Magazine Pulpit-2012-10 John MacArthur

7/29/2019 Magazine Pulpit-2012-10 John MacArthur

1/36

Welcome to Pulpit Magazine!

What is Pulpit and why have we created it?By Dave Jordan, Managing Editor

Advancing the gospel, one church at a time is our mission. It is our desire to providepastors and church leaders with consistent encouragement and insight from the word of God. Many

pastors are alone out there, and do not have the time to scour the internet or seminary libraries for

information on current issues and rich theological content to minister to their congregations and to their

own souls. It is our hope that Pulpit Magazine will become just such a resource.

We have assembled a wonderful team of authors to serve you. Here are just a few:

Pastor John MacArthur, who has written over 50 books and is on the radio 24/7 worldwide, willprovide articles from his 40+ years of ministry to engage the pastor at the very heart of the

Christian life.

Phil Johnson, whose blogging career typically had over 250,000 visitors per month, will shed lighton current topics with the truth of scripture.

Pastor Lance Quinn, who has been reviewing books for top publishers for many years, will nowprovide that same insight for pastors and lay people who are looking for great resources to

challenge and stimulate their walk with Christ.

Other authors will regularly write about global issues and how those affect our local ministry,

current issues through the lens of church history, and straightforward expositions of the Word of God.

Weve chosen to launch Pulpit Magazine on the latest mobile devices to provide you with a moreimmersive experience and to make the information as accessible and engaging as possible. Pulpit will be

provided across the mobile devices you already use, such as;

iPad iPhone Kindle

Subscription Benefits!

When you purchase a one year subscription for 12 Issues, you will receive discounts at

GBI Books worth more than your subscription.

*We also have made the text of the articles available in a free .pdf file which can be downloaded at:

www.graceadvance.org/pulpit


2/36

Prayer as WorshipBy John MacArthur

Pray then like this: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your

will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our

debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver usfrom evil. Matthew 6:913 (NASB)

Study the exemplary prayers in Scripture and you cannot help noticing that all of them are

brief and simple. Prayer that is heartfelt, urgent, and unfeigned mustbe of that style. Verbiage

and windbaggery are badges of insincerity, especially in prayer. The prayer of the publican in

Luke 18:13 is as short and to the point as possible: God, be merciful to me, a sinner! Then

theres the prayer of the thief on the cross: Jesus, remember me when You come in Your

kingdom! (Luke 23:42). Those prayers are cut from the same cloth as Peters cry for help when

he was walking on watersometimes cited as the shortest prayer in the Bible: Lord, save me

(Matthew 14:30).Scripture records very few long prayers. Much of Psalm 119 is addressed to God in the

language of prayer, and, of course, that is the Bibles longest chapter. Other than that,

Nehemiah 9:538 contains the longest prayer in all of Scripture, and it can be read aloud with

expression in less than seven minutes. John 17 is the New Testaments longest prayer. Its also

the longest of Jesus recorded prayers, just twenty-six verses long.

We know, of course, that Jesus prayed much longer prayers than that because Scripture

records several instances where He prayed in solitude for extended periods of time (Matthew

14:23; Mark 6:46). When it suited Him, He would even spend the entire night in prayer (Luke

6:12). It was His habit thus to pray, both privately and with His disciples (John 18:2). And the

pattern was clear: His long prayers were the ones He prayed in private. His public prayers were

perfect examples of crisp, forthright plain-speaking.

Listening to Jesus pray and observing His constant dependence on private prayer gave the

disciples an appetite for prayer. So they asked Him, Lord, teach us to pray (Luke 11:1). He

responded by repeating the very same model prayer He gave in the Sermon on the Mount. We

call it The Lords Prayer. We ought rather to think of it as The Disciples Prayer, because its

centerpiece is a petition for divine forgiveness, something Jesus would never need to pray for.

Like all great praying, it is both succinct and unpretentious. There is not a wasted word, not a

hint of vain repetition, and not a single note of ostentation or ceremony in the whole prayer:

And He said to them, When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come.

Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, For we ourselves also forgive everyone

who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation (Luke 11:24).

That prayer was a pattern for the disciples to follow, not a mantra to be recited without

engaging the mind or passions. The various elements of Jesus prayer are all reminders of what

our praying ought to include: praise, petition, penitence, and a plea for grace in our

sanctification. Those are not only the key elements of prayer, they are also some of the principal


3/36

features of authentic worship. The parallelism between prayer and worship is no coincidence.

Prayer is the distilled essence of worship.

That perspective is often lost in this era of self-focused, subjective, felt-needs-oriented

religion. Multitudes think of prayer as nothing more than a way to get whatever they want from

God. Prayer is reduced to a superstitious means of gainand some will tell you that God is

obligated to deliver the goods. Religious television is full of charlatans who insist that God mustgrant whatever you ask for if you can muster enough faith and refuse to entertain any

doubt. Faith in their lexicon is a kind of blind credulity, usually bolstered by some kind of

positive confession. Doubt, as they might describe it, is any rational or biblical qualm about

whether the thing you desire is in accord with the will of God. Those, of course, are not biblical

definitions of faith and doubt. Nor can anyones prayer legitimately be called a prayer offered

in faith (James 5:15) if it is contrary to the will of God.

Charismatics are not the only ones who see prayer as nothing more than a kind of utilitarian

wish list. Plenty of mainstream evangelicals and old-style fundamentalists seem confused about

the purpose of prayer, too. John R. Rice, an influential fundamentalist pastor, wrote a bestselling

book in 1942 titled PrayerAsking and Receiving. He wrote, Prayer is not praise, adoration,

meditation, humiliation nor confession, but asking. . . . Praise is not prayer, and prayer is not

praise. Prayer is asking. . . . Adoration is not prayer, and prayer is not adoration. Prayer is always

asking. It is not anything else but asking.1

There are several problems with that perspective. First, Jesus model prayer is more than

merely asking. It does include that; there are petitions for daily bread (the barest of material

needs) and forgiveness (the most urgent of spiritual needs). But the model prayer Jesus gave His

disciples also includes at least four of the five elements Dr. Rice wanted to eliminate from his

definition of prayer: praise, adoration, humiliation, and confession.

Remove praise and penitence from the Lords Prayer and you have gutted it. Insist that

proper prayer is not anything else but asking, and you overthrow one of the central lessons

we learn from Jesus example, that prayer is first and foremost an act of worship. Even worse,such teaching sets up a kind of role reversal between the one praying and the God to whom he

prays.

The Bible teaches that God is sovereign and that we are His slaves. Name-it-and-claim-it

theology teaches that man is sovereign and God is his servant. The person praying thinks he is in

the demand-and-command position, with God in the role of the servant who is obligated to

cough up whatever we ask for. As Ive pointed out elsewhere,2

that has more in common with

pagan cargo cults than with biblical Christianity.

Prayer is much more than merely asking and receiving. It is indeed a great privilege to come

boldly before the throne of grace and to let our requests be made known to God (Hebrews 4:16;

Philippians 4:6). Scripture repeatedly promises that if we ask for anything in faith, God willanswermeaning if we ask in accord with Gods will as prompted by His Spirit, He will always

graciously and generously respond (Matthew 7:711; 17:20; 21:22; Mark 11:24; James 1:6; 1

1. John R. Rice, PrayerAsking and Receiving(Muphreesboro, TN: Sword of the Lord, 1942), 29.

2John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 264-90.


4/36

John 3:22). He often grants our requests exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think

(Ephesians 3:20, KJV).

But the nature of a truly faithfulprayer is clearly spelled out in 1 John 5:14: This is the

confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears

us (emphasis added). In other words, the promise of answered prayer is not an unqualified

blank check. The promise is made only to faithful, obedient, sober-minded, biblically-informedChristians whose prayers are in harmony with the will of God. Its not a guarantee of cargo to

every gullible or superstitious religious enthusiast who uses Jesus name as if it were an

abracadabra. Jesus said, If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish,

and it will be done for you (John 15:7, emphasis added).

Thats because far from being merely a wish list, godly prayer is fundamentally an act of

worship. It is an expression of our praise, our unworthiness, our desire to see Gods will fulfilled,

and our utter dependence on Him for all our needs. Thus every aspect of prayer is an act of

worship. That includes the petitions we make, because when we properly make our requests

known to Godwithout anxiety, through prayer and supplication, and with thanksgiving

(Philippians 4:6)we are acknowledging His sovereignty, confessing our own total reliance on

His grace and power, and looking to Him as Lord and Provider and Ruler of the universenot as

some kind of celestial Santa. Proper prayer is pure worship, even when we are making requests.

The God-ward focus of Jesus model prayer is impossible to miss. The prayer starts with

praise of Gods name. It expresses a willingness for His Kingdom to come and His will to be

done. Pure worship thus precedes and sets the context for sup-plication. Those opening lines

establish the focal point of the prayer: the glory of God and His Kingdom. In other words, the

supplicant is concerned first of all not for his personal wish list, but for the honor of God and the

extension of His Kingdom. Everything else fits into that context, so that the whole agenda of the

prayer is determined by the Kingdom and glory of God. That is perhaps the most important

perspective to keep in mind in all our praying.

Jesus said, Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorifiedin the Son (John 14:13). The purpose of all legitimate prayer is not to fulfill the felt-needs or

material desires of the one praying, but to acknowledge the sovereignty of God and to magnify

His glory. Prayer is not about getting what I want, but about the fulfillment of Gods will. The

proper objective of prayer is not to enlarge my borders, build my empire, or expand my wallet

but to further the Kingdom of God. The point is not to elevate my name but to hallow Gods

name. Everything in prayer revolves around who God is, what God wants, and how God is to be

glorified. That is the sum and substance of proper praying.

Any prayers that are self-consuming, self-indulgent, self- aggrandizing; any prayers that seek

whatever I want no matter what God wants; any prayers that suggest God mustdeliver because

I have demanded itthose are prayers that take His name in vain. Such praying is an egregioussin against the nature of God, against the will of God, and against the Word of God.

Name it, claim it prayers; the notion that God wants you always healthy, wealthy,

prosperous, and successful; and lists of selfish requests are all quite at odds with the spirit of

Jesus model prayer. Such requests are expressly excluded from the many promises that God will

hear and answer our prayers (James 4:3). The faulty belief that underlies all such praying is no

small error. It is rooted in a serious misunderstanding about the nature of God.


5/36

Because prayer is an act of worship, to offer a prayer based on such a heinous perversion of

Gods character is tantamount to worshiping a false god. To put it bluntly, when someone

presents God with a wish list rooted in greed, materialism, or other expressions of pure self-

interest, then demands that God deliver the goods as if He were a genie, that is no prayer at all.

It is an act of blasphemy. It is as abominable as the crassest form of pagan worship.

The prayers of godly people in Scripture were nothing like that. Consider the prayers ofthree prophets who were in truly dire situations. Jeremiah, for example, was in prison. He had

preached to a nation of people who would not hear. They just wanted to shut his mouth. They

were not interested in anything he or his God had to say. Ultimately they threw him in a pit. He

had seen no measurable success in his ministry (as the world counts success). Jeremiah

32:1623 records his prayer:

I prayed to the LORD, saying, Ah Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth

by Your great power and by Your outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for You, who shows

lovingkindness to thousands, but repays the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children

after them, O great and mighty God. The LORD of hosts is His name; great in counsel and mighty

in deed, whose eyes are open to all the ways of the sons of men, giving to everyone according tohis ways and according to the fruit of his deeds; who has set signs and wonders in the land of

Egypt, andeven to this day both in Israel and among mankind; and You have made a name for

Yourself, as at this day.

You brought Your people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs and with wonders, and

with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm and with great terror; and gave them this land,

which You swore to their forefathers to give them, a land flowing with milk and honey.

They came in and took possession of it, but they did not obey Your voice or walk in Your

law; they have done nothing of all that You commanded them to do; therefore You have made all

this calamity come upon them.

Here is a man in great distress, torn with feelings of loneliness and grief, despairing of hope

for his people, rejected by the entire nation. But the preoccupation of his heart was to extol theglory, the majesty, the name, the honor, and the works of God. He was not preoccupied with his

own pain. He was not obsessed with being liberated from his circumstances. Out of his suffering

came worship.

All our prayers should be of that flavor.

Daniel, caught in the transition between two great world empires, was interceding on behalf

of a dispossessed people in a foreign land. But notice the spirit with which he brought his

requests. He tells us, I gave my attention to the Lord God to seek Him by prayer and

supplications, with fasting, sackcloth and ashes (Daniel 9:3). And notice how his prayer begins:

Alas, O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant and loving-kindness for

those who love Him and keep His commandments, we have sinned, committed iniquity, acted

wickedly and rebelled, even turning aside from Your commandments and ordinances (vv. 45).

The starting point is praise. That gives way to penitence. And as the prayer continues in

Daniel 9, there are twelve more verses of self-abasing confession as Daniel rehearses the sins of

Israel. Its filled with phrases like Open shame belongs to us, O Lord (v. 8); we have rebelled

against Him; nor have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God (vv. 910); and we have

sinned, we have been wicked (v. 15). Those expressions are mingled with more praise:

Righteousness belongs to You, O Lord, but to us open shame (v. 7); the LORD our God is


6/36

righteous with respect to all His deeds which He has done (v. 14); and [You] have brought

Your people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand and have made a name for Yourself (v.

15).

Finally, in the very last sentence of his prayer, Daniel makes one request, and it is a plea for

mercy. All Daniels praise (focusing on Gods righteousness and His mercy) and all his penitence

(outlining the history of Israels disobedience) culminates in a prayer for forgiveness andrestoration: O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and take action! For Your own sake, O

my God, do not delay, because Your city and Your people are called by Your name (v. 19).

And that one request was preceded with this summary argument: Daniel gathered up all his

praise and all his confession, condensed them all in one more affirmation of Gods transcendent

greatness and Israels complete lack of merit, and then cited those very things as the grounds on

which he was making his plea: We are not presenting our supplications before You on account

of any merits of our own, but on account of Your great compassion (v. 18).

Again, notice that Daniels prayer began with an affirmation of the nature and the glory and

the greatness and the majesty of God. It is an expression of worship, and the request at the end

thus flows from a worshipful, penitent heart. That is always the godly perspective.

Jonah prayed from the belly of a fish. If you can picture the wet, suffocating darkness and

discomfort of such a place, you might begin to have an idea of how desperate Jonahs situation

was at that moment. The whole second chapter of Jonah is devoted to the record of Jonahs

prayer, and the entire prayer is a profound expression of worship. It reads like a psalm. In fact,

its full of references and allusions to the psalmsalmost as if Jonah were singing His worship in

phrases borrowed from Israels psalter while he languished inside that living tomb.

The prayer is as passionate as you might expect from someone trapped inside a fish under

the surface of the Mediterranean. Jonah begins: I called out of my distress to the LORD, and He

answered me (v. 2)not a plea to God for help, but an expression of praise and deliverance,

mentioning God in the third person and speaking of deliverance as if it were an accomplished

fact.The remainder of the prayer is addressed directly to God in the second personand the

whole thing is an extended expression of more praise. Jonah rehearses what has happened to

him (You had cast me into the deep, v. 3; Weeds were wrapped around my head, v. 5).

Notice, Jonah is still inside the fish while he is praying this prayer (cf. v. 10), yet he consistently

speaks of his deliverance in the past tense. And heres the amazing thing about this prayer:

Though Jonah must have been as desperate as anyone who ever prayed for rescue from the

Lord, his prayer contains not one single request. It is a pure, resounding expression of worship

and faith in God, who alone could deliver Jonah. The key sentence is verse 7: While I was

fainting away, I remembered the LORD, and my prayer came to You, into Your holy temple.

The focus of Jonahs prayerlike all great prayerswas the glory of God. Although no one,perhaps, has ever been in a situation where it would be more appropriate to plead and beg God

to answer, there was none of that in Jonahs prayer. And the past-tense references to Jonahs

deliverance were the furthest thing you can imagine from the contemporary prosperity-

preachers notion of positive confession. Jonah wasnt under any illusion that his words could

alter the reality of his plight. He was simply extolling the character of God. And that is precisely

what our Lord was teaching when He gave the disciples that model prayer in Luke 11.


7/36

So it ought to be clear that when Jesus taught His disciples to regard prayer as worship, that

wasnt anything novel. The great prayers we read in the Old Testament were likewise

expressions of worshipincluding those that were prayed in the most desperate situations.

With that in mind, look a little more closely now at Jesus model prayer. The first verse of

this prayer alone includes three truths that remind us our prayers are supposed to be

expressions of worship.

Gods Paternity

The prayer starts with a reference to Gods paternity. The first wordthe addressis a

reminder that God is our heavenly Father. We go to Him not only because He is a sovereign

Monarch, a righteous Judge, and our Creatorbut because He is a loving Father. That beautiful

expression reminds us of the grace that gives us unlimited access to His throne (Hebrews

4:16)and it encourages us to come boldly, just as a son or a daughter would come to a loving

dad.

That, by the way, is the basis for our boldness in prayer. The point is not that our words have

any kind of magical power, not that God is somehow obliged to give us whatever we ask for, and

certainly not that our faith merits material rewardsbut that God in His sovereignty invites us

to come to Him as a gracious and loving Father. The intimacy of the Father-child relationship

does not diminish the reverence we owe Him as our sovereign God. Far less does it give us any

reason to exalt ourselves. Instead, it is a reminder that we should be childlike in our

dependence on Gods goodness and love. Ultimately, because He is our sovereign Lord, Creator,

Judge, and Father, He is the only One on whom we can rely to supply all our needs and satisfy

our deepest longings. If our prayers are truly worshipful, they will be permeated with

recognition of that truth.

Take, for example, the prayer of Isaiah 64:8: But now, O LORD, You are our Father, we are

the clay, and You our potter; and all of us are the work of Your hand. That is the proper spirit of

prayer: Lord, You made us. You gave us life. You alone can supply the resources we need. We areunited with Your beloved Son by faith, and therefore we are Your children in every sense

totally dependent on Your will, Your power, and Your blessings.

That is very different from the prayer of a pagan who comes to a vengeful, violent, jealous,

unjust, man-made deity, believing some merit or sacrifice must be brought to the altar to

appease that hostile deity. The biblical perspective we bring to prayer is that God Himself

offered the ultimate sacrifice and supplies all the merit we need in the Person of His Son. All

who by faith lay hold of Christ as Lord and Savior are sons of God (Galatians 3:26; cf. John

1:1213; 2 Corinthians 6:8). See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we

would be called children of God; and such we are (1 John 3:1).

In other words, the sacrifice of Christ was offered on our behalf, so we have already receivedthe very best God has to give. And He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over

for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? (Romans 8:32).

As if that werent enough, in Matthew 7:711, Jesus makes this promise: Ask, and it will be

given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks

receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is

there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish,

he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your


8/36

children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask

Him!

So when we pray, we are going to a God who is our loving heavenly Father. We can go with a

sense of intimacy. We can go with confidence, in the same tender, trusting way a little child

would go to an earthly father. We can go boldly. We are approaching a loving deity who does

not need to be appeased, but who embraces us as His own. In fact, because we are His truechildren, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father!

(Galatians 4:6). Abba is a term of deep affection, a common term for father derived from

the Chaldean dialect. Because it is easy to pronounce, it was how little children in New

Testament times commonly addressed their fathers, like Daddy, or Papa in todays English.

But when we call God Father, or Abba, it is not a casual nod of crass, presumptuous, or

easygoing familiarity. Used properly, AbbaFather is an expression of profound worship,

filled with childlike trust: God, I recognize that Im Your child. I know You love me and have

given me intimate access to You. I recognize that You have absolutely unlimited resources, and

that You will do what is best for me. I recognize that I need to obey You. And I recognize that

whatever You do, You know best. All of that is implied in the truth that God is our Father, and

thats how Jesus taught us to begin our prayers.

Dont miss the point. When we pray to God as our heavenly Father, we are not only

acknowledging our responsibility to obey Him, we are also confessing that He has a right to give

us what He knows is best. Above all, we are offering Him praise and thanks for His loving grace,

while confessing our own complete trust and dependence. In short, we are coming to Him as

worshiping childrenand allof that is implicit in the very first word of Jesus model prayer.

Gods Priority

The entire opening sentence of the prayer is a straight-forward exclamation of worship:

Father, hallowed be Your name (Luke 11:2). That is expressed as a petition, but it is by no

means a personal request; it is an expression of praise, and it reflects Gods own priority: I amthe LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another (Isaiah 42:8).

Jesus established the truth that prayer is worship by beginning His model prayer that way. To

worship God is to Sing the glory of His name (Psalm 66:2). Ascribe to the LORD the glory due

His name (1 Chronicles 16:29; Psalms 29:2; 96:8). Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to Your

name give glory (Psalm 115:1). Such expressions capture the true spirit of a worshiping heart.

Moreover, that first sentence qualifies every other petition in the prayer. It rules out asking

for things with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures (James 4:3). It

eliminates every petition that is not in accord with the perfect will of God.

In the words of Arthur Pink:

How clearly, then, is the fundamental duty in prayer here set forth: self and all its needs must be

given a secondary place and the Lord freely accorded the preeminence in our thoughts, desires

and supplications. This petition must take the precedence, for the glory of Gods great name is

the ultimate end of all things; every other request must not only be subordinated to this one, but

be in harmony with and in pursuance of it. We cannot pray aright unless the honor of God


9/36

bedominant in our hearts. If we cherish a desire for the honoring of Gods name we must not ask

for anything which it would be against the Divine holiness to bestow.3

What does that expression mean: Hallowed be Your name? In biblical terms, Gods

name includes everything God isHis character, His attributes, His reputation, His honorHis

very Person. Gods name signifies everything that is true about God.We still use the expression my name in that sense at times. If we say someone has ruined

his good name, we mean he has disgraced himself and spoiled his reputation. He has

diminished others perception of who he is. And if I give you power of attorney, I have

authorized you to act in my name. You thereby become my legal proxy, and any legal

covenants you enter into are as binding on me as if I signed them myself.

That is precisely what Jesus meant when He taught us to pray in His name: Whatever you

ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me

anything in My name, I will do it (John 14:1314). He was delegating His authority to us to be

used in prayerauthorizing us to act as if we were His emissaries when we let our requests be

made known to God.

But by teaching us to begin by asking that the name of God be hallowed, Christ put this

built-in safeguard against the misuse of His name for our own self-aggrandizing purposes. If we

truly want Gods name to be hallowed, we would never sully the name of His Son or abuse the

proxy He has given us by using His name to request that which He himself would never sanction.

To do that would be to take His name in vain, and that is a violation of the third commandment.

Furthermore, immediately after Jesus delegated the authority of His name to His disciples, He

said, If you love Me, you will keep My commandments (v. 15). He then restated the principle

with all the necessary qualifications just one chapter later in John 16:7: If you abide in Me, and

My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you (emphasis added).

It should be clear, then, that the expression Your name signifies far more than just a

proper noun. Gods name represents everything He is, everything He approves, and everythingHe is known for. So when we pray, Father, hallowed be Your name, we are expressing a desire

for Gods character, His glory, His reputation in the world, and His very being to be set apart and

lifted up.

The word hallowed (Greek hagiazo) means consecrated, sanctified, or set apart as

holy. It includes the idea of being separated from all that is profane. Putting it as simply as

possible, this phrase is a prayer that God Himself would be blessed and glorified. Jesus Himself

prayed for that very thing in John 12:28: Father, glorify Your name. It is a petition God delights

to answer.

By starting His model prayer that way, Jesus was reminding us of the ultimate purpose of

every prayer we ever offer. The proper aim is for God to be glorified, exalted, honored, andknown, in every conceivable way.

That, by the way, is a further reminder not to call God Father in a cheaply sentimental or

overly familiar way. He is our loving Father, but we are not to forget that His name is Holy. The

fatherhood of God in no way diminishes His glory, and if we find ourselves thinking that way

here is the corrective: Father, hallowed be Your name.

3 Arthur Pink, The Sermon on the Mount (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 2001 reprint), 162.


10/36

The spirit of that plea is contrary to the main thrust of the so-called prosperity gospel. I

once heard a televangelist teaching the positive confession doctrine, and he told his audience

that if they tacked the phrase Not my will but thine onto any of their prayers, they were not

praying in faith. That is a lie from the pit of hell. Jesus Himself prayed, not My will, but Yours be

done (Luke 22:42). By teaching us to begin all our prayers with a concern that the name of God

to be hallowed, He was teaching us to pray for Gods will over and above our own.The kind of God who is at everyones beck and call and who must knuckle under to someone

elses desires is not the God of the Bible. Those who portray prayer in such a fashion are not

hallowing Gods name; they are dragging His name through the mud. Their false teaching is a

denial of the very nature of God. It isnt just bad theology, it is gross irreverence. It is blasphemy.

They are taking Gods name in vain, and that is directly antithetical to the spirit of this plea.

Luthers catechism (section 39) asks and answers this question: How is Gods name

hallowed among us? Answer, as plainly as it can be said: When both our doctrine and life are

godly and Christian. For since in this prayer we call God our Father, it is our duty always to

deport and demean ourselves as godly children, that He may not receive shame, but honor and

praise from us.

So when we pray Father, hallowed be Your name, we are asking God to glorify Himselfto

put His power, His grace, and all His perfections on display. One way He does that is by

answering our prayersassuming our prayers are expressions of submission to His will rather

than merely flippant requests that arise from our own selfish desires.

We were not created to enjoy prosperity in a fallen world. We were created to glorify God

and enjoy Him forever. We ought to be more concerned for the glory of God than we are for our

own prosperity, our own comfort, our own agenda, or any other self-centered desire.Thats why

Jesus taught us to think of prayer as an act of worship rather than merely a way to ask God for

things we want.

Gods ProgramThe closing phrase of Luke 2 is Your kingdom come. It is a prayer for the advancement of

Gods Kingdom. Like every phrase of the prayer we have looked at, this is antithetical to the

prayers typically prayed by those who are concerned mainly about the advancement of their

own program, the building of their own empire, or the padding of their own pockets. This is a

prayer that Gods program be advanced, and that His will be done. In fact, in some Greek

manuscripts, the text includes the phrase, Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth (KJV).

Jesus Himself included that phrase in the model prayer when he gave it in His Sermon on the

Mount (Matthew 6:10).

Every request we make in our prayers should first be run through this filter: Is it in harmony

with the goals and principles of Gods kingdom? Is it consistent with the expansion of theKingdom? Does it truly advance the Kingdom, or does it merely fulfill some selfish want?

Name-it-and-claim-it theology is myopic, self-indulgent, and small-minded. All it cares

about is self-interest and selfish desires, with no thought for the greater cause of Christs

kingdom. The spirit of Christ says, Lord, advance Your Kingdom if that means I lose everything.

Thats what the phrase Your kingdom come implies.

The kingdom, of course, is the sphere where Christ rulesthe realm where He is Lord. To

pray Your kingdom come with sincerity is to submit ones desires and to yield ones heart


11/36

without reservation to the Lordship of Christ. To affirm the program of Christs kingdom is to set

aside ones own fleshly, materialistic, or selfish prayer requests because, after all, the kingdom

of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit

(Romans 14:17).

There is truly nothing wrong with praying to God for things we desireas long as the desires

of our heart are holy. Indeed, we are encouragedrepeatedlyto ask, and to trust, and to alignour desires with the will of God. And we are promised answers to such prayers. Delight

yourself in the LORD; and He will give you the desires of your heart (Psalm 37:4).

Remember, Jesus said, If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you

wish, and it will be done for you (John 15:7). If you ask the Father for anything in My name,

He will give it to you (John 16:23). This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if

we ask anything according to His will, He hears us (1 John 5:14). Pay close attention to the

qualifiers: If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you [then] . . . whatever you wish.

Anything in My name. Anything according to His will. Jesus model prayer has those same

qualifiers built into it because of the way He taught us to recognize Gods paternity, yield to

Gods priority, and get on board with Gods program before we ever make one petition for

ourselves.

Any prayer that follows a different pattern is not an act of true worship, and therefore it is

not a legitimate prayer.

Conversely, all true prayer is worship. We go to a loving Father, accepting that He knows

best. Our prayers, then, reflect an obedient heart, a passion for His glory, and a desire to see the

extension of His Kingdomthat God might be honored.


12/36

Salvation Accomplished by the Son: The Work of ChristBy Robert A. Peterson, Crossway Books, 2012

Reviewed by Pastor Lance Quinn

What could be more edifying for the Christian than to read about the life and ministry of

Jesus Christ? Robert A. Peterson, Professor of Systematic Theology at Covenant TheologicalSeminary in St. Louis, Missouri, has written Salvation Accomplished by the Son: The Work of

Christ, a splendid summation of the Person and Work of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

What is both a rare and commendable feature about this large volume (575 pages of text), is

how Peterson provides excellent, detailed, and lucid exposition of virtually every Old Testament

and New Testament passage which either anticipates or explains the various aspects of the

earthly (and beyond) work of Jesus. He provides significant exegesis in order to substantiate his

various perspectives on the work of Christ, especially where disagreements and disputes have

arisen. The book is an attempt by Peterson to comprehensively portray the entire biblical

teaching on the doctrine of salvation.

In the first section of the book (21269), Peterson capably fills out our understanding

of what he calls the nine saving eventsof Christ. Obviously, some of the events he references

as being in the saving category need to be nuanced by him, because some of these events

arent usually discussed by theologians as being associated within the more narrowly defined

doctrine of soteriology. While Peterson readily acknowledges that Unequivocally, Scripture

highlights Jesuss death and resurrection when it speaks of his saving accomplishment, he also

contends that the Bible paints a fuller picture and mentions seven additional aspects of

Christs saving work (23), namely His:

incarnation sinless life ascension session Pentecost intercession second coming

Introducing the incarnation, Peterson writes in chapter one: Jesuss incarnation saves.

It does not save in and of itself, by the mere fact of Gods becoming a man. It does not save

apart from Christs death and resurrection. But it is an essential prerequisite for those savingevents (28). For Peterson, this means that one cannot maintain a coherent soteriology

without a comprehensive Christology. Likewise, when discussing the sinlessness of Jesus in

chapter two, Peterson posits that Scripture teaches the saving significance of Christs sinless

life (48). Having declared the nature of Christs sinless life in the schema of divine salvation,

Peterson nevertheless acknowledges: As indispensable as the incarnation and Christs sinless

are, they do not save by themselves. Rather, they are essential preconditions for Christs central

saving eventshis death and resurrection (60).


13/36

In chapter three, Peterson defends the doctrine of the vicarious, penal, substitutionary,

sacrificial death of Christ upon the cross (cf. 70, 7778), as over against modern notions which

deny or distort the doctrine (he devotes an entire chapter to the subjectchapter twelve).

Peterson also defends the doctrine of justification by faith alone, his view essentially matches

the historical understanding of this truth as taught by the magisterial Reformers (8398).

A noted emphasis in chapter four by Peterson is the belief that the doctrine of the

resurrection has been quite overlooked as compared to the emphasis on Christs death upon

the cross. Peterson desires to see equal weight given to both, and therefore states that Jesus

died as our substitute . . . but he also saves us as our resurrected representativeas the One

who lives on our behalf. His resurrection saves us as he, who died for us, is freed from death by

God (128). He also writes: Christs death and resurrection are so essential to Christianity and

so inseparable that when the Bible speaks of either one of them, we are to infer the other as

well (130). Peterson maintains that Christs resurrection from the dead brings justification and

forgiveness, establishes our peace with God, and inaugurates the new creation (139150).

One of the unique contributions by Peterson is the discussion of the vital link between the

death and resurrection of Christ and those aspects of His post-death/resurrection work. This

includes His ascension, session, the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, Christs present

intercession for believers, and His second coming.

Regarding Christs ascension in chapter five, Peterson writes:

Unfortunately, many Christians today neglect the

doctrine of the ascension. Perhaps this neglect is due to the fact

that although Christians confess belief in the ascension of Christ,

they do not understand the ascensions place in the work of Christ

or its effect on their lives. The Bible, however, teaches that theascension is a saving event (152).

He explains:

The ascension is the linchpin of Christs saving work

bridging his earthly and heavenly ministries, an essential part of

his sacrificial work as he presents his perfect sacrifice before the

Father, and a fuller realization of the reconciliation between God

and man as Christ represents humanity in the presence of the

Father (152).

When Peterson ties the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus to His session in

chapter six, He explains:

Jesuss session saves. After his death, resurrection, and

ascension, Jesus sat down at the right hand of God the Father, the

place of highest honor and authority in the universe. He did not

walk, as in his earthly ministry; stretch out his arms, as on the


14/36

cross; or lift his hands in priestly blessing, as he was carried to

heaven in his ascension . . . . Instead, he sat down to complete his

exaltation begun in his resurrection and ascension. He sat down

as prophet, priest, and king (203).

According to chapter seven, the work of Christ at Pentecost is also part and parcel ofHis saving activity: Pentecost is Jesuss unique, nonrepeatable deed, as unique and

nonrepeatable as his dying for our sins and rising again (206). He goes on to say:

The giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, predicted by

Joel and the Four Evangelists, is especially Jesuss deed. It is an act

that he performs. It is as much an aspect of his saving work as

dying for our sins and rising on the third day. Pentecost is properly

understood only as a saving action of the Christ whereby he

applies the benefits of his death and resurrection to the church.

Pentecost is a unique and unrepeatable redemptive-historical

deed of the Messiah. It is important to understandPentecost is

as singular and unrepeatable a work of Jesus, as is his being

delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification

(Rom. 4:25) (214215).

Jesus Christ, the baptizer with the Holy Spirit, therefore places the elect into the body of

Christ at Pentecost and who sends the Spirit to His church so that they may serve their heavenly

Father as the new covenant community.

Moving into the Sons work as our intercessor in chapter eight, Peterson reasons from

Scripture that,When Christ ascends to heaven and sits at the right hand of God,

he assumes his place as our exalted prophet, priest, and king.

Specifically, as our priest he is now interceding for us. . . . Having made

the final sacrifice for sin, our High Priest has now entered into the

heavenly tabernacle to perform the second half of his priestly work, to

make intercession. . . . Christ saves his people, not only by sacrificing his

life for them, but also by offering himself to the Father in their behalf and

by effectively praying for them that they might persevere until final

salvation (227228).

In his culmination of these points, Peterson speaks of the necessity of affirming our

Lords second coming in chapter nine:

The second coming triggers the final outworking of the saving

purposes of God. . . . Jesuss return will save because only then will he

give his people their inheritance and place in Gods final kingdom. . . .


15/36

They will enter into the fullness of their salvation only when their King

comes back (251, 253).

In the second section of the book (273575), Peterson amplifies the work of Christ by

detailing six biblical pictures of the Sons role in salvation as: Reconciler, Redeemer, Legal

Substitute, Victor, Second Adam, and finally, our Sacrifice. These selected pictures help fill ourunderstanding of what Jesus did in His earthly role in order to redeem His people. Taking these

facets of Christs saving work from various dimensions of human life, Peterson explains:

Scripture interprets Christs saving work by painting pictures. It uses images, motifs, themes to

explain what Jesus did for us. Although there are many such images in Scripture, I count six

major ones. These pictures come from six spheres of life: human relationships, the institution of

slavery, the court of law, the battlefield, creation, and worship (274).

As to Christ as our Reconciler, Peterson acknowledges that the Old Testament does not

provide a clear link to later New Testament teaching on the subject: Surprisingly, unlike any of

the other major biblical pictures describing Christs saving work, and unlike the great majority

of New Testament themes, reconciliation appears to lack clear Old Testament background

(277). Within the New Testament however, Scripture gives this picture of our salvation as a

wonderful way to show how God the Father takes the initiative to become our friend, even

while we were His avowed enemies. Reconciliation is a picture of salvation drawn from the

arena of personal relations. And the need of reconciliation is fractured personal relations. We

need to be reconciled because we are Gods foes due to our sins (280). Because of the work

of Christ the Mediator, God no longer reckons believers sins against them; that is,

reconciliation through Christ brings forgiveness (284). Peterson can even speak of the doctrine

of reconciliation as operating on more than one level:

Reconciliation operates on multiple levelsindividual,corporate, and even cosmic. . . . This universal uniting brings

harmony or reconciliation to Gods universe. . . . The cross,

therefore, is multidirectional. Taking into account all of

Scriptures teaching, the cross is directed toward God himself (in

propitiation); toward our enemies, including demons, to defeat

them; toward men and women to redeem them; and toward the

whole creation to deliver it from its bondage to decay and to

bring it into the freedom of the glory of the children of God

(Rom. 8:21) (295, 301).

In addition to Christ as Reconciler, Peterson shows us His work as Redeemer. He affirms

that the Old Testament narratives that describe the deliverance of the children of Israel forms

the pattern by which the New Testament draws its language and background for the

redemption of sinners by Jesus, most notably, Mark 10:45. He concludes: Redemption in the

New Testament is a picture of Christs saving work that depicts lost persons in various states of

bondage and presents Christ as Redeemer, who through his deathexpressed in a number of

waysclaims people as his own and sets them free (353).


16/36

In chapter twelve, Jesus Christ is our Legal Substitute is discussed. He argues for the

vicarious, penal substitution by Jesus on behalf of sinners. Studying all the Old Testament

passages, especially Isaiah 53, he concludes: Isaiah 52:1353:12 is a powerful prediction of

the substitutionary atoning sacrifice of the Christ (371). Summarizing his position, he writes:

In Scripture a loving and holy God takes the initiative and propitiates his own justice by bearingthe brunt of his wrath against sin to freely forgive his rebellious creatures (375). Citing

Galatians 3:13 as a key text in the New Testament, he concludes: This is as strong a statement

of Christs being our legal penal substitute as is found in Scripture (386). Further arguing

against a universal or general atonement, he states that Christs substitutionary atonement is

effective. . . . And if his saving work is substitutionary and efficacious, there are only two

possibilities: either it is universal and everyone is saved, or it is particular and all whom God has

chosen are saved. Universalism is incompatible with the Bibles message, so Christs atonement

is vicarious, effective, and particularhe has died to save his people from their sins (411; cf.

also the appendix, 566575, where Peterson argues for a definite, particular atonement ).

Peterson also makes a considerable effort in defending the doctrine of penal substitution,

answering common objections (396407). He thus ends the chapter by writing, Christ dies as

a penal substitute for individuals, for his church, and to deliver the whole creation from the

curse of sin (Rom. 8:19-23; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 John 2:2; 1 Pet. 3:18) (412).

Chapter thirteen pictures Christ as Victor. Acknowledging the warrior motif in

Scriptureespecially in the Old Testamenthe cites numerous passages where God the Father

is seen as the vanquisher of all His enemies, thus proving His sovereign conquest over all His

foes. When Peterson starts to survey the New Testament data, he writes: The Old Testament

divine-warrior image becomes incarnate in Jesus Christ who is Christus Victor (425). Citing the

obvious differences between Christ as Victor in the New Testament and God the Father as

divine warrior in the Old Testament, including the spiritual battles Jesus wages against Satanand his demon followers, Peterson nevertheless writes: Jesus is the champion of his people

who binds the strong man, plunders his house, and divides his spoil (Luke 11:22); he

overpowers the demons and frees those who have been possessed by them (429). Regarding

the spiritual vanquishing of sin on behalf of sinners, Peterson concludes: The Synoptic Gospels,

especially Matthew, include divine-warrior motifs when presenting Jesuss crucifixion and its

effects (431). Surveying the book of Acts, Peterson affirms: The Lord Jesus, our champion,

routed the demons in his earthly ministry and continues to do the same through his apostles in

the Acts (439), and for the apostle Paul, Peterson summarizes: For Paul, Christ is the mighty

Victor, who defeats our adversaries in his death and resurrection (441). And in the

resurrection of Jesus, Peterson can surmise: It is clear that the Fathers raising the Son andseating him at his right hand are the supreme displays of power from which the readers are to

draw confidence. And we can imply that Christs forever being far above all rule and authority

and power and dominion means that the evil powers are subject to him, the Victor (442). He

summarizes his findings:

Christ our champion is the New Testament picture of

Jesus as the incarnation of Yahweh, the divine warrior of the Old


17/36

Testament. The mighty Son of God who became a human being

defeats foes that are far more powerful than we through his

death and resurrection. His work as Christus Victor brings us

partial victory now and complete deliverance in the resurrection

and new earth (460).

Peterson presents in chapter fourteen the picture of Christ as our Second Adam. For

instance, commenting on Romans 5:12-21, Peterson writes:

Underlying Pauls teaching is his assumption that one of

the ways Adam is a type of the one who was to come is as a

covenant head. Adam and Christ are the two covenant heads of

their respective races. Adam is the covenant head of all

humankind; Christ the covenant head of the race of the

redeemed. . . . Paul presents Adam as the representative of the

human race, whose primal sin brought Gods verdict of

condemnation and resulted in death, both physical and spiritual. .

. . Adam ruins his race and Christ rescues his. . . . All human beings

are fallen in Adam, and all believers are saved in Christ. . . . Paul

exalts the work of the second Adam. His lifelong obedience

resulting in death counters Adams primal disobedience. . . .

(47275).

As our Second Adam, Peterson can reason thus about Jesus:

His sinless life has a role to play in his work of salvation.

As the second Adam he had to undergo human life without sinfrom conception to adulthood in order to be qualified to save his

people from their sins. His living a sinless life was a prerequisite to

his saving death and resurrection. In that sense, his sinless earthly

life saves too (496).

Peterson concludes in chapter fifteen with the picture of Christ as our Sacrifice. This

chapter, rich in the explanation of both the imagery and teaching regarding the Old Testament

sacrificial system (501512), helps us also see how the New Testament fills out and explains

the Person of Jesus as the final and complete Sacrifice for sin, especially from the Book of

Hebrews. For instance, Peterson writes: The book of Hebrews is a literary and theologicalmasterpiece that has more to say about Christ as High Priest and sacrifice than the rest of the

New Testament combined (522). It was Christ, the Mediator of the new covenant whose

sacrifice redeemed Old Testament saints from the transgressions committed under the first

covenant (Heb. 9:15). This means that Christs atoning sacrifice not only saves all who come

after him and trust in him as Lord and Savior, but it also saves all who came before him and

believed the gospel communicated through the sacrifices (530). He concludes by writing:


18/36

What [Old Testament] sacrifices cannot do, the incarnate

divine Son does. . . . The Son identifies with his people by willingly

taking a human body with which he will perform Gods will (Heb.

10:5-7). Christ abolishes the Old Testament sacrifices, associated

with the Mosaic law (and thereby abolishes that law), to

accomplish Gods will (vv. 8-9) in his body. . . . By doing Gods willand offering himself in his body once for all time there results the

definitive sanctification of his people. This is a once-for-all

consecration, constituting them the saints of God. Flowing from it

is their progressive sanctification, their gradual growth in holiness.

. . . (535).

Peterson concludes his major study on the Person and work of Christ (550565) by

summarizing the work of the Son in three directions: toward God the Father Himself (upward,

and which is the most fundamental and profound (563); toward the whole creation (a believers

horizontal dimension); and toward our enemies (downward) (560). Salvation is therefore

upward, in that Christs work influences the life of God the Father Himself, and thus that God

in Christ affects God (563); horizontal, in that it involves the salvation of human beings; and

finally, downward (which is a derivative of the upward direction), in that it vanquishes all Gods

foes.

If there are any areas within the book which I would have cited my own interpretive

differences with the author, I could point out his belief that the church of the New Testament

spiritually replaces Israel of the Old Testament (e.g. pages 114, 350, and 361), thus making one

assume there is no future plan for the salvation of national Israel. And if there are other

differences in interpreting some specific passages in light of his overall views, I would

nevertheless still commend his work as a marvelously rich study into the blessed work of theSon of God. This book is itself an obvious testament to Petersons long years of reflection upon

both the Old and New Testaments teaching on the atonement for sinners, which has been

provided believers by and through our Lord Jesus Christ. After reading this important book by a

Reformed, thoroughgoing Evangelical theologian, I must say that I was so wonderfully

encouraged, edified, and educated regarding these various facets of our salvation in Christ. I

heartily commend this book, with the hope that you too would seek to relish the full richness of

what the Word of God teaches regarding the believers Salvation Accomplished by the Son.


19/36

Did Tongues Cease or Not?By Phil Johnson

Time to face honestly the reality that contemporary charismata aren't anything like the

original Pentecostal miracles. Let's not be too quick to write off cessationism.

It is an irrefutable fact of history that the supernatural phenomena described in Acts 2 were

peculiar to that one day of Pentecost and have not been normative in the life of the church over

the centuries.

Several visible and audible supernatural features occurred when the Holy Spirit was sent to

empower the church at Pentecost. In all of Scripture and church history none of those miracles has

ever been credibly documented in any other incident. There was a "noise like a violent rushing

wind" (Acts 2:2); visible "tongues as of fire" that rested on the apostles (v. 3); and crowds of

thousands, all simultaneously hearing understandable, inspired revelation in their own languages

as the Spirit gave utterance (vv. 4-11).

In other words, the spoken "tongues" at Pentecost were known, translatable, humanlanguages. (Verses 9-11 list by name ten distinct language groups that were heard.) The human

instruments through whom the miracle occurred evidently included not only the apostles but

more than a hundred of their cohorts as well (cf. Acts 1:15). All of them spoke in tongues at once

unscripted, unrehearsed, and totally unexpected. There simply is no parallel for what occurred on

that singular day. It was the inaugural day of the New Testament church. It was unique by God's

own design.

TONGUES AFTER PENTECOST

In all the narrative portions of the New Testament there are only two verses outside Acts 2

where speaking in tongues is even mentioned: Acts 10:46 and 19:6. Both texts record significant

transitional events in the establishment of the New Testament church.

Acts 10 describes the conversion of Cornelius and his householdthe first graphic proof

that the middle wall of partition between the Jewish nation and the rest of the world had been

broken down. Tongues on that occasion furnished undeniable proof that the Spirit of God would

henceforth indwell Gentile believers exactly as He indwelt those original disciples in Jerusalem.

The Acts 19 incident symbolically marks the completion of the transition from Old

Covenant to New. With that transition came a new, unprecedented relationship with the Holy

Spirit, who would henceforth permanently indwell every believer. These disciples of John the

Baptist were Old Covenant saintsmen who had come to saving faith and then evidently left the

region before Jesus announced the gospel and His ministry began to eclipse John the Baptist's.

Once John's disciples heard and believed the full truth about Jesus, they were immediatelybrought into the New Covenant relationship. Tongues were the proof that they had received the

Spirit just like the disciples at Pentecost.

Other than Pentecost and those two subsequent transitional incidents, the only place in

the New Testament where speaking in tongues is mentioned is in Paul's first epistle to the

Corinthians. His main reason for dealing with the subject in that context was to correct those in

Corinth who had elevated tongues to a position of undue prominence. Notice: Paul ranked

tongues as the leastof all spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:28). He expressly denied that jabbering


20/36

noises devoid of discernible meaning were a legitimate expression of the Holy Spirit's gift of

tongues (14:10). On the contrary, he stressed that authentic tongues were a form of divine

revelation. (That's precisely what Acts 2:4 means: "as the Spirit was giving them utterance.") Paul

therefore forbade speaking in tongues unless the message could be translated and its meaning

confirmed (1 Corinthians 14:27-28).

None of those principles is given proper consideration by contemporary charismatics.Indeed, the so-called charismatic phenomena that abound today don't really look anything like the

supernatural manifestations that occurred at Pentecost.

There is every biblical, historical, and theological reason to conclude that the gift of

tongues has ceased. That goes for all other forms of revelatory prophecy that were common in the

apostolic era.

CESSATIONISM

Prior to the 20th century it would have been hard to find any Protestant who believed the

gift of tongues (or any of the revelatory gifts) continued uninterrupted from the time of the

apostles through all of church history. The evidence of history speaks loudly against that view.

Practically all biblically-minded believers prior to the 1900s regarded revelatory gifts and

miraculous abilities as "the signs of a true apostle" (2 Corinthians 12:12). Such gifts faded from

prominence in the early church even before most of the New Testament epistles were written. By

the time the apostolic era ended, trustworthy accounts of apostolic-quality signs and wonders had

ceased completely.

That view is known as cessationism. It was almost uncontested among evangelicals for

hundreds of years before the mid-twentieth century. Church history is of course peppered with

superstitious marvels, exaggerated urban legends, spurious relics, and fraudulent miracle-workers.

(Bogus miracle-claims increased dramatically in medieval times along with the rise of

extrabiblicalsacerdotalism and the festering corruption of the Catholic priesthood.) But from the

post-apostolic era until the 1960s Christians who sought to be biblically-based and theologicallyorthodox did notbelieve or claim that they had apostolic miracle-gifts at their disposal.

CONTINUATIONISM

Things have certainly changed. Cessationism is categorically out of vogue today. Not only

has the charismatic movement become massively popular on a worldwide scale, but even many

non-charismatics have backed away from classic cessationism, giving it up for continuationism, the

belief that all the spiritual gifts of the apostolic era are still available to the church today

particularly those gifts that involved prophetic and miraculous phenomena.

Continuationism typically fosters an undue fascination with (and craving for) gifts that

confer miraculous abilities. Of course, one of the hallmarks of charismatic teaching has alwaysbeen the idea that it is the birthright of every Christian to prophesy and do miracles. That belief is

based on a misunderstanding of Joel 2:28-32 (quoted by Peter in Acts 2:17-21). Notice that the

text speaks of apocalyptic signstokens of judgment, actuallyin the sun, moon, and sky. That

aspect of Joels prophecy clearly points toward something yet future. Without getting sidetracked

with a lengthy analysis of the eschatological significance of Joel 2, it ought to be clear from the text

itself that Joels prophecy encompasses far more than the tongues of Pentecost.Joels main focus

is an unprecedented display of divine power in the heavens. Most of the signs he describes are


21/36

undeniable cosmic wonderssomething far more convincing than the questionable miracles

claimed by the contemporary charismatic movement.

In any case, when Peterquoted Joels prophecy at Pentecost, what he emphasized was the

promise of salvation: Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. That was the

introduction to Peters sermon. He said nothing whatsoever about the apocalyptic elements of

Joel 2. He said nothing further about speaking in tongues or prophesying. Peters Pentecostsermon was not a message about the charismata; it was about Christs work of redemption and

the guilt of the nation for having crucified their Messiah. Acts 2 and Joel 2 combined simply do not

bear the weight of continuationist doctrine.

All charismatics are continuationists by definition, of course. And not so long ago, virtually

all non-charismatics were convinced cessationists. The lines of difference and debate were clearly

drawn.

Those distinctions have been severely blurred by the advent of a middle-road position.

Many non-charismatics now hold a continuationist view of the apostolic-era gifts. Typically they

say they find continuationism compelling not because they think today's charismatic phenomena

actually look like apostolic miracles (they clearly don't), but because they have concluded there is

no sound exegetical basis for the cessationist position.

On the surface, that may sound like a conscientiously biblical and objectively even-handed

position. In practice, however, it has led to a significant decline in critical thinking about

charismatic claims. The middle of the road is a hard place to hold one's ground, and there is a

relentless magnetism between continuationist presuppositions and charismatic practices.

THE DEATH OF DISCERNMENT

Meanwhile, as cessationist conviction has fallen out of fashion, the voice of biblical

discernment has been all but silenced. Among Reformed and evangelical leaders, it sometimes

seems as if a moratorium has been declared against any negative assessment of modern

charismatic doctrine or practice. Over the past decade and a half, leading Reformedcontinuationists have shown an almost obstinate unwillingness to voice any strong words of

caution against even the most outlandish charismatic fads.

To cite a few examples: John Piper and his pastoral staff investigated the Toronto Blessing

in the 1990s and declined to make any judgment about whether it was spurious or not. Sam

Storms lent his credibility the so-called Kansas City Prophets for at least a decade. Wayne Grudem

likewise aligned himself with some very bizarre prophetic abuses in his association with the

Vineyard movement and its offshoots. Jack Deere renounced cessationism in the 1980s and within

a few short years virtually engineered the spiritual train wreck that culminated in the public

disqualification of Paul Cain. And I can't think of a single Reformed continuationist leader who

sounded a clear warning (or even a mild disclaimer) about Todd Bentley's shenanigans when theLakeland disaster was at its peak.

It seems fair, then, to point out that the Reformed continuationist track record has been

less than stellar with regard to resisting dangerous and unbiblical elements in the charismatic

movement. That ought to be a burning embarrassment to our Reformed continuationist brethren.

ACLOSER LOOK AT CONTINUATIONIST CLAIMS


22/36

Furthermore, it seems to me that the continuationist position is both logically and

exegetically indefensible. The distinctive claim of contemporary charismatic and Pentecostal

teaching is that all the charismata are available today just as they were in apostolic times. In

particular, continuationists teach that he miraculous and revelatory gifts seen in the very early

church never ceased. Supposedly, everything the Holy Spirit was doing throughout the book of

Acts and 1 Corinthians 12-14 should still be happening today. That's the inevitable implication oftrue, consistent continuationism.

The problem is that virtually no one really believes that. Consistent continuationists are not

only extremely rare; they are also exceedingly dangerousoften claiming apostolic authority for

themselves and usually acting as if they believed the most vital and authoritative revelation

available to the church today is to be found not in Scripture, but in their own dreams and

prophecies about the latest "move of God."

It is a clear and indisputable implication of Scripture that the miraculous gifts of the

apostolic era had a specific and clearly defined purpose. It is likewise clear from Scripture that

apostolic miracles diddiminish in both frequency and importance, and they faded from use after

the era described in the book of Acts.

In the earliest days of the church, Peter and John healed a man who had been lame since

birth (Acts 3:2-8). Even Peter's shadow had healing power (Acts 5:15-16). When the gospel first

came to Ephesus, the sick could be healed and demonized people liberated by contact with pieces

of fabric that Paul had touched (Acts 19:12).

But at the end of his ministry, Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletus (2 Timothy 4:20), and he

counseled Timothy to drink wine medicinally for "frequent ailments" (1 Timothy 5:23). That, by the

way, was years before the New Testament canon was complete. Moreover, the decline of miracle

gifts was fully to be expected based on what Scripture does say about miracles. Miracles validated

the apostles' authority and confirmed their testimony "at the first" (Hebrews 2:3-4). They were not

permanently normative, even in the apostolic era. They were an essential corroboration of the

preached message in that transitional era between the covenants.There is no question that many important things were in flux during the transition from the

Old Covenant era to the New. The whole point of the book of Hebrews is that the ceremonial law

of the Old Testament is no longer binding on believers in the New Testament era. The priesthood,

and the Tabernacle, and the whole sacrificial system are no longer part of God's relationship with

His people.

Why? Because those things all pointed to something better. And now that the better thing

has come, the inferior things are done away with. (That is the very same point the apostle Paul

makes in 1 Corinthians 14, where he deals with the gift of tongues.) It is the very principle that

makes some degree of cessationism a necessity for people who take the Bible seriously.

LOOKING FOR A PROOF-TEXT?

Charismatics and continuationists will inevitably return to the main point they think settles

the issue: there is no passage or proof-text that tells us the miracle-gifts would cease at the end of

the apostolic era. Furthermore, continuationists believe they do have proof-texts for their position.

Hebrews 13:5: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." There's also John 14:12,

where Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do

also; and greater works than these he will do."


23/36

But consider what those verses actually teach. Hebrews 13:8 says nothing about the

apostolic gifts. It's about the immutability of Christ's character.

In fact, the problem with the Hebrews 13:8 argument is that it proves too much. If that

verse proves that everything in the book of Acts should be happening "forever," what about

"yesterday"? Does the verse also suggest that these things must have been happening throughout

redemptive history? Were miracles commonplace throughout the Old Testament? For that matter,did anyone ever repeat the miracles Moses performed? If the principle of Hebrews 13:8 proves

continuationism, why are miracles relatively rare not only in the Old Testament, but also in the

later narrative passages of the New Testament?

After Moses, we see multiple miracles from Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha. Scripture also

describes a handful of isolated miracles involving some of the Judges and prophets. But miracles

were by no means commonplacenor were they a reliable gauge of whether God is working or

not. God is always working providentially, but miracle-gifts are extremely rare.

Consider John the Baptist. In Matthew 11:11, Jesus said: "Truly, I say to you, among those

born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist." If miracle-working ability

were a valid measure of one's greatness and power, we might expect someone like John the

Baptist to be an amazing miracle worker. After all, according to Luke 1:17, John was sent to

prepare the way for Jesus "in the spirit and power of Elijah." Elijah, of course, did many miracles.

Miracles were practically the emblem of his ministry. But John 10:41 says "John did no miracle."

What happens to the typical charismatic application of Hebrews 13:8 in light of John the Baptist's

ministry?

For that matter, what about John 14:12? When charismatics cite that verse, it's fair to ask:

Is there any miracle-worker in the entire charismatic realm who has ever actually performed

greater signs and wonders than Jesus did? The answer, definitively, is no. But that's not the

promise of John 14:12 anyway. The text promises "greater works," not more spectacular signs. The

apostles' work of preaching the gospel exceeded Jesus' ministry in immediate scopenot in power

or perfection. They "turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6).As a cessationist, I'm willing to concede that there is no easy proof-text that furnishes a

ready explanation in a single, explicit biblical statement about when and how the apostolic

outpouring of miracles ceased. But I don't find that argument particularly persuasive. It's not really

different from the argument of the Jehovah's Witness who points out that there's not a single

proof-text that proves the doctrine of the Trinity. What is the appropriate answer to that? The

doctrine of the Trinity is the fruit of comparing Scripture with Scripture and understanding

everything the Bible teaches about the Godhead.

The same principle applies to cessationism.

Cessationists base their conviction not on a single proof text or exegetical argument. It is a

theological conclusion drawn from a number of biblical arguments, borne out by the plain facts ofhistory.

Again, Scripture does teach that the charismata had a specific, foundational, temporary

purpose. They are part of a hierarchy of supernatural signs and wonders associated with the

founding of the church. That hierarchy is clearly outlined in 1 Corinthians 12:28-30, and the text

expressly states that the miraculous gifts are notgiven universally to everyone in the church:

God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then

miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not


24/36

apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are

not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not

speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?

Not every church leader is an apostle. By that very same principle, gifts of tongues and miracles

were never intended for every believer.

Nowhere in Scripture are we taught that the life of every Christian is supposed to be onelong string of miracles. "Signs and wonders and mighty works" are expressly called "the signs of a

true apostle" in 2 Corinthians 12:12. The miraculous elements that were so common in the early

apostolic church were given to validate and authenticate the apostles' authority. Apostles were

instruments of divine revelation. The miracles were undeniable verification that these men who

claimed to be speaking for God were indeed speaking the truth of God with God's authorization. In

the words of Hebrews 2:4, "God [was bearing them] witness by signs and wonders and various

miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."

YOU'RE PROBABLY A CESSATIONIST,TOO

Regardless of your views about the charismatic giftsunless you are someone who is far

out on the fringe of charismatic lunacyyou probably believe the apostolic office ended with the

death of the apostle John. Here's the thing: There is no proof text for that.

Can we agree also with the historic Protestant conviction that the canon of Scripture is

complete and closed? New, inspired, inerrant, authoritative Scripture is not being written today.

But there is no easy, irrefutable proof text for that, either.

The biblical and historical rationale all Protestants use to justify our belief that the canon is

closed is the very same biblical and theological logic that persuades me the miraculous gifts served

their purpose in the apostolic generation and no longer function in the church.

I'll go further: I think in their hearts, even the best charismatics believe that more than they

might wish to admit. No one but the rankest crackpot charlatan (or a pope) would ever claim to be

a pure and complete open-canon non-cessationist with infallible apostolic authority. Consider thiscarefully: charismatics who acknowledge that the canon is closed and the gift of apostleship has

ceased have already conceded the very heart of the cessationist argument, proof text or no.

That's not all. Continuationists who genuinely seek to be biblical cannot possibly defend

the assertion that all the charismatic gifts are functioning today in exactly the same way they did in

the book of Acts. And even though many will loudly claim otherwise, they have not shown any

willingness to put that claim to the test. I became a Christian 40 years ago in Tulsa, a thriving

center of charismatic activity. For decades I have been challenging my charismatic friends to

document a single verifiable, authenticated, apostolic-quality miracle-gift. (For example: identify

someone who has the ability regularly and reliably to command healings, the way Peter and Paul

did.) I have yet to meet a charismatic miracle-worker who is willing to subject hismiracle-gift-claims to any kind of careful, biblical scrutiny.

Think about this: millions of people claim to be speaking in tongues, but there is not a

single well-attested, tape-recorded, verifiable case of a recognizable, translatable, identifiable

language such as we see at Pentecost. Has any charismatic preacher truly raised a Eutychus from

the dead? With the 20th century's proliferation of charismatic faith-healers, why do the healings

nearly always involve invisible ailments? Why are people with congenital disabilities, complete

blindness, and other permanent infirmities routinely screened from the healing lines?


25/36

Wayne Grudem has more or less conceded that the charismatic phenomena of today are

not really apostolic-quality spiritual gifts. His book The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and

Today(Wheaton: Crossway, 1988) was written to defend the practice of seeking personal

prophecies directly from God. A hundred pages or so into the book, Grudem makes the startling

claim that "no responsible charismatic holds" the view that prophecy today is infallible and

inerrant revelation from God.4

He says charismatics are arguing for a "lesserkind of prophecy,"5

which is not on the same level as the inspired prophecies of the Old Testament prophets or the

New Testament apostlesand which will probably be fallible more often than not.

Grudem writes, there is almost uniform testimony from all sections of the charismatic

movement that [today's] prophecy is impure, and will contain elements which are not to be

obeyed or trusted.

In Surprised by the Power of the Holy Spirit(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), Jack Deere

likewise admits that he has not seen anyone today performing miracles or possessing gifts of the

same quality as those that were being manifest in the apostolic era. Deere argues throughout his

book that modern charismatics do not really claim to have apostolic-quality gifts and miracle

abilities. One of Deere's main lines of defense against critics of the charismatic movement is his

claim that modern charismatic gifts are actually lesser gifts than those available in the apostolic

era, and therefore, he suggests, todays charismatics should not be held to apostolic standards.

Consider the implications of that claim: The chief apologists for charismatic theology have,

in effect, conceded the entire cessationist argument. They have virtually admitted that they are

themselves cessationists of sorts. They are in effect confessing that the true apostolic gifts and

miracles have ceased, admitting that what they are doing today is not what is described in the

New Testament.

Contemporary tongues-speakers do not speak in understandable or translatable dialects,

the way the apostles and their followers did at Pentecost. Not one tongues speaker has ever gone

to a foreign mission-field and miraculously been able to preach the gospel in the tongue of his

hearers. Charismatics have to go to language school like everyone else.No modern worker of signs and wonders can really duplicate apostolic power.

Even the most vocal advocates of the gift of prophecy admit that no modern prophet can

legitimately claim to have infallible authority.

No modern faith healer can actually produce instant, visible healings that are like the

healings we see in the New Testament. Though some make fantastic claims, no modern faith

healer is opening the eyes of people born blind, and no one is able to make truly lame people

walk.

Above all, despite many fanciful and unsubstantiated legends that have been circulated,

despite the vast numbers of charismatics who claim the ability to do even greater works than Jesus

Himself, there is not one credible, verifiable case of a charismatic miracle-worker who can raisethe dead.

4Grudem, p. 111.

5Ibid, p. 112.


26/36

The simple fact is that the gifts that operate in the charismatic movement today are not

the same gifts described in the New Testament, and even most charismatics are ultimately forced

to admit that.

Its time for Reformed continuationists to face these facts humbly honestly. Instead of

stifling debate about charismatic doctrine in the name of charity and unity, we ought to be

pursuing the debate with greater vigor, until we all attain to the unity of the faith (Ephesians4:13).


27/36

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO CHURCH HISTORY(PART 1)By Nathan Busenitz

It was just over 500 years ago, in the fall of 1510, that a desperate Roman Catholic monk made

what he thought would be the spiritual pilgrimage of a lifetime.

He had become a monk five years earliermuch to the surprise and dismay of his father, who

wanted him to become a lawyer. In fact, it was on his way home from law school, that this

young manthen 21 years oldfound himself in the midst of a severe thunderstorm. The

lightning was so intense he thought for sure he was going to die. Fearing for his life, and relying

on his Roman Catholic upbringing, he called out for help. Saint Anne, he cried, Spare me and

I will become a monk! Fifteen days later, he left law school behind and entered an Augustinian

monastery in Erfurt, Germany.

The fear of death had prompted him to become a monk. And it was the fear of Gods wrath that

consumed him for the next five yearsso much so, in fact, that he did everything within hispower to placate his guilty conscience and earn Gods favor.

He became the most fastidious of all of the monks in the monastery. He dedicated himself to

the sacraments, fasting, and penance. He even performed acts of self-punishmentlike going

without sleep, enduring cold winter nights without a blanket, and whipping himself in an

attempt to atone for his sins. Reflecting on this time of his life, he would later say, If anyone

could have earned heaven by the life of a monk, it was I. Even his supervisor, the head of the

monastery, became concerned that this young man was too introspective and too consumed

with questions about his own salvation.

But the haunting questions would not go a

Documents

Magazine Pulpit-2012-10 John MacArthur