Prophecy and Tongues:

A Compilation of the best Cessationist Arguments

By Lee Irons
Although today’s charismatic excesses have developed beyond the earlier practice of
speaking in tongues into a veritable charismatic freaking show (witness the ecstatic
phenomena associated with the Toronto blessing), the more narrow issue of whether
tongues are for today still need to be addressed. I have not attempted to address the
many other theological issues involved (such as the theology of the second blessing, the
role of subjective experience in the Christian life, and so on). What follows of merely a
compilation of the best Cessationist arguments demonstrating that tongues and
prophecy have ceased with the close of the apostolic age. By no means are these
arguments original with me. I have relied heavily on the work of Richard Gaffin in
Perspectives on Pentecost (1979), which I consider to be the best book on the subject.
In fact, much of what follows is merely a simplified outline of Gaffin’s arguments, and I
quote him quite liberally. Other sources are also cited by way of corroboration and
exposition.

Statement of the Cessationist thesis

“Cessationism” is here defined as the thesis that some of the gifts (and their
corresponding offices) described in the New Testament are ordinary and perpetual,
while others were extraordinary and have accordingly been withdrawn from the life of
the church with the close of the apostotic age.
Ordinary gifts/offices
(for justification of this three-fold classification, see Brown)
Pastors and teachers – Rom 12:7, Eph 4:11, 1Tim 3:1-7
Elders (gift of rule and government) – 1Cor 12:28, Rom 12:8, 1Tim 5:17
Deacons (gift of serving, distribution, mercy) – Rom 12:7-8, 1Tim 3:8-13
Extraordinary gifts/offices (1Cor 12;28-30, Eph 4:11)
Apostles
Prophets (word of wisdom: of knowledge -1Cor 12: 8)
Evangelists
Distinguishing between spirits (1Cor 12:10)
Tongues
Interpretation of tongues
Workers of miracles; healing (“faith” included here? 1Cor 12: 9)
Note on the relation between gift and office
We cannot go into detail here, but it seems reasonable to assume that there is a close
relationship between gift and office. In the case of the extraordinary gifts, it is not
necessary to assume that an apostle was required to lay hands on every one who was
given an extraordinary gift (though this did occur in some instances- Acts 8:17, 19:6,
2Tim 1:6) Rather, the charismatic endowment itself would have constituted one’s
ordination in such cases.
With regard to the ordinary gifts, the following picture emerges. In the Pastorals (which
give us a glimpse of the order to be perpetuated in the church after the apostolic age),
we see that qualifications (1Tim 3:1-13), probationary testing (1Tim 3:10), and
ordination (1Tim 5:22, Tit 1:5) were becoming fixed elements in the setting apart of
official leaders in the church who have gifts of teaching (pastor), rule (elder), or mercy
(deacon). In addition to such special offices, there is also the general office of all
believers (Eph 4:11-13). Since all in the body of Christ are gifted spiritually, each one
may (and ought to) exercise his or her gifts “for the work of the ministry” and the
edification of the body, without necessarily having to be ordained to a special office
(Rom 12:4-8, Eph 4:16, 1Pet 4:10-11).

Positive affirmations
The question is not whether Cessationissts accept (or deny) the reality of the Holy
Spirit’s work in the lives of believers.
The Cessationist position affirms that all believers possess “the gifts” of the Holy Spirit
(Jn 7:37-39, Acts 2:38, 1Cor 12:13). All who have been baptized into Christ have been
baptized into the Holy Spirits.
It further affirms that the post-apostolic church continues to blessed with various
distribution of the Holy Spirit (“gifts”) for the edification of the body of Christ through
various forms of ministry (1Cor 12, Eph 4:11-16). Every believer has both “the gift” and
“gifts”. But not all believers have all the gifts, since they are distributed as God wills
(1Cor 12).
In addition, the Cessationist positive does not deny the subjective, experiential aspect of
the Christian life which may properly be regarded as one element of the ministry of the
Holy Spirit. So profound and mysterious is the Spirit’s work in the lives of believes that it
may at times be “beyond words” (Rom 11:33, 2Cor 9:15, 12:4, 1Pet 1:8), ministering to
us at a level of our being that may seem to supersede our intellect. The Spirit ministers
to us…
 by helping is to pray (Rom 8:26-27, Eph 6:18, Jude 20)
 by pouring God’s live into our hearts (Rom 5:5)
 by sealing us with a foretaste of heavenly glory (2Cor 1:21f, Eph 1:13f)
 by sanctifying us (1Cor 6:11, 1Pet 1;2)
 by filling us with love, joy, peace, hope, etc., (Rom 15:13, Gal 5:22f)
 by quickening us with power to mortify the flesh (Rom 8:13)
 by testifying to our spirit that we are sons of God (Rom 8:15f)
This list is certainly incomplete, and undoubtedly many of the above aspects of the
Spirit’s ministry overlap and become indistinguishable in actual experience.
Cessationists also affirm that, although every true child of God has the Spirit as a
permanent gift (Rom 8:9), the believer’s subjective experience of the Spirit is variable.
Hence it is possible to grieve and quench the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30, 1 Thess. 5:19), and
conversely, we are commanded to be filled with and to walk in the Spirit (Eph 5:18, Gal
5:25)

A pivotal presupposition
The presupposition stated
“Tongues in the NT are always closely associated with prophecy and when interpreted,
are functionally equivalent to prophecy, as revelation from God which edifies others. In
fact, tongues are a mode of prophecy.” (Gaffin, p. 102) “We may even speak of the
essentially prophetic nature of tongues, the difference being that tongues, unlike
prophecy, require interpretation to be understood by others.” (Gaffin, p. 80)

The presupposition proved

“A deliberate contrast between prophecy and tongues structures the whole chapter.
This pair runs like a backbone down the body of almost the entire argument…The
pairing of prophesy and tongues that structures 1Corinthians 14 ultimately roots in the
fact that both are revelatory word-gifts.” (Gaffin, pp. 56, 81). “What ties prophecy and
tongues together, what they have in common that makes them comparable
(contrastable) and explains their functional equivalence, is that both are word-gifts.”
(Gaffin, p. 58)
The interpretability of tongues (1 Cor 12:10,30, 14:5, 13, 26-28) indicates that they are
and intelligible communication from God. They must therefore be divine revelation.
(This point is valid regardless of whether the tongues at Corinth were actually existing
languages.)
According to 1Cor 14:5 (“he who prophecies is greater than the one who speaks in
tongues, unless he interprets”), interpreted tongues are functionally equivalent to
prophecy. (Robertson, p 27) “The fundamental inferiority or depreciation of tongues
relative to prophecy apparently applies only to uninterpreted tongues and is removed
when interpretation takes place.” (Gaffin, p 57)
The inspired, revelatory character of tongues is also seen in the fact that by the Spirit
‘one who speaks in tongue… speaks mysteries’ (1Cor 14:2). Cp. 1 Cor 13:2 (Gaffin, p 79)
“This term ‘mysteries’ in the NT has a very specific meaning which inherently includes
the idea of the communication of divine revelation.” (Robertson, p 23)
“In Acts we find indications of a definite association between prophecy and tongues.”
Acts 2:4 (cf. vv. 17-18, citing Joel 2:28ff); 19:6 (“they spoke in tongues and prophesied”).
(Gaffin, pp. 81-82)
Careful exegesis of 1 Cor 14:14 (see 2 b below) leads to the following translation: “For if
I pray in a tongue, the Spirit in me [or, the Spirit given to me] prays, but my intellect lies
fallow” (NEB). Thus, one who speaks in tongues speaks words inspired by the Holy Spirit,
and that is the definition of prophecy. Cp. v. 2. (Gaffin, pp. 73-78)

The presupposition defended

The fact that Scripture mentions other secondary uses of tongues dose not undermine
the fundamentally prophetic and revelatory character of the gift itself. The following
three arguments have been used in an attempt to elevate other secondary uses of the
gift of tongues and in this way to minimize or eliminate the prophetic/revelatory
element:

1.An exclusively Godward use of tongues?

“In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul says that ‘one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men,
but to God’ (v.2) and that tongues involve ‘praying,’ ‘singing’ and ‘giving thanks’ to God
(vv. 14-17). An argument sometimes raised against the revelatory nature of tongues at
Corinth is that this Godward direction of tongues is not the direction of revelation.”
Response:
“Such an appeal…. overlooks the Psalms and other doxological portions of Scripture. Are
we to say that because they are addressed to God and not to men, they are therefore
not revelation? On the contrary, with their Godward direction they are inspired
revelation and recorded in Scripture in order that they may edify his covenant people,
and this is precisely what (interpreted) tongues also are to do (v. 5).” (Gaffin, p. 80)

2.Nonrevelatory tongues?
1 Cor 14:14 says: “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.”
This text purportedly teaches that there is a non-revelatory function for tongues as a
sub-rational, non-conceptual expression of that which is deepest in the believer’s spirit.
Response:
This view must take “my spirit” as a reference to the human spirit, and must place it in
contrast with “my mind”. But this is exegetically untenable for the following reasons:
 NT anthropology never pits man’s “spirit” and “mind” against one another. The
only dualism scriptrue accepts is that between the body and the
spirit/mind/heart/soul, or between “the outer man” and “the inner man.” The
fact that Paul can speak of “being renewed in the spirit of your mind” (Eph 4:23),
shows that “spirit” and “mind” belong to the same basic semantic domain. Cp.
also Mark 12:30. (Gaffin, pp. 74f)
 The word “spirit” in 1 Cor 14:14 should not be interpreted anthropologically (as a
component of the human psychology) but charismatically (as a reference to the
gift given to each prophet by the Holy Spirit). This is established usage: “The one
who speaks in a tongue…. speaks mysteries with [his] spirit” (v.2); “since you are
eager to have spiritual gifts” (lit. “spirit,” v. 12); “the spirits of the prophets are
subjects to the prophets” (v. 32); “to another, distinguishing between spirits” (1
Cor 12:10); “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they
are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 Jn
4:1), “the God of the spirits of the prophets” (Rev 22:6).

3.Private use of tongues for self-edification?

1 Cor 14:4 tells us that “he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.” Usually, this verse is
quoted in connection with an anthropological interpretation of “spirit” in vv. 2 and 14
(which we have examined above and found wanting). The argument is that, although
tongues must be translated if exercised in public, they are still spiritually beneficial to
the individual when used privately (“If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep
quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God,” v. 28).
Response A:
“Any private use of tongues is not a gift somehow separable from, in addition to, or
independent of its public exercise together with interpretation, as if the gift of tongues
is given to some for private use, to others for public use (with interpretation). Rather,
any private use of tongues is a strictly ancillary, peripheral aspect of the gift; private
tongues are an accompanying, subsidiary benefit enjoyed by the recipient of the gift (to
be interpreted) with its distinctive revelatory function. Note that it is just the prayer-
tongue and the praise (song)-tongue (vv. 14f), usually seen to be central to the private
exercise of the gift, which stand under the repetition of Paul’s command for
interpretation (v. 13; cf. v. 5). The view which holds that tongues are given primarily for
the personal prayer life of the believer and not for public exercise in the congregation,
along with interpretation, can be said only to have completely inverted Paul’s outlook in
1 Cor 14.” (Gaffin, p. 83)
Response B:
It is precisely this non-intellectual, sub-rational aspect of inspired, ecstatic speech that
made the gift of tongues so attractive to the immature Christians at Corinth. And it is
precisely this aspect that Paul wants to control, limit, and minimize. It is true that he
does not out-right forbid speaking in tongues (in fact, he forbids that it be forbidden –
14:39). But he does chide the Corinthians for their immature priorities (14:20), since
they had exalted ecstatic utterance over intelligent, edifying speech (prophecy,
interpretation of tongues). Paul allows this ecstatic gift, obviously, because it was a
genuine gift of the Spirit for that time, but he demands that this gift be exercised in a
guarded fashion, precisely because of the abuses that can arise due to its necessarily
non-rational, ecstatic element. He limits it in three ways.
 Like prophecy, tongues are subject to evaluation and discernment of its content
by fellow-prophets in the setting of the assembled church (1 Cor 12:10, 14:29). All
purported inspired, ecstatic utterances must be judged to see whether they are
“in accordance with the analogy of the Faith” (Rom 12:6- for exegesis see
Gillespie, ch. 1). “Do not treat prophecies with contempt; test everything; hold on
to the good” (1Thess 5:20f, cp. 1Jn 4:1-3).
 According to Gillespie, the pneumatics at Corinth apparently believed that
unintelligible, ecstatic utterance (glossolalia) was the chief validating sign of
authentic intelligible speech (prophecy). “Those who were spiritual infants view
[tongues] as the sine qua non of the work of the Spirit, indeed, as the confirming
‘sign’ of prophetic utterance.” (Gillespie, p 160)
 But in 1 Cor 12:1-3 Paul counters this simplistic and immature evaluation of the
importance of tongues. To paraphrase: “You know that evidences of ecstasy are
an unreliable criterion of authentic divine inspiration because in your pagan past
they led you to the dumb idols (v. 2). Therefore (dio) the genuineness of all
prophetic utterances must be judged on the basis of their material content alone
(v. 3).” (Gillespie p. 83)
 This second limitation is closely related to the first, but adds another dimension:
ecstatic speech is not sufficient evidence that one is under the inspiration of the
Spirit.
 In keeping with the requirement that tongues be in accordance with the
orthodox apostolic gospel, Paul insists that they be translated in order that their
orthodox content may edify the body. It is clear that such intelligent, rational,
doctrinal edification is the only justification for exercising tongues in the
assembly. If they cannot serve that purpose, they merely puff up the gift’s
possessor with pride, which is the opposite of love (1 Cor 13).
 Therefore, to argue that private, self-edifying, non-revelatory use of tongues
should continue today would be to miss the central thrust of Paul’s argument in 1
Cor 14. For it is precisely this ecstatic, non-rational element which Paul insists
must be made totally subservient to the public, testable, corporate, revelatory
function of the gift. According to Paul, any non-revelatory benefit of ecstatic
speech is to be regarded as a secondary; ancillary side-effect of the gift’s proper
purpose and function, and therefore not something to be sought apart from that
purpose and function.
 “The notion of non-revelatory tongues, as the uninhibited vocalizing if the
preconceptual, mind-less side of the personality …. is not taught in 1 Corinthians
12-14, or elsewhere in the NT.” (Gaffin, p. 81)

Three Cessationist Arguments

A. The Argument from the Closing of the Canon
The apostolate was as much an unrepeatable, redemptive-historical events as the
death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, because “the announcement of redemption
cannot be separated from the history of redemption itself.” (Ridderbos, pp 12-15).
The apostolate was closed after the calling of Paul, since he states that Christ appeared
to him “last of all” (1 Cor 15:8- see Jones for detailed exegesis). The Roman Catholic
doctrine of apostolic succession has no exegetical foundation (Cullmann, pp. 207, 236).
The presence of the apostolate was a necessary condition for the production of the
inspired New Testament scripture. “The redemptive-historical ground of the New
Testament canon must be sought in [the] apostolic authority and tradition.” (Ridderbos,
p. 24)
Therefore, like the apostolate, the New Testament scripture is an unrepeatable, unique,
and completed redemptive-historical event. “When understood in terms of the history
of redemption, the canon cannot be open; in principle it must be closed. That follows
directly from the unique and exclusive nature of the power of the apostles received
from Christ … The closed nature of the canon thus rests ultimately in the once-for-all
significance of the New Testament history of redemption itself, as that history is
presented by the apostolic witness.” (Ridderbos, p. 25)
The passing of the apostolate necessarily implies the closure of the canon of the New
Testament.
For prophecy (including tongues-see “a pivotal presupposition” above) to continue on
into subsequent sub-apostolic generations of the church, beyond the foundational
period, would necessarily create tensions with the closed, finished character of the
canon. In fact, such a continuation would exclude a completed canon in the strict sense.
(Gaffin, p. 100)
Therefore, the prophetic gifts (prophecy, tongues, etc.) have been withdrawn from the
church upon the closing of the NT canon.

B. The Argument from Ephesians 2:20

Technically, this is not a separate argument from the preceding one. It fundamentally
relies on the same theological considerations (the uniqueness and temporary nature of
the apostolate). However, it is still pedagogically useful to set this argument up
separately, since it is based on an explicit proof-text rather than theological deduction
alone.
The decisive, controlling significance of Ephesians 2:20 (in its context) needs to be
appreciated…. 1 Corinthians 14., has a relatively narrow focus and is confined to the
particular situation at Corinth. Ephesians, on the other hand, may well be a circular
letter, originally intended by Paul for a wider audience than the congregation at
Ephesus. More importantly, 2:20 is part of a section that surveys the church as a whole
in a most sweeping and comprehensive fashion. Ephesians 2:20 stands back, views the
whole building, and notes the place of prophecy in it (as part of the foundation); 1
Corinthians and the other passenges on prophecy examine one of the parts from within.
Ephesians 2:20, then, with its broad scope ought to have a pivotal and governing role in
seeking to understand other NT statements on prophecy with a narrower, more
particular and detailed focus…” (Gaffin, p.96)
“Eph. 2:20 associates ‘prophets’ with the apostles in the activity of foundational witness
or word ministry.” (Gaffin, p. 93)
These “prophets” are not OT prophets, but the same prohets encountered throughout
the NT (Acts 13:1f, 21:10f, 1 Cor 12:28, 14:1-40, Eph 4:11, Rev 1:1-3). This is
demonstrated by the fact that Eph 3:5 uses the same phrase “apostles and prophets” in
contrast with the OT revelation.
One Non-cessationist scholar admits that if Gaffin’s exegesis of Eph 2:20 were correct it
would indeed vindicate the Cessationist position. He attempts to evade the force of this
argument, however, by interpreting the phrase to mean “the apostles who are also
prophets” (Grudem, pp. 45-64). But this exegesis cannot be substantiated by any true
grammatical parallel (Wallace), and Grudem’s other supporting arguments have been
answered point-by-point (White).
“Tongues are tried to prophecy and stand, so to speak, in its shadow. There is at least
the suggestion in the chapter [1 Cor 14] that tongues have no place in the life of the
congregation apart from their coexistence and correlative exercise with prophecy.”
(Gaffin, p. 58)
Even if the gift of tongues per se is not in view in Eph 2:20, the evidence adduced under
“a pivotal presupposition” (above) forces us to conclude that insofar as tongues were
interpreted they were functionally equivalent to prophetic utterance and would
therefore partake of the foundation of the church spoken of here.
Inherent in the foundation analogy is the idea that once the foundation has been laid, all
other work is but building upon that foundational (1 Cor 3:10-15). When Paul identifies
the apostles and new covenant prophets as the foundation of the church, he thereby
asserts their unique, non-perpetual role.
Therefore, the gifts of tongues is for the foundation of the church, and has consequently
been “withdrawn from the life of the church along with prophecy and whatever other
foundational gifts are bound up with the presence of the apostolate in the church.”
(Gaffin, p. 102)

C. The Argument from Tongues as a Sign

Paul states that tongues as tongues (that is, apart from their revelational content when
interpreted) were given as a sign of God’s judgement against unbelievers (1 Cor 14:20-
22).
In a way analogous to Jesus’ parables (Mark 4:12), tongues were given primarily (but not
exclusively) to harden Israel in unbelief. This function “is bound up inseparably with the
decisive transition from old to new and final in covenant history, a transition which
issues in the founding of the church.” (Gaffin, p. 107)
Characteristic of the NT’s use of the OT, Paul’s citation of Isaiah 28:11-12 intentionally
brings to mind the broader context of Isaiah 28, particularly, v. 16 (“behold, I am laying
in Zion a stone, a tested stone, a costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed”).
“In the NT this verse is prominent in the church-house passages; it is quoted in 1 Peter
2:6 (cf. v. 4) and evidently underlies the imagery of Ephesians 2:20 (cf. 1 Cor 3:11). Christ
as the church’s foundation is the fulfillment of this prophecy. But it is also cited in
Romans 9:33 (cf. 10:11), where it is applied to the offense taken by unbelieving Israel
(cf. 9:31f) at Christ and the gospel. The judgement on Judah foretold by Israel, including
God’s alien speech, is fulfilled by the foundation-laying realized in Christ and the
apostles (and prophets). The time of God’s (once-for-all) activity of laying a foundation
in Zion is also the time of terminal judgement on the unbelief in Zion provoked by that
activity.” (Gaffin, p. 108)
“Within this larger framework of prophecy and fulfillment, then, Paul’s point in 1
Corinthians 14:21f is that tongues are the sign of God’s judgement at the inauguration
of the new covenant and the founding of the church. Tongues are the sign correlative
with this (foundation-laying) activity which occasions (primarily Jewish) unbelief and the
eschatological judgement attendant on it.”
While we should not restrict tongues as a sign exclusively to unbelieving Jews (since
1Cor 14:22 seems to apply it to all unbelievers), it remains true that it was specifically
Jewish unbelief that led to the abrogation of the old covenant order and establishment
of a new covenant foundation. Besides, we know from Acts 18:1-17 that Jewish
opposition to the Gentile mission was quite strong in Corinth.
“It should not be overlooked that, whatever the significance of tongues as a sign, Paul
clearly teaches that this function as a sign is an integral characteristic of tongues,
present wherever the gift is exercised.” (Gaffin, p. 109)
Therefore, since tongues as a sign belonged to a transitional period of redemptive
history when the old Israel was being rejected and the new Israel was being founded,
they are no longer needed today.

An agnostic note on 1 Corinthians 13:8-13

Some Cessationists, looking for the silver bullet argument against the continuance of
tongues and prophecy, have attempted to identify “the perfect” with the completion of
the NT canon. However, the better Cessationist exegetes admit that this interpretation
cannot be sustained exegetically.
The coming of “the perfect” (v. 10) must coincide with the coming of Christ, for it is only
then that we will know even as we are known (v. 12).
If this is admitted, are we then forced to the opposite conclusion- that tongues and
prophecy will continue until the Parousia?
Not necessarily, “Paul might well have also mentioned inscripturation as a mode of
revelation” which, like prophecy and tongues, is a “partial” mode of knowing God which
will be superseded by “the perfect” at the Parousia. “But inscripturation has ceased.
And if that be granted, then it is gratuitous to insist that this passage teaches that the
modes of revelation mentioned, prophecy and tongues, are to continue functioning in
the church until Christ’s return.” (Gaffin, p. 111)
“The time of the cessation of prophecy and tongues is an open question so far as this
passage is concerned and will have to be decided on the basic of other passages and
considerations.” (Gaffin, p. 111)

Sources cited
Brown, Mark R., ed. Order in the offices: Essays Defining the Roles of Church Officers.
Duncansville, PA: Classic Presbyterian Government Resources, 1993.
Cullmannn, Oscar, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953.
Gaffin, Jr., Richard B. Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts
of the Holy Spirit. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979.
Gillespie, Thomas W. The First Theologians: A Study in Early Christian Prophecy.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994.
Grudem, W. A. The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. Westchester, IL:
Crossway, 1988.
Jones, Peter R. “1 Corinthians 15:8, Paul the Last Apostle.” Tyndale Bulletin 36 (1985) 3-
34.
Ridderbos, Herman N. Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures. Second
Revised Edition. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1988 (originally published
1963).
Robertson, O. Palmer. The Final Word: A biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and
Prophecy Today. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1993.
Wallace, D. B. “The Semantic Range of the Article-Noun-KAI-Noun Plural Construction
White, Fowler R. “Gaffin and Grudem on Eph 2:20; In defense of Gaffin’s Cessationists
Exegesis.” Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992) 302-20.

Pneumatology- The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit

By Dr. Steve L. Reynolds

Part 1- Scriptural Clarification

1. The Nature of the Holy Spirit

A. The personality of the Holy Spirit

1. He has the characteristics of a person.

a. He has intellect. Romans 8:27, 1 Corinthians 2:10-11, Isa 40:13
b. He has emotions. Ephesians 4:30
c. He has a will. Acts 13:2-4, 16:6, 1 Corinthians 12:11
2. He has the actions of a person.
a. He speaks. Acts 8:29, 10:19-20, 13:2
b. He instructs. John 14:16, 26
c. He testifies. John 15:26, 16:14
d. He guides. John 16:13, Acts 8:29, Isa 34:16, 63:11-14
e. He convicts. John 16:8-11
f. He regenerates. Titus 3:5
 g. He intercedes. Romans 8:26
3. He has the relational aspects of a person.
a. Other people can obey the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:29-20, 10:19-21
b. Other people can grieve the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 4:30, Isa 63:10
c. Other people can resist the Holy Spirit. Acts 7:51, 1 Thessalonians 5:19
d. Other people can lie to the Holy Spirit. Acts 5:3-9
e. Other people can blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Matt 12:32, Mark 3:29-30
4. He has the designation of a person. John 15:26, 16:13-14

B. The Deity of the Holy Spirit

1. He has divine titles.
a. Titles that relate to his divine associations. Matt 3:16, Rom 8:9
b. Titles that relate to his divine attributes. John 14:17
c. Titles that relate to his divine actions. Romans 8:15
2. He has divine associations.
a. Actions of God are ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Acts 28:25-27, Isa 6:1-13
b. Persons of the Godhead are seen as equal. Matt 28:19, 2 Cor 13:14
3. He has divine attributes.
a. Omniscience Isaiah 40:13, 1 Cor 2:10-12
b. Omniscience Job 33:4, Psalm 104:30
c. Omnipresence Psalm 139:7-10, John 14:17
d. Eternality Romans 8:2, Hebrews 9:14
e. Holiness Matt 1:20
4. He has divine actions.
a. Creation Genesis 1:2, Ps 104:30
b. Inspiration 2 Peter 1:21
c. Generation of Christ Matt 1:20
d. Regeneration Titus 3:5
5. He has divine origins. John 15:26, 16:7, Isaiah 48:16

C. The Typological Descriptions of the Holy Spirit

1. The dove Matt 3:16, Mk 1:10, Lk 3:22, Jn 1:32
2. Fire Acts 2:3
3. Oil Zechariah 4:1-14
4. Water John 7:37-39
5. Wind John 3:8
2. The Work of the Holy Spirit
A. The Holy Spirit in the old Testament era

1. The actual work of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament

a. He supplied power for service
(1) Craftsmanship Exodus 31:1-6, 1 Kings 7:14
(2) Martial leadership Judges 3:10, 6:34, 11:29
(3) Individual physical power Judges 14:6
(4) Political leadership 1 Sm 10:10, 16:13-14, Dt 34:9, Num 11:25-26
b. He inspired the prophets.
(1) The interpretation of dreams Gen 41:38, Daniel 5:11-12
(2) The declaration of judgement Micah 3:8, 2 Chronicles 24:20
(3) The production of Scripture 2 Samuel 23:2-3
c. He influenced mankind morally. Gen 6:3, Psalm 51:11
d. He joined in the creation of the world. Gen 1:2, Ps 33:6, 104:30
2. The expected work of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
a. He would supply the power for the Messiah. Isaiah 11:1-5, 42:1
b. He would bless Israel in the future. Isa 32:15, 44:3, Ezekiel 36:27, Joel 2:28

B. The Holy Spirit in the New Testament era

1. The Holy Spirit in the ministry of Christ

a. The Holy Spirit produced the Virgin Birth of Christ. Mt 1:20, Lk 1:35
b. The Holy Spirit anointed Christ. Lk 4:14-21, Acts 4:27, 10:38, Heb 1:9
c. The Holy Spirit filled Christ. Lk 4:1, Jn 3:34, Mt 12:28
d. The Holy Spirit participated in Christ’s death. Hebrews 9:14
e. The Holy Spirit declared Christ’s resurrection. Rom 1:4
2. The Holy Spirit in the inspiration of Scripture 2 Peter 1:19-21.

C. The Holy Spirit in the Church era.

1. The replacement by the Holy Spirit

a. The Holy Spirit is now present instead of Jesus Christ. John 16:4-7
b. The Holy spirit is now performing the work of Jesus Christ through His body,
the Church. John 14:16-17, Acts 1:1-2
2. The revelation by the Holy Spirit
a. The Holy Spirit reveals the person of Jesus Christ to the Church. John 14:25 -
26, 15:26, Acts 2:33-36
 b. The Holy Spirit reveals the plans of Jesus Christ to the Church. John 16:13-
15, Acts 8:29, 10:19-20, 13:2-4, 16:6-10
3. The conviction by the Holy Spirit John 16:8
a. He convicts the world of the grounds for judgement. John 16:9
b. He convicts the world of the standards for judgement. John 16:10
c. He convicts the world of the certainty of Judgement. John 16:11
4. The regeneration by the Holy Spirit Titus 3:5
a. Regeneration occurs at conversion. 2 Cor 5:17, 1 Jn 5:12-13
b. Regeneration brings new life. John 3:3-8, Eph 2:5, 4:24 [Father James 1:17-
18, Son John 5:21]
“The baptism of the Spirit is not the new birth.”
Although in this present age of grace regeneration and the baptism with the Spirit
are always simultaneous—so that everyone who is regenerated is at the same time
baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ—yet the two operations are distinct. They
must not be confused as one operation. G. Campbell Morgan fails to make the
necessary distinction when he writes: “The baptism of the Spirit is the primary blessing,
it is, in short, the blessing of regeneration.”
However, a careful consideration will show that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is
not regeneration. The Spirit’s baptizing work places the believer in Christ (Ro 6:3,4, Gal
3:27, 1 Co 12:13, Col 2:12), whereas regeneration results in Christ in the believer (Jn
17:23, Col 1:27, Rev 3:20). Regeneration imparts life. The baptism with the Spirit unites
the life-possessing one to Christ, and to those who possess life in Him. Did not Jesus, in
His great upper room discourse, when uttering words prophetic of the Spirit’s advent
into the world at Pentecost, and His ministry during this present age, refer to a
distinction between these two operations of the Spirit as “ye in me” and “I in you” (Jn
14:20)?
That the expression ye in me plainly refers to the Spirit’s baptizing the believer into
Christ is evident from Galatians 3:27, “For as many of you as have been baptized into
Christ have put on Christ” and from 1 Corinthians 12:13, “For by one Spirit are we all
baptized into one body.” There are, moreover, approximately 150 passages which state
or imply that the believer is in Christ, and everyone has references to the Spirit’s work in
baptism, for that operation alone can put one in Christ.
That the phrase I in you refers to regeneration is apparent from 1 John 5:11,12: “And
this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that
hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” Regeneration
means receiving spiritual life, that is, eternal life. Christ is this life (Jn 14:6). We only
receive this life as we receive Christ, who them may be said to be in us, “the hope of
glory” (Col 1:27).
The baptism with the Holy Spirit and regeneration are thus two complementary and
yet distinct works of God, simultaneously and eternally accomplished in the believer the
moment he exercises saving faith in Christ. By regeneration the soul is quickened from
death into life (Eph 2:1-5). By the Spirit’s baptizing work the quickened soul is
organically united to Christ as head (Eph 1:22-23) and to all other believers as members
of the one body (1 Co 12:12-27). By regeneration the one exercising saving faith
becomes a child of God (Jn 1:12,13), is made a son in the Father’s house (Gal 3:26),
becomes a partaker of the divine nature (2 Pe 1:4), and is made an heir of God and a
joint-heir with Christ (Ro 8:16,17). By the Spirit’s baptizing work, the believing one is
taken out of the old creation in Adam and placed eternally in the new creation in Christ
(2 Co 5:17), the new federal head, and all that Christ is and has done is imputed to the
believer. Our Saviour, in His words, “ye in me, and I in you,” inseparably connects these
two operations of the Spirit in this age but also carefully distinguishes them.” [Unger,
The Baptism, 22-23]
5. The Baptism by the Holy Spirit 1 Cor 12:13
a. The baptism occurred at Pentecost. Acts 1:4-5,8, 11:15
b. The baptism is into the body of Christ. Gal 3:27-28
c. The baptism is applied to individuals at conversion.
The subjects of the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit has become a point of
considerable controversy and diverse opinion. There is confusion on one hand with
water baptism. Although there are many passages that refer to Spirit baptism, some
people see these passages as referring to water baptism (cf. Rom 6:4, Gal 3:27). Others
understand the baptizing work of the Spirit as a “second blessing,” which may be
empowerment for service and/or may manifest itself through speaking in tongues. Part
of the confusion lies in a failure to understand the distinctive nature of the church. It
was at Pentecost that the church was born and that the Holy Spirit began His work of
building the church by baptizing believers into the Body of Christ.

DEFINITION
 The baptizing work of the Holy Spirit may be defined as that work whereby the Spirit
places the believer into union with Christ and into union with other believers in the
Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13).

EXPLANATION
The baptism of the Holy Spirit is unique to the church age. The basic reference is 1
Corinthians 12:13, which states, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body,
whether Jews or Greeks, whether salves or free, and we were all made to drink of one
Spirit.” That this ministry of the Spirit began at Pentecost can be seen by comparing Acts
1:5, which indicates the baptizing work is still future, with Acts 11:15, which indicates
the “beginning” of this work was at Pentecost in Acts 2. The baptizing work did not
occur in the Old Testament; it is unique to the church age which began at Pentecost.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit includes all believers in this age. The emphasis that
“all” are baptized by the Holy Spirit is stated in several passages. In 1 Corinthians 12:13
it indicates “we were all baptized.” In Romans 6 all who were baptized (v. 3) are those
who have been united to Christ (v. 5), hence, all believers. In Galatians 3:27-28 it
indicates “all of you were baptized into Christ and became “one in Christ,” no matter
whether they were Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit brings believers into union with other believers in the
body of Christ. There is absolutely no distinction concerning those coming into union
with one another: Jews, Gentiles, slaves, free people, men, women –all come into union
with one another (1 Cor 12:13). It is also noteworthy that the spiritual condition of the
believer is not a factor, the Corinthians were noted for their carnality, yet all were
included.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit brings believers into union with Christ. The very ones
that were “baptized into Christ” (Rom 6:3) were also “united with Him” (Rom 6:5). This
truth prohibits the baptism of the Spirit from being a work subsequent to salvation.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit is not experiential. Since this is a work done to the
believer and not by the believer, and since the baptism occurs simultaneous to
salvation, it is not experiential.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit is performed by the Holy Spirit. There are not two
baptisms by the Spirit. Some groups distinguish between 1 Corinthians 12:13, “by one
Spirit,” suggesting the placing into the Body and Acts 1:5, “with the Holy Spirit,”
suggesting a subsequent act of empowering for service. However, the same Greek
preposition en is used in both phrases, and it is precarious at best to attempt a
distinction where the same Greek phrase is used in both passages. The Holy Spirit is the
agent of the Baptism (Acts 1:5, 1 Cor 12:13),” [Enns, 226-67]
6. The indwelling by the Holy Spirit. John 14:16-17
a. The indwelling occurs at conversion. Gal 3:2-3, Rom 8:9
b. The indwelling applies to all believers. 1 Cor 6:19, 1 John 4:13
c. The indwelling it permanent. John 14:16
“The baptism of the Spirit is not the indwelling of the Spirit.
The uniform teaching of the epistles is that every believer in this age has the Spirit
(Ro 5:5, 8:9, Gal 3:2, 4:6) and is indwelt continually by the Spirit (1 Co 6:19,20; Ro 8:11; 2
Co 5:5; 1 Jn 3:24, 4:13). The difference between the saved of this age and the unsaved is
that all the saved have the Spirit indwelling them, while all the unsaved “have not the
Spirit” (Jude 19). Like regeneration, the indwelling with the Spirit during this age occurs
simultaneously with the baptism with the Spirit and yet is a distinct ministry of the
Spirit. It is impossible now to be regenerated and not to be indwelt with the Spirit nor
baptized with the Spirit. This ought not to surprise anyone who has given any serious
thought to the breadth and complexity of that great work of God for the believer, which
is described by the very general term salvation. This is the great inclusive word of the
gospel and embraces the sweep of divine undertakings from our redemption from sin in
the past to our complete glorification in the future.
The late Lewis Sperry Chafer lists some thirty-three distinct positions and possessions
into which one who is saved is ushered the very moment he exercises faith.
Regeneration, baptism, and indwelling are accomplished for the believer at the instant
he believes. They form the structure of his salvation and are never annulled; thus, they
never need to be repeated.” [Unger, The Baptism, 23-24]
7. The sealing by the Holy Spirit Eph 1:13, 4:30; 2 Cor 1:22
a. The seal is the Holy Spirit.
b. The seal provides assurance.
c. The seal provides confidence.
“The baptism of the Spirit is not the sealing of the Spirit.
The sealing is a distinct operation of the Spirit but occurs simultaneously with
regeneration, baptism, and indwelling. Every child of God has been sealed with the Spirit
unto the time of full redemption and glorification of the body (Eph 1:13; 4:30; 2 Cor
1:22), and also anointed with the Spirit (2 Cor 1:21, 1 Jn 2:20,27). The Spirit, as the
indwelling, is the seal. The figure of the seal speaks of the stamp of the divine ownership
as a result of the new creation in Christ Jesus, and it is the badge of eternal security.
Those whom God stamps as His own, He pledges to keep as His own.
By regeneration He gives us His own life. By the Spirit’s baptism He unites us
indissolubly and vitally to Himself. By the indwelling He grants us His continual presence.
By the sealing He stamps us as His very own for all eternity. By the sealing He stamps us
as His very own for all eternity. By the anointing He consecrates us to a holy life and
service. God’s work is always perfect and complete.” [Unger, The Baptism, 24]
8. The filling by the Holy Spirit Eph 5:18
a. The filling is an act of the Holy Spirit.
b. The filling depends upon the conditions of the believer’s life. Eph 4:30, 1 Thess
5:19, Gal 5:16-18, Rom 6:12-18
c. The filling produces a fullness of God’s presence. Eph 3:16-19
d. The filling produces opportunities and power for ministry. Acts 4:32, 9:17-20
“The baptism of the Spirit is not the filling of the Spirit.
It is a common practice among Pentecostals and Neo-Pentecostals to identify the
baptism of the Spirit with the filling of the Spirit. “To be Pentecostal,” declares Ernest
Williams, “is to identify oneself with the experience that came to Christ’s followers on
the day of Pentecost, that is, to be filled with the Holy Spirit in the same manner as
those who were filled with Holy Spirit on that occasion.”
That the two operations of the Spirit, so frequently confounded, are not the same is
evident from a number of emphatic scriptural contrasts.
First, the baptizing work of the Spirit is a once-for-all-operation, whereas the filling
with the Spirit is a continuous process.
One baptism for the believer is in contrast to the many infillings. The one baptism
puts the believer “in Christ” (Ro 6:3,4; Gal 3:27; Col 2:12), into His body (1 Co 12:13),
and therefore brings the believing one into an eternal position, which is unalterable and
immutable, having the finality of God’s own unchangeable nature, of which the believer
becomes partaker (2 Pet 1:4). Since this position in Christ is unchangeable and eternal,
the baptizing work of the Spirit is not repeatable, as there is not the least occasion for its
being repeated. One in Christ positionally can never again through all eternity be out of
Christ positionally, as that position depends wholly upon the efficacy of the finished
redemptive work of God’s Son, and does not hinge upon human merit or faithfulness.
Accordingly, the baptism with the Spirit is never said to be repeated, nor indeed can be.
However, it does affect positional fullness, the completeness with which God views the
believer, because it places the believer in Christ, in whom all fullness dwells (Col 2:9-10).
As a result, the believer shares that spiritual fullness and is complete in Christ when
saved.
Nonexperiential (positional) fullness, moreover, is ground of experiential fullness,
which is the actual repeatable filling with the Spirit (Ac 2:4, 4:8, 31, 9:17). By faith the
believer reckons on his positional fullness as his heritage in union with Christ. As he
believes he is what he is in Christ, his position becomes real in his experience (Ro &11).
Accordingly, the baptism of the Spirt effects union with Christ and positional fullness.
It makes possible the filling, but emphatically it is not the experience of the filling itself.
The baptizing work of the Spirit is nonexperiential, whereas the filling with the Spirit
is experiential.
The baptism with the Spirit is not an experience. It does not affect the believer’s
senses. Like the spiritual (positional) fullness it effects by bringing the believer into the
sphere of spiritual blessing, it is not felt. Placing the believer in Christ, it constitutes his
initiation into the Christian life but plays no part in his subsequent experience, except as
it forms the basis of his experience of his exalted position in Christ (Eph 1:3).
The filling with the Spirit, in contrast to the baptism of the Spirit, is a very definite
experience. It radically affects Christian life and service. It produces Christian character
in the ninefold fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22,23). It produces power for testimony (Ac 1:8),
boldness for witnessing (Ac 4:31), victory over the flesh (Gal 5:16), exercise of gifts (1 Co
12:4-31). It results in the Spirit’s teaching (Jn 16:13, 1 Jn 2:27), true praise and worship
(Eph 5:18-20), guidance (Ro 8:14), effective prayer (Ro 8:27), etc. The filling with the
Spirit produces normal Christian experience; and continual filling is necessary to
maintain the morn.
There is no command for anyone to be baptized with the Spirit, but there is a
distinct inqunction for every believer to be filled with the Spirit. The unequivocal
declaration of Scripture (1 Cor 12:13) is that all believers “were baptized by one Spirit
into one body.” No command appears for the simple reason that it is an absolute
impossibility to be a Christian at all in this age and not be baptized with the Spirit! The
admonition to be filled continually is outspoken and emphatic. “And be not drunk with
wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph 5:18). These words also
indicate that it is possible for a believer not to be filled.
The present tense of the verb in the imperative denotes a “continuous or repeated”
action as that the meaning is “keep on being filled,” or “be constantly filled.” Thus is
expressed the constant duty and obligation of the believer and thus is emphasized the
contrast between the once-for-all nature of the Spirit’s work in baptizing, and the
continuous and oft-recurring nature of His work in filling.
The baptizing work of the Spirit is universal among Christians, whereas the filling
with the Spirit is not. All Christians are so baptized, without a single exception (1 Co
12:12), even the carnal or fleshly, and the babes in Christ (1 Co 3:1-3), even those who
may have fallen into sin (1 Co 5:1-10), and all so baptized are thereby positionally
justified and sanctified (1 Co 1:2, 6:11), being “saints” (1 Co 1:2). That all are not filled
with the Spirit is obvious from the carnal state of the Corinthian believers, who are “all”
yet said to have been baptized with the Spirit. It may then be said that all Christian are
baptized with the Spirit, but all are not filled, although all ought to be filled, and that
constantly.
Believers who habitually live the Spirit-filled life are described as “full” (an adjective)
of the Holy Spirit (Ac 6:3, 7:55, 11:24). When the precise action of infilling is in view, the
verbs is used (Ac 2:4, 4:8,31, 9:17, 13:9,52, Eph 5:18).
The baptizing work of the Spirit is totally different from the filling with the Spirit in
its results. Being nonexperiential, as noted, as over against the filling, which is
experiential, it concerns the standing or position of the believer, whereas the filling
concerns his state or walk. It results, accordingly, in the believer’s exalted standing
before God, which is the result of the work of Christ, and is perfect and entire from the
very moment saving faith is exercised in Christ. Nothing in the subsequent life of the
believer can ever, even in the smallest degree, add to, or subtract from his title to God’s
favor, nor to his perfect security.
The baptizing work of the Spirit, putting the believing one in Christ, alone confers
standing in God’s sight, and gives the weakest, most ignorant man on earth, the
moment he believes, the same position as the most illustrious saint (Jn 1:12, Ro 8:17,
Eph 1:6,11, 2:4-6, 5:30, 1 Pet 1:4,5, Col 2:10). What the actual state of such a one may
be, is quite a different matter. Certainly it must be thought of as far below his exalted
standing before God.
It is by the filling with the Spirit that the believer is enabled to maintain a state
worthy of his standing (Eph 4:1-3, Ro 12:3-21). Positional sanctification, which is the
result of the Spirit’s baptizing work, is accompanied by progressive or experiential
sanctification, as a result of the Spirit’s work in filling. As C.I. Scofield aptly remarks: “The
divine order, under grace, is first to give the highest possible standing, and then to
exhort the believer to maintain a state in accordance therewith. The beggar is lifted up
from the dunghill and set among princes (1 Sam 2:8), and then exhorted to be princely.”
It is to be noted that not only the baptizing work of the Spirit, bur His regeneration,
indwelling, and sealing are included under the term gift or free gift of the Holy Spirit (Ac
2:38). The salvation which He works in us is also said to be a free gift (Eph 2:8-10), a gift
of grace, (Ro 6:23), that is, “a favor which one receives without any merit of his own.”
Thus the baptizing work of the Spirit with the spiritual fullness it effects by placing all
believers “in Christ” is associated with God’s free gift of salvation. The filling with the
Spirit, on the other hand, while based on spiritual fullness provided in salvation, is to be
connected with rewards, which are to be given to believers for faithfulness in service
after receiving God’s free gift of salvation (1 Co 3:10-15, 2 Co 5:10, 2 Jn 8).
In proportion as the believer walks by means of the Spirit (Gal 5:16), being
continually filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18), will he be enabled to fulfill all God’s plan for
his life, in carrying out the program of good works for which he is saved (Eph 2:10), and
thus receive a full reward (2 Jn 8).
The baptizing work of the Spirit is different from the filling with the Spirit in the
conditions upon which it is received. Since it is a vital and integral part of salvation,
together with the spiritual fullness is effects in Christ, simple faith in Christ as Saviour
from the penalty of sin is the only requirement. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
thou shalt be saved” (Ac 16:31). “Whosever believed on him shall not perish, but have
everlasting life” (Jn 3:16).
But the filling of the Spirit is also the experience and the expression of salvation, not
something in addition to it. Hence, actually from the divine side, the filming, like the
baptism, has only one condition – that of simple faith. However, the faith is not that of
the unsaved person believing that Christ died for him. It is by contrast the faith of the
saint (the saved person) believing that he died in Christ – died to sin and self (Ro 5:6-8)
that he might live unto God and righteousness (Ro 6:1-11).
The New Testament bears clear testimony that being filled with the Spirit is not a
matter of legalistically meeting certain human prerequisites such as yieldedness (Ro
6:13,19, 12:1-2), confession of (1 Jn 1:9) and separation from sin (2 Co 6:1-2). These and
other so-called conditions (made so much of in charismatic circles) are valid only as
expressions of faith in what Christ has done for us and what we are in Him. Never are
they valid as works we do for God to merit His great salvation, or any experience or
expression of it.” [Unger, The Baptism, 27-31]
9. The giving of gifts by the Holy Spirit 1 Cor 12:11
a. Explanation of the gifts
(1) The Holy Spirit gives the gifts as He desires. 1 Cor 12:4-11, Eph 4:7-8, Rom 12:6
(2) The purpose of the gifts is the benefit of the body. 1 Cor 12:7, 14:26, Eph 4:12
(3) Some of the gifts had a limited duration. 1 Cor 13:8-12
b. Description of the gifts
(1) The gift of the apostle 1 Cor 12:28,29, Eph 4:11
“Apostles (Eph 4:11). An important distinction must be mad between the gift and the
office of the apostle. The office of apostle was limited to the Twelve and to Paul. In Luke
6:13 Jesus called the disciples to Himself and chose twelve of them “whom He also
named as apostles.” To those twelve Jesus gave a unique authority that was limited to
those holding the office of apostle (cf. Luke 9:1 Matt 10:1). Later, in defending his own
apostleship, Paul emphasized that the signs of a true apostle were performed by him (2
Cor 12:12). The qualifications for the office of apostle are set forth in Acts 1:21-22, those
holding the office had to have walked with the Lord from the baptism of John until the
ascension of Christ. Paul’s situation was unique; he referred to himself as an apostle but
one “untimely born” (1 Cor 15:8-9).
The gift of apostle is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and also Ephesians 4:11. The
word apostle comes from apo, meaning “from,” and stello, meaning “to send.” Hence,
an apostle is one that is “sent from.” It appears the word was used in a technical sense
as well as a general sense. In a technical sense it was limited to the Twelve who had the
office of apostle as well as the gift. In that sense it was a foundational gift limited to the
formation of the church (Eph 2:20). When the foundation of the church was laid, the
need for the gift ceased. Just as the office of apostle has ceased (because no one can
meet the qualification of Acts 1:21-22), so the gift of apostle in the strict sense ceased.
The word apostle is also used in a general sense of a “messenger” or a “sent one” in the
cause of Christ. These are referred to as apostles but do not have either office or gift.
The word is used in a non-technical sense of one who is a messenger (cf. Acts 14:14, 2
Cor 8:23, Phil 2:25).” [Enns, 270-271]
(2) The gift of the prophet (prophecy) 1 Cor 12:10,28,29, Rom 12:6, Eph 4:11
“Prophet (Rom 12:6). The gift of prophecy is mentioned in Romans 12:6, 1 Corinthians
12:10, and Ephesians 4:11. The apostle received his information through direct
revelation from God, hence Agabus announced the famine that would come over the
world (Acts 11:28) and Paul’s captivity in Jerusalem (Acts 21:10-11). Through direct
revelation the prophet received knowledge of divine “mysterious” (1 Cor 13:2) that man
would not otherwise know. Prior to the completion of the cannon the gift of prophecy
was important for the edification of the church (1 Cor 14:3). The prophet received direct
revelation from God and taught the people for their edification, exportation, and
consolation (1 Cor 14:3). Since the revelation came from God, it was true; the
genuineness of the prophet was exhibited in the accuracy of the prophecy (cf. Deut.
18:20,22). Prophecy thus involved both foretelling future events but also foretelling
God’s truth in terms of exhortation and instruction. The gift of prophecy is also related
to the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20). Because the foundation of the church has
been laid and the canon of Scripture is complete there is no need for the gift of
prophecy.” [Enns, 271]
(3) The gifts of the pastor-teacher Eph 4:11
“Pastor-Teacher (Eph 4:11). One gift is in view in the statement of Ephesians 4:11, not
two gifts. The word pastor (Gk. poimenas) literally means “shepherd” and is used only
here of a gift. It is, however, used also of Christ who is the Good Shepherd (John
10:11,14,16, Heb 13:20, 1 Pet 2:25) and designates the spiritual shepherding work of
one who is pastor-teacher. The work of a pastor has a clear analogy to the work of the
shepherd in caring for his sheep. “As a pastor, he cares for the flock. He guides, guards,
protects, and provides for those under his oversight.” An example is found in Acts 20:28
where Paul exhorts the elders from Ephesus “to shepherd the church of God.” It is to be
done voluntarily, not for material gain nor by lording it over believers but rather by
being examples of humility (1 Pet 5:2-5).
There is a second aspects to this gift; it involves the ability to teach. It is sometimes
said of a church pastor: “He can’t teach very well but he is a fine pastor.” That, of
course, is impossible. If a person has this gift, he is both a shepherd and a teacher. “As a
teacher, the emphasis is on the method by which the shepherd does his work. He
guides, he guards, he protects by teaching.” This is an important emphasis for the
maturation of believers in a local church, Paul strongly exhorted Timothy to faithfulness
in teaching the Word (1 Tim 1:3,5, 4:11, 6:2, 17).
There are several related terms. Elder (Titus 1:5) denotes the dignity of the office;
overseer designates the function or the work of the elder (1 Tim 3:2)- it is the work of
shepherding; pastor denotes the gift and also emphasizes the work as a shepherd and
teacher.” [Enns, 274-75]
(4) The gift of the teacher 1 Cor 12:28,29, Rom 12:7
“Teacher (Rom 12:7, 1 Cor 12:28). A pastor is also a teacher, but a teacher is not
necessarily also a pastor. A number of factors would show that a person has the gift of
teacher. He would have a great interest in the Word of God and would commit himself
to disciplined study of the Word He would have an ability to communicate the Word of
God clearly and apply the Word to the lives of the people. This gift is clearly evidenced
in a man who has the ability to take profound biblical and theological truths and
communicate them in a lucid way so ordinary people can readily grasp them. That is the
gift of teaching. This gift was emphasized considerably in the local churches in the New
Testament because of its importance in bringing believers to maturity (cf. Acts 2:42, 4:2,
5:42, 11:26, 13:1, 15:35, 18:11, etc.).
Two things should be noted concerning the gift of teaching. First, it requires
development. A person may have the gift of teaching, but for the effective use of the gift
it would demand serious study and the faithful exercise of the gift. Second, teaching is
not the same as a natural talent. Frequently publish school teachers are given position
of teaching in a local church. It does not necessarily follow that their natural ability to
teach means they have the spiritual gift of teaching. The natural ability and the spiritual
gift of teaching are not the same.” [Enns, 275]
(5) The gift of miracles 1 Cor 12:10,28,29
“Miracles (1 Cor 12:10). The natural of biblical miracles is a large subject, and the
student is encouraged to study this as a separate topic. Miracles did not happen at
random throughout Scripture but occurred in three major periods: in the days of Moses
and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, and Christ and the apostle. There were select miracles
outside that scope of time, but not many. Miracles were given to authenticate a
message, and in each of the above mentioned periods, God enabled His messengers to
perform unusual miracles to substantiate the new message they are giving. Miracles
occurred in the New Testament era to validate the new message the apostles preached.
With the completion of the canon of Scripture the need for miracles as a validating sign
disappeared; the authority of the Word of God was sufficient to validate the
messenger’s word.
The gift of miracles (1 Cor 12:10, 28) is a broader gift than the gift of healing. The
word miracle means “power” or “a work of power.” Examples of the exercise of miracles
are Peter’s judging of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:9-11) and Paul judging Elymas the
magician with blindness (Acts 13:8-11). The word is also used to describe the miracles of
Christ (Matt 11:20,21,23, 13:54).
A distinction should be made between miracles and the gift of miracles. Although
the gift of miracles – the ability of an individual to perform miraculous acts – ceased
with the apostolic age, that is not to say miracles cannot and do not occur today. God
may directly answer the prayer of a believer and perform a miracle in his life. God may
heal a terminally ill person in answer to prayer, but He does not do it through the
medium of another person.” [Enns, 271-72]
(6) The gift of healing 1 Cor 12:9, 28, 30
“Healing (1 Cor 12:9). A narrower aspect of the gift of miracles is the gift of healing (1
Cor 12:9, 28, 30). The word is used in the plural (Gk. iamaton, “healing”) in 1 Corinthians
12:9, suggesting “the different classes of sicknesses to be healed.” The gift of healing
involved the ability of a person to cure other persons of all forms of sicknesses. An
examination of New Testament healing by Christ and the apostles is noteworthy. These
healing were: instantaneous (Mark 1:42); complete (Matt 14:36); permanent (Matt
14:36); limited (constitutional diseases [eg., leprosy, Mark 1:40], not psychological
illnesses); unconditional (including unbelievers who exercised no faith and did not even
know hwo Jesus was [John 9:25]); purposeful (not just for the purpose of relieving
people from their suffering and sickness. If this were so, it would have been cruel and
immoral for our Lord to leave the cities, where the sick sought healing, for the solitude
of the country [Luke 5:15,16]); subordinate (secondary to preaching the Word of God
[Luke 9:6]); signification (intended to confirm Him and the apostles as the messengers of
God and their message as a Word from God [John 3:2, Acts 2:22, Heb 2:3,4]), successful
(except in the one case where the disciples lack of faith was the cause of failure [Matt
17:20]); and inclusive (the supreme demonstration of this gift was in raising the dead
[Mark 5:39-43, Luke 7:14, John 11:44, Acts 9:40]).
A distinction should be made between the gift of healing and healing itself. As in
the case of the other sign gifts, the gift of healing terminated with completion of the
canon of Scripture; there was no further need for the gift of healing. However, God may
still respond to the prayers of His children and heal a person of illness; this is, however,
without the agency of another person. God may heal a person directly. A distinction
between these two forms of healing appears to be the case in Acts 9, where Peter heals
Aeneas through the gift (Acts 9:34) but God heals Tabitha in response to the prayer of
Peter (Acts 9:40).
It should also be noted that there are a number of examples where God chose not
to heal people (2 Cor 12:8-9, 1 Tim 5:23) [Enns, 272-73]
(7) The gift of helps 1 Cor 12:28
“Helps (1 Cor 12:28). The word helps (Gk. antilempsis) denotes “helpful deeds,
assistance. The basic meaning of the word is an undertaking on behalf of another.” The
word is similar to serving and some see these gifts as identical. Certainly they are quite
similar if not the same. The word occurs only here in the New Testament, but the
related Greek word, antilambanesthai, occurs in Luke 1:54, Acts 20:35, 1 Timothy 6:2.
The gift of helps means “to take firm hold of someone, in order to help. These ‘helping’
therefore probably refers to the succoring of those in need, whether poor, sick,
windows, orphans, strangers, travelers, or what not.” [Enns, 275-276]
(8) The gift of the evangelist Eph 4:11
“Evangelism (Eph 4:11). The word euanggelistas, written in English as evangelists, means
“one who proclaims the good news.” One definition of the gift of evangelism is “the gift
of proclaiming the Good News of salvation effectively so that people respond to the
claims of Christ in conversion and in discipleship.”
Several things are involved in the gift of evangelism: (1) It involves a burden for the
lost. The one having this gift has a great desire to see people saved. (2) It involves
proclaiming the good news. The evangelist is one who proclaims the good news. While
men such as Billy Graham undoubtedly have the gift of evangelism, it is not necessary to
limit the gift to mass evangelism. As evangelist will also share the good news with
unbelievers on a one-to-one basis. (3) It involves a clear presentation of the gospel. The
evangelist has the ability to present the gospel in a simple and lucid fashion; he
proclaims the basic needs of salvation: sin, the substitutionary death of Christ, faith,
forgiveness, reconciliation—in a way that unbelievers without a biblical background can
understand the gospel. (4) It involves a response to the proclamation of the gospel. The
one having the gift of evangelism sees a response to the presentation of the gospel; that
is an indication he has the gift. (5) It involves a delight in seeing people come to Christ.
Because it is his burden and passion, the evangelist rejoices as men and women come to
faith in Christ.
Although only some people have the gift of evangelism, other believers are not
exempt from proclaiming the good news. All believers are to do the work of evangelism
(2 Tim. 4:5).” [Enns, 274]
(9) The gift of service Rom 12:7
“Service (Rom 12:7). The word service (Gk. diakonia) is a general word for ministering or
serving others. The word is used in a broad sense and refers to ministry and service to
others in a general way. A sampling of the usages of this word indicates that: Timothy
and Erastus serval Paul in Ephesus (Acts 19:22), Paul served the Jerusalem believers by
bringing them a monetary gift (Rom 15:25); Onesiphorus served at Ephesus (2 Tim 1:18),
Onesimus was helpful to Paul while he was in prison (Philem. 13); the Hebrew believers
displayed acts of kindness (Heb. 6:10). From these and other examples, it appears an
important aspect of serving is helping other believers who are in physical need. This gift
would be less conspicuous, with the believer serving others in the privacy of a one-to-
one relationship.” [Enns, 275]
(10) The gift of exhortation Rom 12:8

“Exhortation (Rom 12:8). The word exhortation (Gk. parakalon) means called alongside
to help.” The noun form is used of the Holy Spirit as the believer’s helper (John
14:16,26). “The exhorter is one who has the ability to appeal to the will of the individual
to get him to act.” The gift of exhortation is “often coupled with teaching (cf. 1 Tim 4:13,
6:2), and is addressed to the conscience and to the heart.”
The gift of exhortation may be either exhortation, urging someone to purse a
particular course of conduct (cf. Jude 3), or it may be consolation or comfort in view of
someone’s trial or tragedy (Acts 4:36, 9:27, 15:39).” [Enns, 276]
(11) The gift of giving Rom 12:8
“Giving (Rom 12:8). The word giving (Gk. metadidous) means “to share with someone,”
hence, the gift of giving is the unusual ability and willingness to share one’s material
goods with others. The one who has the gift of giving shares his goods eagerly and
liberally. The exhortation of Paul is to give “with liberality.” “It refers to open-handed
and open-hearted giving out of compassion and a singleness of purpose, not from
ambition.” This gift is not reserved for the rich but for ordinary Christians as well. The
Philippians apparently exercised this gift in their giving to Paul (Phil. 4:10-16). [Enns,
277]
(12) The gift of administration 1 Cor 12:28, Rom 12:8
“Administration (Rom 12:8, 1 Cor 12:28). In Romans 12:8 Paul refers to the one who
leads. This is from the Greek word prohistimi, which means “to stand before,” hence, to
lead, rule, or preside. It is used of elders in 1 Thessalonians 5:12 and 1 Timothy 5:17.
First Corinthians 12:28 refers to the gift of “administrations” (Gk. kubernesis), literally,
“to steer a ship.” Although the above references refer to elders leading the people, the
term would probably go beyond that, suggesting also leading in terms of Sunday-school
superintendent and beyond the local church in ministries such as president or dean of a
Christian college or seminary.” [Enns, 277]
(13) The gift of the word of wisdom 1 Cor 12:8
“Wisdom (1 Cor 12:8). This gift of wisdom was important in that it stands first in this list
of gifts. Paul explains the gift of wisdom in greater detail in 1 Corinthians 2:6-12 where it
is seen to be divinely imparted revelation that Paul could communicate to the believers.
Because this gift involved receiving direct revelation from characteristic gift of the
apostles who received direct revelation from God. The gift of wisdom had thus “is the
whole system of revealed truth. One with the gift of wisdom had the capacity to receive
this revealed truth from God and present it to the people of God.” Because this gift is
related to receiving and transmitting direct revelation from God the gift has ceased with
the completion of the canon of Scripture.” [Enns, 277]
(14) The gift of the word of knowledge 1 Cor 12:8
“Knowledge (1 Cor 12:8). The gift of knowledge appears to be closely related to the gift
of wisdom and refers to the ability properly to understand the truths revealed to the
apostles and prophets. This gift relates to the foundational gifts of prophesying and
teaching, which would have involved communication of God’s direct revelation to the
apostles and prophets (cf. 1 Cor 12:28). Therefore, this gift too would have ceased with
the completion of the Scriptures. First Corinthians 13:8 indicates the cessation of this
gift.” [Enns, 277]
(15) The gift of faith 1 Cor 12:9
“Faith (1 Cor 12:9). While all Christians have saving faith (Eph 2:8) and should exhibit
faith to sustain them in their spiritual walk (Heb. 11), the gift of faith is possessed by
only some believers. “The gift of faith is the faith which manifests itself in unusual deeds
of trust…. This person has the capacity to see something that needs to be done and to
believe God will do it through him even through it looks impossible.” Stephen exhibited
this gift as he was a man “full of faith” (Acts 6:5). Men such as George Mueller and
Hudson Taylor are outstanding examples of those possessing the gift of faith.” [Enns,
276]
(16) The gift of discerning spirits 1 Cor 12:10
“Discerning spirits (1 Cor 12:10). In the early church, before the canon of Scripture was
complete, God gave direct revelation to individuals who would communicate that
revelation to the church. But how did the early believers know whether or not the
revelation was true? How could they tell if it was from God, from a false spirit, or from
the human spirit? To authenticate the validity of the revelation, God gave the gift of
“distinguishing of spirits.” Those having this gift were given the supernatural ability to
determine if the revelation was from God of if it was false. John’s exhortation to “test
the spirits” has reference to this (1 John 4:1). Similarly, when two or three spoke the
revelation of God in the assembly those having the gift of discerning of spirits were to
determine if it was from God (1 Cor 14:29, cf. 1 Thess. 5:20-21). Because direct
revelation has terminated with the completion of the Scriptures, and because the gift of
discerning spirits was dependent upon revelation being given, the gift of discerning spirit
has ceased.” [Enns,276]
(17) This gift of tongues 1 Cor 12:10, 28, 30
(a) Tongues describes the ability to speak an unlearned, foreign language. Acts 2:4-
13, 1 Cor 14:6-11
(b) Tongues benefited the church indirectly. 1 Cor 14:20-25
(c) Tongues inside the church had limited usefulness. 1 Cor 14:1-5
(d) Tongues inside the church had restrictions. 1 Cor 14:12-19, 26-34
(e) Tongues would cease as part of the church’s edification. 1 Cor 13:8-12
“Tongues (1 Cor 12:28). A number of observations help to clarity the meaning of this
gift. (1) The book of Acts establishes that biblical tongues were languages (Acts 2:6, 8,
11). When the foreign Jews visited Jerusalem at Pentecost they heard the apostles
proclaim the gospel in their native languages. (cf. w.8-11).
(2) Tongues of Acts and Corinthians were the same. There is no evidence that the
tongues of Corinthians were different from the ones in Acts or that they were angelic
languages (1 Cor 13:1).
(3) Tongues were a lesser gift (1 Cor 12:28). The foundation gifts that were given for the
upbuilding of the church were apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor-teacher, and teacher
(1 Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11). Tongues were mentioned last to indicate they were not a
primary or foundation gift (1 Cor 12:28).
(4) Tongues were a temporary sign (1 Cor 13:8). The phrase “they will cease” is in
the ;middle voice, emphasizing “they will stop themselves.” The implication is that
tongues would not continue until “the perfect comes”—the time when knowledge and
prophecy gifts would be terminated-but would cease of their own accord when their
usefulness terminated. If tongues were to continue until “the perfect comes” the verb
would likely be passive in form.
Tongues were a part of the miraculous era of Christ and the apostles and were
necessary, along with the gift of miracles, as an authenticating sign of the apostles (2
Cor 12:12). With the completion of the Scriptures there was no longer any need for an
authenticating sign; the Bible was now the authority in verifying the message that God’s
servants proclaimed. Tongues were a sign belonging to the infancy stage of the church
(1 Cor 13:10-11, 14:20).
 Tongues were used as a sign to unbelieving Jews and in this sense were used in
evangelism (1 Cor 14:21-22). When unbelieving Jews would enter the assembly and hear
people speaking in foreign languages it was a sign to them that God was doing a work in
their midst, reminiscent of Isaiah’s day (Isa 28:11-12). This sign should lead them to faith
in Jesus as their Messiah.” [Enns, 273]
(18) The gift of interpretation of tongues 1 Cor 12:10,30
“Interpretation of tongues (1 Cor 12:10). The gift of interpretation of tongues involved
the supernatural ability of someone in the assembly to interpret the foreign language
spoken by one who had the gift of tongues. The language would be translated into the
vernacular [sic] for the people who were present.” [Enns, 273-74]
(19) The gift of showing mercy Rom 12:8
“Showing mercy (Rom 12:8). To show mercy (Gk. eleon) means to “feel compassion,
show mercy or pity.” In the life of Christ, showing mercy was healing the blind (Matt
9:27), aiding the Canaanite woman’s daughter (Matt 15:22), healing an epileptic (Matt
17:15), and healing the lepers (Luke 17:13). The gift of showing mercy would thus
involve showing compassion and help toward the poor, sick, troubled, and suffering
people. Moreover, this compassion is to be performed with cheerfulness. The one
possessing this gift should perform acts of mercy with gladness, not out of drudgery.”
[Enns, 276-77]
D. The Holy Spirit in the Tribulation and Millennial eras.
1. The Holy Spirit is removed with the Church. 2 Thess 2:7
2. The Holy Spirit is still active in saving souls. Rom 11:25-27
3. The Holy Spirit is upon Israel in a new way. Joel 2:28-32, Acts 2:16-21, Ezekiel 36:24-
29

Part 2 – Unscriptural Deviations

Conservative Inconsistencies
A. Problems related to the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
Bad Views: Some scholars minimized the differences between the work of the Spirit in
the Old and New Testament.

“And this brings us naturally to the second aspect in which the Spirit is presented to us
in relation to the new creation— His relation to the individual soul, working inwardly in
the spirits of men, fitting the children of God for the kingdom of God, even as, working
in the nation as such, He, as theocratic Spirit, was preparing God’s kingdom for His
people. In this aspect He appears specifically as the Spirit of grace. As He is the source
of all cosmical life, and of all theocratic life, so is He also the source of all spiritual life.
He upholds the soul in being and governs it as part of the great world He has created;
He makes it sharer in the theocratic blessings which He brings to His people; but He
deals with it, too, within, conforming it to its ideal. In a word, the Spirit of God, in the
Old Testament, is not merely the immanent Spirit, the source of all the world’s life and
all the world’s movement; and not merely the inspiring Spirit, the source of His
church’s strength and safety and of its development in accordance with its special
mission; He is well the indwelling Spirit of holiness in the hearts of God’s children.”
[Warfield, 146]
“It is not that His work is more real in the new dispensation than in the old. It is not
merely that it is more universal. It is that it is directed to a different end—that it is no
longer for the mere preserving of the seed unto the day of planting, but for the
perfecting of the fruitage and the gathering of the harvest. The Church, to use a figure
of Isaiah’s, was then like a pent- in stream, it is now like that pent- in stream with the
barriers broken down and the Spirit of the Lord driving it. It was He who preserved it in
being when it was pent in. It is He who is now driving on its gathered floods till it shall
cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. In one word, that was a day in which the
Spirit re-strained. Now the great day of the Spirit is come.” [Warfield, 155-156]
“Do you not see, then, that all who are saved in all ages will have to be called out
together and assembled in Heaven together, and be a part together of “the church
which is his body,” the “church and assembly of the firstborn which are written in
heaven?” And of all the Old Testament are to be in the called-out assembly, then the
building was first started when the first soul was ever saved.” [Rice, 112]
Rebuttal: “However, this did not occur directly after the birth of Christ, but after His
ascension; for His human nature did not unfold its fullest perfection until after He had
ascended, when, as the glorified Son of God, He sat down at the right hand of the
Father. Only then the perfect Man was given, who on the one hand could be the
temple of the Holy Ghost without hindrance, and on the other unite the spirits of the
elect into one body. And when, by His ascension and sitting down at the right hand of
God, this had become a fact, when thus the elect had become one body, it was
perfectly natural that from the Head the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was imparted to
the whole body. And thus the Holy Spirit was poured out into the body of the Lord, His
elect, the Church.
 In this way everything becomes plain and clear: clear why the saints of the Old
Testament did not receive the promise, that without us they should not be made
perfect, waiting for the perfection until the formation of the body of Christ, into which
they were to be incorporated, clear that the tarrying of the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit did not prevent saving from operation upon the individual souls of the saints of
the Old Covenant; clear the world of John, that the Holy Spirit was not yet given
because Jesus was not yet glorified; clear that the apostles were born again long before
Pentecost and received official gifts on the evening of the day of the resurrection, altho
[sic] the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the body thus formed did not take place until
Pentecost. It becomes clear how Jesus could say, “If I go not away the Comforter will
not come unto you,” and again, “But if I go, I will send Him unto you” for the Holy Spirit
was to flow into His body from Himself who is the Head. It becomes clear also that He
would not send Him form Himself, but from the Father, clear why this outpouring of
the Spirit into the body of Christ is never repeated, and could occur but once, and
lastly, clear that the Holy Spirit was indeed standing in the midst of Israel (Isa 43:12),
working upon the saints from without, while in the New Testament He is said to be
within them.
We arrive, therefore, at the following conclusion: First, the elect must constitute
one body. Second, they were not so constituted during the days of the Old Covenant,
of John the Baptist, and of Christ while on earth. Third, this body did not exist until
Christ ascended to heaven and, sitting at the right hand of God, bestowed upon this
body its unity, in that God gave Him to be Head over all the things to the Church—
Ephes. 4:12. Lastly, Christ as the glorified Head, having formed His spiritual body by the
vital union of the elect, on the day of Pentecost poured out His Holy Spirit into the
whole body, never more to let Him depart from it.
That these conclusions contain nothing but what the Church of all ages has
confessed appears from the fact that the Reformed churches have always maintained:
First, that our communion with the Holy Spirit depends upon our mystic union with the
body of which Christ is the Head, which is the underlying thought of the Lord’s Supper.
Second, that the elect form one body under Christ their Head. Third, that this body
began to exist when it received its Head, and that according to Ephes. 1:22, Christ was
given to be the Head after His resurrection and ascension.” [Kuyper, 120-22]

B. Problems related to the Holy Spirit and Christ

1. Regarding the baptism of Christ
Bad Views: The water baptism of Christ at the beginning of his ministry is the same as
the baptism of the Spirit for the believers today.
“Let us observe that Christ, our example in this as in all things, did not enter upon His
ministry until He had received the Holy Spirit. Not only so, but we see that all His
service from His baptism to His ascension was wrought in the Spirit. Ask concerning His
miracles, and we hear Him saying, “I cast out devils by the Spirit of God” (Matt 12:28).
Ask concerning His redemptive death, and we read “who through the eternal Spirit
offered himself without spot to God” (Heb 9:14). Ask concerning the giving of the great
commission, and we read that He was received up “after that he through the Holy
Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles” (Acts 1:2). Thus, though He was
the son of God, He always acted in supreme reliance upon Him who has been called the
“Executive of the Godhead.”
Plainly we see how Christ was our pattern in His relation to the Holy Spirit. He had
been begotten of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin, and had lived that holy and
obedient life which this divine nativity would imply. But when He desired to enter His
public ministry, He waited for the Spirit to come upon Him, as He had before been in
Him.” [Gordon, 60]
Rebuttal: “It is quite obvious that the four recorded references in the gospel to the
baptizing work of the Spirit connect this ministry with our Lord as the baptizer. This is
done, as noted, because this operation of the Spirit springs from the death, burial,
resurrection, and ascension of the Redeemer and His consequent sending of the Holy
Spirit as His ascension gift, to perform among other activities, His baptizing work.
However, a common mistake is to identify the baptizer with the Holy Spirit as also
the one baptized by the Holy Spirit. Some Bible teachers assert that Jesus was baptized
with the Holy Spirit at His baptism by John in the Jordan. Torrey says that Jesus never
entered His public ministry “until He was baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
That our Lord was anointed by the Holy Spirit and divinely filled without measure
(cf. Jn 3:34) is certain. But to confuse this anointing with the baptizing work of the Spirit
displays serious misunderstanding of the essential nature of Spirit baptism.
Our Lord could not possible have been baptized by the Spirit for the following
reasons. All the references to this operation are prophetic in the gospels, the event not
becoming historical until Pentecost, after the earthly ministry of our Lord was
completed. Because the baptism of the Spirit was a result of Christ’s finished work of
redemption, it was impossible that it should not take place after these events.
 Moreover, there is not the slightest reason that our Lord should have been
baptized by the Spirit. From a consideration of the purpose of that baptism, it was
impossible that He should be so baptized. As the Son of God, He possessed in addition
to a divine nature, a sinless human nature that needed to be anointed and filled with
the Holy Spirit, as it was at Jordan. But as Son of God and Son of man, He was already
one with the Father (Jn 10:30), and needed no spiritual baptism to make Him one.
It was on the basis of His oneness with the Father and in view of His approaching
redemptive work on the cross and the subsequent giving of the Holy Spirit to perform
His baptizing work that our Lord prayed for the oneness not only of His immediate
circle of disciple, but “for them also who shall believe” on Him “through their word that
they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one
in us” (Jn 17:20, 21).
Considering both His parents and work, our Lord could not possible have been
baptized with the Spirit. His person needed no such baptism. He was one with the
Father. His work rendered such a spiritual operation upon Himself impossible. His
ministry leading to His redemptive work on the cross was at the time of his appearance
before John at Jordan only beginning. The Spirit’s baptizing work, on the other hand, is
based upon a finished work and concerns uniting believers to the risen, ascended
Christ, thus making them one with the Son as the Son is one with the Father.
Accordingly, under no consideration can the baptizer with the Holy Spirit be said to be
the one baptized with the Holy Spirit,” [Unger, The Baptism, 49-51]

2. Regarding the anointing of Christ

Bad Views: The anointing of Christ is the same as the baptism of the Spirit in which the
Spirit is the content of the anointing.
“This anointing is obviously the Holy Spirit himself.” (Gordan, 69)
Rebuttal: “What, then, did occur when Jesus was baptized by John in Jordan (Mt 3:13-
15) and the “Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him” (Lk
3:21,22)? In the light of our Saviour’s own explanation of the event as a fulfilling of “all
righteousness” (Mt 3:15), and in the light of the priesthood as it appertained to our
Lord’s redemptive ministry, the event clearly marked “His formal induction into the
office of priest, the Great High Priest, for it was in this office He offered not “the blood
of bulls and goats,” but Himself in order to put away sin (Heb 9:24-26). It is this
consecration to His priesthood that comes into clearest view in the baptismal scene.
 In His reference to fulfilling all righteousness lies the import and motive of His
baptism. Jesus meant the righteousness of the Mosaic law, which was in force till His
death on Calvary, and to which he carefully conformed. The Levitical law required that
all priests be consecrated when they “began to be about thirty years of age,” as was
the case with Jesus (Lk 3:23, cf. Num 4:3). The consecration was twofold—first the
washing, then the anointing (Ex 39:4-7, Lev 8:6-36). Aaron shared in the washing, being
a sinner and needing it, and furnishing the type of the baptism of Christ, Who, not
being a sinner Himself and not needing it, nevertheless identified Himself with sinners,
and fulfilled the Aaronic type.
After the washing came the anointing (Ex 29:5-7). When John the Baptist at
Jordan’s bank “washed” (baptized) Jesus, the heavens were opened and the Holy Spirit
came upon Him. This was the priestly anointing of Him who was not only a priest by
divine appointment, but an eternal priest (Ps 110:4) and who was thus divinely
consecrated for the work of redemption (Mt 3:16, Ac 4:27, 10:38).
Upon the foundation of the finished work of redemption our Lord gave the Holy
Spirit to regenerate, indwell, seal, and baptize each believer into organic union with
Himself and with each other in Him. In this role He was the baptizer with the Holy
Spirit.” [Unger, The Baptism, 51-52]

C. Problems related to the Holy Spirit and the church

1. Regarding the Holy Spirit and regeneration
Bad Views: Man has an active role in his regeneration.
Charles Finney denied the orthodox doctrine of original sin. He defined original sin as
nothing more than selfishness. Because of this belief, he taught that man has the major
role in regeneration instead of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration is merely a “radical change
of the ultimate intention.” The minister plays more of a role than the Holy Spirit
according to Finney. Thus he encourages the use of high pressure to get people to
change their attitude and be regenerated. [See Finney’s Lectures on Systematic
Theology, pp. 228-481]
Rebuttal: Justification is with a view to reigning in life, and is spoken of as “justification
of life” (Rom 5:18). From the divine side, the change of heart is called regeneration, the
new birth; from the human side, it is called conversion. In regeneration, the soul is
passive, in conversion, it is active. Regeneration may be defined as the communication
of divine life of the soul (John 3:5, 20:10,28, 1 John 5:11f) as the impartation of a new
nature (2 Pet. 1:4) or heart (Jer. 24:7, Ezek. 11:19, 36:26), and the production of a new
creation (2 Cor 5:17, Eph 2:10, 4:24). This new spiritual life affects the believer’s intellect
(1 Cor 2:14, Eph 1:18, Col 3:10), will (Phil 2:13, 2 Thess. 3:5, Heb 13:21), and emotions
(Matt 5:4, 1 Pet 1:8). [Thiessen, 279]
“The new birth therefore is not a change of nature as it is sometimes defined; it is
rather the communication of the divine nature, and the Holy Spirit is now the Mediator
through whom this life is transmitted.” [Gordon, 76]

2. Regarding the Holy Spirit and sanctification

Bad Views: A Christian can attain complete sanctification in this life by a special work of
the Holy Spirit.
John Wesley taught that a Christian can cease to sin this life: “If the love of God filled all
the heart, there can be no sin there.” No Christian commits sin by habitual sin, willful
sin, sins of desire, or sins from infirmity. Wesley eventually taught a second work of
grace by the Holy Spirit that accomplishes this Christian perfection. See A Compend of
Wesley’s Theology, pp. 149-206 and A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, p. 24.
Rebuttal: “As a process, sanctification continues throughout life. On the basis of what
the believer has done at conversion, he is admonished to do the same actually in his
own experience. Because he has “put off” and “put on”, he is now to “put off” and “put
on” (Col 3:8-13). Where the initial surrender has not been adhered to, there is need
first of a definite presentation of the life to God before practical holiness is possible
(Rom 6:13, 12:1f) but when the believer is wholly dedicated to God, progress in
sanctification is assured. Then the Holy Spirit will put to death the deeds of the body
(Rom 8:13), work in him obedience to the Word (1 Pet 1:22), produce the fruit of the
Spirit (Gal. 5:22f), and use him in God’s service. Then he will “grow in the grace and
knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 3:18), “increase and abound in
love” (1 Thess. 3:12), cleanse himself “from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting
holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor 7:1), and be transformed into the image of Christ (2
Cor 3:18, Eph 4:11-16). Paul declared, “I press on in order that I may lay hold of that
which I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:12).
This does not mean some type of sinless perfection. “Perfect” or “blameless” is used
of several people in Scripture; yet it does not mean sinless. It is used of Noah (Gen 6:9);
yet, that Noah was not sinlessly perfect is evident from his shameful drunkenness (Gen
9:20-27). Likewise, Job was called, “perfect” or “blameless” (Job 1:1), but he was in
many ways imperfect. When he came to understand God more fully, he abhorred
himself and repented in dust and ashes (Job 42:6). God told Abram to walk before him
and be perfect (Gen 17:1). Jesus commanded, “You are to be perfect, as your heavenly
Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48). If this refers to absolute sinlessness and likeness to God,
then no Christian has ever yet attained to this precept. It is clear from the context that
Jesus is exhorting his followers to be like the Father in displaying love to both good and
bad. Paul disclaims being already perfect in one breath and in the next claims to be
perfect (Phil 3:12,15). It is evident that one is positional perfection and the other
experiential perfection. Positionally, he was perfect since the day that he believed in
Christ, experientially, he was perfect only to a limited degree. The same Greek word is
use in both verses, except that the first is a verb and the second an adjective. Col. 1:28,
4:12 and Heb 12:23 hold out perfection as a goal to be attained in the end, but not in
this life. It is clear from these and other Scriptures that absolute perfection is not to be
expected in this life.
We come to the same conclusion by another line of argument. Some use 1 John
3:8f in support of sinless perfection. John writes there, “The one who practices sin is of
the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning…. No one who is born of God
practices sin, because His seed abides in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of
God.” Attention to the Greek tenses removes the possibility that this is sinless
perfection, for they are all the present tense. Accordingly, the meaning is, he that
habitually sins is of the devil; he that is of God does not repeatedly sin. If this is not the
meaning, then John contradicts himself in this very Epistle, for he tells the believer
what to do in case he sins. “My little children, I am writing these things to you that you
may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:1f). The believer is
enjoined not to sin, but if he sins he has a remedy. John further says that if we walk in
the light, “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is
not in us” (1:8). Surely, we must conclude that John does not teach sinless perfection.
The same may be said concerning the teaching that we have died to sin (Rom 6:1-
10). It is clear that this is an objective experience in which the believer is identified with
Christ. If this were an absolute experiential death, why then does Paul insist that we
need yet to “consider” ourselves dead to sin and alive to God (v. 11)! One who is
absolutely dead does not need to consider himself dead, he simply is dead apart from
any such reckoning.
We must beware of concluding that the defeated, imperfect life is the normal life. If
sinless perfection is an unscriptural doctrine, so also is sinful imperfection. The
Scriptures, so far from condoning sin in the life of the believer, definitely prohibit it and
demand that we live an overcoming life. The answer to Paul’s question, “Are we to
continue in sin?” (Rom 6:1), is most emphatically, “May it never be! How shall we who
died to sin still live in it?” (v. 2). The apostle warns the Corinthians that those who live
in sin shall not “inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:10). [Thiessen, 290-91]

3. Regarding the Holy Spirit and baptism

Bad Views: The baptism of the Spirit is an empowerment for service that comes after
conversion upon certain Christians who seek it.
“There widely respected leaders, apparently influenced by the nineteenth-century
holiness theology with its lack of doctrinal precision, taught the later distinctively
Pentecostal tenet of the baptism of the baptism of the Spirit as an experience
subsequent to salvation. Foremost among these conservatives were F.B. Meyer, A.J
Gordan, A.B. Simpson, Andrew Murray, and most significant of all, R.A. Torrey.
Torrey may be said to be the one non-Pentecostal leader who, after Wesley and
Finney, was the most influential in the prehistory of Pentecostalism. He gave the
greatest impetus to the establishment of the movement as doctrinally respectable and
experientially sound.
Although all of the evangelicals contemporary with the rise of Pentecostalism, who
taught second-experience theology, constitute a kind of theological reservoir from
which Pentecostals have drawn heavily to establish their central tenet of the baptism
of the Spirit, none is quoted more frequently or more approvingly than R.A. Torrey, a
non-Pentecostal.
The statement of Torrey most often quoted by Pentecostals to bolster their
position on the baptism of the Spirit claims that regeneration by the Spirit and baptism
with the Spirit do not occur at the same time. “The baptism of the Holy Spirit is an
operation of the Holy Spirit distinct from and subsequent and additional to His
regeneration work.”
Torrey’s contention, much quoted by Pentecostals, continues by declaring, “A man
may be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and still not be baptized with the Holy Spirit….
Every true believer has the Holy Spirit. But not every believer has the baptism with the
Holy Spirit, though every believer…. may have.”
It is ironical, however, that what Pentecostal writers quote most frequently from
Torrey represents an otherwise sound and incisive thinker and Bible teacher at his
worst and not at his best—at his weakest and not at his strongest point. What is even
more lamentable is that the halo of a great teacher’s reputation for evangelical loyalty
should be prostituted to invest a particular error be happened to fall into with the aura
of truth and sound doctrine.” [Unger, The Baptism, 10-11]
 “The other chapters in this book are on the special enduement of power for soul-
winning witness such as the disciples received when they were filled with the Holy
Spirit at Pentecost. The other chapters are about this extraordinary work of the Spirit,
this fullness, this filling of the Spirit, or gift of the Holy Spirit, or anointing of the Spirit,
sometimes called the baptism of the Spirit. That extraordinary, unusual, and special
ministry of the Holy Spirit (which miraculously enables one to do the work for Christ
which he is commanded to do in witnessing with power and bearing fruit for Christ) is
possible for every Christian and commanded for every Christian. But we must admit
that it is unusual. There are not many Christians filled with the Spirit of God as New
Testament disciples were at Pentecost, as Peter and John and Paul and Philip and
Barnabas and other such mighty soul winners were in Bible times. Not many Christians
have power such as Finney and Moody had. The book is on the power of Pentecost or
the fullness of the Holy Spirit. [Rice, 35]
“There is no evidence, then, that the church began at Pentecost as a new thing.” [Rice,
107]
“However, many who have experienced rebirth do not possess or enjoy this blessing.
The baptism of the Spirit is the endowment with the power to fill us with boldness and
give the victory over the world and every enemy.” [Murray, 42]
Rebuttal: “A gentleman said to me recently, “I have just come from a great tarrying
meeting. Hundreds have been tarrying for many days at San Jose, California, waiting for
the Holy Ghost.” I asked, “What authority did you have for that?” He replied, “Why,
Jesus said, Tarry in Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on High.”
“Well, my friend,” I inquired, “are you nor confounding locations and time? You are
over ten thousand miles too far away, and over eighteen hundred years too late.”
Observe: If some of the disciples had “tarried” at Nazareth, and some at Bethlehem,
and others at Bethany, would the Holy Spirit have fallen on them on that Pentecostal
morning? Surely not! The command was, “Tarry at Jerusalem,” and as they waited
there, like a rushing, mighty wind He came, sent from the Father and the Son to form
the body of Christ, and to endue with power the waiting disciples that they might bear
testimony to the risen Christ. Thus, He established them into the Christ—making them
members of His body.
But let me not be misunderstood. I am not insinuating that is; is a vain thing for any
believer or any company of believers to wait on God for power to overcome the enemy
and sound out the evangel. It is always well to be thus before Him. “They that wait
upon the Lord shall renew their strength.” This is true in all dispensations. But we wait,
not for Him to send the Spirit, for He is already here, and by His baptism we have all
been joined to the body. We need, however, to wait on God to show us any hindrance
in our lives that may be retraining His working in us to will and to do of His good
pleasure. As we judge ourselves, and learn from our past failures to walk humbly and in
self-distrust, we make room for the Holy Spirit to fill us with divine power, and to use
us for the glory of God and the blessing of a needy world.
But to tarry for the baptism of the Spirit is an evidence of utter ignorance of God’s
dispensational ways. Remember, the only place where the baptism is definitely
mentioned in all the epistolary portions of the New Testament is this one verse,
namely, 1 Cor 12:13 and here it is distinctly spoken of as a past event, into the good of
which we all have been brought.” [Ironside, 34-35] “Notice, we are never exhorted to
seek the baptism of the Spirit, nor told to be anointed with the Spirit, neither are we
commanded to be sealed with the Spirit. There are blessed with facts, true of every
believer. But the word is, “Be filled with the Spirit.” It is a command that we are not at
liberty to ignore. How shall we obey it? Can we be filled at will? Do we obtain this
fulness by prayer? Is it a blessing that comes once for all? Or may we need to seek it
again and again?
We cannot be filled by deciding to claim it by faith. Neither are we filled by praying
for it; and once filled there is no guarantee that we will be in the same blessed state
tomorrow. We are only filled with the Spirit as we yield ourselves to God and walk in
obedience to His word. By comparing Col. 3:16 with Eph 5:18 we will see that the same
results follow; if the Word of Christ dwells in us richly, it is being filled with the Spirit.
What then is the legitimate inference? Surely, that a Word-filled Christian is a Spirit-
filled Christian. I do not mean that one who has a mental knowledge of the Word is
necessarily Spirit-filled, but when the Word is hidden in the heart and controls the
ways, then the Spirit of God fills and energizes, as He cannot do when we ignore the
written Word.
People pray for more of the Spirit, but the Spirit is not a liquid, or an element. He is
a Person. He wants to get more of you. When you let Him take charge of you, you will
be filled with the Spirit.
But this is so big a subject, I must devote another address to it; so, for the present, I
would just leave this thought; with you: He will fill every room in your being to which
you give Him the key. If He does not fill you it is because you are reserving some part of
yourself. Do not simply give Him the best room. He is downright exclusion. He would
have all for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, whom He delights to exalt. Can you say,
“None of self, all of Thee?” Then you will be filled indeed. [Ironside, 42-43]
1. Charismatic Confusion
A. Summarization of the development of Charismatic
1. The early Pentecostals 1900-1948
“What came to be known as Pentecostalism arose among Christians, who according to
Pentecostals were hungry for something more than they were getting in the average
church. This “more” came in the form of speaking in tongues. When this phenomenon
was connected with conviction that speaking in other languages was the evidence of the
baptism of the Holy Spirit, the germinal idea of Pentecostal conviction was born. This
occurred around the beginning of the twentieth century.
An outburst of tongues took place in Topeka, Kansas, in 1901, then sporadically
around the world. In 1906 there was a startling manifestation of the charism at Azusa
Street in Los Angeles, California. T.B. Barrett, a Norwegian Methodist pastor, who at the
time was visiting America, received his “baptism” and returned to establish
Pentecostalism in Norway, then in England, Germany, and Sweden.
During the following years, Pentecostalism spread widely. Many groups came into
being, some without the Pentecostal name, such as the Churches of God, International
Church of the Foursquare Gospel, and the Catholic Apostolic Church. Others bore the
Pentecostal name.
The largest and finest of Pentecostal group that developed in the United States is the
Assemblies of God. It was formed at Hot Springs, Arkansas, in 1914 by the merger of
several Church of God congregations. In 1916 its headquarters was moved to
Springfield, Missouri, where it has established a training school and a publishing house.
“This is the only Pentecostal body,” according to Elmer Clark, “which does not insist that
sanctification is accomplished by a distinct work of grace subsequent to justification.” By
1950 it had grown to a sizeable denomination with some five thousand churches and
about a quarter-million adherents.
Another group is the Pentecostal Holiness Church. It was organized at Clinton, North
Carolina, in 1899. In 1911 it merged with the Fire-Baptized Holiness Church and has it
headquarters at Franklin Springs, Georgia. By the middle of the century it had grown to
more than 780 congregations and 26,000 members.
The United Pentecostal Church was formed in 1945 as the result of a merger with
two other Pentecostal bodies. By mid-century it had approximately 1,000 churches and
20,000 members.
 Other Pentecostal bodies include the International Pentecostal Assemblies, the
Pentecostal Church of God in America, the Pentecostal Fire-Baptized Holiness Church,
Calvary Pentecostal Church, and the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World.” [Unger,
Baptism, 11-12]
“In the last three chapters, we have examined some of the doctrinal beliefs and
sociological underpinning of Pentecostalism, the neo-Pentecostal deliverance revivals,
and the Latter Rain movement. The new distinctives that marked each movement from
the movement it arose out of were highlighted. We also demonstrated that each
movement preserves or in some cases adopts the teachings of the previous movement,
progressing onward with its own blend of teachings and practices. Thus, each
movement is unique. Each movement possessed key leaders (e.g., William Branham)
who shaped the movement with their teachings and directed it with their vision. A new
set of doctrines and experiences provided the movement with enough sustenance to
temporarily keep it afloat. When the movement declined, there were always zealous
visionaries ready to receive it by creating something new, whether it was a doctrine, a
vision, a dream, or an experience, as long as it preserved the teachings of the pervious
movement and progressed forward as the “Spirit” gave direction.
Considering all three movements examined in chapter 1,2, and 3 the chart on the
next page demonstrates that when an experiential restoration movement arises out of
a particular religious tradition, it preserves the bulk of its predecessor’s distinctive
beliefs and further develops its own set of beliefs and practices (convinced that it is
God who is restoring these truths). These beliefs and practices likewise impact the next
movement that ascends out of its religious context.
The progression of thought and the transference of doctrine from one movement to
the next show a clear sociological and doctrinal dependency. Each movement was built
around its own form of syncretism (the fusion of two or more forms of belief and
practice), which poured over into the next movement to a greater magnitude. Each
movement tended to drift further away from the mainstream of biblical fidelity and
became more radical in its doctrinal stance. Each movement became more elitist in
stance and considered those outside its circle to be spiritually dead. Today it is no
different. Every new movement to arrive on the religious scene introduces something
“new” that promises to add something unique to the church that she cannot do
without. In this sense, all restoration movements are the same. They say, in effect,
“You need what we have!”
PENTECOSTALISM NEO-PENTECOSTAL LATTER RAIN MOVEMENT
DELIVERANCE
 Restorationist 1. Restorationist 1. Restorationist
Experience-centered 2. Experience-centered 2. Experience-centered
Personality-centered 3. Personality-centered 3. Personality-centered
Theologically thin 4. Theologically thin 4. Theologically thin
Division 5. Division 5. Division
6. Sensationalistic 6. Sensationalistic
7. Cultlike figures 7. Cultlike figures
8. Erroneous deliverance 8. Erroneous deliverance
methods methods
9. Scandalous fund-raising 9. Scandalous fund-raising
techniques techniques
10. False faith appro- 10. False faith appro-
priation priation
11. Preoccupation with 11. Preoccupation with
Satan Satan
12. New revelations 12. New revelations
13. Anti-intellectualism 13. Anti-intellectualism
14. New restoration
orientation
15. Fivefold ministry
16. Extreme spiritual
disciplines
17. A new prophetic
outlook
18. Recover of true
worship
19. Immortalization of the
saints
20. Unity of the faith (or
the faithful)
[Moriarty, 61-62]
2. The old Charismatics 1948 (1960)-1988
“In the late 1940s and through the 1950s, deliverance evangelists such as William
Branham, Gordan Lindsay, and Oral Roberts were instrumental in spreading the
message of “Spirit baptism” (speaking in tongues) and deliverance beyond explicitly
neo-Pentecostal boundaries. Their ministries produced a following of Spirit-baptized
believers who were not all Pentecostal in doctrine. These believers viewed speaking in
tongues as an evidence of Spirit baptism, but not as the only evidence. The Pentecostal
experience was considered valid but nor normative. In this way, many people belonging
to mainline Protestant denominations received the baptism of the Holy Spirit while
visiting Pentecostal or neo-Pentecostal revival meetings, but they remained in their
traditional churches.” [Moriarty, 65]
“Although hundreds, perhaps thousands of mainline Christians had received the
Pentecostal experience and silently remained in their churches before April 3, 1960s, it
is on this date that the charismatic movement is considered to have begun. On this day,
Father Dennis Bennett of St. Mark’s Episcopal parish in Van Nuys, California, announced
to his congregation that he had received the fullness and power of the Holy Spirit
accompanied by “speaking in unknown tongues.”
At all three morning services on that Passion Sunday, Bennett quietly explained how
he and other members of the congregation received the baptism of the Holy Spirit with
the evidence of speaking in tongues. After much opposition in the first two services, he
announced his resignation at the third service. A few months later he accepted an
invitation to become vicar of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in Seattle, Washington, which
subsequently grew to be one of the strongest charismatic churches in the Northwest.
For a decade it was the major center from which the baptism of the Holy Spirit spread
worldwide, especially in the mainline denominations. Thousands of people, including
ministers from mainline churches, experienced speaking in tongues as a result of
hearing Bennett’s testimony. While some of these ministers established independent
evangelistic associations, many remained within their denominations and tried to
accommodate the charismatic experience to their own theological, liturgical, and
ecclesiastical tradition. By 1966 the Pentecostal experience penetrated the Roman
Catholic Church and by 1974 over thirty-thousands Catholic Pentecostals gathered at
Notre dame to celebrate the movement’s eighth birthday. Before long, pastors and
priests were teaching this new experience to congregations and parishioners
throughout the United States and in many foreign countries. Throughout the 1960s
people in virtually every major Protestant denomination experienced speaking in
tongues (Baptist, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Mennonites). Even severe
opponents of this budding movement, such as fundamentalist Baptists and the
Churches of Christ, had active cells of tongues-speaking members.” [Moriarty, 69-70]
“Because the charismatic movement was so diverse and involved people from many
different denominations and religious traditions, it is understandable why many
believers struggled to work out their renewed life in individual and corporate terms.
However, they all shared common elements and bore certain characteristic that made
them distinct as a movement.
1.Experiencing Jesus. One of the trademarks of the charismatic movement is a personal
encounter with Jesus Christ. A focus on Christ put one in the position to receive the
baptism of the Spirit, which resulted in a deeper reverence for Jesus, a greater
submission to his will, and the ability not just to serve him as Saviour but also as Lord.
The proclamation “Jesus is Lord” has become a favorite slogan among charismatics. All
of the following distinctive characteristics of the movement are available only to those
who have personally encountered Christ and have been baptized by his Spirit.
2. Power. The baptism of the Spirit brought spiritual power necessary for godly living,
maintaining a powerful witness, obeying God’s Word, and all of the elements having to
do with serving others. All Spirit-empowered ministries manifested supernatural
influences, which brought greater enlightenment and enthusiasm. Spiritual Power
produced a stronger witness for Christ, which resulted in more people getting saved.
3. Worship. The first blessing of Spirit baptism was ability to Praise the Lord from one’s
innermost being (Jn 7:38). The Spirit-baptized Christian has been lifted to a higher
dimension in worship, having been gifted with a new capacity to praise God. Ture
worship brings one into the presence of God, where new songs burst forth and spiritual
gifts flow freely.
4. Prayer. According to charismatics, all who have the special endowment of power from
on high through the baptism of the Holy Spirit acquire a strong, fearless, and insistent
spirit to engage in successful prayer. Many stressed “praying in the spirit,” which is
interpreted to mean “praying in unknown tongues.” By “praying in the spirit” you are
praying a perfect prayer since the Holy Spirit is inspiring the utterance. This type of
devotional praying solicits a greater response from God.
5. Sign gifts. The charismatic movement was most widely known for its strong conviction
that all of the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in 1 Co 12:8-10 are meant for the church
today. The most prominent gifts and those exercised most often were speaking in
tongues, healing and prophecy. What was new among certain mainline churches that
did not practice these things was their growing acceptance of the validity and
availability of these gifts for the purpose of revitalizing and strengthening the churches’
mission. As the mainline churches progressively opened themselves to charismata, the
streams of the charismatic movement continued to broaden and deepen.
6. New revelation. At the heart of the charismatic movement was the belief that anyone
baptized in the Holy Spirit can hear the voice of God. The conviction that God speaks as
directly and as regularly today as he did in the first century is the hallmark of charismatic
theology. A Christian who knows God intimately should expect to hear from God
personally and can be confident in saying, “God told me.” While many Christian have
claimed statements such as these are based on noncognitive, subjective urges,
charismatics simply retort, “If it happened in the Bible, it can happen today: if the
apostle Paul heard from God, so can I.”
7. The Word. Charismatic claim to be “Word people,” purvepors of the “full Gospel.”
They have little tolerance for those who peddle academic philosophies they cannot find
in the Scriptures. Charismatics have been consistently criticized for their subjective
method of interpreting the Bible and their arbitrary allegorization of certain teachings,
but they reason that for one to know the deeper truths of the Scriptures the Holy Spirit
must reveal it directly. Nevertheless, charismatics are generally Bible-carriers and
constantly emphasizes the importance of the Scriptures.
8. Demonic activity. Charismatics claim that the baptism of the Holy Spirit brings one
into a new dimension of spiritual realities. The Spirit-baptized believer becomes more
aware of the reality of Satan and the powers of darkness. This awareness has given
deliverance and exorcism new relevance in mainline churches experiencing charismata.
9. Apocalyptic. The advent of the charismatic movement was generally followed by an
increased expectancy of the Lord’s return. Not all accepted Pentecostalism’s doctrine of
the pretribulation Rapture, but most charismatics sensed that history was moving
toward its climax, with the return of Christ just over the horizon.
10. Evangelism. The baptism of the Spirit brought greater power for effective
evangelism. Just as Spirit-baptized believers have a new ability to worship, pray, exercise
spiritual gifts, and hear from God, so they have a new ability and zeal to share the
Gospel with unbelievers. Charismatics claim that in order for one to have many
converts, he or she needs to be baptized in the Spirit.
The remarkable growth of the charismatic movement reflects the spiritual longings
many people feel. Many people are seeking genuine fellowship, spiritual vitality, and
touch of the miraculous. To experience spiritual freshness and to apprehend the deeper
truths is the seeker’s dream. Although charismatics often radiate love and zeal, they
have a perilous tendency to reply on supernatural manifestations as conclusive evidence
that God is at work. They also seek to build unity on the basis of those manifestations,
sometimes at the expense of biblical truth. The tendency to devote more importance to
experience that to rightly dividing the Word of Truths has opened a pandora’s box in the
charismatic world. The chance of error is greatly increased not only for those who are
part of the charismatic movement, but for similar fringe movements growing out of it or
developing alongside it.
 The danger to the integrity of Christian doctrine and the purity of the faith is a tragic
reality. In some ways, the charismatic movement has been a beacon to the Christian
church by challenging us to expect more from God, to expect God to pour out his Spirit
upon us in ways that break our traditional, subbiblical thought patterns. Tragically,
however, it has also opened many doors to the ever-present influence of experiential
and unbiblical ideas. Many who became convinced by their won experiences (tongues,
prophecy, new revelation, etc.) that an experiential approach was valid interpreted
Scripture to fit their pattern of encounters. Such an approach is always destructive (2
Pet 3:16) and plants dangerous seeds which spawn other movements that are often
more extreme.” [Moriarty, 71-73]
3. The new Charismatics 1988-present
“Asked by one of his disciples how he prepares himself to pray for miraculous healings,
John Wimber replied, “I drink a diet Coke.” According to the disciple, that was no
flippant answer- just normal response from someone who lives in the realm of the
miraculous.
Wimber is the leader and father figure for the newest major offshoot of the
charismatic movement, known as “The Third Wave of the Holy Spirit,” also called the
Signs and Wonders movement. This latest charismatic tide seems to have swept the
globe in the past decade. Is it the real thing, or just a synthetic substitute, as devoid of
actual substance as a sugar- free soft drink?
The term Third Wave was coined by C. Peter Wagner, professor of church growth at
Fuller Theological Seminary School of World Mission, author of several books on church
growth- and leading proponent of Third Wave methodology. According to Wager, “The
first wave was the Pentecostal movement, the second the charismatic movement, and
now the third wave is joining them.” [MacArthur, 128]
“Indeed, most Third Wave teaching and preaching echoes standard charismatic
doctrine. At its core is an obsession with sensational experiences and a preoccupation
with the apostolic charismata: tongues, healings, prophetic revelation, words of
knowledge, and vision. Like Pentecostals, and charismatics, Third Wave adherents
aggressively pursue ecstatic experiences, mystical phenomena, miraculous powers, and
supernatural wonders— while tending to underemphasize the traditional means of
spiritual growth: prayer, Bible study, the teaching of the Word, persevering in
obedience, and the fellowship of other believers.”
“Despite all the clear evidence to the contrary, Third Wave apologists have had
astonishing success in selling their movement as a non-charismatic phenomenon.
Unsuspecting churches and denominations have opened their doors—and their pulpits
to Third Wave teachers, many of whom sport every impressive academic credential.
The Third Wave is now rolling like a destructive tsunami, leaving chaos and confusion in
its wake.”
“Sign and wonders are the key to Third Wave evangelism. Some Third Wavers even say
that unbelievers must experience the miraculous to be brought to full faith. Merely
preaching the gospel message, they believe, will never reach the world for Christ. Most
people will not believe without seeing miracles, they say, and those who do will be
inadequately converted and therefore stunted in their spiritual growth.” [MacArthur,
130-131]

B. Summarization of the false teaching in Charismatic

1. Problems related to the inspiration and authority of Scripture
Bad Views #1: Experience is elevated above Scriptural teaching.
“Deere repeatedly asserts that the only real basis for the cessationists’ position is their
lack of experience. He states rather dogmatically, “There is one basic reason why Bible-
believing Christians do not believe in the miraculous gifts of the Spirit today. It is simply
this: They have not seen them.” He repeats, “Christians do not disbelieve in the
miraculous gifts of the Spirit because the Scriptures teach these gifts have passed away.
Rather they disbelieve in the miraculous gifts of the Spirit because they have not
experienced them.” According to this, the sole reason one is a charismatic or a
cessationist is whether one has had the experience. Deere refuses to acknowledge
even the possibility that one could experience these miracles and on the basis of
Scripture still mind and the minds of other charismatics that no matter what someone
believes the Scripture say, they assert that if that person has the experience they will
change their thinking and reinterpret Scripture in light of the experience. Despite
numerous protestations to the contrary, Deere realize that his position is based solely
on experience. Otherwise he would not argue that solely on the basis of experience
every believer will become charismatic and solely on the lack of the experience people
are cessationists.” [Edgar, 18-19]
Rebuttal: “When Basil of Caesarea (c. 330-379) encountered opponents who claimed
authority for their own custom and tradition (over against that which prevailed in
Basil’s experience), he responded in these words: ‘If custom is to be taken in proof of
what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the
custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them.
Therefore, let God-inspired Scripture decide between us and on whichever side be
found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the
vote of truth.’
Disputes about what Christians should believe have existed since the days of the
Apostles. We do not have apostles today, but we have the testimony they have left us
in “God-inspired Scripture.” Basil was content to allow that divine document to stand
as judge between him and his opponents. He admitted the fact that just as he and his
followers had customs, his opponents had their own customs as well. But he did not
bow to the weight of these, nor did he insist they had to follow his own. Instead, he
referred to that which was binding on all Christians in all places at all times: the
Scriptures.”
“To summarize, sola scriptura is not a 1. Claim that the Bible contains all knowledge, 2.
Claims that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge, 3. Denial of the
church’s authority to teach God’s truth, 4. Denial that God’s Word has, at times, been
spoken, 5. Rejection of every kind or use of tradition, 6. Denial of the role of the Holy
Spirit in guiding the Church.”
“To summarize sola scriptura: 1. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith. 2. No other
revelation is needed for the Church. 3. There is no other infallible rule of faith outside
of Scripture. 4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation. 5. All traditions
are subject to the higher authority of Scripture.” (Scriptural support: 2 Timothy 3:14-17,
Matthew 22:31-32, 15:1-19) [White, 55-69]
Bad Views #2. God is still giving normative revelation to men today.
“According to the new charismatics, if you need a word from heaven, find a prophet.
He will be happy to disclose God’s will for your life! Concerning prophetic guidance,
Hamon says, ‘You may ask, “But is it proper- is it scripture—for an individual Christian
to go to a prophet and expect to receive a specific prophetic word of direction,
instruction, or confirmation?” The answer is yes. The Bible provides numerous
examples of people, especially those in leadership, going to a prophet and asking for a
“thus saith the Lord” about a particular situation.’
One more thing needs to be mentioned about the prophetic movement. The new
charismatics believe that it is important for young prophets to be trained and discipled
by older and more mature prophets. Revelatory instruction on how to hear the voice of
God and how to adjust to and handle a “new anointing” is vital to the young prophet’s
ministry. Therefore, schools and training centers are going up where young prophets
called of God are developed and instructed by older, more mature prophets. Hamon
writes concerning prophetic training, “Samuel was the senior prophet who had the
vision for starting schools of the prophets throughout Israel…. Today there are places
being raised up in a similar way for the schooling of prophets. These training centers
are activating them into their calling and training to become pure and mature New
Testament Church Prophets.”
A properly trained company of prophets will bring revelation and application for
activating God’s people in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The new charismatics believe that
God is now revealing and adding many new ways and means of ministering
prophetically. Prophetic ministers who are adequately trained and equipped will
express God’s heart, thoughts, desires and specific words with complete accuracy.”
[Moriarty, 98]
“Would God really transport Hagin miraculously into cars so he could witness acts of
fornication? Did God talk to Oral Roberts? Did he write a song for Linda Fehl? Did Jack
Hayford actually see Christ rise from his seat next to God? Was Larry Lea’s prophecy
really a “Word of the Lord”? Are Christians still receiving, by the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, direct revelation from God? Can people today-writing songs or books, preaching
or teaching, or making decisions-legitimately claims that they are under divine
inspiration?
Many charismatics answer a loud “Yes!” For example, J. Rodman Williams wrote:
“The Bible truly has become a fellow witness to God’s present activity…..If someone
today perhaps has a vision of God, of Christ, it is good to know that it has happened
before, if one has a revelation from God, to know that for the early Christians
revelation also occurred in the community: if one speaks “Thus says the Lord,” and
dares to address the fellowship in the first person—even going beyond the words of
Scripture—that this was happening long ago. How strange and remarkable it is! If one
speaks in the fellowship of the Spirit the Word of truth, it is neither his own thoughts
and reflections (e.g., on some topic of the day) nor simply some exposition of Scripture,
for the Spirit transcends personal observations, however interesting or profound they
may be. The Spirit as the living God moves though and beyond the records of past
witness, however valuable such records are as a model for what happens today.”
[MacArthur, 50]
Rebuttal: “What is Williams saying? He is alleging that the Bible is not our final source
of God’s revelation but simply a “witness” to additional revelation that God is giving
today. Williams is declaring that Christians can add to the Bible—and that they can
accept others’ additions Scripture as normal and conventional. He believes the Bible is
a “model” for what the Holy Spirit is doing today to inspire believers.
 That is a frighteningly relativistic view, but it is growing in popularity as the
charismatic movement expands. Edward N. Gross, noting this deadly trend in the
church today, observes: “The age of models has come. A model takes the place of a
law. Models are human perceptions of truth. They are tentative and thus subject to
changes as new data becomes available. These models are open and constantly tested.
No scientist dares claim any longer that one model is the way to explain all known
phenomena for fear that some newly discovered data will prove that scientist to be a
precipitous old fool. The world of science has progressed from the old approach (closed
systems) to the new approach (open systems) ….
If the Bible is a closed system of truth, with no new revelation being given through
inspired prophets or apostles, then the “model approach” is an erroneous and
dangerous tool in hermeneutics. There should be no confusion in this area. The
orthodox teaching of Christianity has always affirmed that God’s special, saving
revelation to mankind is restricted to the teachings of the Scriptures… This is the issue.
If the Bible is complete, then it represents closed system of truth. If it entails a fixed
and absolute standard of truth, then the teachings of Scripture may be ascertained and
dogmatically asserted. If God is still granting new revelation, then the truth of God is
still being progressively revealed, and if this were the case, our duty would be to
faithfully listen to today’s prophets as they unravel God’s truth in new and clearer
representations than we find in Scripture. Few Christians really consider the subtleties
of today’s “prophets” as an improvement upon the sanctifying truths given in the
Word. I certainly do not.’
Nor do I. Scripture is closed system of truth, complete, sufficient, and not to be
added to (Jude 3, Rev 22: 14-18)

2. Problems related to the baptism of the Holy Spirit

Bad Views: The baptism of the spirit is viewed as a second blessing after conversion
which brings special benefits that are otherwise unavailable to Christians.
“Pentecostals emphasize that the baptism in the Spirit is an empowering experience
(Acts 1:8) that is distinct from conversion as well as from water baptism.” [Burgess,
415]
Rebuttal: “The baptism of the Spirit is not a second blessing. Many modern holiness
movements and old-line Pentecostals from 1900 on and Neo-Pentecostals since 1950
are guilty of this fatal blunder. Absolutely essential time distinctions are completely
ignored and are even looked upon hostilely as subtle human reasonings and positive
Satanic inventions to shut out the power of God. The baptism of Jesus is distorted to
teach a second definite experience in the life of our Saviour, a so-called baptism of
Christ’s human nature with the Holy Spirit before entering upon His ministry. The
transitional nature of the period in which the apostles lived is completely disregarded,
and they are viewed as regenerated before Pentecost, and what happened on that day
is explained as a second experience, the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
The confusion proceeds. The Samaritan disciples (Ac 8) are regarded as regenerated
under Philip’s preaching, and later baptized with the Holy Spirit as a second definite
experience under Peter and John’s ministry. Paul is said to have been regenerated on
the road to Damascus, and subsequently baptized with the Spirit as a second definite
experience when Ananias laid his hands on him, and he was filled with the Spirit (Ac 9).
Likewise, Cornelius is strangely represented as saved before Peter’s arrival (but see Ac
11:14) and baptized with Spirit as a second experience in the course of Peter’s sermon
(Ac 10). In like manner the Ephesian disciples (Ac19) are confidently affirmed to have
been genuine New Testament believers before they met Paul, and their receiving the
Holy Spirit was their baptism with the Spirit as a second definite experience. Deeper
experiences of famous Christians down through the centuries are misconstrued as
second definite experiences after regeneration.
In many instances promoters of these unsound doctrine make no attempt to
reconcile their teaching of a second definite experience gleaned from the gospels and
the Acts with the clear-cut teaching of the epistles, namely, that all believers in this age
have the Holy Spirit and are regenerated, baptized, indwelt, anointed, and sealed as
God’s own forever, the moment saving faith is exercised.
Some, making a serious effort to interpret Acts in the light of the doctrinal epistles,
teach that 1 Corinthians 12:13 is a so called baptism of repentance, which results in
salvation in distinction to the baptism with the Holy Spirit, a subsequent experience for
power. Thus, two spiritual baptisms are posited for this age, and this in the face of
Paul’s emphatic testimony, “one [spiritual] baptism” (Eph 4:5).
Other, comparing the doctrine of the epistles with the historical portions, cannot get
beyond the erroneous notion of “two classes of passages” in the former, which are
accordingly twisted of fit the mold of error, drawn out an inaccurate and non-
dispensational interpretation of the letter. Yet others, teaching that a person may or
may not be baptized with the Spirit “the moment he is regenerated,” apparently do not
realize how contrary such a position is to the epistles.
Misunderstanding of Spirit baptism has led multitudes of present-day believers to
great lengths. This is especially so since 1950 when Pentecostal revivalism began to
overflow the confines of old-line Pentecostalism and in the Neo-Pentecostal
movement, began to inundate practically all Protestant denominations and Roman
Catholicism.
As a result, confusion is widespread. Christians are urged to seek the Holy Spirit, to
tarry for their Pentecost. One group preaches to believers a twofold step to the Spirit’s
baptism. First, a step of the Spirit’s baptism. First, a step of entire surrender. Second, a
definite reception of the Holy Spirit “by faith.” Another denomination insists on a
supernatural speaking in tongues as the evidence of what they call the baptism with
the Spirit. Another large group considers speaking in a charismatic language as the
evidence of the new birth, which is made synonymous with the baptism with the Spirit.
Other groups interpret the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit as an experience of
perfect holiness, and fall into the mistaken notion of sinless perfection and
eradicationism. All—in viewing the Spirit’s baptizing work as a second blessing or
second work of grace for the believer—necessarily cast a reflection on the
completeness of the first work of grace, in which Christ, in all His fullness, becomes the
portion of the believer the moment he is saved. A great barrier is erected against the
glorious truth of the safety and security of the believer the instant the scriptural truth
of the baptism with the Spirit is distorted or mutilated. This is obvious since the
Scriptures represent us as in Christ, in indissoluble and eternal union, by the Spirit’s
baptizing work.” [Unger, The Baptism, 24-27]
“The Scriptures present the doctrine in sufficient passages to permit the careful student
to arrive at an accurate understanding of the truth. In all, there are eleven specific
references to spiritual baptism in the New Testament (Matt 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16,
John 1:33, Acts 1:5, 11:16, Rom 6:1-4, 1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27, Eph 4:5, Col 2:12). All
references prior to Pentecost are prophetic. All the references after Pentecost treat the
baptism of the Holy Spirit as an existing reality. The major passage, which may be taken
as the basis of interpretation of the other passages, is 1 Corinthians 12:13.” [Walvoord,
139]

3. Problems are related to the gifts of the Holy Spirit

Bad Views #1: The gift of the Apostle with its corresponding authority is available and in
use today.
“The new charismatics have discovered that the modern apostle and “apostolic teams”
are the scriptural means for building the church and advancing the kingdom of God in
the earth. The modern apostle, or in some cases, a company of apostles, is based in a
local church and works diligently in establishing new churches and overseeing the
rebuilding and ongoing development of existing churches. Because the church’s
mandate is the expansion of the kingdom of God on the earth, God is reactivating the
office of apostle and the ministry of apostolic teams.
The modern apostle is essentially a traveling man who objectively appraises a
church’s condition. He brings hard-hitting message from the Lord to churches that have
become unaware of their shortcomings. With fierce prophetic insight, he corrects the
spiritual coldness, doctrinal instability, and faulty practices that can unobtrusively
become part of a church’s life. He safeguards the churches under his care by delivering
authoritative words that will protect them from the impending dangers of legalism, false
doctrine, and many other problems that churches face.
Restoration apostle Terry Virgo, who oversees an apostolic team responsible for over
sixty churches in Great Britain, India, South Africa, Switzerland, Holland, and Mexico,
makes the following remarks concerning the need for apostolic authority: “The elders
often feel trapped within the framework and long for an outside voice to authoritatively
proclaim the way forward. Indeed, it is very often the elders who most feel the need for
the apostolic ministry…. Traditional churches are feeling the pressures of new life.
Charismatic gifts are emerging; a desire for freer worship is being expressed. How are
leaders to proceed? Many are facing such issues and do not know which way to turn.
Conferences for likeminded pastors will not provide the full answer, nor will charismatic
organizations. God’s way is to give apostles and prophets. He has simply appointed men
with different gifts to do different jobs.” [Moriarty, 99]
Rebuttal: “The apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ were unique. Grudem attempts to
equate them with the Old Testament prophets. This allows him to argues that since New
Testament prophets are lesser than the apostles, they are also lesser than the Old
Testament prophets. Thus, the Holy Spirit gives lesser or “fallible” prophets, such as
today’s charismatic “prophets.” Those Old Testament prophets who are described as
performing miracles seem to perform miracles often as spectacles or warnings, such as
Elijah did on Mt. Carmel. In contrast to the apostles, the miracles of the Old Testament
prophets seem to be more occasional, and are often warnings directed to specific
individuals. The apostles performed miracles on a more panoramic scale, healing
multitudes as evidence of the Good News rather than a warning. Also, the apostles
performed them over an extended period of time.
The apostles were a very restricted group who existed during one period of time.
They were promised that they will be on twelve thrones judges the twelve tribes of
Israel (Matt 19:28) and their names will be on the foundation of the heavenly city (Rev
21:14). The Old Testament prophets are promised none of these things. Everything
about the apostles shows their uniqueness. As seen in passages such as 1 Corinthians
12:28 and 14:37, they were authority over prophets.
We have no information about existence of any large number of “wonder working
apostles” who were present even in the early church. Although New Testament
churches faced numerous problems, apparently no genuine apostle beside Paul was
available among the Gentile churches to correct them. Paul never addressed apostles
when he wrote the churches or indicated that the church should consult an apostle.
Paul’s associates, Timothy and Titus, were left in churches to correct them rather than
waiting for some circuit-riding apostle to come along and resolve the problem. Thus,
apostles seem to have been very rare.
The Twelve are carefully pointed out as apostles in the Gospels and the book of Acts.
They are a very select group in Acts 1-2. Paul is also carefully pointed out as an apostle
in the New Testament. Why should we expect others to be apostles who are not
likewise carefully designated?
Apostles According to the Testimony of Church History
In general, the church has not accepted the notion of the existence of apostles since
the first century A.D. In fact, many supporters of the charismatic movement do not
believe that apostles are present in the church today. The great majority of genuine
believers throughout the history of the church have never believed that apostleship was
a gift given past the first generation of the church. The arguments of those who do
believe that apostles are present today have failed to convince the majority of
Christians.
New Testament apostles are not present today. The gift of apostleship was given to
individuals in the early church but has not been given since.” [Edgar, 62-63]
Bad Views #2: The gift of the prophet with its corresponding ability to receive direct
revelation from God and foretell the future is available and in use today.
“The Prophets Are Coming—Prepare! I believe that this is an age in which God is raising
up a multitude of prophets who are anointed and appointed – honest, true, trained, and
experientially matured…. Jesus is thrilled at the thought that His prophets will soon be
fully recognized and accepted by His Church. When this happens, it will escalate the
approach of the consummation of the ages. It will accelerate the “making ready a
people for the Lord” so that He can return. It is the prophesying of the prophets that
brings the Church from a disorganized Valley of dry bones to a unified coming together
with growth and maturity until the Church arises as an exceeding great and mighty army
of the Lord (Ezek 37:1-14)
These are the charged words of restoration prophet Bill Hamon, founder of Christian
International’s schools and ministries, and one of the most widely recognized prophetic
ministries in charismatic circles today. He has reportedly functioned in the office of
prophet for over thirst-six years and has personally prophesied to more than twenty
thousand believers and hundreds of prominent leaders. Hamon’s prophetic message to
the church is that modern prophets will prepare the way for Christ’s second coming.”
[Moriarty, 97]
Rebuttal: “Although he may also minister otherwise, a New Testament prophet receives
direct revelation from the Lord. Normally his ministry may be described as one that
involves foretelling or prediction. Similar to the Old Testament prophet, he functions as
a spokesman for God. If someone does not receive direct revelation and does not
predict on occasion, he is not a prophet. The Old Testament states that a prophet must
be able to predict. The only examples of a prophet’s ministry in the New Testament
reflect this predictive element.
Prophets apparently ministered both in the local church and in itinerant ministry,
but are not restricted to one or the other. More than one prophet may be in an
assembly. The prophet is a high-priority gift often linked with the apostle. We have no
valid evidence for New Testament prophets in the church who are inferior or deficient,
or who lack divine authority when speaking by revelation. Even if these prophets were
not fully equal to the Old Testament prophets, this would not imply that their
prophecies were incorrect or mistaken or that they spoke without divine authority.
Instead the New Testament prophets are comparable to the Old Testament prophets,
but dissimilar to the “fallible prophets” found in charismatic circles today.
The prophet was a gift given only to the early church. Apostles and prophets are the
foundation of the church established by Christ, the cornerstone. No one has shown that
individuals demonstrating the biblical qualifications for a prophet are present in the
church today. Based on the description of the prophet in the New Testament no one can
demonstrate that they are a prophet apart from the ability to predict the future. The
predictions are not vague, general statements, but rather quite specific predictions that
may be verified within reasonable time. They must also receive direct, immediate
revelation. Any individual who claims to be a prophet merely because of an insight into
Scripture is making an erroneous claim. Those who claim that anyone who encourages,
exhorts, and consoles is a prophet are making erroneous claims. Exhorting and
encouraging are the results of the prophet’s ministry, but they also are the results of the
ministries of others who are not prophets.
In the early church individuals described as prophets were rare. In fact, only Agabus,
Philip’s daughters, and some at Antioch are called prophets. It is implied that prophets
were in the assembly in Corinth and by extension would be in other churches. However,
little is said of their activity elsewhere in the New Testament.

Summary
Second Corinthians 12:12 directly states that miracles are a sign of an apostle. New
Testament examples bear this out. The teaching that an apostle must have been the
resurrected Lord is given by Peter in Acts 1 and by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:1-2. The
limitation of apostleship to a narrow group is indicated in direct statements of Scripture.
The unique authority of an apostle is declared by direct statements of Scripture (see 1
Cor 4:10-21, 5:3-4, 2 Cor 13:2-3,10, 1 Tim 1:20). The teaching that apostles and prophets
receive revelation is made in Ephesians 3:5 (see also 2 Cor 12:1-11), and that a prophet
receive direct, immediate revelation from the Lord is stated in 1 Corinthians 14:29-32.
The teaching that apostles and prophets comprise the foundation of the church along
with Jesus Christ, the cornerstone, is directly stated in Ephesians 2:20.
All of the important conclusions reached in this chapter regarding apostles and
apostles and prophets are directly taught in Scripture. The only important point not
directly taught is the aspect of foretelling in the prophet’s ministry. However, the New
Testament writers assume this. For example, Peter explicitly states regarding David that
“since he was a prophet he foresaw” (Acts 2:30-31). Elsewhere in Scripture are
numerous statements that the Old Testament prophets foresaw (see, e.g., Acts 3:18-25)
and the few examples of New Testament prophets include foretelling as a part of their
ministries. Since the terminology is the same and the functions are similar, a parallel
exists between Old Testament and New Testament prophets. None of the arguments for
the New Testament prophet as an inferior or “fallible” prophet, such as those within the
charismatic movement, have stood up to inspection. Therefore, after an examination of
the evidence, we conclude that biblical apostles and prophets are not present in the
church today.” [Edgar, 84-85]
Bad Views #3: The gift of miraculous healings with its corresponding ability to affect any
cure at the will of the healer is available and in use today.
“Hagin began an itinerant ministry in 1949 as an evangelist and faith teacher. He claims
that God called him to the office of prophet in 1952 and over the years reports to have
had numerous visions and revelations, including eight personal visitations from Jesus.
During one of his visions, Hagin claims that Jesus commissioned him with a special
anointing to heal the sick. Hagin describes his experience as follows: “Then Jesus told
me to kneel down before Him. When I did so He laid His hand upon my head, saying that
He had called me and given me a special anointing to minister to the sick. He went on to
instruct me that when I would pray and lay hands upon the sick, I was to lay one hand
on each side of the body. If I felt the fire jump from hand to hand, an evil spirit or
demon was present in the body causing the affliction. I should call him out in His name
and the demon or demons would have to go. If the fire, or anointing, in my hand does
not jump from hand to hand, it is a case of healing only. I should pray for the person in
His name, and if he will believe and accept it, the anointing will leave my hands and go
into his body, driving out the disease and bringing healing. When the fire, or the
anointing, leaves my hands and goes into his body, I will know he is healed.”
Hagin repeatedly attributes his theological system (or faith-formula theology) to
visions, revelations, and personal visitations of Jesus. Hagin claims that Jesus appeared
to him in a vision and gave him for a formula for success, which he instructed Hagin to
teach Hagin’s followers. Jesus purportedly said to him in the vision, “If anybody,
anywhere, will take these four steps or put these four principles into operation, he will
always receive whatever he wants from me or from God the Father.” Hagin claims that
Jesus told him to put the four steps into operation immediately; “by doing this one can
receive anything in the present tense, such as salvation, the baptism of the Holy Spirit,
healing for your body, spiritual victory, or finances. You can write your own ticket with
God.” The four steps given by Jesus were as follows: 1. Say it. 2. Do it. 3. Receive it. 4.
Tell it.” [Moriarty, 83]
Rebuttal: “The New Testament offers no evidence anywhere of a qualitative difference
in gifts given by the Spirit of God. This is as we might expect since God gives perfect gifts
(James 1:16-17). All are described in the same way. We have no example of any
qualitatively inferior or fallible gift or of any failure by any Christian who attempted to
exercise. Neither do we have any evidence that the gifts of miracles and healing were
widely distributed in the church. More than once it is specifically stressed that they
were performed by the apostles. Paul says that they are the sign of the apostle.
Accordingly, they cannot be widespread. If they were exercised throughout the church,
why is there such stress on them as apostolic? Apart from the apostles, only Philip and
Stephen and quantitatively as the apostles.
The over miraculous gifts were certainly not for edification but were performed
publicly, primarily for unbelievers to confirm the gospel. Only on a few occasion are
believers healed. The fact that James 5:14 instructs the sick to call for the elders rather
than a healer shows that these gifts were not expected or used in the local churches for
the benefit of Christians. When Paul lists in 1 Corinthians 12 the gifts given to the entire
body of Christ, he includes apostles, miracles, and healings. However, when he lists in
Romans 12:6f. The gifts to be expected in the local church, he does not list apostle,
miracles, or healing.
The excuse is invalid that gifts do not function at the will of the possessor but only
when God sovereignly gives or withholds specific instances of enablement. First
Corinthians 13: 1-4 and 1 Corinthians 14 Show that a gift is under the control of the
person who has the gift. The Biblical evidence that miraculous gifts can be exercised in
the wrong situations and for the wrong reasons is against the concept that they are
exercised only in God’s sovereign will on specific occasions. Why give a sovereign
enablement to speak in tongues or prophesy on a specific occasion of it is for misuse? If
they are exercised on specific occasions at God’s sovereign will rather then the
individual’s will, how can they be misused? Why would God sovereignly in his will give
enablement to perform a specific healing or miracles and yet give some inferior gift to
carry out his sovereign will?
Every example of healing or miracles is described in the same way. Every example of
a Christian prophet is true. The Old Testament gives only one test for a genuine prophet
(Deut. 18:22), thus implying they were all on the same qualitative level. Even if it could
be proved that gifts differed qualitatively, there is still no indication that any were
defective, fallible, or might fail.
Mark 16:9-20 says that the miracles were to confirm the preaching of the gospel.
Both Acts 4:29-30 and 14:3 directly state that the miracles were to confirm the
evangelistic ministry. All the other miraculous episodes in Acts support this concept. The
Epistles clearly state that miracles, including healing were for the confirmation of the
gospel message. Romans 15:19 is especially clear. This concept is also asserted in
Hebrews 2:3-4, which apparently restricts the miracles to eyewitnesses of the Lord and
implies that the miracles were past. Such a conclusion coincides with the evidence of
the book of Acts. Very few cases of miracles or healing were private. The case of
Eutychus, which was unusual, is the only case of a miracle occurring during a meeting of
believers. The miracles in Acts were performed publicly, flawlessly, and independent of
the recipient’s faith. This fits perfectly with the scriptural evidence that the miracles
were to confirm the gospel to unbelievers. They were not primarily for the benefit of the
faithful. Modern-day claims of healing beat little resemblance to the practice, purpose,
or results of miracles that occurred in the early church as recorded in the book of Acts.
 There are other indications that such gifts were not exercised for the benefit of the
local church. James 5:14-15 implies either that these gifts had ceased or that they were
not for the church, since it assumes that no healer was available. Paul writes to Timothy
regarding Timothy’s physical condition (1 Tim 5:23) and yet does not tell Timothy to
search for a healer. In contrast to a lack of exhortation to perform or expect miracles,
and to pray. For example, Timothy was not instructed to perform miracles but to read,
preach, ad exhort in sound doctrine. Miraculous sign gifts are not even mentioned in
many passages where gits are discussed and where local church members are exhorted
to use their gifts (see Rom 12:6-8, Eph 4:11, 1 Pet 4:10-11).
Today claims of miracles usually narrow down to healing. We need to be perfectly
focused in our thinking. The gift of working miracles means that a specific individual can
directly perform miracles. The gift of healing means that a specific individual can heal
other people directly. The same applies to casting out demons if it is considered a gift.
The individual has the ability to perform the miracles or healing. Instances where people
are healed in answer to prayer are not instances of the exercising of spiritual gifts but
are the direct work of God in response to prayer. If believers gather and pray for a sick
person and that person is healed miraculously, this is not evidence that the gift of
healing exists today. This demonstrates that God answers prayer.
None of today’s claims of miracles or healings are of the magnitude or quality off
those in the New Testament. Little correspondence exists between the biblical
descriptions and today’s so called miracles and healings to allow any credence to the
allegation that they are the spiritual gifts of the New Testament. Very few people claim
to perform miracles directly, and those who claim to do so fail frequently. But the Holy
Spirit never fails. The incidents in the early church involved multitudes of healings
without any failures.
The alleged evidence for “lesser” gifts amounts to no evidence at all. We find nothing
in Scripture that describes an instance of lesser gifts, nor does it suggest that such gifts
ever existed. Without doubt the scriptural gifts were miraculous, but the modern-day
charismatic gifts do not compare to those in Scripture. We must not miss the important
fact that the very admission of “lesser” gifts and the need for charismatic defenders to
find them in the Bible is a direct admission that even the charismatics know their gifts
do not conform to Scripture.
Not only do today’s claims fail to live up to the New Testament, but this has been
true throughout church history. No one in the history of the church since apostolic times
has performed miracles and healing as those described in the book of Acts. The
purported instances of postapostolic miracles are few and are not validated. The rarity
of claims is in itself evidence that God is not giving this gift to the church at large.
Many Christians have said that they desire to have the power of the early church.
They are disenchanted with the lack of power in the present-day church and are
convinced that we should expect the same power of the early church to be with us
today. First of all, we might ask, Which New Testament church do you desire to imitate?
Certainly no one would desire to imitate the Corinthian church since they were in worse
shapes than many churches today. Although the Thessalonian and Philippian churches
were commended, we have no indication that they had any more power (in the sense of
miraculous working) than churches do today. Also, we have no reason to believe that
any church other than the church of Jerusalem had any more power than we have
today. As far as the church at Jerusalem is concerned, the power was in the apostles,
not in the church as a whole. When people speak of the power of the early church, they
usually refer to the ministry of the apostles and mistakenly attempt to apply this to the
entire church. Apart from the apostles, only Stephen and Philip were involved in
miraculous workings.
If we are to follow the example of the first-century church, as so many propose
today, then we should refer to the church rather than to the apostles and eyewitnesses
of the Lord. The early churches seem to have been much like the average Bible-believing
church today. The had problems much as we do today, including adultery, theft, lack of
love, and factions. Some were weak doctrinally. The Corinthian church was saturated
with problems. James 5:14-16 makes it plain that no healers or other miracle workers
were in the local churches in the New Testament. Despite what some people may
naively assume, we have no evidence that the New Testament churches were “turning
the world upside down.” This is said in regard to the apostle Paul. Only a few churches
were commended for outreach, and this mainly by report rather than by conscious
“evangelistic outreach.” This is not to criticize those churches, but it is to keep us from
following a church that exists only in someone’s imagination. Revelation 2-3 gives us a
realistic evaluation of the first-century church. Of the seven churches mentioned in this
passage, only two could be construed as “spiritual” while the five remaining churches
experienced serious spiritual problems. None of the seven, however were characterized
by either possessing or exhibiting miraculous powers.

Conclusion
We have no evidence from any source to demonstrate that sign gifts from the Holy
Spirit, such as the gift of miracles or the gift of healing, are present today. The biblical
evidence is conclusion that the sign gifts were given to confirm the truth of the gospel
message to the world. James 5:14-15 shows that the early church was instructed to
react to sickness in much the same way as the non-charismatic Bible-believing churches
do today. Apparently, healers and miracle workers were not available. God’s miraculous
answers to the prayers of his people do not prove that individuals have the gift of
miracles or healing. Since not all miraculous experiences are from God (Matt 7:22-23),
all experiences must be verified by Scripture. Thus, until modern-day charismatics can
provide adequate biblical support for their claims in regard to the gifts of miracles and
healings, we have no warrant to give any credence to their claims.” [Edgar, 114-18]
Bad Views #4: The gift of tongues, although only referring to an unknown languages or
ecstatic speech, is the same as the Apostolic phenomenon and is a necessary sign of
true spirituality.
“Traditional Pentecostalism distinguishes between the work of the Spirit in regeneration
and his work in empowering believers of ministry. When one has received this
empowering, it is referred to as the baptism of the Spirit. The person knows that she/he
has received this baptism if, at that time, she/he spoke in tongues. Speaking in tongues
is called the “initial evidence.” This initial speaking in tongues is distinct from the gift of
tongues spoken about in 1 Corinthians 12-14. Though it is of the same essence, it is
distinguished in part by noting that the initial evidence of tongues is immediate, the gift
of tongues is permanent (Duffield and Van Cleave, 1983,320).” [Burgess, 455]
Rebuttal: “This should make it clear that the gift of tongues, if given today, would come
upon genuine believers of every persuasion. It would not come just on those who
believe in tongues or upon only those in Pentecostal groups. It would come upon
believers even though they did not seek or even desire it. The Pentecostal explanation
for the absence of tongues throughout church history is that men did not have faith in
the gifts or believe in the gift of tongues, and therefore they did not receive it. this does
not agree with the biblical accounts and is merely an attempt to explain away what is an
all-but-impossible obstacle to the view that genuine tongues are given today, that is, if
tongues did not cease, why were there seventeen hundred or more years with no
plausible claims?
The Bible contains no exhortation to seek or desire the gift of tongues. On the
contrary, it includes specific statements that believers should emphasize and have a zeal
for gifts other than the gift of tongues (1 Cor 12:31, 14:1, 39). Even if one seeks certain
spiritual gifts, despite all the proof that gifts do not come by seeking, it is clear that one
should not seek tongues.

Restrictions on the Use of Tongues

 If tongues are designed to be a miraculous ability to speak languages as a sign to
unbelievers, then any private use of tongues or speaking in the assembly is not the best
use. Although tongues were allowed in the assembly in Corinth, apparently no one in
the first century ever imagined such a thing as devotional tongues. Use of the gift of
tongues in the assembly is discouraged, but it may be used with certain restrictions. The
first restriction is based on the general theme of 1 Corinthians 14, “Let all things be
done unto edifying” (14:26). The first restriction is that no one may speak in tongues at
any time in the assembly unless an interpreter is present (14:28). Another restriction is
that only a limited number are to speak, and then they may speak only one at a time.
Two, perhaps three, are permitted to speak, one by one. A third restriction states that
women are not to speak in the assembly (14:34-35). At the least this restriction includes
speaking in tongues. Finally, all of the assembly are to behave in an orderly manner
(14:33,40). These restrictions, it must be remembered, apply to the genuine gift of
tongues.

Summary of the Biblical Teaching on the Gift of Tongues

The gift of tongues is the ability to miraculously speak foreign language. The
translation “language” is the most natural interpretation of the word glossa in the
passages concerning the gift of tongues. This is supported by the fact that Acts 2:4-11,
the only description of tongues speaking in the Bible, explicitly states that real human
language was spoken. First Corinthians 13:1 shows that the tonguages or languages of
men are what is involved in the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians also. Since the
conclusion of 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 regarding the gift of tongues is based on an Old
Testament reference to foreign invaders, this passage definitely implies that normal
human languages are what is meant by “tongues” in this passage. There is no proof that
glossa can mean ecstatic speech, nor is there any evidence that it was used this way.
Until recent times, the church has always considered this gift to be the ability to speak
foreign languages.
The New Testament gives no intimation that the gift of tongues was “ecstatic” in the
normal sense of the term. The speaker was in control of the gift and was able to stop it.
the tongues speaking was no more under the Spirit’s control than were other spiritual
gifts, such as prophecy. Therefore, there is no basis to assume an ecstatic state, nor any
accompanying physical phenomena, such as jerking, convulsions, foaming at the mouth,
shouting, abnormal voice tone or pitch, or unusual rate of speech.
Tongues are specifically stated to be designed as a sign to unbelievers (1 Cor 14:22).
Such a purpose does not fit devotional or angel languages. There is no apparent purpose
for ecstatic or angel tongues. The ability to miraculously speak foreign language has a
definite purpose that is in agreement with the purpose for all spiritual gifts and is in
harmony with the New Testament. Tongues are foreign languages used to gain a
hearing for the gospel message. This allows for the normal use of glossa as foreign
language and for the statement that tongues are a sign to unbelievers. It allows for
Paul’s statement that tongues are not designed to be used in church. It is also in
harmony with the needs of the church, especially at the beginning. It is also certain that
the gift of tongues is of low priority. Teaching and other gifts are to be preferred.
According to 1 Corinthians 12-14 there should be no emphasis on the gift of tongues.
Although the passage often cited do not imply that anyone should seek any gift, if
someone desires a specific gift, it should be something other than tongues. There is no
statement in the Bible about private or devotional use of the gift of tongues. Such a use
is contrary to the purpose for spiritual gifts since it is purely for the benefit of the
speaker. This cannot be exercised in love. Such a use raises the question, why are some
benefited in their devotional life and others not? Why does anyone need such a gift
since Roman 8:26 declares that all believers have the Holy Spirit’s help in prayer? The
belief in devotional tongues is an implicit denial of the sufficiency of justification in
Christ and implicit advocacy of the view that some additional step is necessary for
perfect communion with God. The provision by God of the gift of interpretation of
tongues also shows that tongues were not meant for private use. Tongues, whether
personal or public, do not add to spiritual vitality, as is evident from the Corinthian
church. They are like all other gifts, that is, they were given for ministry to others.”
[Edgar, 194-96]
“Tongues today stand unsupported by the testimony of the general stream of historical
biblical Christianity. As has been pointed out in the preceding chapter, church history is
in perfect accord with the teaching of the Bible on the subject of the spiritual gifts as
presented in 1 Corinthians 12-14. The essence of this teaching is that tongues, together
with several other temporary gifts including direct Spirit-inspired prophecy and
knowledge, were to cease or be superseded once their temporary function was fulfilled
(1 Cor 13:8-13).
This temporary function was supplying teaching and instruction in the mysteries and
revelations of God’s grace issuing form the finished work of Christ and the giving of the
Holy Spirit to work in the believer the great salvation purchased by Christ’s sacrifice. All
the believer’s positions and possessions in Christ and his resultant eternal destiny, now
fully revealed and permanently recorded in the completed New Testament Scriptures,
were unrevealed and unavailable to the early church except as individual believers in
the early assemblies received these great truths by direct revelation and inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, much as the inspired canonical writers did somewhat later. Not until the
New Testament Scriptures had been given and became available by general circulation
about A.D. 100 did the need for direct inspirational prophecy, knowledge, and
interpreted tongues (1 Cor 12:7-11) pass away.
The Apostle Paul clearly teaches this pivotal fact in his discussion of tongues and
other early gifts. Moreover, the history of the Christian church bears out the truth of his
teaching perfectly. The only manifestations of tongues, direct inspirational prophecy,
and knowledge in subsequent centuries—once the completed Scriptures were in
existence—were by fringe heretical groups such as the Montanists in the post-apostolic
period, or by eccentric monks of the Middle Ages, or by the Irvingites and Mormons in
later times.
All of these groups ignore the plain teaching of the Word of God on the subject of
gifts, their use, and the consequent temporary nature of some of these gifts, like
tongues, prophecy and knowledge. However, in espousing prophetic visions and
prophecies in addition to the Word of God, and in resurrecting the office of apostle, like
the Mormons and the Irvingites, an element of consistency is apparent not usually seen
in more modern glossolalic groups that stress tongues but not directly inspirational
prophecy and knowledge. Modern Pentecostalism usually confines itself in an orthodox,
if inconsistent, manner to the Word of God itself.” [Unger, New Testament, 148-149]

4. Problems related to the relation of believers to God

Bad Views: People can become little God s.
“Charismatic Casey Treat, pastor of the Christian Faith Center (Seattle, Washington) and
an avid promoter of restorationism, positive confession, and the health and wealth
gospel, has also “been accused of fostering the heresy of Satan’s lie in Genesis 3:5,
teaching his followers that they are gods and exact duplicates of God.” In a taped
message, Treat explains his view of Gen 1:26, where God said, “Let us make man in our
image” (KJV).
“The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost had a little conference and they said, “Let
us make man an exact duplicate of us.” Oh, I don’t know about you, but that does turn
my crank! An exact duplicate of God! Say it out loud: “I’m an exact duplicate of God!”
[The congregation repeats it a bit tentatively and uncertainly.] Come on, say it! [He leads
them in unison.] “I’m an exact duplicate of God!” Say it again! “I’m an exact duplicate of
God!” [The congregation is getting into it, louder and bolder and with more enthusiasm
each time they repeat it.] Say it like you mean it! [He’s yelling now.] “I’m an exact
duplicate of God!” Yell it out loud! Shout it! [They follow as he leads.] “I’m an exact
duplicate of God!” “I’m an exact duplicate of God!” [Repeatedly] When God looks in the
mirror, he sees me! When I look in the mirror, I see God! Oh, hallelujah!.... You know,
sometimes people say to me, when they’re mad and want to put me down…., “You just
think you’re a little god!” Thank you! Hallelujah! You got that right! “Who do you think
you are—Jesus?” Yep! Are you listening to me? Are you kids running around here acting
like gods? Why not? God told me to!. Since I’m an exact duplicate of God, I’m going to
act like God!
Other charismatic leaders who espouse the “little gods” teachings are Hagin,
Copeland, Price, Capps, and Tilton.” [Moriarty, 107]
Rebuttal: “Second, when the Bible says that believers are “in Christ”, it means that we
are spiritually united to Christ, not that we are incarnations of God. When we trust
Christ as our personal Saviour, we are somehow placed in marvelous union with him.
Christians possess every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places because we are “in
Christ” (Eph 1:3). The idea that a human being can become an incarnation of God—the
supreme aspiration of many mystics—is not taught in the Scriptures. When the apostle
Paul said “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27) he was not teaching that the “hope
of glory” was the level of “godhood” that believers attain. Rather, he was teaching that
believers, because of Christ’s saving grace and indwelling presence, have a solid basis for
the expectation of future immortality. “Christ in you” is here declared as the hope for
heavenly glory that awaits every believer.
Christians are not little gods, or incarnations of God. Believers are spiritually
regenerated and spiritually united to Christ (Gal 2:20), but they do not become a god in
the process. While esoteric religions and mystical sects teach that human beings can
become one with the divine, biblical Christianity opposes these idolatrous,
metaphysical, absorption heresies! God is God, and man is man, the two may meet, but
never merge. There is intimate fellowship between believers and their Lord, but there is
never fusion (Hos 11:9, Isa 31:3, Ps 144:4).” [Moriarty, 332-333]

5. Problems related to God’s program for the church

Bad Views #1: The church is being restored to its original splendor and will itself usher
in the kingdom of God so that Christ can return as King.
“We have the power to complete God’s plan of restoration for the earth…. The future
of the wicked is dark, but the future of God’s children is bright. The hour has come for
the Church to enter into covenant with God to help Him complete His work on planet
earth, our assignment is clear. God has given us the Holy Spirit and empowered us to
do His work. Now the Challenge to us is moving ahead boldly in the power of God to
accomplish the greatest task ever given to mankind—the establishment of the kingdom
of God on earth.”
These are the words of Bishop Earl Paulk, pastor and chief prophet of Chapel Hill
Harvester Church in Atlanta, Georgia. Paulk has become well known for his “kingdom
theology” through his preaching, his now-defunct monthly newsletter, Thy Kingdom
Come, and his many books. His kingdom message of restoration rings loudly around the
world summoning Christians to listen carefully to God’s voice and to move boldly in
God’s power to accomplish the greatest task ever given to humankind—establishing
the kingdom of God on earth.

RSSTORRATIN OF THE CHURCH

The compelling vision promoted by the “new charismatic” is that God is restoring
the church in the last days. God’s desire is to fashion the church into an invincible,
mature body equivalent in measure to the fullness of Jesus Christ. Before this can
happen the church must allow God to restore all of the necessary elements—apostles
and prophets, baptism of the Holy Spirit, supernatural manifestations, true worship,
etc.—so the church can operate at full throttle. The new charismatics claim that Jesus
cannot return to earth until the church is completely restored to a vehicle for God’s
miraculous expression on the earth.” [Moriarty, 87-88]
Rebuttal: “Dispensational premillennialism can be identified through two basis
features: (1) a distinction is made between God’s program for Israel and His program
for the church. (2) a consistently literal interpretation of the Scriptures is maintained.
Dispensation premillennialists believe that the church will be raptured (1 Thess. 4:13-
18) prior to the Tribulation period, God will judge unbelieving Gentiles and disobedient
Israel during the Tribulation (Rev 6-19). At the end of the Tribulation Christ will return
with the church and establish the millennial kingdom on earth. Following the thousand-
year reign, Satan will be freed once more, whereupon he and his followers will be cast
into the lake of fire (Rev 20:7-10). The eternal state will follow.
The church from the beginning was premillennial in belief. The Didache (c.A.D.
100), Clement of Rome (A.D. 96 or 97), the Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 140-150),
Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 50-115?), Papias (A.D. 80-163), Justin Martyr (b.c. A.D. 100),
Irenaeus (d. A.D. 200), Tertullian (A.D. 150-225), and other sources indicate that the
early church believed in the return of Jesus Christ to personally establish His earthly
kingdom.” [Enns, 389]
Bad Views #2: God promises perfect health and great wealth to all Spiritual believers.
“Two passages in the New Testament, Mt 8:17 and 1 Pet 2:24, are often quoted as the
fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy [Isaiah 53:4-5] guaranteeing physical healing for all
believers who appropriate it by faith. Charismatics usually link all three passages
together and argues that physical healing is what the inspired writers had in mind.
Kenneth Hagin pleads their case with unshakable assurance: “Isaiah, Matthew, and
Peter—three witnesses—tell us that not only did Jesus shed his blood for the remission
of our sins, but with his stripes we’re healed.”
Since Christ has already provided perfect redemption from sickness and disease on
the cross, then the confessing believer need only stand on the Word and claim his or
her healing by faith. If the victim remains unhealed, it is either because of sin,
unwillingness to forgive, lack of faith, or some reason beyond the sufferer’s present
comprehension. Hagin believes that God’s Word promises faithful believers a disease-
free existence. ‘I believe that it is the plan of God our Father that no believer should
ever be sick. That every believer should live his full length of time and actually wear
out, if Jesus tarries, and fall asleep in Jesus. It is not—I state boldly—it is not the will of
God my Father that we should suffer with cancer and other dreaded diseases which
bring pain and anguish. NO! It is God’s will that we be healed.” [Moriarty, 298]
“I believe it is not only God’s will for you to be healed, but it is His will that you live in
health until He calls you home (see Job 5:26).
If you are looking for a book to help you rationalize and justify your infirmities, this
volume is not for you. I am not one who prays, “If it be your will, Lord, grant healing to
this person.”
It is His will! You will never hear me pray such faith-destroying words as “If it be
Your will, Lord, heal them.” God intends for you to rise and be healed.
Today. Tomorrow. Always!” [Hinn, 63]
“Kenneth Copeland’s cosmic view of prosperity is explained in the following quotation.
‘We must understand that there are laws governing every single thing in existence.
Nothing is by accident. There are laws of the world of the spirit and there are laws of
the world of the natural…. We need to realize that the spiritual world and its laws are
more powerful than the physical world and its laws. Spiritual laws gave birth to physical
laws. The world and the physical forces governing it were created by the power of faith
—a spiritual force…. It is this force of faith which makes the laws of the spirit world
function…. This same rule is true in prosperity. There are certain laws governing
prosperity in God’s Word. Faith causes them to function… The success formulas in the
Word of God produce results when used as directed.’
 Copeland speculates that when one releases “the force of faith,” one will cause the
laws of the spirit world that govern prosperity to function. All one needs to do is
recognize the laws of the universe that govern prosperity and release one’s faith.
Prosperity will result when one gets in contact with God’s laws, since they govern
everything in existence.” [Moriarty, 315]
Rebuttal: “Because of his unusually widespread influence and because he has
attempted to express a theology of healing in Lord, I need a Miracles, it becomes
particularly important to examine what Benny Hinn teaches. This brief analysis will
compare what Hinn Believes with what the Spirituals teach. You can then make up your
own mind about Hinn’s teaching credibility (see Acts 17:11).
1. Benny Hinn does not pray “Lord, thy will be done.” Jesus Christ did (Luke 22:42).
2. Hinn believes that God always intends for believers to healed. In contrast, the Bible
teaches that some of the greatest saints had physical infirmities from which they
were never healed, including Jacob and Paul.
3. Hinn teaches that believers should command God to heal. The Bible teaches we are
to ask (1 John 5:14-15).
4. Hinn suggests that miraculous healing from God is gradual. Healing by Christ and
the apostles occurred instantly.
5. Hinn teaches that faith on the part of the sick person is essential to healing. Lazarus
and Jairus’ daughter could not have exercised faith when they were raised from the
dead.
6. Hinn writes that we must do our part before God can heal. The Bible teaches that
God is sovereign.
7. Hinn believes that Christians should not be sick. The Bible teaches that Christians
can be sick and all will eventually die.
8. Benny Hinn implies that a person’s healing can be lost and that the healed person
must do certain things to keep the healing. Nowhere in the Bible do we find such
teaching.” [Mayhue, 34-35]
See 2 Cor 12:7-10, Phil 4:10-19, 1 Tim 6:5-11, Jude 11, 2 Pet 2:1-19, Eph 5:5-7, Rev 2-3

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Burgess, Stanley M. and Gary B. McGee, eds. Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic
Movements. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.
Burtner, Robert W. and Robert E. Chiles, eds. A Compend of Wesley’s Theology. New
York: Abingdon Press, 1954.
Edgar, Thomas R. Satisfied by the Promises of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications, 1996.
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989.
Finney, Charles G. Finney’s Lectures on Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951.
Gordon, A.J. The Ministry of the Spirit. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1985.
Hinn, Benny. Lord, I need a Miracles. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993.
Ironside, H.A. The Mission of the Holy Spirit. New York: Loizeaux, n.d.
Kuyper, Abraham. The Work of the Holy Spirit. Trans. Henri DeVries. New York: Funk &
Wagnalls, 1900.
MacArthur, John F., Jr. Charismatic Chaos. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,
1992.
Mayhue, Richard. The Healing Promises. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers,
1994.
Moriarty, Michael G. The New Charismatics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1992.
Murray, Andrew. The Spirit of Christ. Springdale, PA: Whitaker House, 1984.
Rice, John R. The Power of Pentecost: The Fullness of the Spirit. Wheaton, Ill.: Sword of
the Lord, 1949.
Ridout, S. The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit. New York: Loizeaux, n.d.
Ryrie, Charles C. Basis Theology. Colorado Springs, Colorado: Victor Books, 1982.
Thiessen, Henry C. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1979.
Unger, Merill F. New Testament Teaching on Tongues. Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications, 1971.
The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.
Walvoord, JohnF. The Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958.
Warfield, Benjamin B. Biblical and Theological Studies. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Company, 1968.
Wesley, John. A Plain Account of Christian Perfection. London: Epworth, 1952.
Write, James R. The Roman Catholic Controversy. Minneapolis: Bethany House
Publishers, 1996.

Charismatic Individuals
Early Pentecostals Old Charismatics New Charismatics
Charles Fox Parham A.A. Allen Earl Paulk
Agnes Ozman (First F.F & B.B. Bosworth John Wimber
tongues speaker) John G. Lake Peter Wagner
William J. Seymour *Gordan Lindsay Larry Tomczak
(Azusa Street) *William Branham Bill Hamon
John Alexander Dowie *Oral Roberts James Robison
Many other Methodist Jack Coe Rod Parsley
Pastors Franklin Hall Benny Hinn
Aimee Semple Demos Shakarian- John Gimenez
Macpherson (full Gospel Business Men’s Emanuele Cannistraci
Fellowship)
David DuPlessis Ken Sumrall
Dennis Bennett Lester Sumrall
Ft. Lauderdale Five- Gary Greenwald
-Bob Mungor Norvel Hayes
-Charles Simpson David Blomgren
-Derek Prince Jack Deere
-Don Basham Wayne Grudem
-Ern Baxter
Kenneth Hagin
Kenneth Copeland
 Charles Capps
Fred Price
Jerry Savelle
Robert Tilton
Pat Robertson
Kathryn Kuhlman

Projects
Read the class syllabus as assigned by the instructor, week by week.
Read at least 400 pages out of the MTH II Reading list for charismatic Movement. Make
reports of your reading according to the schedule on the assignment sheet. Do your
reading with an eye to learning from these books whatever you can learn so as to help
you be able to answer the following questions:
1. What criticism may be made of the modern practice of speaking in tongues?
2. List and discuss rules given for speaking in tongues given by Paul in 1
Corinthians 14.
3. List and discuss at least five cessationist arguments, being sure to provide
specific Scripture support.
4. What is the “filling” of the Holy Spirit?
5. List, define, discuss and explain various Biblical and Theological terms
signifying the work of the Holy Spirit upon us and in us.
6. How do the Charismatics often err concerning the Holy Spirit? Contrast this
with the Spiritual revelation concerning the Holy Spirit.
From this list of questions may be drawn the subjects for discussion of the days of
student-led discussions or questions for the final exam.
By 1st October, complete your reading of the textbook Charismatic Chaos, by John
MacArthur.
Possible Additional Projects
Choose one book of the Bible. Discern with this Book whatever it seems may be
discerned concerning the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements.
 Choose out five Scripture verse release to this course to suggest to the rest of the
class for Scripture.
Interview at least five Christians who seem to have charismatic beliefs or practices.
CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT ASSIGNMNET SHEET
JUL 13
16
20
23
27 Submit Reading Report Today (100 pages)
30
AUG 3 Submit Reading Report Today (100 pages)
6
10
13 Submit Reading Report Today (100 pages)
17
20 Submit Reading Report Today (100 pages)
24
27 Student-led Classroom Discussion #1
31
SEP 3 Student-led Classroom Discussion #3
7
10 Student-led Classroom Discussion #5
14
17
21
24
 28
OCT 1 Complete MacArthur By Today! FINAL EXAM?
5