I just don’t see how we can avoid seeing Acts as a transitional book between two eras or covenants. What happened when people like Paul, Apollos and others were converted? Were they not taken from the Old Covenant into the New? And look at the Cornelius story. It’s a key marker in the book, and Cornelius is in some way ‘typical’. The story starts with ” a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God” and ends with “the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles… he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” That’s transition from Old Covenant to New, and these examples could be repeated throughout Acts.

I’m glad to hear that within your circle prophetic words are viewed as confirmatory to what God is saying to an individual. That is encouraging, but I’m not convinced that teaching is as widespread as you suggest. I’ve just re-read the relevant section if Grudem’s Systematic Theology, for example, and it makes no mention of whether prophetic words are confirmatory or not, it simply emphasises that they are not authoritative.

I do agree with you that when it comes to practice sensible charismatics are remarkably close to sensible cessationists at least in regard to prophecy (though tongues is an entirely different matter!). Cessationists will speak of promptings and sensing God’s guidance, but in essence it means much the same thing. I no of hardly any cessationists who would disagree with your last paragraph. Still, our vocabulary is important, and it’s good to be as accurate and faithful to scripture with regard our vocabulary as well as the doctrine behind it.

I just wanted to clarify something. You said, “So my challenge to charismatics remains. You need to show us where the Bible teaches that in the New Covenant God’s will is communicated to me through another believer and not directly from God’s Spirit or from His Word.” I’m just wondering what your position is on Bible teachers like pastors and such. Do you think there is no need for them? If there is need then how does that not qualify as God’s will being communicated to a person through another believer?

This actually raises an interesting issue re: the difference between those who prophesy and those who teach. It also provides some welcome controls on true biblical preaching. The simple answer is to say that a teachers job is simply to explain what the Bible says. That’s ‘all’. He does so passionately, he does so in a way that applies the Scriptures to individuals, and he does so with the help of the Spirit. But ‘all’ he does it to say what the Bible says. In this sense the teacher passes on already existing revelation. But what is says is not revelatory.

I appreciate your correction about by use of “the will of God”. I’m talking really about discernment of the specific will of God. The following quote from Don Carson (with whom I am in full agreement on this point) may bring welcome clarity (it’s from page 152 of Showing the Spirit):

…the new covenant would bring with it a new emphasis on the distribution of the knowledge of God down to the level of each member of the covenant community. Knowledge of God would no longer be mediated through specially endowed leaders, for all of God’s covenant people would know him…

Finally, you say: “If every believer having the Spirit cancels out any need for prophecy, to the point that prophecy as modeled in the New Testament now appears to you as repugnant and contrary to the gospel what stops us from making similar claims about the scriptures themselves? How democratized is democratized?”
What I’m trying to say is not that old revelation is repugnant and contrary to the gospel. Far from it. Old revelation IS the gospel!! What I’m saying is that the means of old revelation do not belong in a New Covenant age. The purpose of Old Revelation was to point to a time when God’s relationship with his people will be changed (because of Jesus’ work on the cross and the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost). That time has now come. To carry on much as before ignores the significance of those events.

@David: I do agree that the first century church was one where the spiritual gifts were in continuous operation. But does the present day charismatic church reflect that situation well? The citations who give from church history are important, but only some of many that could be given. I do sometimes post on spiritual gifts and church history. But in this post, I’m particularly considering the theology of spiritual gifts, and want to restrict my comments to that area.

You wrote,

Keith, again, thanks for your original post and your comments (and for your tongue-in-cheek rebuke in the first paragraph!).

If what you were referring to was my mention of your “kind comments,” I was certainly not rebuking you. You did comment on my blog, saying, “Thanks for the post. It’s certainly one of the more thoughtful out there,” which I do see as kind, particularly since we don’t agree on this point. No irony or sarcasm, and certainly no offense, intended.

With regard to seeing Acts as a “transitional” book, I first of all think you’re begging the question–assuming the thing that is to be proven–and second, I disagree that it is a transition from Old Covenant to New Covenant. A transition from local ethnically Jewish movement to international, primarily Gentile movement, yes. But all of Acts can’t be written off as merely historical witness to a now-defunct era.

Finally, you write,

But in the charismatic world, sometimes God speaks to me through a prophet. I may check that prophecy against Scripture, but without the prophet, I would not know God’s will.

Once again, I think this misrepresents what I have always been taught in both charismatic and classical Pentecostal circles: any “word” that someone may have for me should be merely confirmatory: it should merely witness to what God is already speaking to my spirit.

So perhaps our positions are not that far apart; especially since you acknowledge that God can and does speak to people individually in the present day, and I acknowledge that no “prophet” can tell me anything authoritative: I must depend on Scripture, and my own discernment of how God wants me to apply biblical truth to my life specifically.

Wyeth. I agree with you in part. The perfect in 1 Corinthians 13 is clearly the return of Christ (this is the position taken by Gaffin, too). I’m not sure 1 Cor 13:10 can be stretch to demand that all gifts must continue until the return of Christ. Rather the text suggests that they will continue. Having said that, I do believe that all gifts that are characteristic of the New Covenant age will continue until the return of Christ.

In answer to your second point about God speaking outside the Bible. I’ve never met anyone (who when pushed) didn’t admit that God could speak to us outside of the Bible (for example, through Creation). The real debate is to what God might say, and in particular what limits there are on His revelation outside Scripture.

I would challenge you to explain to me from the Bible just what (if any) are the self-imposed limits God places on His non-Biblical revelation.

You don’t accept that Acts is a transitional book. If so, then do you believe that everything that happened in Acts can happen today? Or do you believe that some of Acts is unrepeatable? If you do believe that all of Acts can be repeated today, that I would suggest you are on extremely slippery ground theologically. Almost every evangelical accepts that some of Acts is unrepeatable. And the reason it is unrepeatable? Because it represents the transition between the Old Covenant and the New. The only question is to how much of the Acts narrative is transitional and how much is permanent.

So, of course, I agree with your final comment. God does still speak. I’ve sought to explain how God speaks today outside His word (he reveals Himself personally to each one, rather than using an Old-Testament style prophet). How do you answer the question: How does God speak?

I think I’ve been away a little too long, so my mind isn’t as “in” the debate as it was a few days ago, but I just wanted to clarify something. You said, “So my challenge to charismatics remains. You need to show us where the Bible teaches that in the New Covenant God’s will is communicated to me through another believer and not directly from God’s Spirit or from His Word.”

I’m just wondering what your position is on Bible teachers like pastors and such. Do you think there is no need for them? If there is need then how does that not qualify as God’s will being communicated to a person through another believer?

Also, just clarity sake, I think most charismatics would agree that any believer can prophecy. We only call some “prophets” because they seem to be more gifted in that area than the average Christian.

At the same time, your statements about “knowing the will of God” seem to be awfully blurry. The concept is so broad, I can’t be sure if I know what you’re talking about here, or be sure if you aren’t conflating two related concepts so that you can affirm one at the expense of the other. You can talk about knowing the will of God in terms of “having his law written on your heart” and be speaking of something quite distinct from knowing the will of God in terms of what will happen to Paul when he goes to Jerusalem. Having one doesn’t necessarily cancel out all use for the other.

You also haven’t set up any limits on this “democratisation of the Spirit” you’re talking about here. If every believer having the Spirit cancels out any need for prophecy, to the point that prophecy as modeled in the New Testament now appears to you as repugnant and contrary to the gospel, what stops us from making similar claims about the scriptures themselves? How democratized is democratized?

I disagree with your analogy on Charismatic Christians.

The church of the first century was a charismatic church. See the Book of Acts.

Paul , as he traveled and preached the Word, did so ” in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God” Rom 15:19.

Irenaeus (A.D. 125-200) bishop of Lyons and a disciple of the apostle John said ” For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have been thus cleansed from evil spirits believe in Christ and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions and utter prophetic expressions. Others still heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole.”

Novatian (A.D. 210-280) was a presbyter of the church in Rome said ” The Holy Spirit places prophets in the Church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works, offers discrimination of spirits, affords powers of government, suggests counsels, ans orders and arranges whatever other gifts there are of charismata.”

John Wesley said in 1750 ” The Christians of the second and third centuries were real Scriptural Christians, and that the main reason why the miraculous gifts were soon withdrawn was not only that faith and holiness were well nigh lost, but that dry, formal, orthodox men began to ridicule whatever gifts that they had not themselves, and to decry them all as either madness or imposture”

Unfortunately we see this today, the freedom of the Spirit, which is normally not understood, is being replaced by ceremonial ritual and ecclesiastical morder.