Asking the Holy Spirit about Himself
January 9th, 2007
(By Nathan Busenitz)
It seems to me that questions about spiritual gifts are essentially questions about the Holy Spirit and His work in the church today. Thus, the continuationist/cessationist discussion is ultimately a discussion about the Holy Spirit. Does He still impart the same gifts in the same way as He did during the time of the apostles? The continuationist says Yes. The cessationist says No.
But before we dive into that question, we have to ask ourselves an earlier, more foundational question–namely: Where are we going to go to find our answers on all of this?
Inevitably, there are some who will quickly point to personal experience. This is true in both charismatic circles and non-charismatic circles. In both cases, the experientialist (for lack of a better term) argues his case based on what he has either experienced or not experienced (or heard third-hand or read about fourth-hand or watched on TBN).
But, at the end of the day, how good of an authority source is personal experience?
Not so good, actually. It’s subjective, unverifiable, and usually unrepeatable (not to mention the fact that it’s often contradictory with someone else’s experience). So if we are going to answer the “charismatic question” definitively, we need an authority source that is more sure than human experience.
The apostle Peter recognized this very principle when he wrote about his experience at the Transfiguration.
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. (2 Pet. 1:16-19; ESV)
That is truly amazing. At the Transfiguration, Peter personally experienced something that transcended anything we can even comprehend. Yet, as astounding and life-changing as that experience was, Peter saw the Word of God (“the prophetic word”) as “more sure” than his experience. After all, human experience is fallible, because human beings are fallible. But the Word of God is perfect, because its Author is perfect. It stands alone as an infallible authority, because its Author reigns alone as the ultimate authority.
And who is the Author of Scripture?
Peter tells us just two verses later: “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21; cf. Eph. 6:17).
Thus, when we go to the Word of God for our instruction on this subject, we are going to the Spirit Himself, since He is the One who has inspired every word of this wonderful and all-sufficient revelation from God. In other words, when we look to the Scriptures regarding the work of the Holy Spirit, we are in essence asking the Spirit about Himself.
And this is exactly what we ought to do.
Before we can turn to any personal experience (which may or may not have come from the Holy Spirit), we must first turn to His Word (which unquestionably comes from Him). If our experience coincides with Scripture, we can be encouraged that it meets with His approval. But if it does not, we must be willing to reconsider and repent.
In the end, only the Word of God, inspired by the Spirit of God, can be our final authority on these matters.
Well said, Nate.
If our experience coincides with Scripture, we can be encouraged that it meets with His approval.
But here again we come to the same issue in the matter mentioned in the Comments of the previous blog entry: Interpretation of Scripture!
If I can make my own interpretation of Scripture that ignores or twists the context, I can justify my actions and then based on your statement I can even convince myself they’re Scripturally supported.
Charismaticism, imho like every other error, starts out with errant interpretation and application of God’s Word. Perhaps a greater teaching focus and emphasis on proper Biblical interpretation, exegesis, and exposition would do much to aid discernment and application. I think a fair amount of work in this area has been done in the past, but not comprehensively in one session, and not specifically directed at preventing error.
Perhaps a session focusing on proper contextual interpretation guidelines, common pitfalls/dangers when attempting to apply the text, using example passages related to sign gifts, and tying it all together with the call for a proper and consistent contextual-literal interpretation as MacArthur argues for in books like ‘The Battle for the Beginning’. Everyone who believes the Bible is the inerrant, inspired, and authoritative Word of God should be exegeting it consistently, interpreting it as literally as logically appropriate, and applying it only where it lines up with the original context. This is the essence of expository preaching. Our God is immutable (consistent), means what He says (literal), and what He says can be understood (perspecuity). We should then take care not to misappropriate passages of His Word outside of their intended usage (context / authorial intent).
Focusing on the foremost matter of interpretation would correct the discussion from being one interpretation versus another, to how one interprets Scripture and thus drive to the core of the issue.
Hi Nate:
There’s a speeling erorr in the first paragraph. Should
be ‘continuationist’ not ‘coninuationist’.
Cheers,
Andrew
Wake,
Thanks for your comment. Your emphasis on a proper hermeneutic is an important one, and one that I think will be addressed in future posts. My goal here was to establish the issue of authority. Only the Bible (rightly interpreted) can be our authority in this discussion.
Andrew,
Thanks for the heads up. I’ve corrected the spelling error.
I believe that Wake has hit the nail on the head. Having had past experience with the Charismatic movement, as I said in my comment on the previous post, the problem is bad hermeneutics. For instance; the “private prayer language” issue that my charismatic brethren will cling to for dear life, has no legitimate scriptural backing. If you examine Romans 8:26, 1 Co. 14:1-2,13-15, & Jude 20 and their surrounding contexts you wont get the same understanding as do charismatic supporters of the “private prayer tongues”. Their claim is that these statements support that teaching, but unfortunately, the idea of praying in tongues isn’t even implied at all in these verses. The biggest problem, I think, in the movement is the poor methods of interpretation. Good day.
Nathan,
Not to simply trumpet the obvious, let me say this:
This was a thoughtful article. Could we, as thoughtful Christians, look to Church History in addition to the Authoritative Word as an approach?
I am curious because this debate has hit me before…yet I do not want to use “tradition” to argue for me against what I feel is inherently an important issue in the context of how we read the scriptures.
What do you think?
To be upfront, I am speaking from a non-charismatic position.
Where does Church History fit into this discussion?
Steven,
Great question… and an important point. Later in this series we will be looking at the early church’s understanding of the miraculous gifts (through the eyes of the church fathers). Personally, I believe they make a very valuable contribution to this discussion (since they were so much closer to the apostolic era than we are today).
Obviously, church history is not authoritative in and of itself. But, insofar as the church leaders of the past were seriously attempting to interact with the text (which is authoritative), we would be foolish to ignore their insights.
Thanks for your comment,
NB
Nate, how would you incorporate the “illumination of the Holy Spirit” (a la Calvin) in the interpretive enterprise? This question is likely to come up as the two “sides” look at the same Scriptures together.
Nate.
Great point and one that I am assertaining tonight as I preach on Sola Scriptura. Another example would be both Saul offering the sacrifice to appease the people and then also David building a cart for the Ark of the Covenant. To David experience said that a cart was easier, but God’s word forbade it.
Thanks for the post that both continuationists and cessationists can agree on… I’m personally wrestling through the issue and am praying this series will be helpful to my understanding.
JSB,
You bring up a good point… the doctrine of illumination is an important part of the discussion. Grudem, for instance, highlights this point (with reference to the gifts) in pp. 1040-42 of his Systematic Theology. Grudem’s argument is that the cessationist’s understanding of illumination or guidance is little different than the continuationist’s understanding of prophecy.
This, of course, brings up how each camp defines its terms. And that is something we will discuss in future posts.
From my own study, I believe the doctrine of illumination has more to do with embracing the truth of Scripture (in submissive understanding and application) than with intellectually comprehending its contents. The Bible is written clearly enough that secular scholars can read it, study it, and explain its contents sometimes better than Christian scholars. But the ability to understand Scripture in its full sense (not just academically, but personally, submissively, joyfully, and devotionally) is only possible in a heart where the Spirit of God is at work. In particular, I believe the doctrine of illumination centers on the primary message of Scripture–the gospel. Unbelieving hearts cannot understand the gospel in a true, believing sense unless the Spirit illumines them and removes their blindness.
Thank you for an excellent post. I firmly believe that ignorance of the Holy Spirit is right alongside (well, maybe just below) a lack of Scriptural knowledge in the high number of Christians today who just basically are wandering around in life.
Nate, I believe you are on the right track going to the Scriptures to see how the apostles and church addressed experiences in this Charismatic debate. Just to further butress that arguement let me add some more Biblical evidence. You mentioned Peter’s experience at the Mount of Transfiguration. John uses the same experiences to direct his readers concerning the “Word of Life,” which he then characteristically concludes “these things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.” So to John, read and study what I am proclaiming to you, and your joy in Christ will be “complete.” Not “go out and pursue a similar experience as mine, then your joy will become complete.” Paul as well diverts attention away from the experience (2 Cor. 12), while constantly praying for and emploring his readership to grow in “love…knowledge and all discernment” (Phil. 1:9). The legacy of the book of Acts was the planting of churches that received and taught the Scriptures (1 Thes. 2:13-14). The signs of the apostle are wonderful accompaniment, but to make it continuous seems to lessen the impact and uniqueness of them. I suppose that Paul could have hoped for another batch of miraculous, tongues speaking, prophecy receiving leaders to follow him up – but he instead prayed for a legacy of Preachers of the Word who would guard the trust committed to them.
“only the Word of God … can be our final authority”
How gracious our Lord is to protect us, and guard us with such a fortress, that Satan can not breach.
Very good post, and comments.
“That word above all earthly powers no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth;
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.”
I left the charismatic movement over 20 yrs. ago–thanks in part to hearing how John MacArthur handled the issue (this was before any of his books on the topic, which confirmed many concerns I’d had).
So, I had pretty much been out of the loop with the whole discussion/debate until several years ago when I began to hear the terms “cessationist and continuationist” in the context of Reformed theology/practice (which I whole-heartedly embrace). As I looked further into those discussions I was surprised when I began to hear/read “charismatic Calvinist”, or “Reformed charismatic”–those lables are contradictory and mutually exclusive in my understanding.
I’ve greatly appreciated your two recent posts (and the comments), and am looking forward to the upcoming posts. I have a good deal of respect for some of the men/ministries who consider themselves to be Reformed AND charismatic/continuationists–but I’m having a really DIFFICULT time reconciling those positions/practices.
Nate – as a “reformed charismatic”, I’m already enjoying this. I had to push myself past the comments by Wake and CBX but those aside, this is shaping up to be quite interesting. I trust it will cause many to take a closer look at themselves in light of the Scripture and that we would in turn be transformed by His Truth.
Wake,
I like what your saying about proper Bible interpretation. If I had learned the basics of interpretation after becoming a Christian (nearly 23 years ago) I don’t think I would have fallen for the false teachings in the “Word of Faith movement”.
I was one of those naive Christians that learned their theology from TBN and a WoF church in Tulsa, OK. I took the bait, hook, line and sinker.
Do you have a blog or web site?
Radar
Following up on what Rick just wrote; i have just jumped into this and not read the previous articles. I am a Reformed Southern Baptist who came out of the Pentecostal movement when i discovered the Puritans (My true “second blessing”). But as i read these comments, i was a bit dismayed by flippant statements to the effect that Charismatics have no sciptural basis for their practice. That is like hiding your head in the sand- rather then engaging the actual texts (yes they do exist) some cessationists assert that they don’t exist as though by making the assertion it is true. Then the comment by CBX that praying in tongues is not found in scripture- i looked at the passage in 1 Cor, which he cites and i found the phrase “Praying in tongues”. It seems to me that some cessationists are as guilty of bad hermeneutics as Charismatics. How about some honest dialogue with scripture, rather then our presuppositions and dislikes of charismatics, as the authority.
“(or heard third-hand or read about fourth-hand or watched on TBN).”
While true, a snarky way of denegrating those (g.b.a.?) who disagree with you by lumping all “eperientialists” together
After all, arent we all “experientialists”, as Paul discussess in Romans 8:14-16? Isnt it by the HS that we know we are saved?
Some quotes from A.W. Pink on this subject:
“Second, wherever the Spirit dwells, He produces a spirit of prayer and supplication. “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered” (Rom. 8:26). The two things are inseparable: wherever He is poured out as the Spirit of grace, He is also poured out as the Spirit of supplication (Zech. 12:10). He helps Christians before they pray by stirring up their spiritual affections and stimulating holy desires. He helps them in prayer by teaching them to ask for those things which are according to God’s will. He it is who humbles the pride of their hearts, moves their sluggish wills, and out of weakness makes them strong. He helps them after prayer by quickening hope and patience to wait for God’s answers.
Non-continuance of Extraordinary Gifts
Now that all of these special impulses and extraordinary gifts of the Spirit were not intended to be perpetuated throughout this Christian dispensation, and that they have long since ceased, is clear from several conclusive considerations. Their non-continuance is hinted at in Mark 16:20 by the omission of Christ’s, “and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). So, too, by the fact that God did not give faith to His servants to count upon the same throughout the centuries: it is unthinkable that the intrepid Reformers and the godly Puritans failed to appropriate God’s promise if any had been given to that effect. “Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away” (1 Cor. 13:8).
The Apostle cannot there be contrasting Heaven with earth, for those on High possess more “knowledge” than we have; so the reference must be to the cessation of the miraculous gifts of 1 Corinthians 12. The qualifying language “which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us . . . with signs and wonders” (Heb. 2:3, 4) points in the same direction, and clearly implies that those supernatural manifestations had even then ceased Finally, 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 proves conclusively that there is now no need for such gifts as prophecy and tongues: we are “thoroughly furnished” by the now complete Canon of Scripture.
Help in Intercessory Prayer
It is a great infirmity or weakness for the Christian to faint in the day of adversity, yet such is often the case. It is a sad thing when, like Rachel of old weeping for her children, he “refuses to be comforted” (Jer. 31:15). It is most deplorable for all when he so gives way to unbelief that the Lord has to say to him, “How is it that ye have no faith?” (Mark 4:40). Terrible indeed would be his end if God were to leave him entirely to himself. This is clear from what is said in Mark 4:17, “when affliction or persecution ariseth for the Word’s sake, immediately they are offended,” or as Luke says, “Which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away” (8:13). And why does the stony-ground hearer apostatize? Because he is without the assistance of the Holy Spirit! Writer and reader would do the same if no Divine aid were forthcoming!
But thank God, the feeble and fickle believer is not left to himself: “the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities” (Rom. 8:26). That “help” is as manifold as our varied needs; but the Apostle singles out one particular “infirmity” which besets all Christians, and which the blessed Spirit graciously helps: “for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us.” How this Divine declaration should humble us into the dust: so depraved is the saint that in the hour of need he is incapable of asking God aright to minister unto him. Sin has so corrupted his heart and darkened his understanding that, left to himself, he cannot even discern what he should ask God for. Alas, that pride should so blind us to our real condition and our deep, deep need.
In nothing do the saints more need the Spirit’s presence and His gracious assistance than in their addresses of the Throne of Grace. They know that God in His Persons and perfections is the Object of their worship; they know that they cannot come unto the Father but by Christ, the alone Mediator; and they know that their access to Him must be by the Spirit (Eph. 2:18). Yet such are their varying circumstances, temptations, and wanderings, so often are they shut up in their frames and cold in their affections, such deadness of heart is there toward God and spiritual things, that at times they know not what to pray for as they ought. But it is here that the Spirit’s love and grace is most Divinely displayed: He helps their infirmities and makes intercession for them!
How the Spirit Intercedes
First, when the believer is most oppressed by outward trials and is most depressed by a sense of his inward vileness, when he is at his wit’s end and ready to wring his hands in despair, or is most conscious of his spiritual deadness and inability to express the sinfulness of his case, the Spirit stirs him in the depths of his being: “The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” There has been some difference of opinion as to whether this refers directly to groanings of the Spirit Himself, or indirectly to the spiritual groanings of the Christian, which are prompted and produced by Him. But surely there is no room for uncertainty: the words “cannot be uttered” could not apply to a Divine Person. That which He produces in and through the believer, is ascribed to the Spirit—the “fruit” of Galatians 5:22, and Galatians 4:6 compared with Romans 8:15!
As it is the Spirit who illumines and gives us to see the exceeding sinfulness of sin and the depravity of our hearts, so He is the One who causes us to groan over the same. The conscience is pierced, the heart is searched, the soul is made to feel something of its fearful state. The conscious realization of “the plague of our hearts” (1 Kings 8:38) and its “putrefying sores” (Isa. 1:6), produces unutterable anguish. The painful realization of our remaining enmity against God, the rebellion of our wills, the woeful lack of heart-conformity to His holy Law, so casts down the soul that it is temporarily paralyzed. Then it is that the Spirit puts forth His quickening operations, and we “groan” so deeply that we cannot express our feelings, articulate our woe, or unburden our hearts. All that we can do is to sigh and sob inwardly. But such tears of the heart are precious in the sight of God (Ps. 56:8) because they are produced by His blessed Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is first a witness for Christ, and then He is a witness to His people of Christ’s infinite love and the sufficiency of His finished work. “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify (bear witness) of Me” (John 15:26). The Spirit bears His testimony for Christ in the Scriptures; He bears His testimony to us in our renewed minds. He is a Witness for the Lord Jesus by all that is revealed in the Sacred Volume concerning Him. He bears witness to the abiding efficacy of Christ’s offering: that sin is effectually put away thereby, that the Father hath accepted it, that the elect are forever perfected thereby, and that pardon of sins is the fruit of Christ’s oblation.
The sufficiency of the Spirit to be Witness for Christ unto His people appears first, from His being a Divine Person; second, from His being present when the Everlasting Covenant was drawn up; third, from His perfect knowledge of the identity of each member of the election of grace. When the ordained hour strikes for each one to be quickened by Him, He capacitates the soul to receive a spiritual knowledge of Christ. He shines upon the Scriptures of Truth and into the renewed mind. He enables the one born again to receive into his heart the Father’s record concerning His beloved Son, and to give full credit to it. He enables him to realize that the Father is everlastingly well pleased with every one who is satisfied with the Person, righteousness, and atonement of His co-equal Son, and who rests his entire hope and salvation thereon. Thereby He assures him of the Father’s acceptance of him in the Beloved.
One had thought that if ever there were a time when the Christian would really pray, earnestly and perseveringly, and would know what to ask for, it should be when he is sorely tried and oppressed. Alas, how little we really know ourselves. Even a beast will cry out when suffering severe pain, and it is natural (not spiritual!) that we should do the same. Of degenerate Israel of old God said, “they have not cried unto Me with their heart, when they howled upon their beds” (Hosea 7:14): no, relief from their sufferings was all they thought about. And by nature our hearts are just the same! So long as we are left to ourselves (to try us and manifest what we are: 2 Chron. 32:31), when the pressure of sore trial comes upon us, we are concerned only with deliverance from it, and not that God may be glorified or that the trial may be sanctified to our souls.
Left for himself, man asks God for what would be curses rather than blessings, for what would prove to be snares rather than helps to him spiritually. Have we not read of Israel that, “They tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust” (Ps. 78:18); and again, “He gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul” (Ps. 106:15)! Perhaps someone replies, But they were not regenerate souls. Then have we not read in James, “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts” (4:3)? Ah, my reader, this is a truth which is very unpalatable to our proud hearts. Did not Moses “ask” the Lord that he might be permitted to enter Canaan (Deut. 3:26, 27)? Did not the Apostle Paul thrice beseech the Lord for the removal of his thorn in the flesh? What proofs are these that “we know not what we should pray for as we ought!”
“The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities.” This being so, surely the least that we can do is to seek His aid, to definitely ask Him to undertake for us. Alas, how rarely we do so. As intimated above, when the pressure of trouble first presses upon us, usually it is nature which cries out for relief At other times the soul is so cast down that even the voice of natural “prayer” is stifled. Often there is so much rebellion at work in our hearts against the providential dispensations of God toward us that we feel it would be mockery to seek His face; yea, we are ashamed to do so. Such at least has been the experience of the writer more than once, and that not long ago, though he blushes to acknowledge it. O the infinite patience and forbearance of our gracious God!”
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that will be being used in this discussion is the discerning of spirits. Yes, even over the internet!
As you will note Pink was a cessationist, but not really. It depends on what it is he is talking about. If it is tonques in a revelational sense then he is probably quite correct. Though, the Scripture tells us that not everything that was revelation was written down. And, it therefore does not follow that there has to be a weight of “canonicity” given to prophecy. In fact there is no preacher who stands in the pulpit who is not prophesying. Here is a truth, there is nothing in the new that is not contained in the old, just a bringing forth of what was already written, Ecc. 1.9-11.
I, too am a former Charismatic. I went from that thorough Arminian system into the Arminian status quo of the SBC where I have been for the past 18 years. By God’s grace we are in the process of moving away from the heresy of Arminianism toward reformation. At the same time we must confront the slide of the SBC into the heretical alignments with likes of Kenneth Copeland and the lunatics at TBN. But, it is not like the SBC has not be associated with heretics and blasphemers. Our recent dedication of an idol of B. Graham known for his universalism and diminishing of the supremacy of Christ and the inerrancy of the Scripture. Or nuts like Warren and his semi-pelagianism. Then there is Land and his quantum prayer that is no different than newage convergence. And of course Draper’s bizarre view that Christ could have denied the will of the Father.
What struck me when I first came to the SBC was their lack of the knowledge of the Holy Spirit, however. Their cessationist mentality was as ignorant as the Charismatic Movement. In the Pink articles you can see that a “private prayer language” is an orthodox position. Luther experienced it, Calvin and Augustine new it, though they spoke of it in various ways. As far as I can tell there are few writers in the Reformed camp that I have read that said nothing about the “anointing.” The more “traditionalist do not like to speak in the terms that Charismatics think of it, and not in the way that Southern Baptists think of it, either. I have talked to many SBC’ers who confess to the “pressing need” to pray, of “entering in to the presence.” Others will rise in congregation and offer a Psalm, a song, a Scripture reading and each with the claim that they were feeling lead by the God (they tend to shy away from the name Holy Spirit seemingly, shamefully so). This is prophecy of one kind, but they do not like to say it is.
In Corinthians the practice was not about canonical prophecy. It was the general practice of the Church, for edification (teaching). Still, we can exclude this sign gift, but I do not think it can be excluded, Scripturally. Paul forbade the forbidding of speaking in tongues. So, the real question is should it be allowed? And, in what circumstances? Or, let us put it this way. How can it be stoped? If you pray in private, you pray with a private prayer language, or you do not pray at all. In the congregation, it is easy. The key is interpretation. But, with so much doctrinal confussion, and the prevailing mentality that there is liberty of conscience illicitly extended to the individuals rights to hold independent opinions and interpretations, who can authoritatively lay down the guidelines. From my experiences in the Charismatic circles, I never met anyone with the gift of interpreting another tongue. Though many professed to, their lack of understanding of the doctrines of the Holy Spirit and the fact that tongues could never be independantly varified, coupled with an over-arching lack of knowledge of doctrines of the Faith in general, lead me to conclude that it was all a charade.
Paul’s admonition was to seek interpretation so that there was edification, without interpretation there is no edification for the mind remains unfruitful, and therefore there is no need for the speaking in foreign languages. Paul’s concern was maturity in the faith (knowledge of the Son of God). “When I was a child I spoke like a child, but when I matured, I put away childish things.” This is what caused me to give up the practice. Seeking the higher gift of interpretation produced no fruitful conversation instructing me in the knowledge of God, and it was senseless to babble without understanding.
What becomes evident with the Canon, is that we have all that we need. That does not necessitate the cessation any more than it necessitates the need for the cessation of teaching and preaching. It does, however, make tongues, as the means of edification, superfluous, but it would still be instructive and useful in any case if it was interpreted correctly. The two gifts are inseparable. And, just like answered prayer, the external declarations of the internal operations of the Spirit, build us up in the Faith. If the gift is given, as all gifts are, then it is given for the mutual edification of the entire body. And, what Paul desired was that the whole church would prophesy. That is, that they would all be of one mind in their understanding, something that is sorely lacking even in non-Charismatic churches.
As I said, you never pray except you first prayer in the Spirit with your spirit. As Paul said, I will pray in the spirit and I will pray with my mind also. There it is, the two gifts, together in one person. With groanings, weapings, moans and sighs, lips that quiver and move without words, all these and more precede the vocalization with words that can be comprehended by the mind. You see, if you call for cessation you eliminate a vital work of the Holy Spirit. Then, what remains is what Paul was correcting in the Corinthians, good government by men having their minds exercised to discern between good and evil, so that all things would be done decently and in order, for God is not the author of confusion.
Speaking of confusion. John Mac holds to the pre-tribulation doctrine. It is strange that a prophecy that has no Scriptural support and actually undermines the vital teaching of the perserverance of the saints(expressed as the body of Christ suffering, dying as a testimony to the world and then ascending), a prophecy given in an ecstatic utterance at a proto-Charimatic meeting, has such a strong hold on the pop-Christian community of believers, who say they do not believe in such a thing as ecstatic utterances since the closing of the Cannon. What is strange about this particular doctrine is that it has become “cannonized,” even though it was not part of church history before the 1800’s. I say test the spirits to see if they are of God. It is almost laughable. Charismatic gifts become central for purposes of discussion and separation, while central doctrine becomes periferal as we “battle for the truth.” Hah!
RChase, Just to clear something up. I did not say that those texts (1 Co 14) do not mention the gift of speaking in tongues (which I wholeheartedly embrace), I simply said that no where in these texts does it speak of a “private prayer language” in which Christians privately pray in tongues. I believe that every gift that the N.T. speaks of is still being given by the Holy Spirit today, but I cannot find any legitimate scriptural evidence to support the teaching that there is more than one aspect of the gift of tongues. I have humbly posted an invitation on my blog for anyone to send me any legitimate scriptural evidence to support this teaching. This is not an invitation to an arguement, so please don’t expect one. The address is: cbeecher.blogspot.com.
Nate,
I might be a little late to catch your attention here, but I wanted to comment on your handling of 2 Peter 1:19. I noticed that you quoted the ESV. The majority of English translations are more like the NIV: “And we have the word of the prophets made more certain.” Do you think it is significant that most translations do not follow the interpretation found in the ESV?
Here’s what two of my favorite commentators have written about this verse.
“What does Peter mean with the comparative “made more sure”? “Sure” translates a Greek word (bebaios) that refers to the certainty and reliability of promises and agreements (see, e.g., Rom. 4:16; Heb. 6:16, 19). Peter may be saying, then, that the Old Testament prophecies are an even more certain basis for belief in the Parousia than eyewitness testimony about the Transfiguration. But the Greek probably cannot bear this meaning. We think, rather, that Peter is suggesting that his testimony about the Transfiguration gives to the prophetic word an even greater certainty than it had before. The prophets predicted that Messiah would establish a universal and glorious reign. Some in the early church may have so spiritualized these prophecies that they eliminated any future reference. The Transfiguration, an anticipation of Christ’s ultimate kingdom glory, shows that the words of the prophets, at this point at least, must be taken with full literal force. Thus Christians can be even more confident of their fulfillment” (Douglas J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, NIV Application Commentary, 75-76).
“Another difficult question relates to the meaning of the term bebaioteron (“made more certain”). Some suggest that the written prophecies of the Old Testament are more certain than an event like the transfiguration because the transfiguration was subjectively experienced. It is difficult to believe that Peter would say this. According to this interpretation, Peter would be pitting the transfiguration against the Scriptures, arguing that the latter are more certain than the former. But this would subvert the argument in vv. 16-18, for Peter then would be suggesting that his appeal to the transfiguration is not quite convincing, so he needed something better, namely, the Old Testament Scriptures. But vv. 16-18 demonstrate that Peter believed that the transfiguration was decisive proof for his view, not questionable in the least. He was not suggesting its deficiency in contrast to the Old Testament Scriptures but was simply giving another argument for the validity of his view” (Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2, Peter, Jude, New American Commentary, 319-20).
Later Schreiner concludes, “The word bebaioteron should be taken in context as signifying a comparison, so that the transfiguration provides confirmation of the interpretation of the prophetic word. The transfiguration, then, is not conceived as more or less reliable than the prophetic word. It provides a confirmatory interpretation of that word, and this interpretation was granted to Peter and the other apostles” (320).
What do you think of these statements and the arguments presented, especially those of Schreiner?