In my last blog post I promised to share the word studies that have confirmed for me that Matt Slick’s distinction between charisma gifts and doma gifts was overdrawn. Remember that his assertion was that Apostles of Christ were a doma gift and not a charismatic gift. Hence, he could claim that all the charismatic gifts continue in the church. As to the Claim that Charisma and Doma are Distinct and that Charisma is Never Used of Apostles, let me share the actual state of the biblical evidence.
First, Slick’s assertion assumes that a careful distinction between these two words is maintained in this matter in the New Testament. Such a distinction is not apparent.
Actually, Doma is used only four times in the New Testament. Matthew 7:11 and Luke 11:13 use it of parents giving gifts to their children. Philippians 4:17 uses it of a church’s financial gift to Paul. It is used only once of spiritual gifts. That occurrence is Ephesians 4:8. It is in a quotation from the Old Testament, Psalm 68:18. It is paralleled, however, by the use the verb from which it is derived in Ephesians 4:11, didoomi.
The comparative rarity of the use of doma in the New Testament is important. There is no contrast instituted or suggested between charisma and doma in the NT. Such a distinction may be imposed on these two words by Charismatics (wise in their assumed knowledge of spiritual gifts), but there is no reason to make a sharp or significant distinction between doma and charisma. The root of doma, didoomi, simply means give. Charisma derived from charis and charidzoo simply emphasizes what didoomi already implies that a gift is gracious and not deserved.
Confirming, I think, the fact that no such distinction as Matt assumed exists between doma and charisma is this fact. It is clear from Ephesians 4:8-11 that prophets and pastor-teachers are both doma and charisma. (Cf. Romans 12:6-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:4-10.) If these gifts are both doma and charisma, why not Apostles of Christ?
Second, charisma is actually used in contexts where the gift of Apostles is discussed.
1 Corinthians 12:28, 30, and 31 use it in the context in which Apostles are mentioned as the first and greatest of the gifts. The implication of the phrase “gifts of healing” (especially its use in 1 Cor. 12:31) is not that the other gifts mentioned are not charisma, but that all of them are, including the apostolate.
Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 12:4 charisma is used in the text that stands as a kind of heading for the discussion of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14. Thus, the mention of apostles in the following discussion of gifts which extends through the end of the chapter (where Apostles are mentioned twice, 12:28-29) identifies apostles as one of the charismata of the Spirit.
Additionally, in a couple of places the root of charisma, charis, is used of the grace of apostleship.
- Romans 1:5 through whom we have received grace (charis) and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake,
- Romans 12:3 For through the grace (charis) given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.
- Romans 15:15 But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace (charis) that was given me from God,
- Ephesians 3:5-7 which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; 6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, 7 of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God’s grace (charis) which was given to me according to the working of His power
Each of these texts identify Paul’s apostolate as a charis which he received from God. It does not make sense, then, to assert that the apostolate is not a charisma.
Third, the gift-terminology is actually more complex than my opponent indicated. There is a third major word meaning gift in the New Testament. That word is doora. This word, however, is never used of the so-called spiritual gifts. It is, however, used of the gift of salvation. Cf. Eph. 2:8. Also a discussion of gift words in the New Testament would have to take into account pneumatikos which is used at the head of 1 Corinthian 12’s discussion of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:1.
My conclusion is quite straightforward and clear, I think, from the evidence. Slick’s assumption that there is an important distinction between charisma and doma is completely unproven, very suspect, and actually contradicts some important New Testament data. He who asserts must prove. Slick asserted an (unlikely) hard and fast distinction between doma and charisma. It is his responsibility to prove it. He cannot. When this distinction is examined in light of the New Testament, it is revealed as far-fetched.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
