Acabo de escribir una reseña del libro, To be Continued? Are the miraculous gifts for today? Por Samuel E. Waldron. 

En este libro, Waldron trata de rechazar que los dones de lenguas, profecia o de milagros existe el día de hoy en la iglesia.  Lo he escrito en ingles, pero espero que le sirva a muchos para poder defender la posición bíblica de la vigencia de estos dones el día de hoy.  Hará para un tema de podcast en el futuro.

Si lo quieren leer en línea, lo podrán encontrar en amazon.com.

Dios les bendiga.

Luis A. Jovel

 

I bought this book since I wanted to comprehend why so many from the Reformed camp have a continuous go at the practices of Tongues and Miracles within the church. 

 

From the beginning of the book, Waldron informs the reader that he will use the cascade argument, but after the first cascade, apostles, this cascade is more or less forced to fall down by creating a straw man. 

 

In page 15 of chapter one, Waldron introduces the idea that miraculous gifts will cease after the apostles and prophets disappear from the picture.  I am yet to be given a biblical verse that tells me that such gifts as tongues, are different from say, serving (Rom. 12:7), contributing, encouraging, showing mercy, etc found in the following verse.  I find that Cessacionists are doing the same mistake that some Pentecostals and the Corinthians make, elevating some gifts over others.  Paul goes to great pain in stating that ALL gifts have the same source, and therefore, are weighed equally, I Cor. 12:4-6 and the rest of the chapter tells us of that.  Therefore, just because tongues and miracles are extraordinary gifts to some, they are no less spiritual than the gift of helping or administration, I Cor. 12:28.

 

Unless the Cessasionists are willing to concede that the gifts mentioned by Paul, are ALL given miracleously by God, then the real cascade argument would be to accept that those gifts that are not extraordinary, are not to be expected today.  But of course, to this, this and other cessasionist books stay away from.

 

First chapter, the source of the cascade seems to have gotten stock somewhere in Scripture.

 

Chapter two, on the Apostles, I was enjoying the reading until pg. 27, where Waldron cuts down Scripture, and only wants to include certain requirements of apostleship, while denying that the one to replace Judas, had to have been with them, the apostles, during Jesus' life before the cross, Acts 1:22.  This, it seems to me, is done in order to justify Paul's calling, but not even Paul tries use that to justify it, but rather acknowledges his untimely call as an apostle, I Cor. 15:8.

Waldron quotes II Cor. 12:12 to show that Paul performed signs and wonders and miracles", and that's a true sing of an apostle.  But Paul admits that he didn't speak tongues among the Corinthians, I Cor. 14:18.  If, like Waldron contends, tongues and manifestation of that like confirms apostleship, then Paul's is not a complete apostleship, if Waldron's view is followed. Over all, a good chapter to read, and even Waldron realizes that most of us who believe in tongues and miracles today, do not necessarily attach our selves to apostles today, and Chapter 3 makes another good point.

 

In chapter 3, Waldron quotes Paul in I Cor. 15:9, as Paul being the last apostle.  I find my self-quoting such a verse in the face of many people claiming to be apostles today.  However, as with Waldron, we see that the ministry of apostleship is continued in Scripture, therefore, in a different form, the gift is continuing with us.

 

Chapter four introduces the argument of no continuing prophets today, by introducing the concept and ministry of the Old Testament prophet.  Again, a good overlook of that office in the Old Testament.  The only peculiarity that I found is his rejection of how Jesus makes the Old Testament into a three fold book, as Jesus did in Luke 24:27. Although the "Writings" may be referred in such a verse, which is most likely, Waldron seems to wish to emphasize the prophets over all, since he is talking about them.

 

It's in chapter 5 that Waldron makes, in my view, a big mistake in equating the office of prophet, with the gift of prophecy.  The gift of prophecy, Waldron rightly says that provides a "partial character of the knowledge conveyed through the fit of prophecy", pg. 64. This, I think is what Paul is doing in defining the threefold function of the gift of prophecy, I Cor. 14:3.  Waldron wishes to equate this type of prophecy, which is not at all doctrinal, but rather, practical, to the office of the prophet, as in the case of John or Paul, which if we take I Cor. 15, or I and II Thes., then he too could be considered to be a prophet.  If I Cor. 14:3 is something to go by, this type of prophecy is to be given to the local church, and to present needs.  This is even made more clear in I Cor. 14:24, where prophecy is used as a way to reveal the secrets of the unbeliever's heart.  On page 68, Waldron touches the point that New Testament prophecy is to be considered as with the same authority as Old Testament Prophecy.  To this, I can answer with a big yes.  However, my yes is to the prophetic office, but can we attach this to the local gift of prophecy? Of course not, the gift is to be used in a threefold manner within the local church.  Therefore, the utterances of such prophecies will not bind the church at all places at all times.  I would be scandalize if a local person with the gift of prophecy would stand up and prophesy that Jesus is coming tomorrow.  This is not his or her office, but only those within the office of the prophet, who had the authority to prophesy for the whole church.  One lst comment, Waldron quotes and gives us an endnote on page 69, endnote 15, but it's nowhere to be found.  This may be a publishing error.

 

Chapter 6, I enjoyed reading it, however, my issue is that only Agabus is mentioned as a prophet in the church.  Prophets, along with teachers, are mentioned in Acts 13:1.  I see again, that in Acts 21:9, that four young women prophesied.  Notice, these last ones are not called "prophets", but are said to prophesy.  I don't think that Waldron has studied all the data in order to arrive at such dogmatic conclusions.

 

Chapter 7, finally arrives at the crux of the issue.  Tongues.  With Waldron, I agree that in Acts 2 we see that the disciples spoke in other tongues, however, we don't see people understanding in Acts 10:46 or 19:6. The Biblical witness does not tells us that.  Waldron continues to say that in I Cor. 13:1, Paul is speaking hyperbole, and he conclusion is based that angels have no bodies, no tongues, and therefore, no spoken language, pg. 86.  All of that is true, however, we see that Michael, a spiritual being with no body, tongue and language, talk to Satan, another spiritual being, with no body, tongue or language, Jude 1:9.  Again, when dealing with I Cor. 14:2, Waldron thinks we are dealing with some sort of rhetorical question, but he only cites half the verse, where we are clearly told that no one understands the one speaking in tongues, since he is uttering mysteries.  But were all tongues human languages?  Well, I speak Spanish, English and German, but if I don't pray in any of those, I don't think that whatever comes out of my mouth would, as Paul says in I Cor. 14:14, I will feel I understand.  The power of the spirit must be present for my spirit to pray, or else what comes out of my mouth is pure gibberish. I am with Waldron on two points. In page 88, he sees that the gifts such as these, were for the edification of the assembly.  In the same page, he also mentions the lack of following the rules of speaking in tongues within the congregation found in I Cor. 14.  However, I am not ordination of women, but Waldron goes at great length explaining that women are not allowed to prophesy within the congregation.  This I find weird, for not finding another word, since if we take what Waldron just said, that the gift of prophecy is a gift to be used for the edification of the assembly, assuming then that all prophecies are given in the congregation, Waldron suddenly makes, in my view, Paul contradict himself by citing I Cor. 14:34-35. There, women are not allowed to "laleo", but Paul allows them to "profeteoo" in I Cor. 11:5.  I find this most contradictory, but that's what happens when an agenda is followed.  Of most interest would be Acts 2, where all the disciples started to speak in tongues, and no one was kept quiet because they were of a different gender.  I believe that women who speak at a church gathering are the targets of Paul's prohibition, and not those who are exercising either the gift of prophecy or tongues.  If those gifts are exclusively meant for women to be used outside the assembly, then we need a verse that tells us that.  I would like to end up this section, by mentioning that it really shocks me to see that Waldron dismisses Mark 16:17, cf. pg. 92, on similar basis as liberals dismiss II Timothy, Colossians and the other passages where women are told to submit to husbands, etc.  If Waldron is willing to give in in that point, well, he shouldn't then critic the liberals for doing that very same thing.

 

Chapter 8, Waldron finishes his cascade argument, which has seem to me more like a rapid, going to many places, yet, not finding a straight path. I enjoy the chapter, but I see that Waldron just transfers the cessationist argument against tongues which uses I Cor. 13:10, to miracles, cf. pg. 102.  The canon is not closed, therefore, no more miracles.  Again, Mark 16:17-18 does not tell us that the tongues and miracles will end with the closing of the canon.  Point taken, we only see Paul picking up a snake and not being killed after being beaten, and we don't see any example of anyone drinking poison and not dying.  But as I have mentioned before, we can't pick and choose what we want from scripture, as we can't pick and choose which gifts are working today, and which gifts are not. 

 

The Conclusion, chapter 9, gives a very good sermon outline!!! But I would ask my self if a first century Christian, with miracles and tongues surrounding him or her, would come to the conclusions that Waldron reaches.  I think that with Waldron, our first century Christian, would affirm that Scripture is the ultimate authority to have eternal life, but why do tongues and miracles to be rejected, since they are also given by the Lord, and most of all, found in Scripture?  I guess our first century Christian, would not come to the same conclusion as Waldron.

 

The book has really strengthen me in my belief that cessationist is not a good biblical option, since it leaves a lot of Scripture out, dismissing it as not part of the original, as in the case of Mark 16:9 to the end, or by not taking into consideration the whole of Scripture.  Nevertheless, Waldron is to be commended.  He has given a good and gracious critique of Continuatism. I have even bought another book by Waldron, "A Modern Exposition. The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith".  However, this book, Waldron leaves too much to be desired.  I understand that the book has been written for non-technical believers, but as a seminary trained theologian, I guess I was looking for a more solid take on the issue.