"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."
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Was the Apostle Paul a Pentecostal?
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.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Agriculture in the Deserts of Israel: Fulfillment of Prophecy?
"For the palace is forsaken, the populous city deserted;
The hill and the watchtower will become dens forever,
A joy of wild donkeys, a pasture of flocks;
Until the Spirit is poured on us from on high,
And the wilderness becomes a fruitful field,
And the fruitful field is deemed a forest."
- Isaiah 32:14-15
I have heard TV preachers, especially Pat Robertson and John Hagee, talk about the agricultural success of Israel as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. And I certainly admit that the way the Israelis have made the desert bloom is amazing. However, that is a far cry from agreeing that it is a miracle of prophecy.
What do the verses above tell us? They consist of two examples of Hebrew parallelism. The first three lines describe the judgment of God, which was to lead soon to the exile in Babylon. The second three lines describe, not irrigation or agriculture, but a move of the Holy Spirit (see also Isaiah 35). That is, the prophecies of the prosperity of the desert aren't about orange groves among the sand dunes, but about conversion! When Israel, ethnically speaking, not geographically or politically, as a nation, opens its eyes to our Messiah Jesus Christ (Romans 11:25-26), then the desert of their hearts will blossom in new life.
Whether this is to happen in the State of Israel or among the diaspora, I can't claim to know. But I don't think that's an issue. However, either way, I can only see that the fulfillment of this biblical prophecy is a far cry from the dispensational spin that is commonly put on it.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
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.
"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.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
The Question of Evil: What Is God's Answer?
A common deflection used by secularists is, "If God is real, why is there evil and suffering?" The reason I call it a deflection is because it isn't an honest question (Romans 1:18-19). Rather, it is an effort to silence believers and the nagging voice of conscience.
The usual response is some form of, "Well, God has to give us free will." But there are two fundamental problems with that answer. First is the belief - erroneous though it may be - of the unbeliever that he didn't choose whatever suffering he has known in his life. That belief immediately shuts down his participation in the discussion. Second, and more importantly, is that it isn't biblical! The phrase "free will" appears nowhere in Scripture, and God never promises to honor our imaginations on His behalf.
However, God has condescended to give His answer to the question.
In Job 36:15, we read, "He delivers the afflicted by their affliction and opens their ears by affliction." God brings pain into the lives of the elect that they may turn to Him. Sufferings cause us to despise this world and the comforts of sin, and to turn to Him for mercy, relief, and hope.
Once a person reaches that point, then, and only then, he is ready to talk about the Fall, and how it brought disease, death, and futility into our experience (Genesis 3:17-19, Isaiah 24:4-6, Romans 5:12, 8:22). And then we can talk about the solution: "If many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many" (Romans 5:16).
Suffering entered the world through man's sin, but God gives it purpose and meaning in the life of the elect: to turn him to redemption in Jesus Christ. Understanding the source and purpose of evil is the only way to understand the solution!
The usual response is some form of, "Well, God has to give us free will." But there are two fundamental problems with that answer. First is the belief - erroneous though it may be - of the unbeliever that he didn't choose whatever suffering he has known in his life. That belief immediately shuts down his participation in the discussion. Second, and more importantly, is that it isn't biblical! The phrase "free will" appears nowhere in Scripture, and God never promises to honor our imaginations on His behalf.
However, God has condescended to give His answer to the question.
In Job 36:15, we read, "He delivers the afflicted by their affliction and opens their ears by affliction." God brings pain into the lives of the elect that they may turn to Him. Sufferings cause us to despise this world and the comforts of sin, and to turn to Him for mercy, relief, and hope.
Once a person reaches that point, then, and only then, he is ready to talk about the Fall, and how it brought disease, death, and futility into our experience (Genesis 3:17-19, Isaiah 24:4-6, Romans 5:12, 8:22). And then we can talk about the solution: "If many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many" (Romans 5:16).
Suffering entered the world through man's sin, but God gives it purpose and meaning in the life of the elect: to turn him to redemption in Jesus Christ. Understanding the source and purpose of evil is the only way to understand the solution!
Friday, February 14, 2014
People are Basically Good, Aren't They?
This is the mantra of American public religion. Yet, it actually reflects a humanist/secularist worldview. It is similar to surveys of drivers in which 90% consider themselves to be in the top 10% in driving skill.
Whether the speaker is a nominal Christian or a professing agnostic or atheist, he is applying an external moral system to himself. He's not a murderer, is he? Or a child molester? But by what standard does he determine that a murderer or child molester are worse than someone else? By the standard of biblical mores that have been absorbed into our culture since the days of the Pilgrims. This is called "precept stealing." In other words, in the process of denying biblical Christianity, he is acknowledging the truth of it. This is a real-world expression of what Paul talks about in Romans 1:18-21, especially verse 18, "men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." All men know the truth of the Lordship of God and their rebellion against Him. They merely pretend not to know, like the misbehaving child who sticks his fingers in his ears and declares, "La-la-la, I can't hear you."
Unfortunately for this hypothetical person, Scripture continues to be true, whether he listens, or not.
Sin is a violation of God's Law, whether it is doing something which He forbids, such as murder or theft, or it is failing to do something that He requires, such as loving Him with the whole heart, soul, and strength, or our neighbors as ourselves. And, while it true that some sins, such as murder, are worse than others, that doesn't give our speaker any wiggle room for self-comfort, because any violation, major or minor, makes us guilty of the whole Law. This is stated explicitly in James 2:10, "For whoever keeps the whole Law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." And every sin, whether major or minor, is an offense against the holiness of God, Habakkuk 1:13 (NASB), "Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, and You cannot look on wickedness with favor." And the consequence of that is that we, every single one of us, is separated from God. Isaiah 59:2, "Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He does not hear."
But the wonder of all this is that God did not leave the situation where we do. On His own initiative, He made a way for us to be reconciled with Him. Again, from Isaiah 53:6, "All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned - every one - to his own way, and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all." God gave His own Son to assume the judgment that all of His people have earned, and we need but to receive it. Romans 10:9-10, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."
Whether a person professes to be a Christian or is a professed nonbeliever, the steps are the same: he must understand the bad news of his sin and its consequences before he can claim the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ!
Whether the speaker is a nominal Christian or a professing agnostic or atheist, he is applying an external moral system to himself. He's not a murderer, is he? Or a child molester? But by what standard does he determine that a murderer or child molester are worse than someone else? By the standard of biblical mores that have been absorbed into our culture since the days of the Pilgrims. This is called "precept stealing." In other words, in the process of denying biblical Christianity, he is acknowledging the truth of it. This is a real-world expression of what Paul talks about in Romans 1:18-21, especially verse 18, "men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." All men know the truth of the Lordship of God and their rebellion against Him. They merely pretend not to know, like the misbehaving child who sticks his fingers in his ears and declares, "La-la-la, I can't hear you."
Unfortunately for this hypothetical person, Scripture continues to be true, whether he listens, or not.
Sin is a violation of God's Law, whether it is doing something which He forbids, such as murder or theft, or it is failing to do something that He requires, such as loving Him with the whole heart, soul, and strength, or our neighbors as ourselves. And, while it true that some sins, such as murder, are worse than others, that doesn't give our speaker any wiggle room for self-comfort, because any violation, major or minor, makes us guilty of the whole Law. This is stated explicitly in James 2:10, "For whoever keeps the whole Law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." And every sin, whether major or minor, is an offense against the holiness of God, Habakkuk 1:13 (NASB), "Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, and You cannot look on wickedness with favor." And the consequence of that is that we, every single one of us, is separated from God. Isaiah 59:2, "Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He does not hear."
But the wonder of all this is that God did not leave the situation where we do. On His own initiative, He made a way for us to be reconciled with Him. Again, from Isaiah 53:6, "All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned - every one - to his own way, and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all." God gave His own Son to assume the judgment that all of His people have earned, and we need but to receive it. Romans 10:9-10, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."
Whether a person professes to be a Christian or is a professed nonbeliever, the steps are the same: he must understand the bad news of his sin and its consequences before he can claim the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ!
Sunday, February 9, 2014
The Reformed Confessions and the Catholic Distortion of Sola Scriptura
"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture... There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word..."
The portion above is from the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I, section 6.
The Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter II, says (in part), "We do not admit any judge than God Himself, who proclaims by the Holy Scriptures what is true, what is false, what is to be followed, or what is to be avoided." But this comes only after, "We do not permit ourselves, in controversies about religion or matters of faith, to urge our case with only the opinions of the fathers or decrees of councils; much less by received customs, or by the large number of those who share the same opinion, or by prescription of a long time."
The Belgic Confession, Article 7, says, "This Holy Scripture most perfectly contains the whole will of God and... all things are taught in it abundantly, whatsoever is necessary to be believed by people in order to grasp salvation... No one, however much gifted with apostolic dignity, nor likewise any Angel cast down from heaven, as blessed Paul says, is lawfully allowed to teach otherwise than what we have already thoroughly learned long ago in the Holy Scriptures."
The reader may have a question, arising naturally from these extensive quotes, as to why I have presented these extensive quotes, repeating closely-related substance. And the answer is because of what I have seen, mainly on Amazon, in comments regarding books on the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, but also in comments on my own previous posts (click on the tag below), that this doctrine means that Protestants claim to believe only what is explicitly stated in Scripture, resulting in a "me and my bible" mentality.
While I certainly concede that there are people guilty of that attitude, I do not concede the Catholic red herring that it is representative of the successors of the Reformation. To the contrary, Protestants recognize both logical implications of the explicit statements of Scripture and the role of councils and tradition in maturing our understanding of those statements. What divides us from the Church of Rome is that we hold that Scripture alone is infallible, and, therefore, that all such councils and traditions, including our confessions, are inherently subordinate to the authority of Scripture. This separates orthodox Protestants from, on one side, the individualist Christian who claims authority for himself to despise the teachings of the biblical church, and, on the other side, the claims of the Church of Rome to infallibility for itself. Both errors are really opposite sides of the same coin: the rejection of the authority of Scripture as God's Word results in an elevation of the mind of sinful man to a pretense of that authority, the very temptation to Eve from the mouth of Satan (Genesis 3:5).
If you are asking if I equate the blasphemous claims of Rome with Satan, you can rest assured that I most certainly am (Revelation 17:3-4)!
The portion above is from the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I, section 6.
The Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter II, says (in part), "We do not admit any judge than God Himself, who proclaims by the Holy Scriptures what is true, what is false, what is to be followed, or what is to be avoided." But this comes only after, "We do not permit ourselves, in controversies about religion or matters of faith, to urge our case with only the opinions of the fathers or decrees of councils; much less by received customs, or by the large number of those who share the same opinion, or by prescription of a long time."
The Belgic Confession, Article 7, says, "This Holy Scripture most perfectly contains the whole will of God and... all things are taught in it abundantly, whatsoever is necessary to be believed by people in order to grasp salvation... No one, however much gifted with apostolic dignity, nor likewise any Angel cast down from heaven, as blessed Paul says, is lawfully allowed to teach otherwise than what we have already thoroughly learned long ago in the Holy Scriptures."
The reader may have a question, arising naturally from these extensive quotes, as to why I have presented these extensive quotes, repeating closely-related substance. And the answer is because of what I have seen, mainly on Amazon, in comments regarding books on the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, but also in comments on my own previous posts (click on the tag below), that this doctrine means that Protestants claim to believe only what is explicitly stated in Scripture, resulting in a "me and my bible" mentality.
While I certainly concede that there are people guilty of that attitude, I do not concede the Catholic red herring that it is representative of the successors of the Reformation. To the contrary, Protestants recognize both logical implications of the explicit statements of Scripture and the role of councils and tradition in maturing our understanding of those statements. What divides us from the Church of Rome is that we hold that Scripture alone is infallible, and, therefore, that all such councils and traditions, including our confessions, are inherently subordinate to the authority of Scripture. This separates orthodox Protestants from, on one side, the individualist Christian who claims authority for himself to despise the teachings of the biblical church, and, on the other side, the claims of the Church of Rome to infallibility for itself. Both errors are really opposite sides of the same coin: the rejection of the authority of Scripture as God's Word results in an elevation of the mind of sinful man to a pretense of that authority, the very temptation to Eve from the mouth of Satan (Genesis 3:5).
If you are asking if I equate the blasphemous claims of Rome with Satan, you can rest assured that I most certainly am (Revelation 17:3-4)!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
