We Christians are dandies. On the one hand, we cry out, “God send us revival.” Then, on the other hand, when revival arrives, we complain, “Oh Lord! What a mess!”
Revivals are always messy. Always filled with mistakes. How can you expect a bunch of new converts and newly healed or delivered believers to act any different than a bunch of excited kids? And guess what? The leaders are always new at conducting revivals. They make mistakes while they are learning on the job. Hello! There are no revival training colleges. None whatsoever.
Sitting in our personal Pope’s seats, we Christians look back at famous revivals and see only the good fruit. We don’t see that Charles Whitefield and John Wesley had a bitter falling out during the First Great Awakening which caused a great schism for the new converts. We don’t see the fiasco between Mrs. Jesse Penn-Lewis and Evan Roberts in the Welsh Revival. We don’t see all the problems in the Azusa Street Revival; problems which eventually ended up bringing forth a white pentecostal denomination, a black pentecostal denomination, and a oneness pentecostal denomination.
And what about the Toronto Revival and all of its many mistakes? One of Toronto’s biggest critics was the Assemblies of God denomination, but of course, the AG changed its tune when the Brownsville Revival broke out in an Assembly of God Church. Then, guess what? The Brownsville Revival had mistakes, too.
Revivals are times when God sends a powerful surge of His Spirit into the body of Christ. Great fruit is brought forth in the Kingdom of God. And sadly, some bad fruit usually happens, also. Why? Because of our flesh and Satan.
So, my advice to all the many nit-picking Christians, trying to toss their wet blankets over the Lakeland Revival, especially on the internet through blogs, I would keep quiet if I were you. I really would. As Gamaliel said:
“…for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it – lest you even be found to fight against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)
41 Comments
May 23, 2008 at 12:11 am
As for chisms, splits, shock, awe, criticism, false assumptioms, low expectations, and misconceptions, don’t most of these things involve (oh, dare I say it?) tongues? Well, then. There you go. It’s got to be something other than God. What’s really going to happen after all the sarcasm, is that the outpouring of the Spirit in the last days is going to separate the chaff from the wheat. Check out Perry Stone on TV, one of Tennessee’s boys. He says Joel is very likely to be going on as we speak here, then there, then over there, an illustration of latter rain that falls sporadically and spottily. Just because it isn’t happening in the western hemisphere, specifically the United States, doesn’t mean it isn’t going on.
May 23, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Good points about the problems with past revivals. Its too bad those ones weren’t televised, then we could replay all the heresy for posterity. Oh, wait a minute, those revivals (well, at least the first Great Awakening and the Welsh Revival) were moves of God which fell into a legitimately Christian and orthodox framework. Although there were problems, there were no blatantly wacky doctrines being tossed around like there are in Florida.
Lately something has become apparent to me. Namely this: radical Charismatics will believe almost anything if it contains a modicum of amusement and at least a passing reference to Jesus. I don’t know what else to conclude when the unabashed showmanship which is being daily displayed in Lakeland Florida passes for a Christian revival. Is this sort of formulaic hucksterism what Christianity is all about? If it is, then man oh man I wish I had taken the blue pill. Don’t get me wrong-I’m not afraid or intimidated by the goings on down South. I would just hate to think that I’d banked my life on a religion which checks its brain at the door in favor of an experience much less enthralling than Bonnaroo (and with a lot crappier music). I know I haven’t but even the concept is worth a shudder. By now I’ve watched a good bit of the Lakeland ‘process’ and am beginning to feel as if I’d seen a continuous loop of a bad SNL revival parody (SNL would have been funnier though and at least the odd knowledge that ‘this is trying to pass as authentic’ doesn’t trouble me in a bad SNL parody). Really though, it’s not even very good comedy, I mean, the whole ‘Bam’ old-lady-hits-the-floor thing is only funny the first couple of times, and then…wellllll. You get my point.
With that said, I am not sure that people are being healed at the Lakeland revival. Yeah I’ve read the testimonies, seen the x-rays, watched the people fall down on stage, and heard all about William Branham’s healing angel. I am sure that there are many people who are so enamored with the idea of supernatural healing that they think that they must believe that they have been healed or somehow their faith is impure. I am sure that many people believe that if they say that they have been healed then they will be, eventually. I am sure that many people have so strongly tied their Christianity to sight and not faith.
By that same token, I am painfully aware that this post touches a deep nerve in the radical Charismatic body. It offends one of their most deeply felt desires, that is for one day, in some meeting, prayer group, worship service, conference, that they will get the ultimate Holy Ghost ‘fix’. This is why so many are spiritual junkies (and I was one of them) on a tireless hunt for that definitive experience which will finally tell them that they have arrived as truly ’spiritual’. Even so, I must emphatically state that ascended spiritual masters are not Christians. Christians live within an effective and certain hope of a future reality. The ‘Not yet’ aspect of glorification (when we will see Jesus and have the power of glorified bodies) is not within our grasp already. Radical Charismatics miss this tension entirely. They suffer from an over-realized eschatology which drives them in continual attempts to lasso the future and bring it into the present.
The various negative responses that I’ve encountered in a past post,‘Todd Bentley in His Element’:http://thegreycoats.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/todd-bentley-in-his-element/
confirm the existence of this radical Charismatic sore spot. In exposing Bentley’s beliefs I attack the validity of the current great hope for many radical Charismatics. Seriously, the fact that Paul Cain and Bob Jones endorse Bentley should be reason enough to take pause. But that is only secondary to the real issue which is this: The miracles aren’t the main thing. The belief which is promulgated alongside them is. Miracles fade faith is staid. Radical Charismatics are brainwashed into believing that surreptitious show business is what God is ‘really doing now’ through self-appointed super apostles, as opposed to meeting men and women (his children) through the suffering, mundane drudgery, minute joys, and fading mortality of this life. Baby-steps of faith. I would like to believe that hour by hour, day by day, we become more like Christ as we move into the purposeful future of our glorification-the time of which He has planned. That’s simply not fantastic enough-radical Charismatics need some canned excitement. The normal Christian life is too much about faith and perseverance and repentance, not enough about power and miracles and speaking things into existence. This dichotomy between conviction and impression spawns a false hope driving its victims to project their desire at the earliest presenting opportunity. Desire for the spectacular becomes so strong that when it is manufactured in live mockumentary via the Lakeland reality show, ahem, “healing revival”, that the first whiff of the miraculous is enough to cause a frenzy. The frenzy becomes a melee, and the melee becomes a phenomenon. Now it is simply too big to discredit.
The Lakeland healing revival will be a footnote in the trainwreck which has become modern and post-modern radical Charismaticism. Lakeland will end up like Toronto, desperately trying to recapture the ‘move’ of an earlier time. People will drift away, carried by the high for a time, only to detox hard if they can’t find another fix quickly enough. Others will come forward and admit to lying about healings, gold teeth, and pins melting out of their legs just like they did at the Airport Vineyard. Finally, some will be driven out of radical Charismatic practice by the Holy Spirit when the bottom falls out of the experiential entrepreneurship they’ve subjected themselves to. These will find solace in the beauty of the normal, human existence which the gospel allows for. Dying daily is not sexy, but it is real. I’ll take the real thank you.
May 23, 2008 at 11:32 pm
I’m not quite that cynical. I know that the every day Christian existence is putting one foot in front of the other, day in and day out. What others call a mountaintop experience I like to call a roller coaster ride fulls of chills and thrills after which we are set back on the ground putting one foot in front of the other, day in and day out. Exactly what’s wrong with a wild ride now and then as long as we know it’s not forever or for long? I think it’s part of the fabric, a treat if you will, somehting that let’s us know God is a powerful, healing, spirit filling God.
May 26, 2008 at 3:19 am
jane,
I don’t think that most people have that mindset. I would argue that the majority of people who fall for this type of revivalistic fervor believe that it is, or should be, business as usual. And, if it isn’t, then something is spiritually amiss in their lives. Then the matter becomes, ‘How do I fix it?’ ‘What can I do to restore the move of God in my life?’ ‘Maybe this conference or that Charismatic celebrity or this training series or that prophetic school of ministry will bring back the bells and whistles which are the mark of true Christian experience.’ ‘If I fast harder, pray more, twitch more noticeably, grunt, bark, foam at the mouth…whatever…then maybe God will make with the goods (the fix) to let me know that I really am spiritual.’
That does sound like a wild ride–but a treat? I’ll stick with vanilla thanks so much. That Rocky Road has a high ratio of something else that’s brown, its chunky too, but it ain’t ice cream.
May 26, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Natrimony,
It’s great having your input.
Revivals (almost) always have divisions. Those that are for; and those against. Revivals are filled with emotionalism. Revivals are not usually great times of maturity, but rather of zeal.
This was true of the First Great Awakening. John Wesley had gushings forth and great wailings. The Second Great Awakening with Charles Finney had people overcome by tremors and other fearful sights.
And let’s admit it? God does wild things. Raising a dead man out of a funeral procession. Raising a dead man who was dead four days. Healing by using spit (three times). Using circumcision as a sign of the Old Covenant and tongues as a sign of the New Covenant. Jesus walking on water. The Bible is full of these wild oddities.
God is this great God that loves to use zany foolishness to upstage out stuffy doctrines. You cannot fit God into a nice, quiet box.
AND at the same time, do I think some of the things going on at the Lakeland Revival are over-hyped and wrong? Probably, maybe. But eventually, the dust will settle. God has a way of sorting everything out.
May 26, 2008 at 7:18 pm
I appreciate your willingness to allow dissenting views within this forum. That is a healthy sign. Many radical Charismatics (or those sympathetic to that cause) will not even allow for disagreement within their blogs. Real and zealous revival is something which I long for, however, I refuse to check my brain at the door to pursue anything claiming to be that.
With this said, I would not be so quick to compare Lakeland to the first Great Awakening. The Great Awakening began under the auspices of Presbyterianism and the Congregationalist (and Calvinist) Jonathan Edwards. You might check out his book ‘Religious Affections’ wherein he analyses the nature of a genuine work of the Holy Spirit. Wesley simply rode the coat-tails of the Great Awakening, although both Whitfield and Wesley were indeed influential to the spread of Christianity.
In regard to the ’stuffy doctrine’ which you describe or challenges to purported revivals, hey, pick your own catchphrase depending on the situation:
“God can’t be put in a box.” (one of my personal favorites).
“God is tearing down the religious spirit.”
“You are stuck in your tradition.”
Dare to challenge a particular leader or call into question their doctrine and one runs into more loaded language.
“We are not to judge.”
“Why are you coming against him?”
“Love covers but judgment uncovers.”
“If it is not of God it will fail but if it is of God you can’t stop it.”
“Look at the fruit.”
“Touch not my anointed.”
“Truth is a person, not a doctrine.”
“Jesus is more important than doctrine.”
Ask them to evaluate their seeming out of control behavior and you get….
“God offends the mind to reveal the heart.”
“God doesn’t want us living from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
Push too hard and the ad hominem attacks begin.
“You have a jezebel spirit.”
“You have a religious spirit.”
“Satan is the accuser of the brethren.”
May 26, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Touche’ on my catchphrases! I have a whole closet of them which I roll out from time to time. You know – “it ain’t over till the fat lady sings” and “loose lips sink ships” and many others.
Natrimony:
“Dare to challenge a particular leader or call into question their doctrine and one runs into more loaded language…
Sadly, you are correct!
My guess is that most Christians are somewhat insecure and want their leaders to be even more perfect than what they really are. So, when criticism is aimed in their direction, they instantly throw up a smokescreen to dodge the criticism.
But actually, most leaders would be wise to check criticisms out and make adjustments, if needed. After all, we humans make mistakes. And humility does go a long way toward helping new teachings to be accepted by others.
May 27, 2008 at 2:34 am
[...] Revival and Prayer Read the following post in its entirety on the Lakeland revival here: http://larrywho.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/wet-blankets-and-lakeland-revival/ We Christians are dandies. On the one hand, we cry out, “God send us revival.” Then, [...]
May 27, 2008 at 4:35 am
quick thought
the first great awakening was centered around the gospel not on the power of healing angels or the anointing but on the repentence of sinners. while it is true that edwards and wesley and whitfield all saw some strange stuff it is also true that edwards blames those excesses for the untimely demise of the awakening. but emphatically the first evangelical awakening was saturated with correct doctrine from its leaders and the word of God. they called sinners to repent. there were no Holy ghost bartenders, no portals into heaven, and no BAM,BAM’s.
the second was of its like as well as the welsh revival and every single one prior. i got no problem with folks gettin healed and shakin and weepin and moaning. i do have huge issue with false doctrine mascarading as true revival. it makes me sad to read that lakeland is being compared to these true moves of God. and i would also say that you can not put God into a box, but He put Himself into a body. one should be careful with such loaded language it could imply that it is impossible to know God at all since being created i need boxes or points of reference if you like to understand Him at all. seems to me He gave us 2 great boxes. 1 the word of God and 2 the incarnation. i will stare at those 2 huge self disclosing boxes till glory.
peace
May 27, 2008 at 4:13 pm
The first Great Awakening had great problems with differing doctrines. John Wesley preached from an Arminian point of view; and George Whitefield (and Edwards) preached from the Calvinist side. And thus, the falling out between Wesley and Whitefield.
In the Second Great Awakening, Charles Finney preached against the accepted doctrine that only a pre-ordained (by God) number of people could be saved. And all others should be happy just to be born; and then, go to Hell.
Revivalists preach out of a revelation that they have received from heaven, not out of perfect doctrine. The revelation from heaven is usually one that the Body of Christ needs for that moment in history.
So, my guess is that the Lord feels that Body of Christ needs a new revelation on healing. Why? Probably because in the near future, we will not have access to all the modern medical goodies.
What should you do? Seek the Lord and get the revelation of healing for yourself. Hey! If Todd Bentley (with all his many imperfections) can heal people, think what you will be able to do with your doctrine.
May 27, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I realize that you are responding to thegreycoats here but I felt like responding anyway. Revivalists preach from material they’ve received from the Bible. There is no new revelation. If there were then we would be stapling the words of Edwards, Whitfield, Wesley, and, in your estimation Bentley into the backs of our Bibles. The Holy Spirit illuminates the written word which is then preached, heard, and believed.
May 27, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Good to see you over here Jarrod.
May 27, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Natrimony,
“Revivalists preach out of a revelation that they have received from heaven, not out of perfect doctrine…”
Maybe a better way of saying this would have been: Revivialists preach out of the rhema (word) that they have received from heaven, not out of a perfect understanding of the logos (word). Now, whether or not, the rhema comes directly out of the Bible or not, it still must be backed up by the logos of the Bible.
Since, I have fellowshipped with Pentecostals, Charismatics, Charismatic Catholics, Baptists, Brethren, Methodists, Lutherans, Quakers, Vineyard-ites and countless others, I have reached this profound conclusion: we do not agree on all doctrines. Even more so, some of our doctrines seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. Miles apart.
And yet, Jesus is not ashamed to live within those that I disagree with.
It is my belief that there are still some Aquila’s and Priscilla’s who will take the zealous Appollos’ aside and explain to them the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26). But the Aquila’s and Priscilla’s will do it in such a way that the zeal will not be destroyed.
May 28, 2008 at 1:07 am
Larry Who,
Your distinction between rhema and logos is confusing. I realize that it is one commonly used in radical Charismatic circles. And, I don’t want to offend you but I believe that it is a contrived interpretation which unfairly translates the original language. I’ve taken Koine Greek classes for two semesters now. I don’t claim to be a Greek scholar but I am quite familiar with the vocabulary which appears at least 50 times in the Greek NT. ἡ ῥῆμα (rhema) and ὁ λόγος (logos) both function in the same capacity. Both logos and rhema are synonymous. They are each used interchangeably to mean ‘word’. There are subtle distinctions between the two terms (case, number, and gender), but they are usually context driven. Utterance, expression, word, and remark are all synonyms in the English language. In Koine Greek rhema and logos can each be used in much the same way.
May 28, 2008 at 3:05 am
Natrimony,
Let’s assume that you are correct and that I am wrong on the use of rhema and logos, okay? The point is not a major one for our discussion.
So, allow me to back up to your statement: “Revivalists preach from material they’ve received from the Bible. There is no new revelation.”
That’s not true (or at the very least – incomplete).
What if Gabriel, Michael or another angel visit the revivalist and give him a message from the Lord? What if the revivalist has dreams and visions where the Lord speaks to him? What if the revivalist is transported to the third heaven to hear a message from the Lord? What if the Lord personally visits the revivalist?
To limit the Lord to just revealing Himself to a revivalist (or anyone) through the Bible alone is not scriptural. The early church did miracles and spread the gospel without one leather-covered King James Bible amongst them. Pretty amazing, huh?
Does the revelation from the angel or from the dream/vision or from the transporting to heaven or from the Lord Himself have to line up with scriptures? Yes, of course.
One other point: I don’t believe that the words of Wesley, Edwards, Whitefield, Bentley, or any other apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher, etc. should ever be elevated to the level of sacred scripture.
May 28, 2008 at 3:48 am
‘To limit the Lord to just revealing Himself to a revivalist (or anyone) through the Bible alone is not scriptural. The early church did miracles and spread the gospel without one leather-covered King James Bible amongst them. Pretty amazing, huh?’
We might need to define what exactly a revivalist is. Bentley (according to himself) fits the apostolic criteria, whereas the others in your list hardly claimed anything near that title. But, with that said, I would argue that the reason the early church did miracles is precisely BECAUSE they did not have the full testimony of the completed canon. The miracles of the former times served to strengthen the church prior to the fully compiled Bible.
Ah, Ah, Ah. Now Larry, I’ve never limited the Lord as revealing himself in any certain way. I said that the revivalists preach a message from the Spirit illumined Bible alone. When I speak of revelation I mean that revelation which the apostles received for the writing of the Scriptures. This has ceased. There are no more apostles. There is no new information that is needed for the propagation of the gospel outside of the Old and New Testaments. The Holy Spirit makes the written and spoken words of the Bible come alive for the hearer at the point of regeneration. That certainly does not mean that God is not free to appear, speak to, or otherwise interface with, his creation as he sees fit. It just means that we don’t need a postscript.
‘Does the revelation from the angel or from the dream/vision or from the transporting to heaven or from the Lord Himself have to line up with scriptures?’
What you are describing here is not revelation. It is an experience. If it were revelation then it would carry the full weight and authority of Scripture. I think that when you speak of revelation you are referring to any number of spiritual experiences as opposed to ‘the very words of God’.
‘One other point: I don’t believe that the words of Wesley, Edwards, Whitefield, Bentley, or any other apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher, etc. should ever be elevated to the level of sacred scripture.’
Finally, an apostle’s words would be scripture. If there were such a thing as a genuine apostle today (which there is not) then his teaching would carry the full and authoritative weight of Holy writ. Todd Bentley claims to have both seen and been commissioned by Jesus. That criteria makes him an apostle. If he is an apostle then you and I should treat his words as if they were Scripture. If he is in error then only other apostles can rebuke him. Haven’t seen much of that going on lately. So, where does that leave us? I’ m an outsider, a former insider, but an outsider nonetheless. My position on Lakeland is most often disregarded as typically non-spiritual, divisive, and doctrinaire. You, however, have proven to be much more interested in dialoguing on these matters. I am certainly enjoying our vibrant discussion. I hope I have not stepped to vigorously on your toes.
May 28, 2008 at 4:14 am
Larry,
In this video Todd claims that he is not a man.
He says that when he is under the annointing ‘he is not a man’. I mean, what do you think about statements like this?
May 28, 2008 at 4:18 am
Sorry,
Got the link wrong. Here it is. Start at the beginning if you want but the quote is around 1:35.
May 28, 2008 at 4:53 am
Natrimony,
“If there were such a thing as a genuine apostle today (which there is not) then his teaching would carry the full and authoritative weight of Holy writ…”
In Ephesians 4:11, Jesus gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to the church. Now, I can’t find a chapter and verse on when Jesus stopped giving apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to the church. Maybe, you have a different version. Could you give me a clue where it says that in your Bible?
Also:
“If he is an apostle then you and I should treat his (Bentley’s) words as if they were Scripture. If he is in error then only other apostles can rebuke him…”
We do not have to treat all apostles’ words as scripture. Barnabas did not write scripture, nor did most of the other apostles. (And Luke was considered an evangelist by most scholars, not an apostle.)
Apostles are to be servants, even bond-slaves. They should be humble enough to accept a rebuke from the least of Christians, not just other apostles.
Now, just for understanding, I am not saying that Todd Bentley is an apostle. I have no clue. Haven’t read anything on it. To be honest, I looked at one video of his preaching and thought to myself, “He preaches like the Pentacostal Smith Wigglesworth did.”
May 28, 2008 at 1:23 pm
the arminianism of wesley and the reformed truths of whitfield and edwards are still very cohesive when it comes to what is central. i.e. the gospel. never before has there been a revival based on healing angels and portals to heaven. there differences wern’t all that serious as that. its important not to misrepresent the history of the church just to fit a new thing into the nice little charismatic box if you will.
May 28, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Apostleship has ceased with Paul entirely as he relates in 1 Cor.15.8. Whether Barnabus wrote Scripture is irrelevant. His authority and teaching were authoritative enough to be Scripture. That is the point of apostolocity.
Louis Berkhof notes in his Systematic Theology that, “The New Testament contains several significant indications of the fact that the apostles were inspired in their positive oral teachings. Christ solemnly promised them the Holy Spiriit in their teaching and preaching. ” See Matt.10.19; Mark 13.11; Luke 12.11,12,; 21.14,15; John 14.26; 15.26; 16.13.
One certainly does not have to be an apostle to be inspired by God for the writing of His word (Luke for instance). However, all those who have seen and been commissioned by Jesus (the 12 plus Paul) carry the office of apostle. Their words are inspired whether they are written down or not. They are his authorized representatives (2 Cor. 10.8; 13.10). Although there are no people functioning in this office today, there are some Christians that fulfill ministries that are in particular ways apostolic in style (missionaries, church planters, etc.). These are related in style but not substance.
The presence of a modern day 5-fold ministry is not sacrosanct. Notice that the verb in Ephesians 4.11 is past tense–’gave’. The Greek verb for he/she/it gave (έδωκεν) is rendered from the first aorist tense of δίδωμι. This denotes a past undefined action. He, Himself gave the 5-fold ministry for the initial and foundational building of His church. Notice that the verb is not in the present tense, ‘he is giving’, or the future, ‘he will give’. The aim of the 5-fold ministry was to bring maturity and unity through sound, objective doctrine (v.14). The objective truths of orthodox Christianity are best communicated to our sinful minds via the written word as illuminated by the Holy Spirit.
May 28, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Natrimony,
But of course, this is where we disagree. I believe the spiritual gifts and the callings of apostle and prophet are for the present day church. And you don’t.
So, does this hinder our relationship? No, absolutely not. You are my brother in Christ. And believe it or not, I sincerely believe that you serve a good purpose by demanding that Charismatics adhere to scriptural integrity, rather than taking the usual Charismatic shortcuts and calling them some spiritual hokey-pokey name.
God bless you.
May 28, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I think that the continuation of the prophetic gifting makes for a vibrant discussion. Wayne Grudem makes a compelling argument to defend the continuation of the prophetic gift as opposed to the prophetic office in ‘The Gift of Prophecy In the New Testament and Today’. However, the continuation of the apostolic office is not a widely embraced notion–even within Pentecostal denominations. I believe that there is, as I’ve noted, extensive scriptural evidence to support the ceasing of the apostolic gift. I do demand that Charismatics grapple with their departure from the majority of Protestantism in claiming that it has not.
May 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Natrimony,
Actually, all pentecostals and charismatics believe in the continuation of the calling of apostle. And my guess is that most Christians do, too. (But that is only a guess.)
Why do Christians believe in apostles?
Because the words of Ephesians 4:11-16 are not fulfilled. We do not all have the unity of the faith, the knowledge of the Son of God…and most are tossed about by every wind of doctrine.
This is the crux of why we need apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. When we finally reach a perfected state, then (and only then), we will not need the callings anymore.
May 29, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Conclusions:
1. “The apostolic nature of the church is to be found in adherence to the Word of God, which has been faithfully transmitted by the apostles of Jesus Christ in their foundational role, and in vital participation in the life and ministry of the Holy Spirit, who baptized, gifted, and led the first apostles.
2. Since the New Testament does not provide guidance for the appointment of future apostles, such contemporary offices are not essential to the health and growth of the church, nor its apostolic nature.
3. While we do not understand it to be necessary, some church bodies may in good faith and careful biblical definition choose to name certain leaders apostles. The word (apostolos) is used in different ways in the New Testament: (1) for the Twelve disciples originally appointed by Jesus (and later Matthias); (2) for the Twelve plus Paul and a
larger group (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) whose exact numbers are somewhat uncertain; and (3) for others such as Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25) and the unnamed brothers Paul wrote about (2 Corinthians 8:23). Groups one and two, personally called and commissioned by the risen Lord, are often referred to in Scripture as apostles of Jesus Christ and are foundational apostles (Ephesians 2:20) with unique revelatory and authoritative roles in establishing the church and producing the New Testament. The third group, the apostles of the churches, were assigned specific roles and responsibilities as needed by the early churches.”
This statement was submitted and approved before the General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God. The Assemblies of God is the largest Pentecostal denomination. You may find the full transcript of this position paper here:
http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_4195_apostles_prophets.cfm
As you can see, all Pentecostals do not agree to a continuance of the office of apostle.
May 29, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Natrimony,
Oops! I was wrong on that point, but the words of Ephesians 4: 11-16 are still unfulfilled. Thus, we need apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.
May 29, 2008 at 11:49 pm
I do agree that we need apostles. The apostles are still with us. Their voice may be heard quite clearly through the Holy Scriptures just as the prophets who preceded them. The NT apostles took up the mantle of the OT prophets.
With that said, I’m not so sure that the words of Ephesians 4.11-16 haven’t been PARTIALLY fulfilled. What about 1 Cor. 15.8? The complete gospel of Christ displayed in the completed canon is the culmination of the apostolic office (2 Pet. 1.19-20, 3.15-16; Heb.1.1-2). The church had thrived for nearly 1900 years without a functioning apostolic office until the present day ‘apostolic movement’. I do not think that would have been possible if the continuing office of apostle were so integral to the maturity of the faith.
Larry, there is mention of propagating the officers of elder and deacon in the NT. There is no prescription for a continuance of an apostolic office, nor is there for a prophetic office. If God wished there to be a continuance of either office do you not believe that he would have provided guidelines for their proper administration as He did for elders and deacons in both Timothy and Titus?
Now, the prophetic gift has been separated from the office of the prophet convincingly by Wayne Grudem. If you are unfamiliar with his scholarship on this topic then I would suggest reading his Systematic Theology. In my estimation he provides the most valid argument for the continuation of the prophet gift while at the same time denying a continuation of the office of either prophet or apostle.
May 30, 2008 at 12:33 am
I have Wayne Grudem’s book, “The Gift of Prophecy”. It’s a good book. One that I refer to when I am teaching prophecy (along with many others).
Elders and deacons are positions appointed by men with the supervision of the Holy Spirit. So, there are qualifications in scripture for this to be undertaken.
Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers are called by God. He calls and ordains the people. So, there is no input by men. None.
But there are some insights which can be derived from scripture about apostles and prophets. Such as, an apostle needs to see Jesus. And yet, even our insight into apostles and prophets, is incomplete.
May 30, 2008 at 1:52 am
Larry,
Yes. ‘An apostle needs to see Jesus’. I certainly agree with your statement that elders and deacons are positions appointed by men with the supervision of the Holy Spirit. Also, I am glad that you are using Grudem. However, have you read what he has to say concerning the apostolic office? I would think that in order to remain faithful to his thesis you would have to recognize at least an augmentation of both apostolic and prophetic offices for today.
You say that elders are appointed by men as opposed to pastors being called by God. Larry, an elder and a pastor are the same thing. The fact that men are involved in ordination (the laying on of hands) does not mean that they are not called by God. Being called by God and there being ‘input by men’ are not two mutually exclusive experiences. Elders are both called by God AND appointed by men. I’m afraid you’ve set up a false dichotomy sir.
Furthermore, I am interested in your avoidance of the Scripture presented from my former posts–Matt.10.19; Mark 13.11; Luke 12.11,12,; 21.14,15; John 14.26; 15.26; 16.13; 2 Cor. 10.8; 13.10
1 Cor. 15.8; 2 Pet. 1.19-20, 3.15-16; Heb.1.1-2; a valid interpretation of Eph. 4.11-12 plus exegesis. I am particular curious about how you might explain 1 Cor. 15.8. Are you doing this deliberately or have you simply not had time to examine the Scriptural evidence? I certainly understand the busyness of modern life if that is any hindrance to you as well. Enjoying our discussion immensely.
Grace and Peace,
Nathaniel Ruland
May 30, 2008 at 3:23 am
I don’t read into 1 Cor. 15: 8 what you seem to see. I see that Paul is referring to himself as the least of the apostles. And I read the other scriptures and do not believe that they refer to the cessation of the apostles and prophets.
Natrimony states:
“You say that elders are appointed by men as opposed to pastors being called by God. Larry, an elder and a pastor are the same thing…”
Now, maybe in your denomination an elder and a pastor are the same thing, but this is not according to scripture. It is a tradition. In fact, if you can, prove to me that a pastor and an elder are the same thing, okay?
May 30, 2008 at 3:58 pm
15.8 clearly relates that Paul was the last, ‘as to one untimely born’, that Jesus appeared to. This shows that Paul understands the normal criteria for apostlicity. His prior reasoning in vs. 1-8 follows a chronological pattern–Cephas, the twelve, the 500, James, then to all the apostles–THEN to Paul. 15.9 displays Paul’s humility as he refers to himself as the least of the apostles. Paul is the last and the least. I would not label my interpretation eisegesis of the text. How am I reading my own view into the plain sense of the text? The natural understanding after reading 1 Cor. 15 would be that Paul was the last apostle according to time and that he considers himself the least apostle due to his persecution of the church.
My positions are NOT just tradition. The denomination that I am a part of (Presbyterian Church in America) really does strive to uphold the Bible as the final authority. I really feel belittled by your comment. According to Scripture: Elders, or guardians, are to be appointed (Acts 14.23; Titus 1.5) who would look after the people as shepherds look after sheep (Acts 20.28-31; 1 Pet. 5.1-4). By virtue of their role, the elders (presbyters) are also called shepherds or pastors in Eph. 4.11 and overseers or bishops in Acts 20.28, Titus 1.7. 1 Peter 5.1 and 5.2 exhorts the presbyters (elders) to feed the flock until the Great Shepherd (Jesus) returns. How could they be exhorted to ‘feed the flock’ if they did not function in a pastoral role? Do you see now how the two offices can be synonymous?
May 30, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Natrimony,
Forgive me if you feel belittled by my remark. It was not meant to be taken that way.
We disagree on 1 Corinthians 15:8. Okay? But what about the unfulfilled words of Ephesians 4: 11-16? The reason for having the five-fold ministry is that the Body of Christ would be in unity of faith and mature. This has not happened. And thus, we still need all the callings, including the apostle and prophet.
Whether we admit it or not, we all read the Bible through the lens of the teachers that we have. If we are Pentecostal, we see this. If we are Baptist, we see that. Etc. Etc. It’s just a normal part of our human make-up.
Now, I would suggest that you study the writings of the early church. In their writings, you will note that most of the time the elder was not the pastor. Instead, the elder was a mature Christian with wisdom.
May 30, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Larry,
Apology accepted. I normally have very thick skin, however, my dialogue with you has been much more candid than most of my blogging conversations. For that reason, I am a bit more vulnerable than normal.
At any rate, I believe in a partial fulfillment of Ephesians 4.11. I believe that the particular ministry of the apostles and prophets have been fulfilled in the Old and New Testaments. I believe that the church is progressively maturing. That is why we still do need living evangelists, pastors, and teachers who can provide insight into the apostolic and prophetic testimony of Scripture.
With that said, you will have to provide me with some direct sources in regard to ‘the writings of the early church’ that you are referring to. Just the collection of ‘Ante-Nicene Fathers’ represents thousands of pages of material (38 volumes). If you could use direct quotes then we could examine them together.
Finally, you have told me that my equation of elders with pastors is based on tradition and not according to scripture. I’ve shown you from the Scriptures that it is not. Now you are pointing me back toward church tradition to prove your own point that the ‘elder was not the pastor’? That really doesn’t make very much sense Larry.
May 31, 2008 at 5:15 am
Natrimony,
You have passion for what you believe. Sadly, most people don’t.
My study of the early church was done at a major university in Iowa thirteen or fourteen years ago, long before computers were a part of my life. So, I can’t direct you to the proper writings as I should be able to do if I am going to refer to them. Sorry about that.
I do use Frank Viola’s books and writings:
http://www.ptmin.org/
And also Gene Edwards books:
http://www.geneedwards.com
Both men are considered pioneer authors of the home-church movement in America.
Maybe the word “tradition” is not quite the right word to use when I discuss the calling of pastor and the appointment of elders (and also apostles and prophets). Maybe I should have used the word “teachings” instead. As in, for the most part “the accepted teachings” by most theologians agree with your stand on the pastors and elders.
And yet, there is a minority that agrees with me. Most of these can be labeled charismatic/pentecostal.
So, my teachings and my beliefs disagree with your teachings and your beliefs on these scriptures.
May 31, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Larry,
You are a gracious person. It has been a pleasure discussing these things with you. Rarely have I found such willingness/openess to the rational (and biblical) examination of the range of dissenting views we’ve discussed here. I have a soft-spot in my heart for home churches. We are in the process of praying about our future involvement in a PCA church plant here in Asheville, NC.
Will look at the links you provided and will keep checking in on this blog.
Grace and Peace,
Nathaniel Ruland
thegreycoats.wordpress.com
June 1, 2008 at 12:49 am
I believe you make valid points about how messy revival can be. However, my biggest concern is that the Bible is largely being ignored in Florida. I have been watching God.tv tonight with the Lakeland Revival and yet I have seen one Bible in three hours! One Bible! And it was a man in the back reading his Bible during the singing.
The revivals of Wesley, Whitefield, even Azusa was full of preaching the Word. While they were messy, they had biblical preaching because that is God’s method for saving souls (Romans 10:14-17). Even Brownsville had preaching nearly every night! I visited Brownsville three times and preaching was always done calling saints and sinners to repent.
Perhaps Todd Bentley might describe this revival as merely a “healing revival” in the likes of A.A. Allen and William Branham (both of whom I don’t care much for) but where is the passionate preaching of the Word?
June 1, 2008 at 3:58 am
royingle,
Most revivals have had inspired preaching of the word, but not all.
Charles Finney said about the Businessmen’s Prayer Revival of 1857, “We have had enough preaching, now it is time to pray.”
This particular revival, did not have inspired preaching nor famous preachers. Most meetings were one hour prayer meetings held between noon and one o’clock where businessmen could sing, pray, give testimonies, exhort, and read scripture, Any man could speak for a period not to exceed five minutes. For the most part, pastors and other ministers were not allowed to preach at the meetings.
It is said that six percent of the USA was converted at this revival. All without any preaching. The revival continued during the Civil War, especially in the southern armies.
August 14, 2008 at 8:15 pm
So, what do you think of the Lakeland debacle now?
“It was not supposed to end like this.
Evangelist Todd Bentley had heralded the Lakeland revival as the greatest Pentecostal outpouring since Azusa Street. From his stage in a gigantic tent in Florida, Bentley preached to thousands, bringing many of them to the stage for prayer. Many claimed to be healed of deafness, blindness, heart problems, depression and dozens of other conditions in the Lakeland services, which ran for more than 100 consecutive nights. Bentley announced confidently that dozens of people had been raised from the dead during the revival.”
–J. Lee Grady writing from Charisma magazine’s editorial blog entitled: “Life After Lakeland: Sorting Out the Confusion”, http://www.fireinmybones.com
August 17, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Hi Nat,
I’ve been on vacation so I missed your comment.
As far as the Lakeland Revival, I still feel the same way as I did.
August 20, 2008 at 2:46 am
Wow. Its interesting that someone so socially in tune (Obama’s abortion record is appalling) could be so oblivious to doctrinal error within his own faith tradition. You still feel that “Great fruit is brought forth in the Kingdom of God” from the Lakeland phenomenon?
August 20, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Do I believe that great fruit has been brought forth in the Kingdom of God because of the Lakeland phenomenon?
I’m still in the “wait and see” mode.