Truth Magazine

 

(Editor’s Note: I am producing below an exchange between Larry Hafley and Arnold Hardin which occurred as a result of an article which brother Hafley wrote in Guardian of Truth. The exchange is revealing because it demonstrates the weakness which the grace-unity advocates have in the area of baptism. Those who start off stating that the Lord forgives a man of sins which he commits of which he might be ignorant or which he commits inadvertently are logically compelled to make the same application on the subject of baptism as they make in other areas. The result is-that men begin to question whether or not one must be baptized for the remission of his sins in order to be saved. I think our readers will profit from reading these letters.)

Hafley’s Controversial Remarks

(5) Design. What is the aim, the object, the purpose of New Testament baptism? Remember, we shall answer the question by appealing to the word of God. There are numerous, diverse responses from the creeds and churches of men, but we are going to be guided by the Bible. But, first, why was Christ’s blood shed? Jesus said it was “shed . . . for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Now, if you were asked for the design, the purpose, for the shedding of the blood of Jesus, you could correctly say that it was shed “for the remission of sins.” In Acts 2:38, the apostle Peter said that one is baptized “for the remission of sins.” Would you deny that the precious blood of our Lord was shed “for the remission of sins”? No! By the same token, then, you will admit that baptism is “for the remission of sins.” Suppose I said that the Lord shed His blood because we are already saved; or, suppose I said He poured out His blood to show that we were saved before His death on the cross? You would not like it if I advocated that. Well, baptism, like the shedding of the blood of Christ, is “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28; Acts 2:38). Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). Ananias, a preacher sent of God, told Saul to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). On two occasions, Paul said that we are “baptized into Jesus Christ” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). Peter said that “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 2-11). What do you say? (Guardian of Truth, September 15, 1983, page 562)

Brother Arnold Hardin’s Letter

9/25/83
Scyene Church of Christ
2920 Prairie Creek Rd.
Dallas, Texas 75227

Dear brother Hafley,

I have read your article, “Five Components of Baptism,” and I am concerned about point five – Design.

I did not desire to write anything about it until I had an opportunity to ask you about it. What you had to say seems typical; yet going even farther than others. As written, it seems no conclusion can be drawn than that you are equating the design, purpose of baptism and the blood of Christ as being “for the remission of sins.” How can you remotely draw such a conclusion? There is only one thing designed or for the purpose of washing away sin. How can baptism be equated with the blood of Christ for the purpose of washing away sins?

Baptism is essential to one’s reaching the blood as it is faith objectified or embodied and just as it expresses a sinner’s repentance and confession. But to say baptism is for the remission of sins just as the blood is saying that which is unknown to the Bible. Or am I misunderstanding what you were seeking to say?

I would appreciate it if you would clarify this matter.

Sincerely,

Arnold Hardin

Brother Larry Hafley’s Reply

September 30, 1983
Northside Chuch of Christ
P.O. Box 1187
Pekin, IL 61554

Dear Brother Hardin,

Thank you for your letter.

You stated that my article “seems typical.” First, will you please explain what you mean? Of what is it typical? Second, you state that my comments went “farther than others.” Farther than what? And who are the “others,” and what did they say that I exceeded? Your answers to these questions will give me more insight to answer your queries.

Now, your questions:

(1) “As written, it seems no conclusion can be drawn than that you are equating the design, purpose of baptism and the blood of Christ as being ‘for the remission of sins.’ How can you remotely draw such a conclusion?”

Reply: Christ’s blood was shed “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). It is the basis, the grounds, of our salvation. Repentance and baptism are said to be “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). They are the terms or conditions salvation.

(2) “How can baptism be equated with the blood of hrist for the purpose of washing away sins?”

Reply: Jesus “washed us from our sins in his ow blood” (Rev. 1:5; 7:14). Ananias told Saul, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Christ sanctified and cleansed the church “with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:26). We art sanctified by the blood of the covenant (Heb. 10:29). We are sanctified by the truth (Jn. 17;17). We are sanctified “in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (I Cor. 6:11). The blood of Christ is the basis, the grounds, of our sins being washed away. Baptism is one of the conditions we must meet in order to have our sins washed away (1 Pet. 1:18,19,22; 3:21; Rev. 1:5; Acts 22:16; 2:38; 3:19).

(3) “Or am I misunderstanding what you were seeking to say?”

Reply: Brother Hardin, what is water baptism for? What is its purpose or design, according to Acts 2:38? 1 say it is “for the remission of sins,” do you?

A few parallel propositions may assist you in reaching an understanding of my remarks.

I. At least three things are said to justify.

(A) “Justified freely by his grace” (Rom. 3:24).

(B) “Justified by faith” (Rom. 5:1).

(C) “Justified by his blood” (Rom. 5:9).

I preach justification by grace, but when I say we are justified by grace, I am not negating or equating either faith or the blood of Christ. I preach justification by faith, but when I say we are justified by faith, I am not negating or equating either grace or the blood of Christ. I preach justification by the blood of Christ, but when I say we are justified by the blood of Christ, I am not negating or equating either grace or faith.

Suppose you were to write an article on faith, as I did on baptism. Suppose you mention that we are justified by grace, faith and the blood of Christ. Then suppose I write you a letter and inquire, “As written, it seems no conclusion can be drawn than that you are equating the design, purpose of faith and the blood of Christ as being that which Justifies.’ How can you remotely draw such a conclusion? But to say faith justifies just as the blood justifies is saying that which is unknown to the Bible. Or am I misunderstanding what you were seeking to say?”

Brother Hardin, how would you respond to that hypothetical letter? Perhaps your response to such a given circumstance will serve to “clarify this matter.”

II. Further, imagine that you have preached a sermon as per Acts 2. At the conclusion of your lesson, you exhort the audience of sinners, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). At this point, a man from the audience replies, “No, we cannot save ourselves. Jesus is our Savior” (Matt. 1:21). The respondent continues, “What you had to say seems typical; yet going farther than others. As stated, it seems no conclusion can be drawn than that you are equating man with Jesus as his own Savior. How can you remotely draw such a conclusion? There is only one Savior from sin. How can a sinner be equated with Christ as Savior? To say man can save himself just as Christ saves is saying that which is unknown to the Bible. Or am I misunderstanding what you were seeking to say? I would appreciate it if you would clarify this matter.”

Brother Hardin, perhaps your clarification and explanation of such it situation will answer your reservation regarding my article.

Brotherly,

Larry Ray Hafley

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, pp. 68-69
February 2, 1984

By Don Martin

When we refer to the “Lord’s church,” we have reference to the church you read about in the New Testament. By “different” we mean unlike, separate and distinct. I submit that the Lord’s church is radically different from all the numerous man-made churches. What makes Jesus’ church different?

The founder of the Lord’s church? The church of the New Testament does have a unique founder – the sinless Son of God. “And I say also unto thee,” Jesus stated to Peter, “that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). Charles Russell, Henry VIII, or John Wesley did not build the New Testament church; the Lord did! Certainly, then, the Lord being the founder of his church makes the Lord’s church separate and different from the many human originated churches. However, I do not believe this is what really makes the Lord’s church different.

The origin of the Lord’s church? Jesus’ church had her beginning in Acts 2 about the year 30 A.D. Jesus had promised that He would build His church and that the church or kingdom would come into existence in the life span of those whom He addressed in the setting of Mark 9: 1. When we consider the origins of current denominations (1520 A.D., 1534 A.D., 1607 A.D., etc.) we are made to appreciate the separateness of Jesus’ church. Nonetheless, I do not believe this is the thing that really distinguishes her.

The designations applied to her? The church Jesus founded did not and does not wear human names or designations. For example, there was the church of God at Corinth (I Cor. 1:2) and the churches of Christ referred to by Paul (Rom. 16:16). Lutheran, Episcopalian, and Methodist were designations unknown to the apostolic period. Admittedly, scriptural designations set Jesus’ church apart from the others. Notwithstanding, I still do not believe this is the distinctive characteristic.

The public worship in which she engaged? As you study your New Testament you find the Lord’s church partook (1) of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; every week, cf. Acts 2:42), (2) engaged in singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19), (3) gave of their means (1 Cor. 16:1,2), (4) engaged in prayer (Acts 4:31), (5) and had unadulterated preaching (Acts 20:7, cf. 2 Tim. 4:1-5). The members (Christians) worshiped daily by leading a life of holiness (2 Cor. 7: 1). 1 do not, however, believe ,_this is the primary difference which makes her unlike other religions.

The way the church financed her work? As we study denominationalism we f1hd most denominations financed by a number of carnal, secular methods. There are pie suppers, bingo games, raffles, distilleries, real estate investments, ad infinitum. The church of the New Testament, beloved, was only financed by the Lord’s Day offerings of the members (I Cor. 16:1,2). Nevertheless, I do not believe we have found the paramount difference.

Guarded fellowship? Unquestionably, the first century church practiced guarded fellowship (1 Jn. 1:6,7; 2 Jn. 9-11; 2 Thess. 3:6). We acknowledge that guarded, controlled scriptural fellowship is peculiar to Jesus’ church, but we still are not persuaded guarded fellowship is the decided difference.

The plan of salvation which she teaches? The plan of salvation as presented in the word of God – belief, repentance, confession, baptism for remission of sin – is only taught by the Lord’s church (Jn. 8:24; Acts 17:30; Rom. 10: 10; Acts 2:38). The denominations teach faith only, baptism because of salvation, etc. While the plan of salvation the church of Christ taught and teaches makes her radically different, I do not believe this is the unique peculiarity which separates her.

While all of these foregoing characteristics of the New Testament church set her apart, there is one feature, actually an idiosyncrasy, which is more directly responsible for her separateness than anything else – her insistance upon having a thus-saith-the-Lord for everything she believes and practices (cf. Matt. 28:18; Col. 3:17; 1 Thess. 5:21; Acts 3:22,23; 2 Jn. 9-11). “And hath put all things under his feet,” Paul teaches regarding Christ and his church, “and gave him to be the head over all things to the church . . .” (Eph. 1:22).

Beloved, the reason Jesus’ church wears scriptural designations, teaches the true plan of salvation, and practices guarded fellowship is because of her conformity to the doctrine of Christ. Denominationalism, quite plainly, is not concerned about New Testament authority. They believe what they do and practice what they do because it is convenient, feels good, or simply what they want to do! Conversely, the church for which our Lord shed His blood seeks to do all they do in the name of the Lord (by His authority, cf. Acts 4:7,12), and speak as the oracles of God (Col. 3:17; 1 Pet. 4:11). This determination to have book, chapter, and verse for everything believed and practiced makes her peculiarly and radically different. What happens when she ceases to demand authority? She ceases to exist and simply becomes another “sectarian order” like all the others around her!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, pp. 67, 69
February 2, 1984

By Mike Willis

No one can deny that the Holy Spirit leads God’s children. Paul wrote, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14). “But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law” (Gal. 5:18). The direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit is something which should be desired and followed by all of God’s children.

God Led Miraculously

As one contemplates the idea of being directed or led by the Spirit of God, he remembers the manner in which God led the children of Israel during their wandering in the wilderness. “And the Lord went before them in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night” (Ex. 13:21). As the children of Israel marched from Egyptian bondage to the promised land of Canaan, the Lord directed their travels by means of the cloud and fire.

The temptations and problems which Israel faced under the direction of God were not without purpose. “And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no” (Deut. 8:2). This was the manner in which God led the nation of Israel. However, the Lord did not always lead His nation or particular individuals in a miraculous manner. This guidance and direction was not the ordinary means God used in directing His children.

From time to time, God miraculously directed men. God miraculously directed Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40). On the second missionary journey, Paul and his companions wanted to preach in Bithynia, but the Holy Spirit did not allow them (Acts 16:6). Soon thereafter, Paul had a vision in the night in which a Macedonian pleaded with him, “Come over into Macedonia, and help us” (Acts 16:9). The Holy Spirit was miraculously directing Paul’s preaching journey. This miraculous direction was not God’s ordinary means of directing men’s lives.

God Led Providentially

God also leads men providentially. The providential leading of God is implied from several statements of Scripture. Jesus taught us to pray, “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (Matt. 6:13). The psalmist praised God saying, “He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters” (Psa. 23:2). Both of these verses indicate that God providentially directs my life. God works in a manner which cannot be observed in the providential direction of men’s lives.

God Leads Through His Word

Another way in which God leads His people is through His revealed word. The psalmist prayed, “O send out thy light and thy truth: let them lead me” (Psa. 43:3). “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Psa. 119:105). Through the revealed word of God, we learn what pleases and displeases God.

The Holy Spirit revealed the Scriptures to us. He searched the mind of God and revealed His mind to us (1 Cor. 2:10-13). The writers of both the Old and New Testaments wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:20-21; 1 Tim. 3:16-17). As one reads and follows the revelation given to us by the Spirit through inspiration, he is being led by the Spirit.

This is clearly the method by which the Spirit did th work of leading in Galatians 5. Read the following verses.

This I say then, Walk in the Spirt, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:16-21).

The one who is led by the Spirit does not follow the lusts of the flesh. Instead, he pursues the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23).

Modern Ideas Of The Leading Of The Spirit

When one reads much of the modern literature re ing the work of the Holy Spirit, he is introduced to the oncept that the Holy Spirit personally directs men miracu usly today. Typical of such a concept is the following”:

It is natural, therefore, that in the leading of God’s child, the Holy Spirit will use the Scriptures He has Himself inspired. These Scriptures were given to train and direct God’s people. They are still the principle instrument He uses. He will guide through circumstances, through the counsel of Christian friends, through the worship of a believing fellowship, through the inspired utterance of a preacher, and through many other ways. But the classic mode of direction is still through the holy Scriptures (William Fitch, The Ministry of the Holy Spirit, p. 159).

While recognizing that the primary means through which the Holy Spirit leads man is through the revealed word, the author quoted above believes that the Lord miraculously directs his life. Later, he wrote, “Sometimes the Holy Spirit will prompt you to speak words you could never have imagined. At other times, He will guide you to prepare the ways in which you can best begin a conversation about Christ” (p. 208). A few pages later, this preacher told how the Spirit told him that he should move from the church with which he was laboring:

Yet after eleven years in Glasgow, by the strange intuition of the Spirit we began to sense that the time might have come for us to be moving on. We committed everything to God and waited. One Sunday night I drove my assistant to his home and we sat and talked for a while when we reached his residence. I told him then of the incipient thoughts that were rising in our minds about possibly not being there much longer and I was surprised to hear him say: “That is exactly how I am feeling. As I have prayed for you I have felt that the time was drawing near for your departure.” The next morning when I picked up my mail the first letter that caught my eye was from Knox Church, Toronto. It contained an invitation to cross the Atlantic and preach with the possibility of being called. Surprised? Yes and no (pp. 219-220).

There are several things wrong with these ideas. Please consider the following:

1. The thoughts of man become the words of God. Any strong intuition that a person has becomes the commandment of God for him. However, the mind of man is not the word of God (Prov. 16:25; Isa. 55:8-9).

2. A man has no means of determining when God speaks to someone else. If God communicates His will in this way, how am I to determine that God has truly spoken. Jim Jones asserted that God spoke to him. Oral Roberts reported that God spoke to him giving him instructions to write to various people to tell them to send him $25 per month. How do I know whether or not God actually spoke to these people? If he speaks to me in this fashion, perhaps He also spoke to them in this manner. In the New Testament era, inspired men confirmed their message by bonafide miracles. These miracles authenticated the message. What authenticates the message today?

3. Every man becomes a law to himself. Once one has taken the position that God speaks directly to individuals in the leading of the Holy Spirit, every man’s intuitions, thoughts, and strong opinions become the word of God the law of God – to him. The conclusion which results from this doctrine is religious subjectivism with no objective stand to determine right and wrong.

Conclusion

God’s will is communicated to us in the Bible. He leads us by the word. I have found direction from the Bible to guide me in my marriage relationship, rearing my children, my business affairs, my work as a gospel preacher, my relationship to our civil government, how to pray, moral decisions, dealing with my neighbors, and other areas of my life. I am deeply indebted to God for the direction He has provided in my life.

Nevertheless, in the twenty-four years I have been a Christian and the eighteen years that I have been preaching, I have never had a single occasion in which God audibly spoke to me. He did not audibly speak to me when I became a Christian or when I decided to preach. In the period of trial in my life, not once has He given me a vision or an inspired dream. He never told me when to move to work with another church, miraculously directed me to a contact to whom I taught the gospel, or otherwise gave me miraculous direction in my life which might be compared to the manner in which God directed and guided Israel in her wilderness wanderings or the manner in which He directed Paul in Acts 16. God leads men through His word.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, pp. 66, 88-89
February 2, 1984

By Daniel H. King

There is something exciting about anything we call a “revival.” It is like bringing an antique clock out of a musty old closet, dusting it off, putting a new coat of stain on it, and placing it on the center of the mantle above the fireplace. It catches everyone’s eye and takes them back to yesteryear – to a time now long past, but not forgotten. Thoughts of the “old days” come streaming back. Memories flood the mind with sights and sounds and scents of things that others saw and heard and smelled before we came to be.

No essential wrong attaches to the desire to revive and relive the past by ornamenting our homes with antique tables and lamps and such, or our garages with classic cars. But it is wrong to live in the past. It is wrong to try to bring to the present what cannot and should not be transferred into today. We appreciate this fact in most departments of life. For example, many procedures and methods were used by people a century ago to treat illnesses which no one would dream of resurrecting today. They have been replaced by modern technologies that are more effective. It would be almost criminal to attempt to revive such outdated modes of health care. In instances of this sort we would do well to remember the words of the wise man of the Old Testament: “Do not say, ‘Why is it that the former days were better than these?’ For it is not from wisdom that you ask about this” (Eccl. 7:10).

It would be religiously and spiritually improper to attempt to be justified under the Old Law. Reviving the Old Testament as a means for salvation and justification would be a form of spiritual suicide. While it was once the avenue of divine grace and forgiveness of human sin and the only source of revealed knowledge about the true God, it has been displaced by the New covenant and “nailed to the cross” of Christ (Col, 2:15). The New Covenant is in every way I better” than the Old and so represents a spiritual progress akin to the strides which man has made in medicine over the last century (see Heb. 8:6-8). When some in Galatia tried to revive the Old, they were warned that they would end up “severed from Christ” if they sought justification through this outdated and discarded system (Gal. 5:4).

The purpose of this study is to attempt to persuade fair minded people that the modern charismatic revival is not a mere harking back to better times or even an attempt at recapturing from the past what was once valuable and good. It rather represents a form of spiritual escapism, an attempt at living in a past that cannot possibly be recalled, and another way of rejecting the finality of God’s revelation of truth through His ancient apostles and prophets. I know that this will sound harsh to some who may read it. But I hope you will do me the courtesy of hearing me out. At least read the rest of what I have to say before you formulate a conclusion about this matter. On the following pages I intend to present the evidence for the case I am trying to make. Read it before you pass judgment. If it is the truth, then above all else you need to know it. If it is not true, then you want to reject it. But a few moments of reading you with is not really asking too much, is it?

What Are We Talking About?

For those who may be puzzled at the terminology used here and below, it may prove wise to define some words before we go any further. The term “charismatic” is normally used as an adjective to describe a contemporary movement and its adherents. It derives from the Greek word charismata, “gifts”, and is employed in the New Testament to describe the gifts of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 12:9, etc.). Use of the word “revival” in conjunction with it suggests that this movement is characterized by a belief that such miraculous manifestations of the Holy Spirit have been once more bestowed upon Christians.

Another word which we will find occasion to use is “glossalalia.” This combination word is made up of two Greek words: glossa, meaning tongue,” and lalia, “speech.”; The consequent term “glossalalia” thus connotes “tongue-speech,” and describes the most important element of the movement, the claim that the Holy spirit enables certain moderns to speak in tongues as the early disciples of Christ did (Mk. 16:17; Acts 2:4; etc.).

“Pentecostalism” describes the charismatic movement from another angle. This designation denotes an approach to Christianity which attempts to revive the experiences of the apostles at Pentecost and afterward. Again though, it is the miraculous experiences which predominate in their thinking, so that “pentecostalism” involves primarily these four things: (1) Ecstatic tongue-speaking-, (2) Claims to healing; (3) Direct guidance of the Spirit; and, (4) Visions from God. “Neo-pentecostalism” is the technical term for the overflow of the views and practices of Pentecostals into our denominations besides their own.

Historical Background of the Movement

It has often been said that those who do not know of the mistakes made by men of the past are doomed to repeat them. The study of history is the key. If we are willing to invest some time in a survey of ecclesiastical (church) history, we can avoid duplicating gross errors made by churchmen of the past. In this case we can observe clearly that charismatic movements of the early centuries were always viewed as heretical. Moreover, we can also note what early Christians, soon after the deaths of the apostles of Christ, thought about the continuance or discontinuance of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. It comes out as indisputable in their works that they entertained the notion that these gifts were never meant to be permanent. They saw them as only temporary appurtenances, suited for the infancy of the church. In their own times they saw that infancy period as over and the gifts as having passed out of the reach of post-apostolic Christians.

Some will think this of little importance. After all, by this time there was much that they thought and did which was not to be identified with the earliest church, i.e. that of the first century. While this is true, it is still worth noting what they thought and practiced on this count. While this is true, it is still worth noting what they thought and practiced on this count. What they believed about the gifts of the Spirit is quite different from some other things about which they made dogmatic assertions and issued decrees. If the first apostles had left in the early church the faith that manifestations of the Holy Spirit were more than momentary and ephemeral, then possession of the gifts would have continued to be a proof of divine pleasure and their absence would have shown that God was not “among” those who were devoid of their influence and power (cf. 1 Cor. 14:25; 2:4). Instead, appeal was made to apostolic, succession among bishops. Bishops claimed to have their authority because they derived it in direct line of succession from the original Twelve and men whom they had appointed in various localities. They knew no promise had been left them of an abiding miraculous presence of the Spirit in the church. They knew it because they did not possess it. Moreover, they called those who made claims to spiritual gifts in their time “heretics,” and dubbed their miracles “false.” This fact is of monumental importance in a study of whether spiritual gifts are for today and no amount of sophistry can minimize it.

The two clearest and most unequivocal statements made on this subject in the early centuries are drawn from the writings of two of the giants of the early church, Chrysostom and Augustine. Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407), commenting on 1 Corinthians 12:1-2, wrote: “This whole place is very obscure; but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place” (Homilies on First Corinthians, Hom. 29). Augustine (A.D. 354-430), commenting on 1 John, said that, “In the earliest times, ‘The, Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed and they spoke with tongues which they had not learned as the Spirit gave them utterance.’ These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening and it passed away” (Ten Homilies on the Fyrst Epistle of John, Hom. 6:10). Both Chrysostom and Augustine made their point on this subject in a simple and matter-of-fact way. No sophisticated argument or protracted discussion is present. This, though, is what we would expect if they were trying to convince their people that they should give something up or take on some new belief. Rather, they speak as if everyone agrees and accepts this most obvious conclusion which they draw: namely, that the gifts of the Spirit were temporary manifestation of God’s power and presence, suited only for the very first Christians, and that they have now passed out of circulation.

That the claim to miraculous gifts was limited to heretical sects in early centuries is evident from the sources at our disposal. Montanism offers one instance for illustration. Also known as the Cataphrygian Heresy, this was a movement founded by a self-proclaimed prophet named Montanus in Asia Minor in the second century. Montanus had been an adherent of the ecstatic cult of Cybele, mother goddess of fertility. Converted about 156, Montanus fell into a trance and began to “prophesy under the influence of the Spirit. ” Soon he was joined by two women, Prisca and Maximilla, in his prophetic claims. The result was a movement that filled Asia Minor, sweeping several entire towns. The essential principle of Montanism was that the Paraclete (the Holy Spirit, or Comforter) was manifesting Himself to the world through Montanus and the prophets and prophetesses associated with him. It soon became clear to all that Montanus’ was reserving for himself and his prophets the final word of the Holy Spirit. He implied, therefore, that something could be added to the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, and that the church would have to accept from him a fuller revelation than was earlier given through the Scriptures. He also said the Second Coming was imminent and that the heavenly Jerusalem was soon to descend to earth between the two villages of Pepuza and Tymion in Phrygia. Many of his most faithful followed him there to await the Coming. His claims were rejected by the vast majority of early churchmen, however; and he was ex-communicated along with the adherents of his system around 177. Time has proven him a false prophet like others who arose before him and have arisen since.

This movement represents the major example of an early attempt at reviving spiritual gifts. The following centuries witnessed isolated instances of people claiming possession of such divine graces. Certain Roman Catholic “saints” had legends to grow up about them to the effect that miracles attended their lives. St. Hildegarde, for example, is said to have spoken in Latin without learning the language. The Huguenots of France in the 17th and 18th centuries claimed their children “spoke with tongues.” But false prophecies and predictions were uttered by them which did not transpire. They were discredited by such reckless words, and it provided evidence that their movement was not inspired by Heaven. The “Shakers” or “Millennial Church” which began in England in 1747 also constituted a group that claimed miraculous visitation. All types of jerks and seizures attended their meetings. Mormons or Latter-Day Saints also claimed for themselves these gifts. The seventh Article of Faith of their church stipulates belief in the presence of apostolic gifts and powers in their midst. Joseph Smith instructed early Mormons to “rise upon their feet and speak in tongues.”

Pentecostalism

Modern “pentecostalism,” the movement most often identified with claims regarding spiritual gifts, has its roots in John Wesley’s doctrine of sanctification. His teaching about a “second work of grace” or “holiness” gave rise to the holiness movement. Revivalism among Protestants in the 1800’s was therefore accompanied by emotionalism, shouting, and exercises. Chronicles of the time tell of religious services characterized by activities that seemed uncouth and unbefitting Christian worship: falling into states of coma, the jerks, uncontrolled dancing, barking and grunting, ecstatic laughing, running and frenzied singing. Such activities were unquestionably reactionary against the coldness and formality of “high-churchism” and the liturgical services of some of the churches. They offered people an emotional outlet through which to vant their fears and frustrations as well as an opportunity to feel personally involved in religion. Up till then they had stood as bystanders watching priests and clergymen go about the closely regimented but unfeeling public demonstrations of religion. Their dissatisfaction with this state of affairs was commendable; but their zeal led them to over-react.

The Church of God of Cleveland, Tennessee had its origin in this environment. A former Baptist preacher named Richard A. Spurling is usually credited with having given rise to it in 1896. The Pentecostal movement itself had as its father Mr. Charles F. Parham. In 1901 one of his students began to “speak in tongues” (utter incomprehensible syllables) after he had laid hands on her. This marked both the beginning of this phenomenon in his group and the distinctive characteristic of the movement. Parham went on to establish a school in Houston, Texas, where one of his students, a black holiness preacher named W.J. Seymour, began to preach Parham’s doctrines. Seymour went to Los Angeles and started preaching on Azusa St. in a lumber store. The origins of the Church of God in Christ, the Assemblies of God, and the United Pentecostal Church (the “oneness people”) all-trace to Azusa St. and to Parham and Seymour.

Neo-pentecostalism had its origin in the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International. This organ is largely responsible for spreading pentecostalism into other religious groups through their breakfasts, conventions and conferences. On April 3, 1960 an event of major importance occurred. An Episcopal minister in Van Nuys, California announced that he had undergone a “pentecostal experience.” He later resigned as rector of his church, but a great deal of attention was called to this incident by the news media. Since then, this movement has affected most of the mainline denominations. In 1967 the Catholic Church even began its own “charismatic renewal,” calculated to halt the loss of great numbers from its ranks to charismatic churches. This general movement affecting many religious bodies in America and elsewhere has been dubbed “neopentecostalism” or “new pentecostalism” because in a sense it has “come over to the other side of the tracks” in terms of acceptance by the larger mainline religious bodies. No more is it reckoned as the frenzied religious experience of the illiterate backwoods buffoon; now it is cultivated in “cell groups” of the most culturally and educationally elite churches in the land.

But is this newly-found sophistication and public approval a mark of God’s acceptance? The answer to that question is, of course, “No.” It is only Scripture that can provide proof that Heaven smiles down upon any religious activity or article of faith. So, as the Bible itself says, “To the law and to the testimony,” (Isa. 8:20), and, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). The Word of God must ultimately decide the issue. Let us therefore turn our attention to what the Bible teaches about the beliefs and practices of this “charismatic revival.”

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, pp. 65, 87-88
February 2, 1984