospel. There was no redemptive element to the sermon. It was just a message about how we should behave. While I admit that it was of great interest, the fact is that many who heard it will simply go out of church and on Monday be deflated after hearing the inspirational story. Unfortunately this is what the vast majority of evangelical preachers are teaching. A high percentage of the books available at the convention likewise are merely filled with inspirational pep-talks about how to be a good Christian with Jesus help, of course. It is so close to truth that it is easy to understand how we have slipped into this. But it is, in my opinion, the very cause for the weakness and lack of impact we have on those around us. You see, if we look at the end of the story of the Rich Young Ruler, this is not even remotely the message Jesus was communicating. And the fact that the end of the story was left off by the preacher that day was VERY telling. What does the text say after the young man went away sad?

And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God ." When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

You see the whole point of the story is not that we just need to see the Rich Young Ruler and do the opposite or find someone who did obey and follow his example. No. Jesus chose the man’s covetousness because he knew this is where this man stumbled. In the beginning of the passage the man boasted that he had already obeyed God’s commandments, but Jesus preached the law to Him and pressed where it hurt most. It was a death blow. Jesus wanted to expose, not only his, but all of our tendencies to trust in something we did. Instead of being happy and boasting that we have obeyed God’s commandments the disciples understood the degree of perfection for everyone such a perfect holy law would require. They commented that if this were the case for the young man then there is no hope for anyone, including them. EXACTLY! This is what Jesus was saying. And he finishes by revealing that obedience to God’s law, in this case the forsaking of covetousness, is impossible with man, but with God “all things are possible” In other words, the story shows that we are all poor, blind and naked, pitiful and are in desperate need of mercy … a mercy only God can give. When this is understood the story is not just a spiritual pep-talk but a major blow to the pride of man while simultaneously a testimony of God’s infinite mercy.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness- 2 Timothy 3:16

Does this passage teach the doctrine of the authority of scripture on Christians (and anyone for that matter)? It sure does.

A quick examination of the first few words tells the story:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God

Since scripture is given by inspiration of God (and every Christian agrees that God has authority), it would likewise follow that what he inspires, indeed, what he writes, is authoritive.

And the last few words are revealing:

for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...

How can scripture be NOT authoritive if it is useful for such things? If one were to rebuke a person with scripture and use scripture to command him to turn away from his sin, surely you regard it as authoritive? As for the Christians who do not believe in the authority of scripture- Ask yourself this: Why should you follow any of the commands given by God in the Bible?

And to Neo (Of A New Kind Of Christian fame): Eat your words!

Tommorrow, we'll see people flooding the bookshops to waste (I'm sorry, but that was the perfect word to describe it) their money on a certain boy called Potter.

And Pope Benedict whom I considerably respect more than the humanist of John Paul has opposed the Potter books.

Why, I like him even more already =)

I'm hitting myself in my head for not providing an adequate definition of philosophy for my mother. I thought of saying "the inquiry of the nature of reality, knowledge and worldviews by logical means", but it sounded weird. I better work on that =)

Terrorists strike London...no comment (Pick a world leader and read his condemnation and that's what I would say).

I probably won't be blogging for quite a while (or perhaps at rather odd intervals), because I'm devoting my almost all of my computer allowance time (One hour, and yes, that's too little) to studying Christian Ethics (brushing up on the subject, as always). Oh, and for my birthday I want to get a Teach-Yourself Greek kit. I've never really got up to studying the vocabulary (I did study on Greek grammer for adding some advantage to my exegetical skils) of Greek, and I always wished I mastered it. Hebrew of course, I hold to somewhat similar views, though my mother's friend happens to know a knowledgeble Anglican elder who teaches Hebrew. I've got to wait for the next semester before I can join the class. But Greek's first to me, for the simple reason is that Christian theology is drawn primarily from the NT. Oops, another duh statement from me...

It's really refreshing to hear my pastor saying that, "by faith in Jesus Christ who lived a life of perfect obedience to the law so that the righteousness he has gained is imputed unto us as a credit to our faith". Okay, something like that, but never in my 4+ years of hearing countless of sermons in my former church have I heard anyone say such a basic, yet beautiful truth. And every Christian should know it, I believe. But I'm sure the triple trio of Sanders, Dunn and Wright will be bound to disagree, darn them.

May I say that Protestants have greatly under emphasized counter-cultism. Re-evangelization is perhaps as important as evangelization. And it would be cruel to someone for him to think that he was on his way to heaven, only to end up in hell. But as I can personally attest to, not many Christians are receptive of the idea. The thought of "saving" Catholics is a contradiction, the Jehovah's Witnesses are just misunderstood folk who have misunderstood the Bible. More thought should be given to this area.

Hopefully, in two days time, I'll get to see "War of The Worlds". Yes, I'm really looking forward to it, despite the poor reviews.

I'm still shrugging in regards to the Regulative Principle of Worship. My church holds to it, though I am still undecided. Frame has written a book that has thrown a lot of skepticism on its use, though Schwertley has written a refutation of it. My stance on worship has always been rather skeptical to the use of CCM style worship (I prefer hymns), though I believe nevertheless that in worship one has to be truly reverent in devotion to the Lord, as well as sincere.

Phil Johson has a new profile pic.

I'm thinking that he's emphasizing his hair after I made that James White comment. But I believe he still does look like White. Plus the hair, of course.

Looks cool, though.