Dr. Clark,
First of all, I want to applaud you for your excellent refutation of what passes as "Pentecostalism" today. I fully agree with your arguments that refute the practices of modern "charismatic" churches.
I completely agree with you that glossolalia means "œnatural languages." There is no question that the hearers in Acts 2 *understood* what was being said. People were speaking languages they had not learned, publically proclaiming the glory of God.
I fully agree with you that "Pentecost is about the objective work of the Spirit in advancing the kingdom through the foolishness of preaching and about confirming that message with displays of apostolic Holy Spirit power,
not about private religious experience or ecstasy."
I also totally agree that "
Pentecost has nothing to do with two kinds of Christians, a higher life or a second blessing. Pentecost has
nothing to do with having enough faith to do anything."
I also agree that "Pentecost is about the development of revelation,
not setting a pattern for contemporary church life".
We also agree that we are NOT "called to try to replicate raising folk from the dead, healing them, or speaking in foreign languages without training."
As you said, "Pentecost should be remembered, not replicated". --- And this is precisely the error I think modern pentecostal churches have fallen into. They are trying to replicate Pentecost. It is an example of MAN trying to INITIATE Petecostal power, wheras Pentecost itself was initiated by GOD, not man.
And just as you said regarding modern charismatic churches, I fully agree that we "don´t see ANY of them doing ANYTHING like what the Apostles did." The discrepancy IS quite large.
Now, having laid out our agreements (which are many), I want to thank you for making your case as clearly as you have. ---
I also want to point out that my position is NOT that of modern pentecostal churches. Thus, I agree with your refutation of them. But my position is quite different, and you were refuting their position, not mine. So thank you for giving me this chance to clearly distance myself from what passes as "pentecostalism" these days.
I do not believe man can initiate any duplication of Pentecost.
I do not believe we should be seeking out prophecy, tongues, healers, etc.
So what DO I believe?
I believe that God can still do whatever He wants to do.
And I see nothing in Scripture that suggests God is finished with miracles . . . nothing in the Bible which suggests that there is some cosmic shift that magically took place after the death of the last apostle.
If you want to say that a man cannot muster up enough faith to become a faith-healer, or to become a predictive prophet, or to speak in foreign languages without learning them, then I agree with you.
But if you want to say that God cannot (or will not) sovereignly
cause someone to speak in a foreign language under certain circumstances, or if you want to say that God cannot (or will not) sovereignly
give some piece of predictive knowledge to someone under certain circumstances, or if you want to say that God cannot (or will not) miraculously heal people under circumstances,
then the burden of proof is on you. --- All of your arguments are
very effective at refuting the silly
man-initiated stuff that goes on in today's "pentecostal" churches.
But your arguments do not even begin to show a Scriptural warrant for saying that
God lacks the prerogative to do whatever He wants, whenever He wants.
Just as an isolated case in point, I have no problem at all with what Randy shared in a previous post:
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
I want to pass on a testimony I heard in 1985. . . . God can act according to what he has had written down. I dont think it is a norm but I don't have any reason to doubt the gentleman was lying. . . . He was raised in New York as a young Jew. He abandoned his faith and later married a woman who was Cuban if I remember correctly. She became a believer and was very burdened for her husbands salvation. One night as they were in bed she sat up and started speaking in the jewish dialect that he was raised with. He said that she wasn't familiar with it and that he hadn't used it since his youth. She didn't know it nor had heard it according to him. As she started speaking the words testified about how Jesus was the Messiah and Saviour of His people. It resulted in his conversion and walk with God. The gentleman didn't seem to be promoting a pentecostal life style . . . I don't find that to be out of sorts from what the scriptures tell. I couldn't refute the testimony. I didn't feel it was my place. If God choses to do that for one person or three thousand I am not going to dispute what He wants. If he choses to call on one soul by this method I have no problem with it. He calls us all by diverse workings but always by illumination of His written word.
Now what, pray tell, is wrong with that? Whether this one particular instance is accurate or not, who is to say God never works this way? Why should we automatically assume that such people are lying?
Please notice what is MISSING in the story above:
1) The Jewish man and his wife were not LOOKING for some awesome manifestation of the Spirit. They were not seeking miracles.
2) The "tongue" here was an understandable, natural language, just as we see in Acts 2. There is no gibberish here.
3) There is no new revelation here. When the wife spoke in a tongue that was unknown to herself, her husband simply heard her speaking the Gospel. In his own language, he was hearing that Jesus is the Messiah and the Saviour of His people.
4) This was not a permanent "gift". The wife did not retain any ability to "speak in tongues" at will. To the contrary, God Himself simply performed something miraculous that got the husband's attention, and got him to listen seriously to the Gospel message. This was a one-time event, sovereignly performed at God's own discretion.
5) The husband and wife never leapt to the conclusion that this is how God normally works. They simply seemed to recognize that God chose an interesting way to bring the Jewish man to faith in Christ. But they weren't going about telling everyone that "everyone else can do it to if they just have enough faith."
In other words, the story above looks NOTHING like what we see in run-of-the-mill "charismatic" churches. This was NOT a case of men seeking supernatural manifestations. To the contrary, this was simply a case of God sovereignly choosing to lead people to Himself in
whatever manner He pleases.
Dr. Clark, you said, "What we´re meant to be doing is preaching the law and the gospel . . . administering the sacraments faithfully, administering discipline faithfully and loving one another. That´s it." --- And I totally agree with you. I do not think we should be seeking anything "more spiritual" than what you have just said. But again, I am not talking about MAN seeking a "higher spiritual life", or anything of the sort. Rather, I am simply arguing for the FREEDOM of GOD to do what He wants, when He wants.
You said, "Wayne [Grudem] is a baby-boomer who is conservative but wants the sort of religious intensity and ecstasy the Pentecostals have, but he wants it in a respectable, predestinarian, middle-class sort of way. This isn´t about theology or exegesis. It´s about psychology and emotions. It´s about the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience. Whoever mentioned revivalism is close."
Again, I totally agree with you. I don't care at all about reviving revivalism, or about seeking religious ecstasy. I'm not looking to stroke my psyche and emotions. Again, I am merely arguing for the freedom of God to do what He wants.
Now, what Scriptural argument is there against *that*?