C.S. Lewis’s Argument Against the Strange Idea that You Should Read Only Modern Books

From C. S. Lewis’s introduction to a new translation of Athanasisus’ On the Incarnation (originally written in the fourth century):

There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about “isms” and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.

This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. . . .

Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o’clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why—the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity (“mere Christianity” as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, “But how could they have thought that?”—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.

Strange Fire Conference: Scripture Alone

It’s the subject of the Puritan commitment to Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura (Latin for “Scripture alone”) served as the foundation for the four other solas of the Reformation: sola gratia (by grace alone), sola fide (by faith alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), and soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone). These five all fit together as one statement of truth, one declaration of the true saving gosepl of Jesus Christ. Sola scriptura is the foundation upon which everything rests, everything we believe, embrace, and hold dear.

Rome said “We accept Scripture, but also Church tradition, ecclesiastical hierarchies, etc.” But the Reformers said “No, it’s sola scriptura. If anything else is added to the foundation of the church, the foundation will be split and unable to hold the rest of the doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Upon the foundation of sola scripture are three massive pillars which frame and uphold the gospel in its most basic formulation—by grace alone, through faith alone, and in Christ alone. And when this foundation and these pillars are in place, the crown can be erected across which is written soli Deo gloria.

After the Reformers, the next giants of faith were the Puritans. These came around the time when Queen Elizabeth began to reign. Few movements in church history have ever been more Bible centered than was the Puritan movement.

I want to consider their view of sola Scriptura under 3 headings:

Defined by the Westminster DivinesDiluted by the QuakersDefended by John Owen

What are the distinguishing marks out of the Bible itself regarding sola scriptura?

First, it would have to begin with the inspiration of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16). Every chapter, verse, and book in the canon is breathed out by God. The authors recorded exactly what God wanted them to write. Matthew 4:4 says every word of Scripture comes out of the mouth of God. Hebrews 4:12 says this book is alive. It has the life of God within it. In John 6:63 Jesus says the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Secondly, the inerrancy of Scripture is included in the doctrine of sola scriptura. Since the Bible is God-breathed, and since God is holy, he cannot lie. Thus the God-breathed Bible is totally true. Hebrews 6:18 says it is impossible for God to lie.

Third, the infallibility of Scripture. All that is recorded in Scripture must come to pass. The words of the Lord cannot fail. In Matthew 5:18 Jesus says that until heaven and earth pass away nothing will pass from the Law and the Prophets until all is accomplished. The Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).

Fourth, the authority of Scripture. Being infallible, inerrant, and God-breathed, it comes as God’s very words, with sovereign authority. It is the law of the Lord and binding upon every man’s conscience and life.

Fifth, its perspicuity. Sola scriptura means the word of God is clear and understandable, a lucid revelation. In Matthew 19:4 Jesus asks, “Have you not read?” implying that God has so clearly spoken in his word that no man can render the excuse that he did not understand what God was saying. We need the illumination of the Holy Spirit, yes, but any shortcoming in understanding the Bible is not on the part of the Bible but on the part of man.

Sixth, sola scriptura implies the sufficiency of scripture. The word of God is able to accomplish all of God’s purposes here on earth as his word is brought to bear on the men and issues of this world. God’s word will not return to him empty or void. God’s redemptive purposes will be carried out in this world by the word of God which is powerful to convict, convert, conform, console, and correct. It is powerful, more powerful than any other object you and I will ever hold in our hand.

Seventh, sola scriptura implies the immutability of Scripture, that it will never change but always be the same. Psalm 119:160 - “Every one of your righteous ordinances is everlasting.” Right will always be right. Wrong will always be wrong. The way of salvation will forever be the way of salvation. God’s word is unchanging because God is unchanging.

Eighth, sola scriptura also implies the invincibility of Scripture. It is the superior weapon. Sharper than any two-edged sword.

Ninth, and finally, sola scriptura implies the finality of Scripture. That there is no new revelation to be given to man after the close of the canon of Scripture, the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

All of these truths are inherent in the statement of “sola scriptura.” The ninth point is particularly important to our conference here: the exclusive finality of divine revelation in the written word of God.

The Puritans convened in 1643 to begin writing the Westminster Confession. In 1646 they completed their draft and ratification of the Westminster Confession of Faith. One hundred and twenty-one scholars, theologians, pastors and teachers held over 1100 sessions. They also wrote the Shorter and Longer Catechisms.

Chapter 1 of the Confession begins “Of the Holy Scriptures.” As new challenges had arisen since the Reformation, they had to be more explicit and detailed on this point than ever before. They saw it necessary at the very outset to defend the idea that revelation has ceased and has been captured in full in the Scriptures. They then go on to defend the inspired nature of the Scriptures and how they are now the rule of faith and life. After this they state that the Apocrypha is not part of the Bible, but that only the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments are.

The fourth section of Chapter 1 states that the authority of Scripture ought to be believed and obeyed. In the sixth section they write of its sufficiency. There is no need for appendixes to supplement what has been recorded in the Bible. Here in the sixth section is another cessationist statement. It says that nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.

In sections 7 and 9 of Chapter 1 they deal with the perspicuity of Scripture—all the things that pertain to salvation are clearly propounded in the Bible. Everything you need to know to be saved and follow the will of God is clearly spelled out in this book. It’s not hard to understand, it’s just hard to swallow. They also go on to say that not only the learned but also the unlearned may attain to a sufficient understanding of them. Section 9 says that Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture. If something is unclear in one place, another place in Scripture explains it. Finally, in section 10 is a summation of the chapter that states the authority of the word. The Holy Spirit himself speaks in the Scriptures. This is where he has chosen to speak.

This is the commitment of the Puritans in 1646. The church has always been the strongest when it takes this stand on the word of God. If the church takes one step off of sola scriptura, she puts her foot on the slippery slope leading to liberalism, ecumenicalism, agnosticism and eventually atheism. Every church, seminary, denomination that goes astray goes astray at this point. This is essential. We’re not just dogmatic about this; we’re bulldogmatic about it. It is not up for debate.

Whenever God opens the heavens to bless his people, the devil opens his mouth to blast them. At the exact same time as the Westminster Divines were writing the Confession, the Quakers were forming. They claimed to be receiving new revelations and prophecies. They were lead by a man named George Fox. At the heart of their theology was this message, that one can be saved apart from the Scripture, that there is an inner light in all man, and this inner revelation makes salvation for all humanity possible. They called this light within the “indwelling spirit” which they claimed was even in unbelievers.

As they gathered together, the Quakers claimed that they had the Holy Spirit within them. Their worship services had no ordained pastors. They would all sit in a building like we’re sitting here and would be encouraged to meditate, and as you would feel prompted, you were encouraged to stand up and speak your thoughts to others. This commitment to be open and uncautious led them into all kinds of bizarre behaviors and beliefs, including going naked as a sign of judgment to others.

I’m telling you, if you take one step off of sola scriptura you have put your foot on a theological banana peel that will send you down till you hit bottom.

John Owen gave himself to address the fanaticism of the Quakers. In 1659 he responded by writing “A Defense of Sacred Scripture Against the Fanatics.” I want to zone in on chapter 3 “On the Perfection of Scripture”. Here he states his case for the lunacy of these charismatic excesses on the perfection of the written word of God.

He argues that Genesis to Revelation has everything necessary for the believer, that it is perfect as it stands, and that any attempt to add to it is an attack on the perfection of it.

He writes that the Scriptures are the settled, ordinary means of grace, a perfect and unshakable rule for divine worship that leaves no room for any new revelations. If you are seeking any of these charismatic new revelations it is because you have no understanding of the perfections of the word of God.

Owen asks what is the practical good of Scripture if it needs poor mortal man to continue to add to it? He then lists seven consecutive paragraphs in defense:

God has revealed everything that is needed in the Bible to lead you to Christ and godliness and on to heaven.All of this that is revealed in the Bible, whether explicit or implicit, is clearly stated and understandable.There is absolutely no room for new revelations (which is exactly how John the Apostle ends the book of Revelation).It is most supreme arrogance and pride for mere men to propose novel matters of faith or practice not revealed by God himself in his word.As the teachings of the fanatics contain matter alien to the Scriptures, shun them as diabolical, useless, groundless, and false. He says such teaching is from the devil.This inner light, this supposedly intuitive, subjective message from the Holy Spirit in you, not coming from the written word of God, would divert attention away from the perfection of the written word of God in the Bible.The Bible is a complete and perfect rule. Since the completion of the canon of Scripture there are no new revelations. None are to be expected or permitted. He then adds, if the Scriptures are perfect and complete then what need do we have for new revelations and uncontrolled enthusiasm? That is a rhetorical question whose answer is obvious. Zero.

1662 is a year that will live in infamy in church history. It was in this year, two years after Charles II came back to restore the monarchy in England, that the English parliament passed the Act of Uniformity. This required every preacher in the Church of England to conform to a prescribed set of doctrines and rites or else lose their ministries. And on August 24th, 1662 two thousand Puritan preachers were put out of their pulpits in what has become known as the Great Ejection. Two years later another act was passed by Parliament to prevent these preachers from preaching in private homes and other venues. Soon after they were even barred from coming within five miles of any city. This also meant they were now forbidden from being buried in church cemeteries.

Whenever I go to London I go to Smithfield, and soon after I visit Bunhill fields, where the Puritans were buried outside of the city limits. There you see the tombs of John Owen, John Bunyan, Isaac Watts, Thomas Goodwin, and many other Puritan giants, many of whom have no headstones as they died in anonymity. They were willing to pledge their life and their death on sola scriptura.

May we here tonight have a cessation clause in our personal statement of faith. May we not be given to the errors of this age. May the Word of God regulate all of our lives and ministries and be the only rule of our faith and standard of what is true in this world. May God give us much grace to stand upon the word of God.

Strange Fire Conference: Preachers or Witch Doctors?

Though an odd question, it is pertinent to him because there has been a clear shift in how “evangelicals” relate to pastoral ministry. Mbewe’s aim is to give a broad sweeping picture of the landscape of African “evangelicalism.” Throughout this message his caveat is to put “evangelicalism” in quote and end-quote, because it does not represent biblical and faithful Christianity. There will be those in Africa who do not fit within the picture Mbewe portrays, but what he shares today is the trend and it is a dismal trend.

2 Timothy is the last epistle Paul writes because he will soon end his labor and depart from the world. This is not the end of the Christian Church. This exhortation is Paul’s parting gift to Timothy, much like Christ’s high priestly prayer is a departing gift to the Church.

First, this exhortation in 2 Timothy 3.16-4.5 illuminates how Scripture is a sufficient tool to accomplish all the work the man of God is to do. He is adequately equipped by the Word of God. Second, this is a charge to Timothy, a hair raising charge, evoking God the Father and the Son to preach the Word. Third, once an audience is found, even if it has stuffed ears, Timothy is to do all he can to ensure that the Word is preached.

Mbewe then contrasts Paul’s exhortation in 2 Timothy with the present picture in Zambia. He shares two newspaper clippings from July concerning evangelical preachers. In the first, a clergyman impregnated 10 women before his wife came forward about the scandal. She came forward after witnessing the scourge on the children in this church and the presence of the witchcraft taking place. In the second clipping two clergy men took two women into the mountains and sexually assaulted them. They first visited their home and took prayer requests and then led them into the mountain.

Conrad asks, “How can this be happening so frequently among so called evangelical churches today?” His response: a seismic shift in how people view the pastor. What is read in 2 Timothy is not the popular view today. It is because of how the view of the “man of God” has evolved today. Pentecostalism’s visit to Africa did not primarily emphasize the preaching and teaching component of the “man of God.” Now the “man of God” is primarily seen as the deliverer. Preaching has lost emphasis. It has become motivational platitudes followed by shouting and chanting.

The same thing can be seen in America on popular TV channels, but with different colored skin and nicer buildings. There are biblical quotes tossed about followed by a demon possessed, crazy and maddened looking preacher.

Yet, the important part of any service is what happens next. The “man of God”, wrested out of the context of 2 Timothy, takes on the role equivalent to a witch doctor.

Timothy was told to preach the Word of God—what is described as teaching, correcting, training, and rebuking in righteousness. Yet, back home, people are waiting for the point when hands are laid upon them and they are delivered. They are waiting for the “man of God,” wreaking with power to do his work. This is after a prolonged evening prayer meeting going into the night followed by an all day service in the mountains, just like in the clippings. Remember, the picture of the mountains in the clippings. This is what takes place in the mountains!

Sadly there is not effort towards biblical counseling. A man without work is not asked about his work ethic. A marriage in jeopardy is not examined to see if the husband loves his wife like the church or the wife submits to her husband. In America Mbewe has heard the radio preachers do likewise. Rather than counsel on the radio they invite the caller with question about infertility to come to a prayer meeting and seek deliverance. This is the penicillin for all issues. No moral questions are asked. This is precisely what the witch doctor does.

First, he claims spiritual discernment after lengthy time in prayer. He has secret dealings with God. Then he tells you what your real problem is. He goes into a trance, moves pebbles around, and announces that your neighbor has spoken to the spirit of your dead uncle who is obstructing your pregnancy.

Second, the witch doctor seeks to obstruct conventional medicine, which function as a threat. If you betray his trust you are undoing what the “man of God” has done by going to the hospital for the white man’s medicine. Many have died of illnesses that could easily have been prevented had they come earlier for treatment. The markings on their bodies betray what has happened and the work of the witch doctor. With that pastor, “the man of God’s” mark is left on the family who can tell why the person delayed in visiting the hospitals.

Mbewe repeats the question: How can this be happening so frequently among so called evangelicals? The people keep their lips zipped because of ignorance and because of blind loyalty in frauds. “The man of God” is the equivalent of the witch doctor. “The man of God” has an eerie connection with God where lesser mortals do not. This is not the priesthood of believers. Exposing “the man of God” brings a curse on oneself. Therefore, the people pretend to know nothing.

Consequently, when “the man of God” does what borders on immoral, there is no premise to blow the whistle. Mbewe is shocked by the number of women who have this story and fail to come forward just like the woman in the newspaper clipping. He wishes this was just about cows or some traditional African religion. But this is the new face of African evangelicalism to the outside world. It is a far cry from 2 Timothy 3.16-4.5.

“The man of God” will be dressed in flashy dress like a worldly pop idol with a feigned American accent. Their sermons are not worth listening to twice. There is no exposition of Scripture and no display of the unsearchable riches of Christ. Repentance is conspicuously absent. There is no effort to conform the people of God to the image of Christ. Rather, it is about how you get so much to spoil yourself. One statement that represents “the man of God” is this. “I declare prosperity on your life in Jesus name.” This irreverent invocation repeated is just like the witch doctor with his incantations. In reality nothing really happens!

Mbewe was invited to a radio broadcast panel discussion in Zambia about miraculous healing. There was a Catholic trying to ride the fence. Then there were two charismatics invited. One could not come because he was sick. He lied. Conrad saw this man shopping in the mall with his wife directly afterward with a trolley of goods.

During the broadcast the other charismatic and Mbewe locked horns. He challenged listeners to call in if they had been healed. Like a New Testament Elijah he taunted the charismatics for an hour due to the lack of calls. Two calls came in. The first a man who attested to a girl with unequal legs being healed 8 years ago, a very stale testimony for a country that claims to have healing crusades from prophets, bishops and “the man of God” all the time. The second came from a woman who chastised Mbewe as a dead theologian. There were only two calls in a nation where miraculous gifts happen all the time. The charismatic pastor responded that the people are shy. Unfortunately a week later he suffered a stroke and died after being in a coma for a week. None of his friends came to his aid and raised him because they knew it was all a fraud and a lie.

Mbewe shared that Zambia has an organization called the council for the handicapped, which revealed that not one actual healing has ever occurred. The council instructed people to stop going to these deliverance meetings.

He closed by apologizing. He apologized for bringing this dismal report in the morning as everyone enjoyed his or her coffee and donut. He wishes this was happening in a fringe corner of the world. Rather, the modern day successful African evangelical pastor is but a witch doctor using clearer and more potent power to bring about deliverance and breakthrough for the people. In light of 2 Timothy, he is concerned about the silence in addressing this matter. His blog post, “Our Criminal Evangelical Silence” was written because it bothered him. 90% of African evangelical fellowships are members of these kinds of ministries.

Mbewe’s final appeal is first, if you go to Zambia or Africa, call the pastors back to what their work is as designated in 2 Timothy. What sets apart a congregation is not some powerful connection to God to connect and talk to spirits. It is the calling to preach the Word of God. Second, pray and keep praying for those who are fulfilling 2 Timothy 4.1-2. Pray that they will be faithful and increase in number. Pray that the word of God will bring light into the darkness. Third, provide truth especially through books that clarify this issue, sound a warning, and give a clarion call to faithful exposition of scripture. Last support the training and work of true preachers and church plants that represent New Testament Christianity.

 

Strange Fire Conference: Steve Lawson

With the recent resurgence of Calvinism there has been a strange merging of historic, biblical Calvinism with charismatic experiences and worship styles. It has pulled in an entire generation of young, restless, reformed people who believe in miracles, healings, words of knowledge, prophecies, tongues, and so on. They see no reason in the New Testament for why these gifts of the Spirit have ended since the first century.

This merging has gone virtually unaddressed within the reformed community. I believe there is no one better to address these charismatic Calvinists than Calvin himself.

Calvin faced a charismatic crisis of his own in his own day. I want to look at how he addressed them. As the leading reformer in that day, whatever faced the church faced John Calvin. He had the dominant voice and people looked to him to address issues.

The Anabaptists were a collection of subgroups which had elements of an inner word and inner witness of the Holy Spirit. They began to seek ecstatic visions and prophetic manifestations and miracles, etc.

Then there were the Libertines who were one of the subgroups under the Anabaptists. They were antinomians. They abused Christian liberty and proved themselves to be, most likely, unconverted. Calvin called them a sect one hundred times more dangerous than the Roman Catholic church itself. They were lead by fleshly impulses and believed the Holy Spirit was adding new revelation to the Bible. They set aside the Scripture and wanted to follow the inner impulses that they thought were the Spirit. They lived in open licentiousness. They wanted an easy moral path without having to fight sin or temptation.

These were the things Calvin faced in his day. So the charismatic chaos we see now, in our day, is nothing new. It was prevalent in Calvin’s day, as it has been in other eras as well. So Calvin was not silent about it.

Many of today’s reformed leaders who are open to charismatic teaching and experiences would do well to take heed to what Calvin says about it.

In Calvin’s commentary on Matthew 10:1, he states that the office of apostleship was a temporary office. The apostles were the foundation of the church, and you only lay a foundation only once. They were given miracles to authenticate their authority as messengers of the revelation of God in Christ.

In the 1536 edition of his Institutes—his first edition, at the beginning of his ministry—Calvin wrote that miracles were given to attest to the truthfulness and uniqueness of the revelation of the apostles. And once that revelation was attested to and codified in the New Testament, the miracles ceased. They were no longer necessary. What is necessary is the preaching of the now-written word. In his commentary of Mark 16:17 he indicates this same understanding.

Calvin would say to reformed leaders today who are dabbling in charismatic teaching and practice that they are playing with Pandora’s box. They are opening a door Satan easily uses to lead people astray.

In his commentary on Acts 14:3 he says the true use of miracles was to give witness to the gospel. The written word of God and the Spirit of God can never be separated. Whatever the Spirit is doing in the world is always done in connection with what has been written in the word of God. The Holy Spirit who is the author and teacher of the word of God works in perfect partnership with the very word he has authored. What God confirmed in the book of Acts is sufficient for all people at all times and in all places. The gospel does not need to be re-validated.

Concerning tongues, Calvin states clearly in his commentary on Acts 10:44 that he believes the gift of tongues ceased in the first century. In his commentary on Isaiah 30:1, he states that the word and the Spirit of God are connected, “in opposition to the fanatics, who aim at oracles and hidden revelations without the word.”

In his commentary on Acts 21:9 Calvin states his understanding of first century prophecy. He says it should last for but a short time, “lest the faithful should always wait for some farther thing, or lest that curious wits might have occasion given to seek or invent some new thing every now and then.” He states that God took away new revelation in order to testify that the end of revelation was present in Christ. The fullness of what God wants us to know has now been given to us. The faith once for all delivered to the saints.

In his commentary on Romans 12:6 he states what he understands prophecy to be after the first century: the understanding and clear communication of what has already been revealed. He says the same in his commentary of Hebrews 1:1-2. The word God gave in Christ was the final conclusion. Believing in further revelation implies that the revelation in Christ wasn’t enough.

Institutes 1.9.3 - Word and Spirit belong inseparably together. If you take anything away from Calvin, take this. “For by a kind of mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of his Word and of his Spirit so that the perfect religion of the Word may abide in our minds when the Spirit, who causes us to contemplate God’s face, shines; and that we may in turn embrace the Spirit with no fear of being deceived when we recognize him in his own image, namely, in the Word.”

Institutes 2.15.2 - “This, however, remains certain: the perfect doctrine he has brought has made an end to all prophecies. All those, then, who, not content with the gospel, patch it with something extraneous to it, detract from Christ’s authority.”

The point has been established. I refer you to his treatise against the Anabaptists and his treatise against the Libertines. Why couldn’t he leave the Libertines or Anabaptists alone? Calvin responded, “Even a dog barks when his master is assaulted.” He had to say something to defend the truth of Christ and the welfare of the church.

His critique of the charismatic abuses of his day is that they are foolish, vain, and false. They substitute truth for delusions. They are silly. They separate the mutual bond of the Spirit and the Word. They arouse God’s wrath and lead people to follow their own imaginations.

A charismatic Calvinist is, to Calvin, an oxymoron. It can’t exist.

I want to end this in a very simple way. What would Calvin say to this present generation? The answer is what he said to his own generation:

1) The exclusivity of biblical authority. There is only one stream of revelation or there are two streams. Catholics wanted two streams on one side, the charismatics wanted two streams on the other side. And Calvin said No, there is only one stream of revelation after the first century, the written word of God. Sola Scriptura.

2) The priority of biblical preaching. Calvin understood that when you look to more than one stream of revelation, you diminish the pulpit. Having one stream—the word of God—necessitates biblical preaching. Having other streams only downplays and marginalizes biblical preaching.

3) The unity of Spirit and Word. Calvin was convinced that only one stream of revelation joins together the Spirit and the Word in their tightest bond. Two streams drives a wedge between the two. The Spirit is at work only where the written word of God is being preached, shared, taught, read, etc.

Calvin towers over church history as the most substantial theologian who has been given to the church. We would do well to hear from him.

I will let him have the final word. “Let the pastors boldly dare all things by the word of God… Let them constrain all the power, glory, and excellence of the world to give place to and to obey the divine majesty of this word. Let them enjoin everyone by it, from the highest to the lowest. Let them edify the body of Christ. Let them devastate Satan’s reign. Let them pasture the sheep, kill the wolves, instruct and exhort the rebellious. Let them bind and loose thunder and lightning, if necessary, but let them do all according to the word of God” (Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians).

If we are to see a new reformation in this day, continue to expand its borders and have greater influence in the church and the world, we must be committed exclusively to the written word of God.

 

Strange Fire Conference: R.C. Sproul

He began by saying, “I want to look specifically today at the redemptive-historical significance of Pentecost.” We’re aware that the modern Pentecostal movement began at Azusa Street and that it occurred outside of the mainline denotations until the middle of the 20th Century. Then it moved into Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, etc. circles. Initially when it came into these various denominations there were several attempts to assimilate the theology into their creedal foundations. At the same time, Pentecostals were gathering their beliefs into a creed, which became Neo-Pentecostal theology.

One of the most significant aspects of this theology is the idea that it is normal or even normative for people to have the baptism of the Holy Spirit after their conversion. It is admitted that some people can have conversion or regeneration simultaneously with their baptism by the Holy Spirit, but in the main there is a time difference between original conversion and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is this particular point I want to address today.

The fundamental weakness of Neo-Pentecostal theology is that it understands the original Pentecost differently than the apostles, and that it considers this Pentecost too lowly. The significance of the baptism of the Holy Spirit has to do principally with the Holy Spirit empowering Christians for ministry. When Jesus promised the Holy Spirit he was promising power and strength.

In the Old Testament a person could only be a believer by being born again of the Holy Spirit. But the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament with respect to Pentecost is that in the Old Testament the Spirit was only given by God selectively to isolated individuals, such as the prophets or the judges when they needed strength for the particular task.

The most Spirit-endowed person in the Old Testament was Moses. His miracles and leadership were worked out through the extraordinary endowment of the Holy Spirit. He is called the mediator of the old covenant anticipating the mediator of the new covenant who was even more heavily endowed with the Holy Spirit. There came the point in Moses’ ministry when he could hardly bear the burden of leadership any longer. Numbers 11:24ff tells us that the Lord took of the Spirit that was upon Moses and placed the same upon the 70 elders, and when this happened they prophesied. Joshua saw this and asked Moses to forbid them. Moses’ answer is important to our understanding of Pentecost. He replies, “Are you jealous for my sake? Would to God that everybody would get the Spirit!” This wish of Moses’ later became a prophecy in the mouth of Joel (Joel 2:28-29). So what was first a prayer or a wish of Moses became a prophecy of Joel’s for the future.

Fast forward to Acts 2:1ff. Those who were observing the events thought that the speaking in tongues was a result of drunkenness. But Peter responds that this is rather the fulfillment of the prophecy Joel had made. The apostolic interpretation of the day of Pentecost was that it was a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. Those who were gathered on that occasion were gathered for a Jewish feast—they were Jewish believers. And notice that all present received this endowment from God. There were no haves and have nots. The Spirit fell upon people who had been believers and now received the Holy Spirit. So you can understand how our Pentecostal friends would see the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a secondary experience for Christians. But because this was a unique redemptive historical event, it was not intended to become a model for how every Christian should experience the Holy Spirit.

The book of Acts follows the Great Commission of Jesus—showing the gospel moving from Jerusalem to Judea to Samaria and to the ends of the earth. There were four distinct people groups with which the book of Acts is concerned: the Jews, the God-fearers, the Samaritans, and the Gentiles. The God-fearers were for the most part Hellenistic Greeks who had converted to Judaism. They believed in Yahweh and embraced the teaching of the Jewish community, but they were not fully accepted because they had not submitted themselves to circumcision. When the new covenant comes along, the question becomes, “Where do these people fit?” As the book of Acts progresses, we see then not one Pentecost experience but four. We see four outpourings of God’s Spirit upon certain people.

In Acts 8:14-17 we have the record of what happened among the Samaritans. There is a second Pentecost among the Samaritan believers when Peter and John lay hands on them. In Acts 10:44-48 the Spirit falls on the God-fearers, which Peter recounts in 11:13-18. This is Pentecost number three. Just as in the case of the first and second Pentecosts, all of those present received the Holy Spirit. In Acts 19:1-7 the Gentiles in Ephesus receive the Holy Spirit and are empowered for ministry.

So you have four separate Pentecosts, one for each people group in Acts. When Paul was dealing with the Corinthian church, he wrote in 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 that by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Here he speaks of the universality of the Sprit’s empowering of every believer. That’s the significance of Pentecost.

In Ephesians 2:11-19 Paul again addresses this issues that threatened to divide the 1st century church, the issue of what role the Gentiles have in the body of Christ. Paul’s “mystery” in Ephesians and Colossians is that Christ has folded Gentiles into his body and indwells them. “Through Christ we both have access through one Spirit to the Father.” This is a Trinitarian work.

My concern with Charismatic friends is that they have a low view of Pentecost. They don’t see it as a signal of the outpouring of God on all Christians. They believe all Christians can have it and should have it, but they miss the point that the pouring of the Spirit at Pentecost means that all Christians already have the Spirit and have been empowered by him, and that they don’t need to be baptized by the Spirit again.