The Great Commission, Sanctification, and the Christian Life

People often ask, and properly so, why today's church looks so little like the church of the New Testament. I am not talking about doctrine or government, but rather about power. Pentecostals wrongly substitute passion for power, not recognizing that their error merely contributes to the problem.

There are a number of answers to this question. I have discussed them in the past: heresy, pietism, dispensationalism. However, I am going to turn my attention here to something more fundamental.

What is salvation?

Most evangelicals will answer to the effect of being saved from Hell by the atonement of Jesus on the cross. And that is certainly a fundamental aspect of salvation. However, too often the evangelical stops there, as if the Christian faith and life is nothing more than fire insurance. Not only does that deny the great Commission, but it is a sleighting of the cross work of Jesus.

I refer to the Great Commission intentionally. What does Jesus command us to do there? "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). Most evangelicals can quote that from memory, which is completely commendable. The problem is that the Commission doesn't stop with baptism. He continued: "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (verse 20). There is one side of the Commission which involves saving sinners from judgment. However, the commission continues with a command to replace sin with something.

Notice what was said of the coming of Jesus: "You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Not from the punishment of our sins, as important as that is, but from our sins themselves. As much as our justification was purchased on the cross, so was our sanctification. And having lost sight of the truth, Christians are indistinguishable from non-Christians, and the church is too flabby to speak to a culture that is reveling in its wickedness.

"The scriptural meaning of salvation is deliverance from the curse, power, and love of sin. The word, in general, implies deliverance from evil, but it is always, in the Bible, positive as well as negative, and imports the bestowment of a corresponding good" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation," emphasis in the original).

Enthusiasm versus the Scriptures

In our day, the largest portion of evangelicalism consists of pentecostal denominations and charismatics within non-pentecostal denominations. Such groups are marked by their claims of miraculous gifts of unknown languages, prophecies, healings, etc.  I have explained before why I do not consider such "gifts" to be legitimate expressions of the Holy Spirit, such as here. Not only do I consider the original gifts to have ceased, but I do not believe that their modern forms are even like the biblical gifts.

One major concern I have with such claims is that people receive revelations from God. Especially in Africa and South America, so-called "evangelists" claim that God has given them messages, whether for the crowds they attract or for individuals. Sometimes they claim that such revelations are of less authority than Scripture; other times they don't. Theologian Wayne Grudem even claims that modern prophecy is fallible, while biblical prophecy was infallible. How can a revelation from God be fallible? And how can one revelation from God be less revelatory than another? These are distinctions without differences!

Furthermore, what happens when a "revelation" contradicts Scripture? That would be true of all of the revelations claimed by Mormonism. Yet, even a single isolated revelation would be the word of God! It would be from the same source as Scripture. Therefore, to claim that it has less authority is irrational.

This is why I don't just refuse to seek such revelations for myself, but I am forced to deny the biblical faith of those who claim such revelations. Either they are lying or they are under the influence of lying spirits. Either way, such claims are inconsistent with a sincere profession of faith, which must, necessarily, include receiving the Bible as the inerrant and all-sufficient word of God.

The Prophet Isaiah dealt with such men - let's call them by the term used by the Puritans, Enthusiasts - who claimed revelations from various methods of divination, including necromancy. Here was the answer that God gave such men through His real prophet: "When they say to you, 'Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,' should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living? To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn" (Isaiah 8:19-20). Point them to the Scriptures! If their revelation agrees with them, then those revelations are unnecessary. If they conflict with the Scriptures, then those revelations are lies. 

"A deep conviction of the fullness and sufficiency of the Scriptures, combined with a hearty regard for their disclosures, is the only effectual check to this [inquisitive and speculative] presumptuous pride of intellect" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

Is the Church Teaching the Lie of Satan?

We often talk about Europe as a "post-Christian culture." Then the conversation often moves to America, which is already "post-modern," and moving in the same direction as Europe. The so-called "nones," those who say they have no religion, are increasing as a proportion of the American population. The church has less and less influence in social issues.

Why is that?

In Europe, we see portions that have never known the biblical Gospel, because they were controlled by the Catholic Church. As that organization, not truly a church, lost political power, people were freed from its power, but had no spiritual reality to take its place. In the areas that had known the Gospel because of the Reformation, its influence had been undermined by the influence of higher criticism, and the failure of the

churches to exercise discipline in the face of  bald unbelief. As state churches, they were expected to include the entire population in their membership, and depended on state subsidies for their finances. They simply surrendered to the spirit of unbelief.

Here in America, evangelicalism has always been stronger than in Europe. The separation from the state and a voluntary membership has enabled the churches to exercise discipline - when they chose. While some church organizations have given in to the same higher criticism that conquered Europe, others have maintained their faithfulness to the Gospel and our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

However, now that evangelical remnant is decaying from the inside out. Prominent place has been given to mysticism, mainly through the Pentecostal movement, so that faith has become subjective rather than a faith in objective historical truths and events. A pietistic mentality has taken over, in which one's private spiritual experience takes precedence over the objective facts of the historic Christian faith. And a growing Prosperity movement has come to equate faith with personal success.

In other words, we witness with our eyes the professing evangelical movement's giving itself over to the very promise with which Satan brought down Adam and Eve: "God knows that when you eat of it [i. e., the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5). The deception of Satan was his promise to Adam and Even that betraying the God who made them would make them autonomous, with the authority to decide good and evil for themselves, rather than receiving their definitions from God.

And this is what has deprived the American evangelical movement of influence and effect. If personal prosperity and sovereignty are valid, then the truth of God is just an optional alternative. There can be no grounds for calling to account either individuals or officials who stand for wickedness. Wickedness and righteousness become equally valid. The salt has lost its savor: "You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet" (Matthew 5:13).

My message of warning is less to the apostates in American society than it is to the remnants of the church: "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent" (Revelation 3:15-19).

The Counterfeit Tongues Movement

When discussing the issue of tongues, the primary text used by Pentecostals is Acts 2, the account of the coming of the Holy Spirit at the first Feast of Pentecost (the origin of the Pentecostal name) after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They point especially to the first four verses: "When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." Pentecostals still claim that a first or early sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in every individual is a repetition of this experience. They often describe it as a "prayer language."

But that isn't what you see if you continue in Acts 2.

The passage continues (verses 5-11): "Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." This is not the description of some unknown gibberish. Rather, those upon whom the Spirit has come are speaking known languages, though they were unknown to the speakers.

The Apostle Paul talks about this same experience in his first epistle to the Corinthian church, especially in chapters 12 and 14.

Paul says this: "There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me" (I Corinthians 14:10-11). As did Luke in Acts, Paul here talks about tongues, again not as random noises, but rather as known (though not by the speaker) foreign languages.

It is on this basis that I have issued a challenge several times to Pentecostals, especially of the Oneness variety, to prove that their "tongues" are real languages, and not merely random animal noises. While I have heard plenty of protestations of offense, I have yet to get even one effort to meet the challenge. Which, I think, proves what I have said elsewhere, that today's tongues movement is a counterfeit version of the original.

The Book of Acts: The Record of Leadership, from Jesus to the Apostles

One of the basic rules of biblical hermeneutics, i. e., the proper interpretation of a document, is that a text must be considered according to the type of literature it is. The Bible contains all of the forms of literature that we see in any other context of written communication, such as poetry, narrative, law, etc. And one form of literature cannot be interpreted the same way as another. Poetry communicates in a way that narrative does not, for example.

The Book of Acts is a book of history, covering a period of about thirty years from the resurrection of Christ to the imprisonment of Paul. It is not primarily a book of doctrine, in contrast to the epistles, or a book of eschatology like the book of Revelation. Rather, it is a description of the historical events that happened at a certain time. Therefore, any doctrine that depends inordinately on Acts as its basis is likely to lead in an unorthodox direction. We see this in the Pentecostal movement, especially in its Oneness aberration. Acts is the Word of God, requiring that any doctrine in it must be infallible. However, to put undue emphasis on doctrinal statements in Acts, without vetting it with the rest of Scripture, will always lead to trouble.

What was Luke's purpose in writing Acts? We see where he gave some indications. Look especially at the first two verses (Acts 1:1-2): "In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen." Luke's first book, that which is called by his name, was devoted to the person and direct teachings of Jesus. The second, on the other hand, was dedicated to His leaving and the growth of the new church under the care of His lieutenants, the Twelve Apostles (with Matthias in the place of Judas, and then augmented by His brother James and the converted Paul). So, according to Luke's own words, his intention was to describe a particular historical situation, not to give doctrinal tutoring. And that makes sense, since Luke was the companion of Paul. Paul's ministry was, in part, to develop the theology of the church. Luke, therefore, provides the historical complement to the ministry of Paul.

We immediately see Jesus's carrying out this program in verses 8 and 24 of the same chapter. In Acts 1:8, Jesus gives another version of His Great Commission: "You will be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." The rest of the book would be a record of the first steps in the fulfillment of this commission. Verse 24 is the Apostles profession that they understood their offices to be, not an opportunity for power, but rather that same assignment from their Lord. 

We see the continuing development of this post-Jesus church government in chapter 6, where the Apostles this time, not Jesus by direct act, in the appointment of the seven deacons (Acts 6:1-6). The Apostles are now acting in their own authority (under the headship of Christ), a maturing of their sense of responsibility. We see this again in Acts 10:42: "He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that He is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead." The Apostles, emboldened by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (chapter 2), now took a personal responsibility for the ministry assigned to them by Christ, on which the rest of the organized church would be built: "The household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20).

The logical conclusion from all of this is that Acts is a book of history, a description of events at a particular point in history, and not (speaking in general) a record of how things are supposed always to be. Compare the Old Testament. Only a lunatic would claim that the command given to Israel to conquer Canaan was intended to be normative for the rest of history. Is each generation of believers supposed to go conquer the land that is now Israel? No. In the same way, the tongues and other miraculous signs of Acts were intended for a particular point in the history of the church, that of its passing from a body in the physical presence of Jesus, to a body spiritually headed by Jesus, but organized by men appointed to that end, as evidenced by special abilities given to them, as Luke himself tells us (Acts 14:3): "They remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands" (see also Mark 16:20, II Corinthians 12:12, and Hebrews 2:3-4).

The Apostles, Tongues, and the Holy Spirit

Pentecostals claim that a sign (sometimes the sign) of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues, a reference to the events described in Acts 2. Oneness Pentecostals go further and claim that a person must speak in tongues to be saved. I have expressed my views on tongues-speaking elsewhere (use the "glossolalia" tag at the bottom).

I have a real problem with either assertion (especially that of Oneness).

Here is one reason why: "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness" (Luke 4:1). This refers to His actions after His temptation by Satan. Note that it explicitly states that He was "full of the Holy Spirit." What it does not say is that He spoke in tongues. 

What do the Pentecostals say about this passage? It belies their assertion about tongues. He didn't speak in tongues, yet the inspired commentary does not let us deny that He was filled with the Spirit. And it is even worse for the Oneness Pentecostals, because their doctrine means that Jesus needs to be saved. Surely it would be blasphemous to assert any such thing.

The solution is simple. There is no connection between tongues and the filling with the Holy Spirit. The circumstances in Acts (and mentioned nowhere else) reflect the transition from the the direct leadership of Jesus to His indirect leadership through the Apostles. The extraordinary signs were vindications of the Apostles, not the Spirit. 

What Is Baptism with Fire?

Speaking of the coming of Christ, John the Baptist told his audience (Matthew 3:11-12): "I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not

John the Baptist

worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and He will clear His threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire."

We often hear verse 11 quoted, especially by Pentecostals, who claim that it refers to baptism with water and baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire, which is supposed to be what they're doing when they are writhing around spouting gibberish. Notice that they never go on to verse 12, because it shows that their interpretation is merely begging the question, not the actual intention of John.

John says that Jesus will do two things, baptize with the Holy Spirit, and baptize with fire. This is what the Pentecostals try to make into one thing. However, he goes on in verse 12 also to describe two different groups of people, the "wheat," and the "chaff" (compare the Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30). The first group He will gather (cp., Matthew 24:31) into the barns, that is, to be kept, while the latter group is intended for fire. Thus the baptism with the Holy Spirit is for the first group, while the baptism with fire awaits the other.

Thus, taken together, the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the baptism with fire are two distinct things, the first for believers and the second for unbelievers.

This is consistent with the rest of Scripture. For example, Paul tells us that all believers, not just some of a special class, are baptized with the Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13, see also John 7:39). We also know from other passages that Jesus Himself described fire as the destiny of unbelievers (Matthew 25:46, Mark 9:42-49).

I think that this simple use of context and the analogy of faith, i. e., comparing one passage to another, demonstrates that the use of this passage is unwarranted, at best. It takes the mere proximity of two words to mean that the two words refer to the same thing. There is no glossolalia taught here.

Gnosticism: Where Are You on the Pentecostal Ladder?

In the Second Century, a heresy arose known as Gnosticism. That isn't my topic here. Rather, I want to concentrate on one element from that page: "The Gnostics supposedly had knowledge of God that was exclusive. They considered themselves superior to the average Christian." In other words, the Gnostics had a hierarchical view of the Christian community. One had to move up the ranks to gain more knowledge, knowledge that was withheld from the lower echelons. We see this in our day in the secret doctrines taught in Mormon temple rituals and the degree system of the Freemasons.

But it's too easy to point out the cultic and gnostic elements in organizations as aberrant as the Mormons and the Freemasons. I would point my finger just as surely at the Pentecostal branch of modern evangelicalism.

The Scriptures tell us that every believer receives the Holy Spirit; He comes to the believer as part of what happens to him at conversion. We see that in the words of the Apostle John: "This He said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:39). John tells his readers that a change would come at Pentecost (Acts 2), in which the ascended Christ would send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit (John 15:26), who, from that point, would be present in every true believer. The Apostle Paul, writing to an audience converted after Pentecost, tells them: "In one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit" (I Corinthians 12:13). He tells these Christians that they had all, past tense and inclusive of the whole church, received the Holy Spirit. That reception was not reserved to an extra-spiritual group within the church. Nor is He offered as something future, for which spiritual people were to strive. He had come to each one, a done deal!

Notice how contrary that is to the program of Pentecostals, who claim that people first come to know Jesus, and then work to receive the Holy Spirit in a later experience. Only those who have done so are believed to be living a Christian life. That is, they have created a hierarchy, just as the Gnostics did, of those who merely know Jesus, and the higher class that have also received the Holy Spirit.

That is a false doctrine, and wrongly imposes guilt on those who believe that they have failed to achieve that next level, contrary both to the words of Jesus cited by John and to Paul.

"Baptism with Fire": What Is It?

In Matthew 3:11 (and the parallel in Luke 3:16), we see a quote from John the Baptist that has always seemed mysterious to me: "I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." John was making a clear distinction of status between himself and the One who was coming after him, i. e., Jesus. While John was performing an external rite with water, Jesus would do an internal work "with the Holy Spirit and fire."

Pentecostals take the reference as one thing, that "Holy Spirit" and "fire" are appositives, referring to their experiences of tongues, etc. Orthodox Protestants, on the other hand, consider the baptism with the Holy Spirit to be something that happens to every true believer when he is born again. I consider that understanding to be consistent with I Corinthians 12:13: "in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit" (see also John 7:39).

That phrase, "baptized with the Holy Spirit," occurs several times in the New Testament. We find it in Mark 1:8, John 1:33, Acts 1:5, 11:16, and 18:25. In none of these verse is it paired with "fire," even in the parallel verses in Mark 1:8 and John 1:33.

I think we must take that to mean that "with the Holy Spirit" and "with fire" are not different words for the same thing, but rather references to contrasting things. "Baptism with the Holy Spirit," as Paul indicates, is something that happens to every believer. Then, to whom does the contrasting "baptism with fire" apply?

On whom else does Jesus attribute a pouring out of fire? He mentions Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:29), and unrepentant unbelievers (Matthew 25:41). These verses indicate that "fire" is not used for an extra-spiritual experience of the saved, but rather for judgment on the wicked (compare Mark 9:42-49).

This gives, I think, by analogy of the faith, what John was saying of Jesus: "I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me will baptize you [believers] with the Holy Spirit and [you unbelievers with] fire." Note that "you" is plural, so he is addressing the whole audience, not anyone in particular. That is why he would have used an inclusive comment. To have spoken as the Pentecostals interpret him would have him to assume that all of his audience was - or would be - believers, which is obviously not the case. Also, look at the verse in both Matthew and Luke, where Jesus makes it explicit: "The chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire."

The Pentecostal Signs: Jesus Said That a Time Would Come When They Would Cease

 My answer to the question above is "no." I am a strict cessationist, as I have written before (see the "cessationism" tag below). I am convinced that the extraordinary spiritual gifts were intended only for the minstry of the Apostles, and, therefore, ceased with their passing from history.

As part of my reasoning for that, I refer you to Jesus's words in John 9:4: "We must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work." He said that just as He was preparing to heal a blind man, so we know that He referred, at least, to the gift of healing (I Corinthians 12:9, 28, 30). And, logically speaking, if that gift was to end, then the others of its class would, as well. This does not mean that God no longer heals, but rather that He no longer gives a gift of healing to particular individuals.

Someone may say that this argument doesn't prove cessationism conclusively, and I would grant that. However, I do not assert it as my only argument for cessationism. See here, for example, where I show, conclusively I think, that the extraordinary gifts were intended to serve as a verification of the authority of the Apostles, thus becoming unnecessary with their passing. I refer there to Mark 16:20, Acts 14:3, II Corinthians 12:12, and Hebrews 2:3-4. When you start adding all of these passages together, then I think you see an insurmountable case.

Does Having the Bible Allow Continuing Revelation?

The question in the title of this post should have brought immediate images to mind, such as the Book of Mormon. And that is certainly one of the things that I have in mind. However, we should also think of Pentecostal "prophets," the Pope, and a lot of common Christians who claim that "God told me."

I am opposed to all of these claims of revelation because they undermine the sufficiency of the true Scriptures, the Bible, in both the Old and the New testaments.

First, what does the Bible say about itself? Paul, writing to his apprentice Timothy, said (II Timothy 3:14-17): "As for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." Notice what he tells us about the Scriptures. First, they are "breathed out by God," i. e., their authority derives from their ultimate authorship by God. Second, they make us wise for salvation. And third, they equip the believer, so that he is complete, equipped for every good work.

The desire for additional revelation indicates that the person does not believe that the Scriptures are sufficient for salvation, and would leave a believer incomplete, ill-equipped for every good work. That is, that they fail to achieve their intended purpose (see Isaiah 55:11).

Notice, secondly, what Jude 1:3 also says: "Beloved, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." While it may be true that the full explanation was not yet complete when Jude wrote, he clearly indicates that the content was delivered once for all. This brother of the Lord saw no need for the revelation of any new doctrines, as both Rome and the Mormons have done. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews said the same thing (Hebrews 1:1-2): "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but, in these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world." There is progressive revelation from the creation to the Gospels to the founding of the church, because all revelation was to point to Jesus Christ. Once He came, there was some apostolic explanation necessary, but no additional content was necessary or possible. That rules out the new dogmas decreed by Rome, such as papal infallibility, or the ascension of Mary, as well as "another testimony of Jesus Christ" pretended by the Mormons.

Pentecostals and the Pope: Reversing the Reformation

At a convention sponsored by the Kenneth Copeland Ministries, delegates were treated to a video from Pope Francis, in which he expressed his yearning, "Let’s give each other a spiritual embrace and let God complete the work that He has begun." The video can be watched on Youtube.

In the video, the Pope claims that the Catholic Church and Pentecostals share the blame for the separation between them. "It’s sin that has separated us, all our sins, the misunderstandings throughout history. It has been a long road of sins that we all shared in. Who is to blame? We all share the blame," he said. "We have all sinned. There is only one blameless, the Lord."

In response, Kenneth Copeland told the audience, "Come on, the man asked us to pray for him... Oh Father…we answer his request," Copeland prayed. "And since we know not how to pray for him as we ought other than to agree with him in his quest and his heart for the unity of the body of Christ… we come together in the unity of our faith, Halleluiah!"

Do you notice anything missing from the lovefest? I see no mention of the controversy between Rome and Protestants over such things as justification b y faith alone, the sufficiency of the scriptures alone, or the exclusive headship of Christ over His church. That is, neither Francis nor Copeland makes any mention of the reasons that Calvin, Luther, Cranmer, etc., were compelled by Scripture and their consciences to oppose the Papacy as a corruption of the Christian Faith.

That is hardly surprising. Afterall, Copeland and his ilk teach the same semi-Pelagian heresy that has always been taught by Rome. While Francis mumbles about sin on both sides, he sees no need to repent of his view of the Gospel, because these Pentecostals ( and others) aren't requiring him to move toward a biblical Gospel. Rather, they have been moving toward a papist Gospel of human ability, tradition over Scripture, subjectivism, and the blending of works with faith.

The Reformers labelled the Papacy as the Anti-Christ, and the Church of Rome as the great Whore of the Revelation. And in the five hundred years since, Rome hasn't changed anything but the window-dressing. Yet, she has managed to convince some self-described Protestants to de-Protestantize themselves, and return to her blasphemous bosom.

I for one say good riddance!

By no means should my comments here be taken to suggest that all Pentecostals share in the apostasy of these associates of Kenneth Copeland. However, I have yet to see their condemnation of these apostates.

God says, "Come out of her, My people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues" (Revelation 18:4).

Is This the Time for Signs and Wonders?

In the debate between cessationists, those who believe that the Pentecostal gifts were for a particular time only, and continuationists, those who hold that they are permanent gifts in the church, the cessationist case is usually based on I Corinthians 13:10: "When the perfect comes, the partial will pass away," which is understood to refer to the completion of the New Testament canon. And I grant the importance of that. Pentecostals play fast and loose with the implications of continuing revelation, like teasing an unfamiliar dog. But I think there is more in Scripture to indicate that the extraordinary gifts were intended for the apostolic period only, not as a continuing phenomenon.

There are four verses that I want to consider.

The first is Mark 16:20: "They [i. e., the Apostles, v.14] went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs." This verse is especially important, because it is in the context of one of the strongest descriptions of the Pentecostal gifts, especially verses 17 and 18.

Next is Acts 14:3: "They [i. e., Paul and Barnabas] remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands."

The third is II Corinthians 12:12: "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works." Here the context is Paul's defense of his apostleship as equal to that of the original Twelve.

And finally, I refer to Hebrews 2:3-4: "It [i. e., the message of salvation] was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will."

What do all of these passages have in common?  They refer to signs and wonders, not as a permanent state of the church or as general to all Christians, but rather as proofs of the ministry of the Apostles in their evangelistic work. Now, that office is the role that was ultimately fulfilled by the completion of the canon, thus closing the office of apostleship.

Some Pentecostals, conceding the apostolic connection, claim to have a continuing office of Apostle (as does the Catholic Church). The error of that claim is particularly bold, considering that one of the qualifications for an Apostle was to have seen the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22). Observe also the doctrines associated with these so-called new Apostles: Pelagianism, Sabellianism, and the arrogance of claims to new revelation. Heresies of a feather flock together!

Preaching: New Testament Prophecy

"Pursue love and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God, for no one understands him, but he utters in the Spirit. On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church."

Two contrasting images are set before us by Paul in this passage (I Corinthians 14:1-4).

On one hand he describes one who speaks in tongues, not understood by those around (unlike what happens in Acts 2). The distinguishing mark of that gift is that it is communication between the believer and God, i. e., a private conversation. Over against this is the gift of prophecy. The New Testament prophet addresses the church, for upbuilding, encouragement, and consolation.

Notice what he does not say: nowhere does Paul even intimate that this gift of prophecy is a revelatory gift. In that sense, this New Testament prophet is quite unlike his Old Testament counterpart. Isaiah, for example, was the intermediary between God and Israel in the proclamation of new Scripture. The New Testament prophet, i. e., the preacher of the Word, is proclaiming previous revelation, such as that of Isaiah, to the church for the purpose of edification. This is the historic understanding of this passage, at least among orthodox Protestants. The 1560 version of the Geneva Bible explains "prophesy" in verse 1 (with modern spelling), "That is, to expound the word of God to the edification of the Church." The interpretation that became popular among Pentecostals runs contrary to at least 350 years of Protestant history!

We see Paul encouraging his theology student Timothy to "guard the deposit entrusted" to him (I Timothy 6:20). What deposit was that? We see the answer in II Timothy 3:14-16, "As for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from Whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." Again, look at what Paul tells Timothy: continue in the deposit that he had received even from childhood, the Scriptures! What does he not tell him to do? To seek new revelation! Isn't this the very opposite of what today's continuationists, such as Wayne Grudem and self-described Pentecostals, advocate?

Someone will ask about I Corinthians 13:8, "As for prophecies, they will pass away." Doesn't that mean, if my interpretation is correct, that prophesying will cease? Well, no. "Prophesying" does not pass away; "prophecies" do. Or, as he phrases it just above, in verse 2, "prophetic powers." Related terminology, obviously, but referring to two different things. Prophecy is gone, because the Scriptures are sufficient, "that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (II Timothy 3:17). "Prophesying" is still essential for teaching and applying those same Scriptures. That's why Paul describes it as the superior gift for the Corinthians. It is also why Paul exhorts Timothy (II Timothy 4:2) to "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching."

Was the Apostle Paul a Pentecostal?

In I Corinthians 14:18, the Apostle Paul makes a simple statement: "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you." Pentecostals love to quote this verse to prove that their theology has an apostolic origin. But does it?

Another thing that Paul says of himself, in Acts 21:39, is, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia." As a native of that mostly-Gentile city, he would have grown up as a native speaker of Greek. He repeats that information in Acts 22:3, and adds, "[I] was educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers." This refers to his training as a Pharisee (cf. Acts 23:6, 26:5, and Philippians 3:5). Both as a Jew by birth and as a Pharisee by training, he would have been intimately familiar with Hebrew. And the accounts of his defense before Roman authorities (e. g., Felix in Acts 24, Festus in ch. 25, and Agrippa in ch. 26) strongly imply a fluency in Latin.

In other words, the historical account describes Paul speaking at least three tongues, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Nowhere does Scripture describe Paul sing-songing "la-la-linga-dinga," or any such gibberish.

So, does Scripture give us an Apostle Paul who spoke in tongues? Absolutely! Do we find anywhere a Paul who could be compared to modern Pentecostals? Only in the imaginations of those who claim that name for themselves.

Glossolalia in Acts 2

"When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues, as of fire, appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

"Now there were, dwelling in Jerusalem, Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And, at the sound, the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speak in his own language."
- Acts 2:1-6

This passage is so closely associated with the tongues movement that its common name, Pentecostalism, is even derived from it. However, I think that a careful reading of it will indicate that there is no Pentecostalism in it. I intend to make my case through three points: 1) the events described were of a special occasion, never intended to be normative; 2) the tongues were in the ears of the hearers, not in the mouths of the speakers; and 3) the glossolalia of modern Pentecostals is utterly unlike the tongues in this passage.

The passage in Acts 2 must be addressed in its context. I especially include the words of Jesus in Acts 1:4-5, "Wait for the promise of the Father, which, He [i.e., Jesus] said, 'You heard from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" And again in verse 8, "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." That context indicates that the events of Pentecost must be considered the fulfillment of those words of Christ. He was sending the Holy Spirit (see also, e. g., John 14:16 and 14:26) to empower the disciples for their calling in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). The Holy Spirit isn't a heavenly yo-yo, being sent and then withdrawn repeatedly. When He came at Pentecost, He came to stay. Therefore, the events in Acts 2 can only be one-time, not to be repeated as a normative event.

Second, read the actual words of the passage: in verse 6, the listeners are said to hear the speakers speaking in the language of each one. This is repeated in verse 11, where the particular languages are even named. That indicates that this was less a matter of speaking in tongues than of hearing in tongues.

Third, Pentecostals cannot even prove that their tongues are actual languages. Their gibberish is no more capable of "telling the mighty works of God" (compare I Corinthians 14:22) than are the experimental vocalizations of infants. However, to point that out makes the sceptical observer the equivalent of a spiritual buzz-kill, and will be rewarded with scorn, not meaningful answers.

I am not attempting here to address the issue of tongues, in general. I have addressed that elsewhere (use the tag below). Rather, my intention in this post is only to address the use of this passage by Pentecostals. I think that use represents really bad exegesis, completely ignoring what the passage says, simply to justify an experience. That is backwards: experience should never be forced into Scripture; rather, Scripture must judge experience. That, I think, is the fundamental distinction between my theology and that of Pentecostalism.

An Answer to a Pentecostal Minister Regarding Predestination

I was recently watching a roundtable discussion on TV among several Pentecostal ministers. An emailer wrote in and asked the opinion of the panel regarding the doctrine of predestination. Among the responses was one by a panel member, in which he snorted, "'Whosoever will' is all you need to know." I believed that such a vacuous answer could not go unchallenged, so I emailed him the brief argument below. Due to his particular biases, I used the King James Version, rather than my usual ESV.  I will give his response at the bottom.

First, no one "wills" to come to God naturally, because we are all "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1). As such, Paul says that "no one seeks God" (Romans 3:11). So you used that phrase to mean something that Scripture says is impossible. Rather, God must take the initiative to give us a new heart (Ezekiel 11:19-20 and 36:26-27).

In John 6:44, Jesus says, "No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him." And Paul makes the same point in Philippians 2:13, "it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure." It is God that creates the will in us to respond to the Gospel. It isn't something that we have in us. Yes, it is "whosoever will," but only because God gives us that will to begin with. What He requires, He provides (John 1:13). Paul says that God even gives us the very repentance which is a part of our response to the Gospel: "In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth..." (II Timothy 2:25).

This is why I believe in predestination, because I have experienced the truth that it is only by God's ordination that I believed (Acts 13:48), and because my Jesus chose me, I did not choose Him (John 15:16). That is my assurance, that He is faithful and unfailing, regardless of how frail and faltering I am (John 6:39, 10:28-29).

Edited to remove identifying remarks, he responded, "Sir I am sorry to say but you follow false doctrine and obviously lack an understanding of God 's Holy Word. May I suggest you get the Expositors Study Bible from JSM.org then you will understand scripture. I will not debate this with you because I am very busy and if I need to be corrected on scriptures and doctrine then My pastors... will do that . Thanks"

Tongues: Not a Blessing, but a Curse

Deuteronomy literally means "second law," because it contains the second enumeration of the Ten Commandments. It is primarily a book of the covenant, the terms of the treaty of relationship between Jehovah and His people. It includes blessings for covenant faithfulness, as well as curses for treason against the covenant. The verse I wish to highlight is in the latter portion.

Deuteronomy 28:49, "The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end of the earth, swooping down like the eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand."

There are a number of verses throughout the Old Testament that parallel this one. For example, Isaiah 28:11, "For by people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue, the Lord will speak to this people." Paul also quotes this verse to the same end in I Corinthians 14:21, and then adds in verse 22, "Thus, tongues are a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers." That is, to unbelieving Jews. Yet, where do we see the promotion of "tongues"? In church worship services! The purpose of these verses, if I may paraphrase, is for God to tell Israel, "If you refuse to listen to Me, then I will continue to speak to you, but through languages that you do not understand." This was a judgment. It is as the parent who continues his warnings to an errant child, even as that child puts his fingers in his ears to keep from hearing. I refer to these verses as the defense of my belief that glossolalia, commonly referred to as "speaking in tongues," is not a blessing, and is not intended for today's Church. Hearing someone else speak in an unknown tongue is a final step in God's bringing discipline against a wayward believer or church. When a professing Christian hears other people speaking in tongues, that means that either he or his entire community has provoked the wrath of God and may soon anticipate some form of judgment. This is not a good thing!

Why I Do Not Hold to "Signs and Wonders" Christianity

"How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will."
- Hebrews 2:3-4

This passage seems to me to undermine the entire premise of Pentecostal churches and the Charismatic movement. Signs, wonders, miracles, and [some] gifts of the Holy Spirit were given, not to create a superior class of Christians, but rather to confirm the Gospel message. That last part is why I am more accepting of such things in pioneering missionary works, especially in predominantly-Muslim areas. However, that proviso certainly does not apply to the United States!

Paul is usually quoted in favor of the continuing Pentecostal gifts. After all, he claimed to speak in tongues more than the rest of the church (I Corinthians 14:18). But why? Afterall, Paul himself said (verses 2-4) that tongues benefit the speaker alone, not the church. So why does he advocate them?

In a later passage (II Corinthians 12:12), Paul says, "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works." These miraculous gifts were marks of his true apostleship, in contrast to the false apostles of verse 11. This same point is made in Acts 14:3, "So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their [i.e., Paul and Barnabas, who is called an apostle here] hands." Again, the miraculous gifts are God's signs of the authenticity of the apostolic message. This is also why Jesus Himself rebuked those who seek signs (Matthew 12:39); they aren't for you!

That brings us back to the Hebrews passage above: The signs and wonders were the marks of the apostolic message, not of spiritual superiority. Thus, those churches which advocate them in the modern church are actually undermining the biblical message, applying what ended with the apostles to modern Christians, and further creating guilt and despondency in those church members who don't experience them. I am being generous in saying experiencing "them," since I actually believe that their modern expressions are counterfeits. I will note that a few Pentecostal groups actually acknowledge this difficulty, but then get around it by claiming that their clergy are modern apostles. This especially marks the New Apostolic Church, but is also found in many independent congregations. This is also why the Roman Catholic Church is so welcoming to charismatics: the Catholic hierarchy claims a continuing apostolic authority!

Signs and Wonders and Heretics, Oh My!

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." - I John 4:1

The Apostle John here is applying a warning from the Law of Moses. In Deuteronomy 13:1-3, God through Moses gives a stern warning: "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, 'Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, 'and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." So, our God will sometimes allow a false teacher to prophesy or perform miracles, not as an endorsement, but rather as a test of the obedience of His people.

The same apostle himself prophesies of a marvelous wonder performed by the sea beast of the Revelation. In Rev. 13:1, he tells us, "One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast." And again in 17:8, "The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come." John obviously doesn't believe that miracle-working is proof of divine sanction!

Yet, the astonishing thing is that, in spite of these warnings, every crackpot tent evangelist who can stage a few healings soon has crowds eating out of his (or often her) hands and sending their life savings by return mail. This though they are often Pelagians, Arians, or simply charlatans! Everyone knows that Jim Bakker went to prison for his activities, but others, notably Benny Hinn, are still on the road. Surely thousands are failing the test of faith spoken of in Deuteronomy.