Wednesday, November 22, 2006

A Cover Song

I found a great cover of U2's Sunday Bloody Sunday by an up-and-coming solo artist.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Disturbing Psalms

I have been listening to the band Sons of Korah for the past few weeks. Stuart Briscoe got me listening to them. Well, okay, I don't actually know Stuart. But he started promoting them to his church, and that's why the guy in their church bookstore recommended them to me. But I would like to say that Stuart did actually stop by and say hi to the bookstore salesman while he was showing me the Sons of Korah CD, so I think that counts for something.

Each of their songs are taken from a psalm or portion of a psalm set to music. I really enjoy it, especially being able to appreciate some of the psalms in a new way.

So of course I start thinking about the "difficult" psalms. I bet Psalm 137 is not high on their list of psalms to set to music, I think. Verse 9 says, "How blessed is the man who takes your babies and dashes them against the rocks!" I'm sure this will be at the end of their list and it will be interesting to hear how they pull that one off.

So imagine my surprise when I bring home their Songs of Redemption CD from the Elmbrook library, only to find that Track 1 is Psalm 137! TRACK 1! Not only did they manage to pull it off, it actually became the anchor song for the entire album, setting up our need for redemption with a heart-cry from the Jewish exiles in Babylon. What really makes is come alive is the answer to this psalm in the final track (10), based on Psalm 126, about how the Lord did bring them back from captivity. That, of course, is the substance of redemption, when God redeems His people from captivity.

Nevertheless, I must comment on the fact that they did use a looser translation of verse 9. Instead of "dash[ing] their babies against the rocks," it is "destroy[ing] your progeny." So it gives a meaning sort of like, "You destroyed all that we have done and built, so someone will one day destroy all that you have done and built." A bit of a cop-out? Perhaps. I'm still amazed at how they took one of the most disturbing psalms in the Psalter and used it to really minister to me.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Continuation of the Apostolic Office

I originally wrote this paper for a course in missions, but reworked it for a Systematic Theology class. I included it as an appendix to a position paper on supernatural gifts of the Spirit. Also, see my continuing discussion of charismatic theology.

Contemporary Apostles
Gaffin provides four lines of reasoning that link the supernatural gifts to the office of apostle. If the apostolic office has passed away, then so have the gifts; if the gifts remain, so much the apostolic office. Though Gaffin’s four arguments are not all equally compelling, he has supported his overall case. As I have made a case for the charismatic view of supernatural gifts, I also contend that the apostolic office was never intended to pass away. Taylor states that “it is a linguistic quirk of history that the term for a missionary shifted from apostle to missionary.”
[1] The term “missionary” is not found in the Bible, but the Greek equivalent, found 80 times in the New Testament, is “apostelos.” From this, we get the term “apostle” and “apostolic.” Much of the current debate arises from a misunderstanding of the function of apostles and the creation of a new “missionary” office.
Wayne Grudem presents several arguments for apostolic cessation.
[2] First, the primary requirement for biblical apostleship was having seen Jesus, so there can be no modern apostles . Three main passages are brought as evidence of this requirement. In Acts 1.22, the replacement for Judas Iscariot was required to have been a witness of the resurrection. Paul implies the same thing in 1 Cor 9.1-2. Finally, in 1 Cor 15, Paul places himself on equal footing with the other apostles because he has witnessed the risen Jesus.
A second argument for the cessation of the apostolic office is that the apostles had the authority to speak and write the very words of God. Since the canon of scripture is closed, the apostolic office must now be obsolete.
[3] However the evidence that the apostles had this kind of authority is lacking. Grudem provides three examples. In Acts 5, lying to the apostles is equated with lying to the Holy Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 2.13, Paul asserts that his words were directly taught by the Holy Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 14.37 Paul says that the things that he writes are the Lord’s command.
Third, is the charge that anyone who takes the title apostle is probably doing so out of wrong motives. Only the arrogant would seek to apply the apostolic title to themselves.
Finally, Grudem notes that there was a non-technical usage of apostolos in the New Testament, referring simply to a messenger. This non-technical use differed from the primary use of the term, which was used to designate a special apostolic office. This non-technical usage may still be held today, though its meaning is somewhat different from the non-technical usage in the New Testament.
How shall we evaluate Grudem’s arguments? It seems appropriate to begin with an analysis of the way the New Testament uses the term, apostle. Out of 80 uses of apostle in the New Testament, 70 are found in Paul and Luke/Acts. The remaining ten usages refer specifically to the 12 apostles.
[4] Paul’s clearest passage on the subject of apostleship is found in 1 Corinthians 15.7-9, where he writes that the risen Jesus, “…appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” Several things are clear from this passage. First, there was a distinction between “Cephus (Peter) [and] the twelve,” and “James [and] all the apostles.” Paul does not limit the apostolic office to the original twelve apostles. For instance, Andronicus and Junia,[5] are named as apostles (Romans 16.7), though we know nothing else about them. Second, Paul seems to imply that he is not on equal footing with the twelve, but he is with the rest of the apostles. Third, Paul claims that he was the “last of all” to see the Lord, not that he was the last apostle of all.[6]
Luke, on the other hand, uses the term apostle quite often, but always in reference to the twelve. The only exceptions occur in Acts 14.4 and 14 where the term is applied to Paul and Barnabus. F.F. Bruce argues that Luke only uses the term here because he is quoting from another source, and his intention is that it be taken in the non-technical sense.[7]
From the perspective of a unified biblical canon, those whom Luke and the other biblical authors call apostles, Paul calls the twelve. Those whom Paul calls apostles are not called apostles in Luke (with the two exceptions already noted). So it is clear that the entire biblical witness reserves a special designation for the Twelve. Modern theologians, following non-Pauline usage, refer to the Twelve as Apostles (with a capital A). A second category is Paul’s non-technical use of apostle (with a small a). [8] The word apostolos was infrequently used before the New Testament period, and when it was, it was primarily for messengers sent by sea.[9] It is unlikely for the early Christians to coin a new technical use of the term only revive the non-technical usage in a small number of passages. Even if we allow this non-technical usage (apostle, small-a), Paul places himself (and James) in this category and not with the Twelve.[10] It is much more likely that there is no distinction between technical and non-technical usage, and the standard use was equivalent to our modern term missionary. Similarly, in Luke it seems likely that he made a decision as a writer to refer consistently to the twelve (and no one else) as apostles for narrative clarity.
If this is true, then there is no real distinction between apostle and missionary at all, and Jesus’ commission to the twelve was a missionary commission that applies to the entire missionary endeavor. There is no reason to believe that the apostolic-missionary office would ever “pass away”. It is notable that the same sort of reasoning used to deny the modern-day apostolic office was once used to defend our lack of missionary zeal – the apostolic mandate to reach the world with the gospel ended when the apostolic office passed away.
How, then, do we respond to the claim that one requirement for an apostle is having seen the risen Jesus? For the replacement of Judas, this was not the only requirement – he was also required to have been disciple from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. These were fitting requirements to replace a member of the Twelve. Paul himself could not have met this requirement. This in fact, was probably the very kind of accusation that Paul had to respond to in 1 Corinthians 9.1-2. In chapters 8-10, Paul is building a case that we ought to lay down our rights in deference to one another. In chapter 9 he uses himself as an illustration of laying down one’s rights – the rights of an apostle to be supported financially by the community. He therefore takes verses 2 and 3 to briefly defend his apostleship: “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.” Nowhere does Paul make an explicit claim that an apostle is required to have seen the Lord. More likely, he is attempting to bolster his own claim to apostleship in order that the Corinthian church will continue to listen to him rather than being deceived by false teachings. In fact, Paul probably considered his encounter with Jesus to be the confirmation of his apostolic call, not a requirement for it.
In 1 Corinthians 15, cited above, Paul equates his sighting of Jesus with those of the other apostles. However we also noted that Paul was the last to see, not the last of the apostles in the sense that Mohammed claimed to be the last of the prophets. We must note that the apostolic office was will mentioned in the Didache (11.3-6) written as late at A.D. 150. That would mean that apostles continued to be sent out of churches for two, three, or even four more generations after Paul’s time.
Grudem’s second argument is generally the most troubling for evangelicals, who equate apostolic authority with scriptural authority. But this equation is misleading. No biblical text makes this explicit. In Acts 5, lying to the apostles is equated with lying to the Holy Spirit. However an examination of Luke’s understanding of the working of the Holy Spirit reveals that the Holy Spirit empowers the church corporately, not just the apostles. What is sinful is lying to the Spirit-empowered church represented by the apostles, not lying to the apostles qua apostles. In 1 Corinthians 2.13, Paul asserts that his words were directly taught by the Holy Spirit. But this argument cuts both ways. Paul is not here appealing to his apostolic authority, but to the fact the Holy Spirit inspired his message. By implication, the Corinthians should not listen to an uninspired apostle. In 1 Corinthians 14.37 Paul says that the things that he writes are the Lord’s command. But again, this is not an appeal to apostolic authority, but rather an appeal to authority outside of himself – the Lord’s authority. It is the content of the message rather than the position of the messenger that makes it true.
There are further problems with Grudem’s model of apostolic authority. The first is what to do with apostolic error (i.e. Peter, Galatians 2.11-14) or dispute (Paul and Barnabus, Acts 15.39). Second, this model only really works in hindsight, because the canon is closed. Traditionalists can argue for this position because it is a safe, unchangeable tradition. But there was a time in history when the apostles had not ceased to speak and canon was not yet closed. At that time the notion of apostolic authority was much riskier, especially to the traditionalist, because of the uncertainty of what they have not yet said. Third, even Paul claimed that it was his message, not his position, that made his words true (Galatians 1.8-9). Finally, five of the 27 books of the New Testament (almost 20%) were not written by apostles. On the other hand, only five of the 15 undisputed apostles
[12] (30%) wrote any portion of scripture. Scripture does not appear to be especially tied to apostolic infallibility.
What about the charge of wrong motives? While this may be true of some, the definition of apostle argued for here is one of function rather than status. The church does not need more “super-apostles” who exalt themselves, but she does need more apostolic missionaries who will lay down their lives for the Kingdom of God as Paul did.
Many men have functioned apostolically through history. A short list would include Augustine of Canterbury, Boniface, Martin Luther, Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf, John Wesley, Charles Finney, William Carey, and Hudson Taylor.
[13] While none of these men called himself an apostle, they all instinctively fulfilled the apostolic mandate. The modern apostolic movement can look to such men as spiritual fathers.

Barnett, P.W. 1993. “Apostle” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Bruce, F.F. 1988. The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Grudem, Wayne A. 1994 (2000). Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: ZondervanPublishingHouse.
Taylor, William D. 1999. Introduction to World Christian Missions tapes and notes from the Institute of Theological Studies course. Grand Rapids: Outreach, Inc.
Walls, Andrew F. 1999. “Missionary Societies and the Fortunate Subversion of the Church” in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, ed. Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne. Pasadena: William Carey Library.

[1] Taylor 1999, lecture 11.
[2]Grudem 1993, 905-911.
[3] Idem, 60-67. Grudem agrees with Gaffin (1996), who then turns the argument against him to reject all supernatural gifts.
[4] With the possible exception of John 13.16, mentioned above.
[5] Or possibly the masculine name “Junias.” The Greek is not certain.
[6] Even his sighting of Jesus as “last of all” should probably not be taken in an absolute sense. Paul’s main point was not that it could never occur again, but rather that his testimony about the resurrection was valid because he too had been an eyewitness of the risen Lord.
[7] Bruce 1988, p. 271, n.7; p.276, n.36.
[8] Examples usually given include 2 Corinthians 8.16-24, referring to Titus and another apostle; Philippians 2.25, to Epaphroditus. John 13.16, seems to support this view, referring non-specifically to a person sent by a sender.
[9] Barnett 1993, p.45.
[10] The only other option is that Paul developed a third category between the technical Apostle and non-technical apostle. This seems unlikely, as there are no indications that Paul held to a ‘hierarchy of aposticity.’
[11] Walls 1999, p.234.
[12] Grudem admits Paul, Barnabus, and James.
[13] Grudem himself partially concedes this point. “Today some people use the word apostle in a very broad sense, to refer to an effective church planter, or to a significant missionary pioneer (“William Carey was an apostle to India,” for example). If we use the word apostle in this broad sense, everyone would agree that there are still apostles today – for there are certainly effective missionaries and church planters today… But there is another sense for the word apostle. Much more frequently in the New Testament the word refers to a special office, ‘apostle of Jesus Christ.’ In this narrow sense of the term, there are no more apostles today, and we are to expect no more.” (906) It is difficult to understand why it is acceptable to refer to William Carey as “the apostle to India” but not as “the apostle of Jesus Christ to India.” Whose apostle was he?

Supernatural Gifts of the Spirit

I just turned in a paper last night stating my position on supernatural gifts in the contemporary church. Thought I'd throw it up on the blog real quick. Any feedback you'd like to give would be great. I just cut and pasted, so I don't know quite how well the formating will come across. Also, check out my continuing discussion of Charismatic Gifts.

The doctrine of supernatural gifts is one of the most exciting and pastorally relevant topics in systematic theology. All evangelical theologians agree that these gifts were operative during the period in which the New Testament was written. Luke records several instances of healing, speaking in tongues, and prophecy in the book of Acts. John the Seer similarly gives some indication of the function and usage of gifts in the cryptic book of Revelation. Paul’s letters give us a window into the way early churches used the gifts, especially speaking in tongues and prophecy, though we can easily become frustrated by how much the window obscures rather than reveals. Clearly the supernatural gifts of the Spirit comprise an integral strand of the gospel story. But the question remaining is what relationship the supernatural gifts have to our contemporary situation, or more accurately, what relationship we have to the supernatural gifts.
In particular, the debate has centered around three main groups of gifts, both derived from the key text of 1 Cor 12.8-10.
[1] The first group is the revelatory (or word) gifts, which include prophecy and speaking in tongues, and often word of wisdom and word of knowledge. Speaking in tongues is the primary gift associated with the Pentecostal movement. Some later Pentecostal groups and especially charismatic groups placed a greater emphasis on prophecy. Among these groups, the word of knowledge functions very similarly to prophecy, where the recipient supernaturally obtains propositional information, and its most common usage is to call out various kinds of healings needed among a particular congregation so that people may come forward for healing. Similarly, a word of wisdom is viewed as a kind of supernatural revelation, but specifying a course of action rather than prepositional information. For instance, Solomon exercised the word of wisdom in his judgment between the two harlots (1 Kings 3.16-28).
The second group of gifts are the healing gifts, includes healing and discernment of Spirits. The focus of the healing gift is to effect physical healing. The focus of discernment is to effect spiritual healing through casting out demons.
A third group, less often discussed, are the power gifts, which include faith and miracles, such as walking on water or raising the dead. These have received less attention in the relevant literature because they are not as common in Pentecostal, Charismatic, or Third Wave churches, but are gaining more prominence in what are increasingly called New Paradigm churches.[3]
Finally, a closely related topic is whether the apostolic office continues today. I include a discussion of modern apostles in an appendix.[4]

One of the most vocal opponents of contemporary supernatural gifts is Richard Gaffin.
[5] His position may be called the Cessationist view. Standing firmly in the reformed tradition of B.B. Warfield and the early twentieth century Princetonian school, Gaffin presents eight reasons why supernatural gifts are no longer operative. Seven focus on the revelatory group of gifts. Four are related to the cessation of the apostolic office.
1. The healing and power gifts are specifically related to the apostolic spread of the gospel. The apostolic period ended in the first century, and therefore, so did the apostolic gifts (2 Cor 12.12, Heb 2.3-4).
2. The revelatory gifts were likewise only functional during the initial stages of the church age. Paul says in Ephesians 2.20 that the church has been “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” and since the foundation has already been laid, the revelatory gifts no longer function (cf. Eph 3.5).
3. A consistent continuationist position is self refuting, for one must affirm the modern office of apostles, which necessarily means the canon of scripture cannot be closed. Yet all who deny the modern office of the apostle are no longer consistent, have at least partially affirmed a cessationist position. Moreover, there is no non-arbitrary reason for affirming supernatural gifts while denying modern apostles.
4. The revelatory gifts threaten the authority and sufficiency of scripture by effectively adding to the canon. Several defenders of modern prophecy see no distinction between Old and New Testament prophecy, which essentially affirms an addition to the canon.
5. Scripture gives no evidence that any New Testament prophecy should have less authority than scripture itself. A word from God always carries the authority of God. Those who believe in modern prophecy can no longer affirm sola scriptura.
6. Paul affirms that “when the perfect comes the imperfect [tongues and prophecies] will pass away” (1 Cor 13.8-14). In light of Ephesians 4.11-13, apostles will also continue until the perfection comes. Regardless of whatever else “perfection” may mean, tongues, prophecy, and the apostolic office must either continue together or end together.
7. The eschatological aspects of the church age do not require supernatural gifts to function throughout, but merely in the initial formative years.[8]
8. Charismatics cannot even affirm that modern charismatic gifts are the same gifts spoken of in scripture. Contemporary tongues are likely to be different from the New Testament gift of tongues. Similarly, no one is quite sure what a Word of Knowledge or Word of Wisdom even is.
Many evangelicals feel the cessationists overplay their hand by stating that God never gives supernatural gifts any longer. They instead opt for a sort of mediating position between the charismatic and cessationist positions. This view, most cogently articulated by Millard Erickson, may be called an Open Agnostic view.
[9] Four points of Erickson’s discussion seem particularly relevant:
1. It is difficult if not impossible to determine whether the contemporary charismatic gifts are the same as the Biblical gifts. No Biblical passages indicate that gifts would ever cease, and yet the gifts seemed to cease through most of church history.
2. Scientific studies have shown that at least some of the supernatural manifestations can be explained by other phenomena.
3. We must be cautious not to attribute the works of God to the devil instead, which amounts to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3.29).
4. Because God is Sovereign, He decides who receives gifts. Therefore, “we are not to set our lives to seeking them.”
A third position holds that supernatural gifts are not only operative today, but they should be the normative experience of contemporary believers. We may call this the Charismatic view.
[10] Wayne Grudem gives eight reasons for the validity of this view:[11]
1. Prophecy and tongues will continue through the church age because “the perfect” which will eliminate them in 1 Cor 13 refers to the second coming of Christ.
2. New Testament Prophecy is qualitatively different from Old Testament prophecy. It is neither infallible nor absolutely authoritative, and therefore does not constitute an addition to the canon.
3. Scripture does not limit supernatural gifts were not limited to the time of the Apostles.
4. Supernatural gifts are just as necessary in the present as the past: authenticating the gospel, demonstrating God’s mercy, equip people for ministry, glorify God.
5. Contrary to many cessationist arguments, miraculous gifts have been operative throughout church history.
6. The level of power of a gift is irrelevant to whether that gift is from God. Even if contemporaneous miraculous gifts are not operating as powerfully as in scriptural times, they are no less gifts from God.
7. Many charismatic churches are stronger in evangelism, purity of life, and love for the word, than their non-charismatic counterparts.
8. Non-charismatics need charismatics (and vice versa). Each part of the body has strengths that others can (and must) learn from.

In theology, as in so many other disciplines, where one starts determines where one ends up. I propose that the gospel is the best starting place from which to examine the arguments concerning supernatural gifts. Contrary to popular presentations, the gospel, or good news, of the New Testament is not a system for ‘going to heaven when you die,’ but rather the proclamation that Jesus is Lord.
[13] In theological terms, the gospel is about Christology rather than soteriology. Of course there are soteriological implications from the gospel, but there are just as important implications for all other areas of theology as well. Most striking is the way the Jesus’ lordship impacts eschatology, so that the Kingdom of God has been inaugurated in Jesus’ ministry but waits for a future consummation. In the current age we live “between the times”, experiencing tension between aspects of the Kingdom which are “already” and those aspects which are “not yet.”[14]
Scripture is univocal in ascribing supernatural ministry to the “already” of the Kingdom tension. Jesus declares, “If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt 12.28). When John the Baptizer sent messangers to Jesus to question whether He was really the Messianic King he had been expecting, Jesus implies (to the reader at least) that His Sovereign Rule is part of the “not yet,” and instead pointed to His supernatural works as the “already” (Matt 11.4-6). In His ministry commission to the disciples He directed His disciples that, “as you go, preach, saying, ‘The Kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons.” (Matt 10.7-8; cf. Mark 3.14-15, Luke 9.2) His instructions to heal and preach the inauguration of the Kingdom were not limited to the twelve, but applied to the seventy also (Luke 10.9). On the day of Pentecost, Peter quotes the prophecy from Joel to explicitly link the revelatory gifts to the last days, the period of the inaugurated kingdom (Acts 2.17-21).
In view of the gospel, the good news that Jesus is Lord and that His kingdom has been inaugurated in this age, the supernatural gifts must be operational today. Despite Gaffin’s protests to the contrary, his rejection of supernatural gifts amounts to neutering of the gospel and of the Kingdom. Even Erickson’s more open stance towards the gifts clearly does not go far enough. By way of analogy, it would be simply absurd to a similar Open Agnosticism to soteriology: “It is not possible to determine with any certainty whether the contemporary salvation of the lost is indeed a work of the Holy Spirit.” The gospel simply cannot be separated from the supernatural gifts.
Revelatory gifts are clearly not on the same level with biblical authority. The primary reason for this is that scripture is a covenant document.
[15] In ancient times covenants were made between suzerains and their vassals to establish a governing relationship. Under this model it is quite plausible that the suzerain may wish to communicate with his vassals after the covenant is made. Such communication would not be equal in authority to the original covenant document, though it would still carry the authority of the suzerain himself.
What of the contention that we cannot know if modern gifts are the same as those which functioned during biblical times? This boils down to an argument from experience. Charismatics seek to conform their praxis to their exegesis. We are simply doing our best to live in accordance with what the texts themselves say.
But the issue of the correspondence between modern and biblical tongues is worth singling for further examination. It is one of the most impressive gifts of the spirit listed in 1 Corinthians 12.8-10 for the simple fact that anyone with the gift is able to speak in tongues at will. By contrast, a non-tongues speaker will be unable to imitate the tongues speaker. Kildahl notes, “Most people can imitate a strange language for only a few sentences, then the easy syllables become obvious, and stammering and hesitation take the place of fluency… Tongue-speakers can go on almost endlessly in a fluid, easy manner.”
[16] Yet linguists claim, almost universally, that tongues are not true human languages based on standard linguistic criteria developed by Charles F. Hockett.[17] Samarin, for instance, claims that tongues only meet a portion of Hockett’s sixteen criteria for speech to be an actual language.[18] What is lacking is a conveyed meaning – or rather, a meaning that can be discerned. If tongues are in fact a “prayer language” which the Holy Spirit uses to make intercession when the petitioner does not know what to pray, as charismatics believe, then we would not expect to discern meaning any more than we would listening to a foreign language.
Arguments for Cessation or Open Agnosticism may seem more plausible when all is going well. But for the millions of believers in the pews who daily live with the pain of living in a fallen world the supernatural gifts are a pastoral necessity. Jack Deere explains the attitude he once held as a cessationist: “I didn’t need any healing miracles from God. My family and I had always enjoyed good health, and on those rare occasions when we needed a few stitches or a little medicine, our family doctors were more than adequate… I certainly didn’t need God to speak to me with any of those subjective methods he used with the people of the Bible. After all, I had the Bible now…”
In light of the evidence, not only do Charismatics have warrant for their beliefs, but all Christians have an obligation to pursue supernatural gifts within the context of local churches (1 Cor 12-14).

Deere, Jack. 1993. Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: ZondervanPublishingHouse.
Ferguson, Sinclair B. 1996. The Holy Spirit. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Grudem, Wayne A, ed. 1996. Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Grand Rapids: ZondervanPublishingHouse.
------. 1994 (2000). Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: ZondervanPublishingHouse.
Jensen, Peter. 2002. The Revelation of God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Kildahl, John P. 1974. The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues. New York: Harper & Row.
Ladd, George.E. 1993 [1974]. A Theology of the New Testament, Donald A. Hagner, ed. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Glossolalia: A Case of Pseudo-Linguistic Structure. Unpublished.
Samarin, William. 1972. Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Wagner, C. Peter. 1999. Churchquake! Ventura: Regal.

End notes
[1] Cf. similar lists in 1 Cor 12.28, Rom 12.6-8, Eph 4.11, and 1 Pet 4.11.
[2] Most Pentecostals and charismatics have a trichotomist view of human constitution, consisting of body, soul, and spirit. Within this framework, one may add the gift of teaching or counseling, which each effect the healing of the soul. Because the teaching and counseling gifts are not particularly supernatural nor controversial, they will not be addressed here. Ferguson (1996, 89) sees these as the only gifts from Pentecost that may still be appropriated today, specifically when used ‘to be Christ’s witnesses.’
[3] See Wagner 1999.
[4] I have taken a substantial portion of the appendix from a paper I wrote for DE560, Introduction to World Christian Missions. I will not discuss baptism in (or of) the Holy Spirit in this paper because it is only a topic of internal dispute among the position I refer to as Charismatic.
[5] Gaffin’s major work (1974) is Perspectives on Pentecost: Studies in New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed). What follows is taken instead from Gaffin’s newer and more accessible essay, “A Cessationist View” in Grudem 1996, 23-64.
[6] See also Jensen 2002, 257-279.
[7] The view that the “perfection” of 1 Cor 13 is the canonization of scripture is widely recognized by all sides to be exegetically unsound. Note however Ferguson’s paraphrase, which makes this position more credible (1996, 227-8).
[8] Ferguson (1996, 223-4) notes that Charismatics cannot provide a theological reason for the historical cessation of the gifts.
[9] Erickson 1998 [1983], 892-897. The term “Open Agnostic” is mine rather than Erickson’s, who does not provide a name for his position. This position is called the “Open But Cautious” view in Grudem 1996, but this term seems bulky and imprecise. This view encompasses the majority of evangelicals today who are perhaps unwilling to either embrace or discount the charismatic experience.
[10] Though the term is not sociologically precise since it encompases the Pentecostal and Third Wave movements in addition to the charismatic movement. The differences between them are unimportant for a discussion on the frequency of supernatural gifts. The term is appropriate since the Greek charismata literally means “gifts.”
[11] Grudem 1994, 1031-46. I have reformulated Grudem’s list from a negative apologetic (defending against the attacks of cessationists) into a list of positive affirmations.
[12] Grudem especially cites the historical argument in Ruthven, Jon (1993), On the Cessation of the Charismata: the Protestant Polemic (Sheffield: Sheffield University Academic Press).
[13] Wright 2006, 91-2; 1997,39-62; Jensen 2002, 34, 45-63.
[14] Ladd 1993 [1974].
[15] Jensen 2002.
[16] Kildahl 1972, p.35.
[17] Greenberg 1963
[18] Samarin 1972. C.f. Nida 1964.
[19] Deere 1993, 15.