Skip to content

Against Charismatic Chaos: A Letter to Open-But-Cautious

November 1, 2019

November 1st, 2019.

Dear Open-But-Cautious,

Please accept my apology for now getting back to you with this response to your questions concerning the features that concern pneumatology. Consequently, my late response is conducive to many busy events at work with travel as well as responsibilities I have had at home in my family life. However, the need of the hour is great to answer your questions with the truth of the Word of God.

The great desire from the Lord Jesus Christ through the Apostle Paul to teach from the Word of God “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:12-13) – will be the attitude and approach of this letter that I am writing to you. To that effect, I can honestly testify and bear witness to my conscience that it is indeed clear in the manner in which I am now writing you – that indeed I have a specific goal in mind in writing this letter – that is, to write the truth to you in love while maintaining that there is no dichotomy between truth and love (cf. Eph 4:15; 1 Cor 13:6).

To achieve this goal, I am relying on God to convict you and give you understanding from His intended meaning from the text of Scripture. When it comes to the sound doctrine of illumination by God the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph 1:17-20) – we both know that there is no age nor rank nor riverbank. Our present respectable ages in the chronology of history are of no consequence – for the LORD is pleased to reveal these things not to the wise and intelligent but to infants (cf. Lk 10:21-22). A sixty-year-old man can be an infant in a positive sense as well as a thirty-year-old man. For after all, Nicodemus was very much our Lord’s senior (i.e. concerning Christ’s physical age during the incarnation in the first advent – but Jesus Christ is God in human flesh – therefore Christ is ageless, Self-Existent and in that sense He is before Nicodemus) when he visited Him at night – in which Nicodemus was humbled by his true spiritual condition after a life of religious prestige – yet the man Nicodemus was humbled by the truth concerning his spiritual condition, brought out of darkness and given the light, and I believe will be with the Lord Jesus Christ in glory. Please, do not get me wrong – I am not writing to you in a condescending tone, nor am I at this time writing with my opinion of your spiritual condition. On the other hand, I am merely laying out these timeless principles from the Word of God that must be presupposed by any Christian and will not be taken to offense by an honest mind.

Consequently, as Christians, we must be faithful to the Author’s intended meaning from the Word of God – not our own opinion or the opinion of others. To this effect, the Apostle Peter explained the monolithic interpretation from the Word of God when he wrote, “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21). What Peter wrote applies to the entire Corpus of the Word of God – that is, Genesis through Revelation. Christian maturity is arriving at the correct interpretation across the board whether the discussion involves cosmology (i.e. the study of the origins of the universe), pneumatology, psychology, soteriology, eschatology, etc. (cf. Eph 4:12-16).

Because of my fear of God, I am inclined by my conscience in the Lord to hold to sound doctrine (cf. 2 Tim 1:13-14). As a Christian I am to be a guardian of sound doctrine. Where did this notion that there exists a dichotomy between love and truth ever start with in the first place? Such a dichotomy does not exist in my life. To argue that it is good for one to be very strong on presenting the truth of Scripture but to be unloving is relying heavily on modern evangelicalism motifs and employing the poisoning the well fallacy. People need to hear the truth from the Word of God because that is one of the most loving actions to share with a person.

All of these features presented above must be received in humility in order for any further progress to be made in dispensing coherent discussions concerning the Word of God. Those who profess to know Christ must refuse to be held captive by modern and postmodern liberal downgrade evangelicalism arguments which lead to false interpretations of the Word of God (cf. 2 Cor 10:3-6).
So I ask you Open-but-Cautious, please read the rest of this letter with humility – I want to present to you a sound defense from the Word of God for the area in which you have concerns – namely, pneumatology.

To start, Open-But-Cautious, you argued that I was lecturing others when you put into words the following, “Eric gave us a little lecture on the evils of Pentecostalism.” Why did you decide on the terms “little lecture” if you didn’t intend on adding a degree of sarcasm at best or condescension at worst? Condescension is not loving. I am not interested in presenting a lecture to anyone. I am no one’s formal professor. Do you think you are being overpowered? I will, however, warn others of the evils of Pentecostalism because it is the loving option and duty for the Christian. If it can be established from the Word of God that Pentecostalism is indeed heterodox – then the loving action is to warn of the evils of Pentecostalism. Are the teachings of Pentecostalism in the category of “strange doctrines” – that is, heterodox doctrines, namely different doctrines than the Apostles taught? If they are – then all Christians have the obligation to warn those teaching these strange doctrines as well as those who are held captive by them to repent:

As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. (1 Tim 1:3-7).

There is a historical context to Timothy’s charge. At the same time, there is application throughout the church age from this text to charge anyone who is teaching “strange doctrines” to stop teaching “strange doctrines.” The reason for this is due to the etymology of the terms “strange doctrines.” The word Paul used in Greek for “strange doctrines” is ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν – to teach other doctrines. The Greek word ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν is from a compound word from the Greek words heteros (different/another) and didaskalos (teaching) (cf. 1 Tim 6:3).

I presented a clear representation of Pentecostalism and why it is heterodox (i.e. heresy) from a historical discussion on the inception of the movement. Moreover, I presented the biblical and theological arguments from the Word of God on why the movement called Pentecostalism is heretical. I made my arguments from the Word of God – therefore, I am not “putting God in a box” and I am not painting with any “brush strokes.” If you are siding with ecumenical feelings against the Word of God, then it can be concluded that you are painting with too broad a brush. Besides, no one can put God into a box. We all have experiences, but if our experiences cannot be warranted from the Word of God then we must have the humility to accept that we have indeed been deceived. However, my portrayal of Pentecostalism will be disturbing to anyone who wishes to hold to their subjective experiences against the Word of God. I do not wish to insult anyone, and I wish to be disrespectful to no one. No one said anything to me after I spoke until later when I was not around to answer questions. I do not take offense to anyone. I have found that most of the time people wait until you leave to say something about you. The witnesses I have with me all confirmed to me that I merely gave an informative discourse when I talked.

There are three Apostolic sign gifts that were given during the apostolic age for the inception of the history and spread of Christianity – namely, the gift of tongues, the gift of prophecy, and the gift of healing.

Open-But Cautious, there is a widespread heretical doctrine across planet earth masquerading itself in the name of Christianity although it is not Christian. This heretical doctrine is known as charismatic theology. Charismatic doctrine has deceived millions of people to chase after a model of false worship. What is more, charismatic theology has redefined God’s Word to create a false dichotomy between true faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Holy Spirit. Charismatic theology deconstructs God’s Word to then redefine the Word of God. Charismatic theology promotes the pursuit of experience and emotionalism as objective truth in place of the Word of God.

God’s Word proclaims that if one adds to God’s word then one is a liar (cf. Prov 30:5-6). Furthermore, to change the Author’s intended meaning of the Word of God brings divine judgment (cf. Isa 5:20a-c). Charismatic theology is a manmade system that redefines God’s word attributing experiences and emotionalism to God the Holy Spirit that are inconsistent with Him and the Word of God. There is no dichotomy between God the Holy Spirit and the Word of God because God the Holy Spirit chose the human authors to write down what God wanted in the Scriptures (cf. 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21). Jesus said that God the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth (cf. Jn 14:17; 15:26) and that He guides into all the Truth (cf. Jn 16:13). Likewise, the Apostle John said that God the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth (cf. 1 Jn 4:6; 5:6). The Word of God proclaims that God does not lie (cf. Num 23:19), God cannot lie (cf. Tit 1:2), and it is impossible for God to lie (cf. Heb 6:18). The Holy Spirit is God the third member of the Trinity (cf. Acts 5:3-4). Therefore, God the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, He does not lie, He cannot lie, it is impossible for Him to lie. Consequently, there is only one interpretation to Scripture; that is, the Author’s intended meaning (cf. 2 Peter 1:20).

There are three ways in which charismatic theology deconstructs the Word of God to redefine it. Namely, charismatic theology deconstructs God’s Word to redefine the gifts of tongues, prophecy and healing.

Gift of Tongues

The gift of tongues was a NT gift (supernatural graces given for the inception of God’s mission for the church) given on the day of Pentecost for the purpose of authenticating the apostolic office for the foundation in the history and spread of Christianity. When the Apostolic age ceased, so did the gift of speaking in tongues (cf. 1 Cor 13:8). The word for tongues in Acts 2:4 is γλώσσαις. It is a noun in the dative case and is in the same context with the word for language, namely διαλέκτῳ (cf. 2:6; 8) which is also in the dative case. The Greek word for tongues, namely γλῶσσα is to be understood based on the context of Acts 2 as coherent rational language. The Greek word γλῶσσα is “a distinctive feature of nations.” In conclusion, γλώσσαις (Acts 2:4) and διαλέκτῳ in (Acts 2:6, 8) are associated and paralleled with one another in the context of Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2 is the only descriptive narrative of a tongues speaking event in regards to what it detailed (Acts 10:46 and 19:6 reveal that the believers spoke in tongues but not a detailed description like Acts 2, because it has already been defined in the overall context of Acts 2 for the context of the book of Acts). A commentator named Ironside defined tongues correctly in the context of Acts 2 when he wrote, “These Galileans who may never have learned any other language than their own now suddenly found themselves so laid of by the Holy Spirit that their tongues were loosed and they began to speak and preach intelligently in the languages of the people gathered there to listen.” Another Commentator named Marshall agreed that tongues in the context of Acts 2 were human languages when he wrote, “Verses 6, 8, and 11 show that human languages are meant.”

Even the father of the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement, Charles Fox Parham, believed that speaking in tongues was known languages. MacArthur recalls this when he writes, “Charles Parham, Agnes Ozman, and the other students never actually experienced the supernatural sign they were seeking. They were convinced speaking in tongues entailed the miraculous ability to speak in authentic foreign languages, just as the apostles did on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:12. That was the gift they so desperately desired. The ‘gift’ they experienced, however, consisted of nothing more than nonsensical gibberish.” Tongues should not be understood as gibberish or ecstatic speech. Advocate for the Charismatic movement Wayne Grudem defined tongues wrongly when he wrote, “Speaking in tongues is prayer or praise spoken in syllables not understood by the speaker.” However, there has been a cessation of the gift of tongues. Due to the middle voice of παύω in 1 Cor 13:8-10 the gift of tongues would cease in and of itself once the gift of prophecy has been “done away” because of the passive voice of καταργέω which means “rendered inoperative.”

Reversal of Order

Open-But-Cautious, in Genesis 11 man continued after the fall in his bent disobedience to God by aspiring for autonomy. Man was interested in his own plan, and as such, built a tower to make a name for himself. However, God had a different plan, namely, to confuse the language of the people into many languages and disperse the nations across the earth. These languages which at first caused the confusion of the Babel tower builders, resulting in the project’s incompleteness, were systematic known comprehensive languages with an order. Thus, tongues are languages, known comprehensive languages, which take time to learn and are used for purposes of rational communication. Acts 17:26 is an appropriate cross reference for Gen 11 in describing God’s plan of the creation mandate to spread man across the earth. Therefore, those engaged in building the tower of Babel were in disobedience to the creation mandate and the dispersion of the nations. God confusing their one language resulted in many languages and was a supernatural miracle from God. In Acts chapter 2 God is reversing the judgment of Babel, namely the judgment through the miracle of confusing the language of the people, to instead miraculously occasioning an event for the elect from the dispersion to prepare them to hear the Gospel from Peter’s Sermon (cf. Acts 2:14-42). Tongues was a sign of judgment on unbelief but also a sign to authenticate the apostles and the gospel message, to begin to bring in the elect to God through the Person and Cross Work of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 2:43-44). Tongues was a supernatural gift in such a way that a Jew scattered abroad among the dispersion is hearing the miracle of a language known to them. Hence, the confusion of Babel was reversed because it was very clear that the miracle was of God and that they needed to repent and believe on Christ to be saved from the wrath of God (cf. 2:22-41). Speaking in tongues is a supernatural miracle of God and as such is to be understood as known comprehensive systematic rational human language because God is not the author of confusion (cf. 1 Cor 14:33).

If the sign of tongues was a miracle of known languages to authenticate the apostolic office and the gospel in the history and spread of Christianity whereas the charismatic movement is redefining the gift of tongues to define it as gibberish, then the charismatic movement is causing confusion and opposing the gospel. It is the same attitude of disobedience that the workers at the tower of Babel had. For them they were opposed to God’s plan of the creation mandate in Genesis (cf.11:4). Therefore, God confused them with multiple languages. Today the Charismatic is opposed to God’s plan of redemption in the gospel by redefining the gift of tongues for the purpose of desiring signs and experiences in confusion instead of faith in Christ. Charismatics want the confusion of Babel to continue; that is why what they are doing is opposed to the gospel, because at Pentecost God started to dispense the gospel and used the gift of tongues as a vehicle at the start of the church.

Open-But-Cautious, you argued, “None of us is enamored of speaking in tongues, but we all know stories of how God has miraculously given the gift of tongues, when not sought, on the foreign mission field, or in evangelistic settings in this country to communicate with a person who didn’t understand English.” Mere stories are not good enough. You need to show me where you have access to a legitimate documented source of when and where this occurred. Just taking someone’s “word for it” by some obscure alleged story is not enough to create a substantial valid argument. I will always side with the Word of God over a speculative account. But even if there is documentation I will still side with the Word of God. I have already shown above that one of the leading charismatic theologians Wayne Grudem argues that tongues as a gift today is incoherent language not understood by the speaker. Grudem is a continuationist, but even he says the gift is different today then it was in the apostolic age, so my question to the continuationists is “you say It’s different – then what exactly continued?”

Pointedly, this is how charismatic theology has redefined God’s Word to create a false dichotomy between true faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Holy Spirit. God the Holy Spirit puts faith in a person to believe (cf. Eph 1:13; 2:8-10; 1 Cor 12:3; Rom 10:9; 2 Tim 1:13-14). God the Holy Spirit points people to the person and Cross Work of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Jn 15:26). God the Holy Spirit does not incite people to chase after experiences and signs because to do so is to distort, redefine His office and the point for which Christ came, to be the propitiation for the sins of everyone who would ever believe in Christ for eternal life and His resurrection from the dead for their justification (Matt 12:39; Rom 4:20-25). True faith accepts the personal righteousness of Christ imputed to their account as well as His passive obedience (i.e. Cross Work, death, burial and resurrection) imputed to their account because the believing sinner’s sins were charged to Christ’s account when he died on the cross. God the Father used the rule of imputation (i.e. to charge to one’s account) in the great exchange of the cross and thus treated Christ as if He committed every sin of the elect by pouring out His wrath on Christ, although Christ never committed any sin and remained as righteous as ever on the cross, being completely innocent (cf. 2 Cor 5:21). (By the way, many of the Plymouth Brethren have historically committed error concerning the doctrine of imputation by following John Nelson Darby’s denial of active obedience – this was Charles Spurgeon’s contention with Mr. Darby). Because of this, the sound doctrine of imputation and vicarious penal substitution, God the Father treats the believing sinner as if he only lived the perfect sinless life of Christ. Christ took the place of sinners (i.e. the elect) on the cross, dying and suffering in substitution for them. This does not mean that one can now live however they want (cf. Romans 6). Nor does this mean that those who have been regenerated and have the imputed righteousness of Christ have reached a state of sinless perfection in sanctification this side of the grave. Instead, the Word of God teaches that those who have been born again have a changed life and no longer practice sin. Why would anyone try to distort this message of good news to cause confusion and encourage people to chase after experiences instead of the gospel?

The Indictment against Redefining the Truth

The main Scriptural indictment against charismatic theology which attempts to deconstruct known language and truth and redefine it is Isaiah 5:20-21 which reads, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!” To attempt to deconstruct truth to redefine it is to literally call evil good and good evil. What is more, to attempt to deconstruct truth to redefine it is the ultimate expression of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. This is condemned by God who inspired the apostle Paul to write the following in Romans 1:18, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” Therefore the Biblical indictment of attempting to deconstruct truth to redefine it was common in Isaiah’s day (740-700 B.C.) as well as in the Apostle Paul’s day (60 A.D.). However, even though man has been redefining truth throughout time, it does not change the objective reality that God is eternal and therefore what He defines as truth is unchangeably infinite. God is truth. Jesus Christ is full of Grace and Truth (see John 1:14, 17). Jesus Christ is God in human flesh. God is infinitely unmeasurably self-existent. This is why truth is so important. Also, this is why error is so seriously dangerous. Any sort of redefinition of the truth is to commit error.

Gift of Prophecy

Open-But-Cautious, another contributor named MacRae defined the feature of prophecy correctly concerning the NT when he defined a prophet as one who received his message directly from God. This is a helpful definition because the gift of prophecy ceased when the NT Canon of Scripture was complete (cf. 1 Cor 13:8-10). On the other hand, Wayne Grudem argued that the gift of prophecy is still available today as direct revelation from God and can be fallible when Grudem defined prophecy this way: “telling something that God has spontaneously brought to mind.” What is more, as I have already brought to your attention, Grudem claims that he is a Charismatic continuationist, but he even claims that the gifts available today are not exactly the same as the gifts during the apostolic age when he writes, “Yet another objection to the continuation of miracles today is to say that the alleged miracles today are not like the miracles in Scripture because they are far weaker and often are only partially effective. In response to this objection we must ask whether it really matters whether the miracles today are exactly as powerful as those that occurred at the time of the New Testament.” However, one cannot help to argue against Grudem this way: if you claim that the gift of prophecy has continued throughout the church age after the apostolic age but you claim that the gift of prophecy is not exactly the same, then how exactly did the gift of prophecy continue? No sir, Grudem has redefined the gift of prophecy and as such he has redefined God’s word. Therefore, Grudem is in error. This is how charismatic theology and postmodernism are equated, that is, both systems deconstruct the Word of God and then redefine the Word of God. Grudem goes on to cause further confusion when he wrote the following: “So prophecies in the church today should be considered merely human words, not God’s words, and not equal to God’s words in authority. But does this conclusion conflict with current charismatic teaching or practice? I think it conflicts with much charismatic practice, but not with most charismatic teaching . . . here is almost uniform testimony from all sections of the charismatic movement that prophecy is imperfect and impure, and will contain elements that are not to be obeyed or trusted.” Charismatics argue for fallible prophecy by appealing to Acts 21:10-14 with the prophecy of Agabus. Charismatics claim that Agabus, speaking on behalf of God the Holy Spirit, gave Paul a fallible prophecy because later in Acts the events that Agabus attempted to prophesy did not come to pass exactly as Agabus predicted. The implication that they argue is that such is the case today. However, the events that Agabus predicted by God the Holy Spirit did happen exactly as prophesied. First, the context begins in Acts 19:21 when Paul purposes in God the Holy Spirit to go to Rome. This is in accord with the over context of the book of Acts and Jesus’ commission to Paul when he tells Ananias to “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake” (Acts 9:15b-16). Agabus prophesied the following; “And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, ‘This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles'” (Acts 21:11). This is exactly what happened to Paul from Acts 21:27-28:31, fulfilling his commission from God the Holy Spirit. To this effect, commentator Bruce claimed that prophecy was exactly fulfilled as described in Acts 21:11 when he wrote, “In the event, Paul was delivered by the Gentiles from the Jews, who were forced against their will to hand him over.” Commentator Bock agreed that this particular prophecy is accurate. Commentator Kistenmaker claimed that it was in faith that Paul accepted Agabus’ prophecy as detailed revelation by God the Holy Spirit. The only reason that I am citing other men is because you wrote that others found my portrayal disturbing. Then they must find the portrayal of these other men, who were correct on the matter of this issue, disturbing, whereas they might find the portrayal of someone like Grudem not disturbing – which given the quotes from Grudem above, is very disturbing to me.

Gift of Healing

Open-But-Cautious, you argued, “We all know that God heals in answer to prayer”. I agree, but you need to qualify that statement. Sometimes God does heal people today but sometimes God does not heal people today. Healing in the NT was unconditional (i.e. not conditioned by one’s faith) and instantaneous (i.e. not gradual) healing. This gift was a miraculous gift of healing to immediate health (cf. 1 Cor 12:9). Jesus Christ healed on the Sabbath by the power of God the Holy Spirit (cf. Mk 3; Jn 5). The Lord Jesus Christ commissioned the Twelve to heal the sick (cf. Mk 6:13). Jesus miraculously healed a severed ear (cf. Lk 22:47-53). Moreover, the healing sign gifts gradually faded because they were temporarily given to authenticate the office of Apostle for the foundation in the history and spread of Christianity. In the beginning of Paul’s ministry people were being miraculously healed; “God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out” (Acts 19:11-12 NASB). At the end of Paul’s ministry (i.e. Paul’s last epistle, 2 Timothy in the last chapter 4 verse 20, just before Paul was martyred) he wrote the following, “Erastus remained at Corinth, but Trophimus I left sick at Miletus” (2 Timothy 4:20 NASB). Why didn’t Paul heal Trophimus? Was this because Paul had less faith in God or was Paul living in sin so as to lose his gift? Absolutely not! The reason he left Trophimus in Miletus sick was because the healing sign gift was gradually fading or ceasing in the apostolic age as the Canon of Scripture was near completion.

Charismatics today claim that the gift of healing is still available in the Church. For example, Grudem has argued that the gift of healing has continued when he wrote, “People who think they may have a gift of healing could ask their elders for opportunities to accompany them when they go to pray for the sick.” However, there has not been a single documented case of a person with the gift of healing going in and out of hospitals instantaneously healing sick individuals with cancer or other diseases. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 16 million children died in 2010 from multiple types of cancer. If such is the case, then why are those with the gift of healing not visiting children’s hospitals across the globe and healing children from their cancer? If the purpose of the gift is for love, then where is the love of those who claim to have the gift of healing today (cf. 1 Cor 13)?

In conclusion, Open-But-Cautious, I will be disappointed if you did not see a clear case presented from Scripture that charismatic theology has redefined God’s Word to create a false dichotomy between true faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Holy Spirit. Charismatic theology promotes the pursuit of experience and emotionalism as objective truth in place of the Word of God and encourages individuals to chase after experiences that are contrary to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. If an experience or emotional drive is not consistent with what the Word of God claims is from God, then that experience or emotional drive is not from God. It is really that simple. The matter becomes complicated when individuals are trained to be sympathetic to other individual’s experiences even if these experiences are contrary to the Word of God.
Open-But-Cautious, I am trying to help you. You must understand the tone or mood of this letter is firm because I want to be understood and not misrepresented. What is more, I am encouraging you to study these doctrinal issues with an honest mind. I agree that Christians must be inclined to look to the leading of the Holy Spirit along with Scripture for every situation, but He never operates apart from the Word of God. Therefore, prayer is part of this, but prayer alone is not enough – He leads into all the Truth!

Open-But-Cautious, I hope I win you over. What is more, in the Lord through the power of God the Spirit, I hope many are won over to the truth. I do have love for you and my fellow man. Moreover, I hope you will be willing to sit down with me and continue this conversation further. I do not care for merely winning an argument for the sake of winning and being puffed up. I care about people and I want people to be right. My concerns have been clearly laid out in this letter. May the Lord Jesus Christ be honored and glorified in this letter. And may the Truth and Love from the Lord Jesus Christ be accurately represented through this correspondence.

With respect and the kindest regards,

Not-A-Coward.

Bibliography

Arndt, William, and F Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: A Translation and Adaptation of the Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch Zu Den Schriften Des Neuen Testaments Und der Übrigen Urchristlichen Literatur. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Baker Exegetical Commentary On the New Testament. Edited by Robert Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007.

Boice, James Montgomery. Acts: An Expositional Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Fully revised edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Brown, Paul E. The Holy Spirit: The Spirit’s Interpreting Role in Relation to Biblical Hermeneutics. Fearn: Christian Focus, 2002.

Bruce, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 3rd Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002.

Ironside, H A. Lectures On the Book of Acts. New York: Loizeaux Bros., 1984.

Kistemaker, Simon. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990.

MacArthur, John. Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship. Nashville, Tenneessee: Thomas Nelson, 2013.

MacRae, A. A. “Prophets and Prophecy” in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.
Edited by Merrill C. Tenney, Merrill, 875-903. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1975.

Marshall, I Howard. The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary. american ed.
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1980.

Moody, Dale. Spirit of the Living God: What the Bible Says About the Spirit. Revised edition Nashville:
Broadman Press, 1976.

Mook, James. TH 605 Theology II; Lesson 25. Unpublished course notes: The Master’s Seminary, 2015.

National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Cancer Facts and Figures” page 27, accessed May 3, 2015, http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@research/documents/webcontent/acspc-041787.pdf

Owen, John. The Holy Spirit. Second printing. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. The Holy Spirit. Revised and expanded edition. Chicago: Moody Press, 1997.

Spurgeon, C H. Spurgeon On the Holy Spirit. New Kensington: Whitaker House, 2000.

Walvoord, John F. The Holy Spirit at Work Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1973.
Warfield, Benjamin Breckenridge. The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit. Amityville: Calvary Press Pub., 1997.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: