What is the Biblical Fact in the Affair of Pentecostalism?

W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for Volume What is New

QUESTIONS and ANSWERS
8

Q. WHAT IS THE BIBLICAL FACT IN THE AFFAIR OF PENTECOSTALISM ?

{See also the small book, A Question of Gifts, also published on this site.}

Question: What does it amount to in terms of the Christian Church ?

A: Pentecostalism has long been an enigma, at times seeming profane and almost evil, at times with a fairer countenance.

Q: Is there any FACT ?

A: Yes. For many long years, liberal radicals infested some of the larger, established Protestant denominations, and white-anted them, much as Communists did in the political sphere in numbers of countries soon to be turned into serfdoms under their not-so-tender ministrations to come.

Many felt the lack, saw the wrong, lamented the situation; but few acted. In due time, radio evangelists like Billy Graham began to collect quite a number of these people, who still stayed on in their battered and sometimes effectively finished "churches", which became little more than sects. Lacking the moral courage, or the understanding, or the knowledge of scripture which would have them challenge these things, and if necessary leave their precious denominations, many people listened to Billy Graham; and for quite a time, although his theology left something to be desired, he seemed to have much to offer.

However, as The Pastor's Dilemma (written with careful documentation, by a British Baptist Pastor, Erroll Hulse), Evangelism, The Trojan Horse of The 1990's (Bible Baptist Church, Nashua, N.H.) and Another Gospel, by Dr Tow Siang Hwa show well enough, Graham moved in some vital ways back into what the Reformation in England and Europe had so valiantly rejected, in practice and word, as it had torn out the traditional additions to the word of God, of which Rome stood guilty with such vast penalty to the souls of the people on this earth. (See SMR Ch.10). A neo-evangelical tolerance of what the word of God condemned had been born, yelling lustily, and many were to continue under its blighting sway, this time voluntarily moving into servitude, consorting with rebellion.

What then ? How blighted many were to be! The uprooted, leaning on this radio link, which as a medium can be useful - with its crusading additions -- instead of setting things right in their own churches in many cases, or else leaving them (see Separation, Ch. 7 of The Kingdom of Heaven), were faced with a NEW departure. Now, with many trusting in or walking with this or similar types of evangelistic organisations, they came to the point of being uprooted again, if they would follow the directions of the word of God. Calamity came upon calamity, and the powers of popularity were no more defence against the word of God than were traditionalistic structures. Take it or leave it, it is this word which judges, has judged and will judge (Isaiah 8:20, John 12:48-50). God has no surrogates (Matthew 23:8-10).

What then were such people, in unstable denominations and dumped by the evangelistic organisations blatant and undisguised movements, to do?

Q: Ah! I see. This is where the Pentecostals found such a field?

A: Precisely. Into such a setting, what a feast for the Pentecostals.

They, to their credit, emphasised quite correctly:

1) the available power of God (against the predicted apostates who would reject it - II Timothy 3:5).

2) the power of God in practice to heal, in accord with I Corinthians 12-14; the reality and depth of Christian experience, and

3) the breadth of Christian ministry among the saints.

Q: But surely, in this they performed a service?

A: In the way, perhaps, in the end, a flood performs a service when it "sweeps" a path for you. Thus, they were inundated with themselves in many cases, and in the end a large segment has moved to sympathy with the follies of Rome, speaking tongues happily without seeming to be unduly concerned about what those same 'tongues' are speaking at other times, when the mind is joined to them! The Pied Piper of The Pentecostal Movement has much to say documenting this (Bible Baptist Church, Nashua, N..J.).

Q: But is that all?

A: "All" ? The acceptance of the condemnation of the Gospel as at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, still affirmed by the contemporary Roman Pope, is enough, is it not! (See SMR Ch.10.) However, no, this is far from all. There has been

undue emphasis on tongues and
experiential norms and forms, intrusive and disorderly, extra-Biblical and yet prescribed. With this,
a crowd pleasing-popularity and live performances at times more like vaudeville than reverence, confusion than clarity, slavery than liberty, psychological mechanics than spirituality, or mockery of the Almighty by the audacity of man, and all they have so readily led to -

in much of this movement.

"Holy Laughter" is merely a final 'laugh' in the irreverential antics, and sometimes impudent flaunting of flesh before the face of the Lord, who is to be worshipped in the beauty of holiness by divine command, and by virtue of the Being He is: "reverend is His name" (Psalm 96:6-9, 95:6-7, 111:9, 2:11, 89:7). Its one great advantage is this, that blindness, legal blindness of the spirit, would be needed for one not to realise its anti-edifying source. (See A Question of Gifts, pp. 91ff..) The very extreme which this wild folly represents is liberating in one respect however; for if this did not make the way of the flesh clear in its opposition to

seemliness,
the required "edification in all things",
order and reverence -

then black would not make white a contrast, infinity would not be more than one, and 'yes' would mean 'no'. In this way is fulfilled the principle of Jeremiah, from the Lord - 2:19: "Your own wickedness will correct you, and your backslidings will rebuke you."

Just as Liberalism, the proud defiance of the Bible in many churches tended to provoke reaction into Pentecostalism, so now Pentecostalism in many of its manifestations is provoking separation again, as it like its predecessor, becomes inordinately popular with the clientele who follow it where it separates with ever new audacity, from the word of God! So the cycle is complete; but a humble and contrite heart which trembles at the word of God, this remains the stated desire of the Lord, and blessed is the one who pursues Him in such a way.:

"On this one will I look:

On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit,

and who trembles at My word."

(Isaiah 66:2 - compare 57:15-18, where revival that is revival indeed, and not a reduction of its God-honouring vitality to psychological servitude and social presumption, is in store.)

Indeed, one often hears in this circle of judgmental attitude, really

a presumption that would be willing to blame the believer if God in His wisdom did not elect to heal a Christian from some sickness, in a particular case (cf. Job 2:3-7, Philippians 2:21-28, II Timothy 4:20). If taken for granted, this becomes a doctrinal error that may injure faith, and it represents one more God-manipulating fiasco.

In fact, in some of these respects, this movement can begin to rival Rome for the sheer impudence of its prescriptions to those who call themselves Christians, acting beyond the word of God and contrary to it. It is not that God CAN be manipulated; merely that the procedures are in collision with His holiness.

Let us then consider this case of healing further. That GOD MAY desire to heal, that faith often is small, is undoubted; that as shown above from the word of God, He SOMETIMES withholds it, is equally, sure and in no case more challenging than that of Job, where a period of sickness is a specific test permitted in a given context for a stated purpose (Job 2:5-8); and this case is one that in part resembles that of the apostle Paul, whose "thorn in the flesh", which God specifically declined to take away (seemingly an eye disease), had also a reason. It enabled Paul to glory in infirmities all the more, knowing that as to God, His grace was sufficient for Him, and that in the apostle's weakness was His strength made perfect (II Corinthians 12:7-10).

Indeed, the Lord told Him, after three times refusing to heal:

"My grace is sufficient for you; for my strength is made perfect in weakness."

It would now be convenient to list some of these elements, and to give some more detail.

Thus Pentecostal movement has also tended:

a) to stress tongues in direct opposition to Paul's countermanding LACK of emphasis: as he degraded it to a low form of gift for some, they tend to make it a high form of gift for all, or even more. Thus it has also

b) to use tongues as a sign or seal of at least sanctification. In one reported case, an application for a place in a choir was refused on the ground that the would-be chorister had not spoken in tongues.

d) to use them, at times, as a critical evidence of salvation.

e) to have several speak at once in tongues, as Paul explicitly forbade.

f) to do this in worship services, when 2 or 3 are the maximum permitted

g) to disregard the teaching of the apostle, despite his statements about its applicability to all the churches in Romans 1 and I Corinthians *1. In this, many have been adding to the word of God by limiting it, subtracting by denying Paul's claims.

All this is set forth in my work A Question of Gifts, in detail, as indeed is the prophesied purpose and setting for "tongues' (this last, on pp. 18-24, in Isaiah, to which Paul refers on this topic) .

Further, they have often been guilty of this pernicious practice, daring

h) to assert that one should be healed forthwith of this or that, or that one lacks faith. When so acting, they can beleaguer and trouble many. Healing IS a gift, and miracles MAY be wrought even in large scale, by someone with that gift (as shown in He Heals Today, Key to Healing and another work by Elsie Salmon, a Methodist Missionary's wife who once so acted in South Africa and in England, for example).

However, in this case the service would make it QUITE clear that the gift was nothing, the GIVER was all, that the gospel was the point, and the healing was an accompaniment at the Lord's pleasure. He is not BOUND to heal, who left Epaphroditus at Paul's side, at the verge of death, so that his sickness had to be reported to his church (Philippians 2:21-28), a case paralleled by Trophimus (II Timothy 4:20); who left Job explicitly and for a purpose under certain diseases for a time.

On the other hand, He can if He will, lacks NOTHING in power, and a buoyant as distinct from a presumptuous attitude towards healing is in essence sound. Certainly, what is required for His service, will be supplied ( II Peter 1:3-4, Philippians 4:13).

This buoyancy, however, often goes to irreverent presumption, and this can be followed by unfeeling religious rebuke to the sick!

Alas, with grief we note it, the trend has been towards a lack of discipline in and obedience towards the word of God itself (Titus 1:9-10), a matter which cannot safely be disregarded at all; as of scriptural fidelity, decency, order, adequate teaching through improper competition allowed from other element (I Corinthians 14:4,13-17,26), and often, of reverence (cf. Psalm 89:7, and references given above).

Q: So then you are against Pentecostals ?

A: Of course not. Not against people, but their diseases, it is my concern to be. It is like asking a doctor if he is against influenza patients. No! but he IS against the 'flu, and does and will take steps to limit and marginalise it. That is because he IS for good health, in anyone!

However, as constrained by the word of God written :

I am against -

a) this use of the name, as explained in the book, A Question of Gifts: because Pentecost (Acts 2) was the exact opposite, a case of bringing intelligibility to what could not otherwise be understood. What is before us should not at all be called Pentecostalism. The grace of Pentecost in reversing the Babel of tongue division was a birthday present to the New Testament Church at its Jerusalem Crusade; it was never recorded as repeated. Intelligibility was its criterion and its wonder, the overcoming of hindrances to knowledge, the testimony to divine desire, flowing like lava into the midst of the people. What then of UNINTELLIGIBILITY as the specific additive?

It is really Corinthianism, where unintelligibility was given to what might as well have been intelligible. It was there that Paul berated the church for their excesses, acting to limit and downgrade the phenomenon, although not excluding it, provided it were kept in bounds.

Let us here note this. In I Corinthians 14, at verse 6, Paul substantially asks this: If I come to you speaking in tongues, what is the use unless I speak with a word of knowledge, by revelation, by prophesying or by teaching. In other words, tongues per se, as to edification, are USELESS. That is what the apostle is saying; that is his declaration. He is NOT at all saying that they help knowledge, but that they defeat it, in themselves.

In verses 7-9, Paul develops his theme. Musical instruments, even they, make sounds in a type of intelligible differentiation, notes conforming to patterns and procedures, conventions and adjustments: they do not just blare! He continues: If then you do not speak intelligibly, how can anyone distinguish you from mere air! Addresses to the air! What a success! Come, he says, be useful!

What is the use of such tongues, such activities ?, he asks, upbraiding them.
He then makes a further illustration and application. There are, he says, many languages. If what is said does not conform to such conventions and symbols and significations as languages employ, in order to serve the communication purpose, what is the use! SO, he applies it, YOU should seek gifts which EDIFY.

"THEREFORE," he continues, in verse 13, IF anyone speaks in a tongue, he MUST PRAY for something else: what? INTERPRETATION! Otherwise, he declares, my spirit prays, but my mind is "unfruitful" - does not have any edifying effect. If you bless with the spirit, that is without the mind, HOW WILL ANYONE KNOW! This he asks, in expostulation against their inferior behaviour, inadequate love, careless performances with tongues.

He does not say, one must realise, that your mind MAY be unfruitful if you do not do this thing which he prescribes, do not follow his instructions: as if some one in some language just MIGHT understand. He says rather this: IT IS UNFRUITFUL. This, as such, is speech without comprehensibility, without signification, without intelligible function at all to anyone at any time in any way. Paul does not exaggerate. He describes, assesses, and the phenomenon is thereby defined by his characterisations of it.

It is PAUL or SIN; it is APOSTLE or APOSTASY.

Tongues used in any other way, with more than the numbers permitted (14:29ff.), or in other ways are rebellion. IF ANYONE THINKS HIMSELF SPIRITUAL, THEN HEED THIS, DECLARES Paul (I Corinthians 14:37). What I write, says this master builder of the Christian Church (I Corinthians 3:10) are COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD*1.

From all this, it is apparent the Corinthians tongues have NIL functional value in themselves, as far as understanding is concerned. Without interpretation, they produce no knowledge, no information, no communication.

Hence it is superabundantly clear that they are the direct opposite of the Pentecost case where the exact opposite response occurred. At Pentecost, instead of someone telling Peter and the rest to cool it, get intelligible, be edifying, have someone interpret for them, rather the PEOPLE MARVELLED FOR THE OPPOSITE REASON.

THESE people were speaking intelligibly EVEN WHEN there were people of different languages present. EACH heard it in his own tongue. The gift WAS FOR INTELLIGIBILITY.

The gift in the Corinthians case, though a sign (vv.21-22, cf. pp. 18-24, A Question of Gifts) is deficient in this, that it LACKS precisely what at Pentecost was the marvel: intelligibility. Hence the NAME PENTECOSTALISM is entirely misleading, wholly unscriptural, and whatever it may contain in public relations success, it is false to the Bible.

Likewise, by the word of God written, I am constrained to be against:

b) the spread of practices where, as nearly always in this field in my experience, they expressly depart from the master builder, Paul's specifications, restrictions, remonstrations and categorisations and priorities.

c) the tendency to allow gabble to downgrade doctrine, as in joint sessions with Romanists and others, so that the exact opposite of the purpose of 'tongues' accrues. They were, as my cited book shows, predicted from Isaiah, as quoted by the apostle Paul, and meant as a rebuke to arrogance and an index to becoming teachable; not as a ground for rejecting the doctrine to which one was supposed to return.

Let me put that differently: the prediction of tongues which Paul mentions shows that they were an extreme measure to be used to humble the mighty who turned from the word of God; but here, in this contemporary setting, they quickly become a WAY of turning yet again from the word of God. It is like methadone: meant as a way OUT from heroin, it then becomes addictive itself!

Q: What do you do about it in practice?

A: Warn people of its excesses, errors and contradictions of the word, teach them not to over-react and to become unscriptural in the other direction; teach them to test all things, as Paul commands.

Q: HOW would you test this ?

A: ONE easy way ? Simply see if those who practise these excesses will come back! Thus if you had a dog and it went rather wildly in doggish excitement into an alley, and you saw danger there and wanted it out, thinking it should have known better than to go: then you are not very upset are you ? It was quite understandable that the immature dog went in there.

How do you test the dog? You whistle it! If it REFUSES to come out, then the whole case changes in a moment. If after time, it STILL refuses to come out, then you have a case of a rebellious dog on your hands.

This simple illustration shows the point. If someone has carelessly entered into the alley of unsound and unscriptural Pentecostal practices, then show them the word, as I often do. If they refuse either to leave or to correct them nevertheless, and simply carry on in this disobedient milieu, then the case changes. It is then rebellion, and what was given as a corrective to rebellion, becomes a new rebellion.

That is to a large extent, as I cover the case, the appearance that it has. VERY few are willing to give up what to some is

1) live entertainment, or

2) an interesting spectacle of human nature (holy laughter being to some, a bit of a giggle, all these serious looking people opening up like garbage cans, in public), or

3) an opportunity to share in whatever it may be, or

4) a feeling of spectacle and audience power as powered-sounding people open up with their mouths and tell you what to do as though they were coaches and you were the new ruck man, while they only had the rules.

Perhaps they feel they belong to something. Belong ? Alas, it is all too possible to belong to the alley.

Q: Then what is the use of it ?

A: It is a good test of probity, of integrity of purpose. IF you turn from one evil and then find what you turned to is ANOTHER EVIL, then the question is whether you are too stiff to turn; and if you are, you may need something to make you more supple. That, in scriptural terms, might be called divine discipline (Hebrews 12:4-12).

Q: Can this be avoided ?

A: It is good for us all to be disciplined at times, since we are all sinners and need correction, chastening for our good. However, it is most unwise to ASK for it, like some student going to the College Headmaster and smoking in his presence for a pastime. THAT is asking for it; and is there not trouble enough without going out of one's way to enter into temptation, rebuke and folly!

ENDNOTES

Some people will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid Paul, without wishing to acknowledge they have become anti-apostolic, and are replacing the apostle with end-time apostasy. It may serve for those who do not find enough ground to heed, in the mere statement by the apostle, master-builder of the Church of the Gentiles, as we saw, that what he is here declaring are "COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD" (I Corinthians 14:37), and that the alternative is to remain "IGNORANT".

For them, the commandments of the Lord are dispensable, and if disagreeable, may be re-formulated by the well-known device of rebellion: add three letters - NOT! For them, a little further thought may help, in case the sewer of spiritual autonomy claim them. We shall therefore for convenience now borrow some further scriptures from our Separation Chapter in The Kingdom of Heaven, and extend the presentation to our present field.

PAUL, APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES, PURVEYOR OF
THE pronouncements of the lord FOR THE NEW COVENANT,
with the others chosen for
DISPENSING THE WORD OF GOD to his church
(and not dispensing with it!)

Indeed, Paul, master builder (I Cor. 3:10) wrote all these chapters to one and to all, concerning the gifts, the tongues, the principles of order, edification, relative merit of gifts, modes: for he explicitly expands with the preface "for" linking the principles to the performance in I Cor.14:33: "As in all the churches of the saints".

Moreover, he proceeds to categorise and to characterise these utterances as "the commandments of the Lord" ( I Cor. 14:37 cf. I Cor. 2:9-13, the latter showing the precision and objective and determinate character of the gift of the word of God, to which Proverbs 8:8, 30:6,I John 2:27, John 14:26, Galatians 1:6-9, Revelation 22:18-19, Deuteronomy 12:32 also relate).

This means, in I Corinthians 14, 2 or 3 tongue speakers at maximum, always interpreted, without panache, with a preference for 5 words spoken with the mind to 10000 without it, NOT all speaking with tongues as a criterion, either at a meeting or elsewhere, NEVER seeking to speak with tongues and so on. It is set forth in detail in my book, A QUESTION OF GIFTS . (See also *2 below.)

Such temperance is very rarely met in the tongues field. Their absence is very acceptable; but their restraint is imperative if ever present. Hence in all such cases fellowship is not appropriate; separation is Biblically required. The alternative ?

Breaking the Lord's commandments is never to be recommended. It is however the only alternative. Yet He proclaims and exhorts to the contrary. "Why do you call Me Lord, Lord," He queries, "and NOT DO the things that I say!" - Luke 6:46. But let us rehearse one point still further.

First, to whom is he speaking ? I Cor. 1:2 - reveals it is not only to the Corinthians but to "All who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." Of course: there is ONE body (Ephesians 4:4), "the fulness of Him who fills all in all" (Ephesians 1:23), which is under His sovereign direction, who is called Lord; and a head which directs it differently, orders the "all" otherwise, is one belonging to someone else, for this Jesus Christ, is the same "yesterday, today, for ever" (Hebrews 13:8).

If you want a different Head to the body you inhere in, then THIS IS THE WAY to look for it! The question is simple:

Paul, II Peter 3:16, accepted by Peter, embraced in the apostolate, or YOU, your church, your tradition! ALL the churches, are so DIRECTED by the HOLY SPIRIT INSPIRED apostle with fully RECOGNISED AUTHORITY in giving commandments FROM THE LORD ...

OR DISOBEDIENCE IN SOME NEW BRAND OF RELIGION good enough for you! It is NOT good enough for Paul, for the Bible.

If you want, it is imperative that honesty have you acknowledge that it is an anti-Biblical variant. There is no confusion in the church of Jesus Christ: only in what surrounds it, like crowds loosely following. Is this to be YOUR destiny ? If not, then detach yourself from such rank rebellion, and FOLLOW HIM, who authorised His apostles and has warned of latter day rebellions, as the end draws near.

He has built His church solidly on the foundation of the prophets and the apostles ... nay, indeed, in Eph.2:20, we learn the church to be one "having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ the chief corner stone". It is done. And as to the self-proclaimed 'prophets' who are not subjectible to the correction of the commanded prophets of the Lord who gave the scriptures, or who pronounce contrary to the Scriptures ? this: Isaiah 8:20, 44:25-26, and Jeremiah 23:28-32, I Corinthians14:37, 14:29-32, II Peter 3:16.

This word IS THE CRITERION of doctrinal assessment, and the Lord WILL PERFORM and CONFIRM it (Isaiah 44:25-26, 45:18-25). Contrary to it ? there is no light. That is what it says. What is so mysterious about the word of God, that it MUST NOT be done! Such is ever the way of rebellion.

It is precisely similar in the book of Romans. PAUL, there is "called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God" (1:1), and has "received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations, for His name: among whom are you also the called of Jesus Christ." Can he declare it ? Yes. Is it to all ? yes.

Can people alter this by qualifying it ? - or by giving 'liberty of opinion' where God commands and expresses actual abhorrence ? (Cf. Chapter 3, p. 41 supra.) Yes, if they care to fiddle and tamper with the word of God (II Corinthians 4:12, I Corinthians 2:9-13), expressly given with plenary inspiration that covers both the substance and its expression, rebuilding the church from its foundations with other words. That however is to build someone else's structure, and it is better not to call it "church" because of the confusion involved in talking of two quite contrary constructions with the same word.

The practice is popular but polluted since Babel (II Corinthians 11:3-4,13-15), and there are no marks for enterprise when it comes to stealing God's words (Jeremiah 23:21.29-32). The only thing Christians can be inspired to do with the text and construction of the commanded word of God these days (Revelation 22:17-21) is to endorse it.

What then is Paul's place ? Apostle...(Church HAS BEEN built on apostles & prophets as FOUNDATION, Christ the corner stone - Ephesians 1:22, 2:20. Moving foundations is... dangerous to a building.) His stress ? "OBEDIENCE to the faith" (Romans 1:5). Those to hear him in his role ? "all nations" - v.5.
Why ? "For His name". When ? till we know God as we are known (I Corinthians 13;10,12). How spiritual can you be in contradicting these words ? Not at all !(I Corinthians 14:37).

How does the apostle address them, with this international authority?

"Now I beseech you brethren

MARK THOSE WHO CAUSE DIVISIONS AND OFFENCES

CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE WHICH YOU HAVE LEARNED;

AND AVOID THEM."

"Avoid"causers of variants from this faith so presented, with its obedience requirement. Is there qualification or limit stated ? No. Is he a master builder (I Cor.3:10), and a wise one appointed? Yes.

Are we licensed to defect ? No. What did Christ say in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20): "Teaching them to obey all things whatever I have commanded you." How far can you vary from a command by adding whatever comes into your mind ? As far as you like; you can take it in bits and pieces, in qualifications and promulgations: it is all one, and all contrary to what was commanded in Moses and through John in Revelation. Do not add; do not diminish.

When God speaks, it is wise not to talk your words into His mouth; for you see, as to His mouth, it is a place from which comes infinite wisdom (Psalm 147:5, Jeremiah 23:29). When it comes to infinity, it is not good to compete with it, or to seek to complete it, to purge or purify it; nor is it acceptable to qualify, crucify or multiply its pronouncements. What does the word say further in this area ? This (Psalm 19:13):

"Keep back Thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression."

Misuse of tongues as to priority, in relation to the word of God and its teaching, joint utterance and so on in the litany of riot: these things merely add spice to the rebellion, speed to Satan's deception, and confusion to betrayal, when fellowship is held with Rome. Let us now turn to the tongue-dispersal flair site, Pentecostalism.

It is true that Pentecostalism for its part sometimes has good elements (as indeed does much else), and that it is very varied; but it has been so subjected to the forces of the Age, that it is frequently found not only EXCEEDING the Bible but CONTRADICTING the Bible, making unconscionable requirements (as to show you are converted, much in the manner of Rome, which has used OTHER MEANS to make its point, but similar officiousness). It has set up - in cases so numerous that total and beneficial exceptions are extraordinarily difficult to find - conditions, criteria and practices so far from the Bible that although, like Rome, it claims very often, belief in it, it often becomes a reservoir for the disaffected, whose revival might have been hoped for (cf. Luke 11:52).

In flat contradiction, for example, of I Corinthians 12,14, Pentecostalism very frequently insists that ALL should speak in tongues (versus 1 Corinthians 12 lessons on specialisation thematically, and also 12:29-30 in particular); or even more in rebellion against the apostolic command (I Corinthians 14:37, 2:9-13), that non-speaking in tongues either means non-conversion, or a lapse or failure in sanctification!

Again, conventionally, contradicting 1 Corinthians 14:13-15,27-28, more than 2 or 3 speak in tongues in public meeting, or there is no interpreter for EACH such given utterance, or some speak, pray or sing more than one at a time. Not merely is the RULE, 2-3 speakers at most, and that, only with interpreters; but the CONFINEMENT is of ALL UTTERANCE (vv.13-15, 27, Greek general term, lalew) of any kind, including singing, praying; and this is further subject to the rules of edification and interpretation. De-emphasis of such speaking is specifically called for (I Corinthians 14:19). The only specific things authorised in this context to be sought, in Paul's instructions, are prophecy and love.

Edification and order is essential IN ALL THINGS, with comprehension required, and NOT AN OPTION (I Corinthians 14:26-28, Ps.96:9, 89:7). ONLY in the Cross of the Lord Jesus Christ is one to glory. (See Galatians 6:14, cf. Jeremiah 9:23, John 17:3; and the Appendix to this volume, Question and Answer on the Cross - but not cross purposes with Christ, pp. 173-179, in The Kingdom of Heaven).

While God can use what He will, such open rebellion against His word - as indicated in this customary case of Pentecostalism extensively and in detail in my work, A QUESTION OF GIFTS - is a sadly lapsed vehicle.

The spirit of our Age is this way; but it is the word of God which needs to be examined, and followed, not some experience based vacuously in subjectivity, without the certain buttress of the word of God. Another Jesus, another gospel and another spirit, Paul says (II Corinthians 11) can indeed attract; but as to THIS SAME JESUS WHO SHALL RETURN IN A MANNER LIKE THAT IN WHICH HE WENT (Acts 1),

HE SAYS:

He who loves Me keeps My words (John 14:21ff.).

The word of God, obedience to it, is not the work to secure salvation; but it IS the expectation from salvation, that you will love it; and hearts that are His do, and those who do, do not find it burdensome; but being founded on Christ, they naturally build on the rock of His words (Matthew 7:24-27), Himself the foundation (I Corinthians 3:11).

This brings us to a vital Biblical concept.

THE NOTABLE NOTION of NOTHING and the
SUPERNAL SANCTITY of GOD

Nothing can fray the power¹³ of God, or cancel its availability to His people (cf. John 14:12, Ephesians 1:19, II Corinthians 1:9-10); but it neither needs nor requires the social, psychological, political or administrative additions of man, that it might operate. Does it not say it (Acts 5:31-32) of Christ:

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance ... and forgiveness of sins. And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him!

And does not Galatians 3 with II Corinthians 11 warn of manipulators, human or otherwise, of silly shibboleths, vacuous words and straying standards till even "another Gospel" and "another Jesus" are invested, with "another spirit"!

As to man's sometimes insidious and pseudo-spiritual works, is not obedience better than sacrifice, and is not rebellion as the sin of witchcraft? Let us then be crafted in Christ, moulded by His word, and let Him send forth His refreshing showers at His pleasure (Acts 3:19, I Samuel 15:23, Isaiah 30:15,18).

The alert reader may now wish to consult, concerning the autonomous approach to the word of God, and hence to the God of the word: The Kingdom of Heaven, Ch.10, Section III, Bloodsport - pp., 173ff..

{An endnote to replace that internal to the adapted excerpt is here included:

*13 See also: I Peter 1:5-8, Isaiah 40:12-31, Luke 1:37, and The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, pp. 338-342, 485-498, 576-578, 584-592, 620-631, 682-683, 712-714. }

He who loves Me keeps My words (John 14:21ff.).

The word of God, obedience to it, is not the work to secure salvation; but it IS the expectation from salvation, that you will love it; and hearts that are His do, and those who do, do not find it burdensome; but being founded on Christ, they naturally build on the rock of His words. (Matthew 7:24-27), Himself the foundation (I Corinthians 3:11).