The Charismatic “Word of Knowledge” Shibboleth: with Pentecostalism and the Cessation of the Gifts VIDEO

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Pentecostalism and the Cessation of t…“, posted with vodpod

 

 

 

 

The Word of Knowledge

OK, this might be a bit controversial, as I’m going to challenge a charismatic shibboleth…

I have had a blog entry in preparation for a couple of years now on the meaning of “word of knowledge”, as I am not sure that the what charismatics tend to use this phrase to mean is what Paul means when he uses it. Many charismatics use “word of knowledge” to refer to supernaturally obtained knowledge about a person. For example, when Jesus says to the woman at the well, “you have five husbands”, this would be seen as a “word of knowledge”. Personally I think that this would more naturally be called a gift of “prophecy” (Gk: propheteia) or even “revelation” (Gk: apocalypsis).

What’s more, there are some concerns I have with the way this gift is used. Very often it takes the form of announcing a specific fact about a non-specific person in a meeting. In other words, it starts with “there is someone here who…”. Now all the examples of “words of knowledge” that can be found in the Bible were directed specifically at the person they relate to. This meant they could be tested, at the very least by the recipient of the word of knowedge. And where Christians use any spiritual gift, that gift should be tested.

I think this non-person-speicific approach can result in “words of knowledge” that are very vague and therefore can be seen as a risk-free form of prophecy, where there is no come-back if it misses the mark. I sometimes hear what I call “words of statistical probablity” e.g. “there is someone here with a bad back” in a room of 500 people. People argue that it causes faith for healing to rise in the hearers. I would say that I have spoken to many for whom this type of utterance leads to skepticism. I have seen non-Christian magicians wow gullible people with probability tricks – “does the name ‘Steve’ mean anything to you?”. I’m not saying that God can’t give a specific prophecy without telling the prophet who it is for, but it just strikes me as out of keeping with the biblical precedents we have.

Anyway, I am not convinced we have enough exegetical material to know exactly what Paul means when he talks about a “word of knowledge”. It is only mentioned briefly in passing (1 Cor 12:8), and not given a definition. The Greek word for “knowledge” (gnosis) could refer to natural knowledge – the type you get by studying and learning, but also could refer to supernaturally revealed knowledge (hence the “gnostics”).

So which is it? Let’s survey the places the word occurs in 1 Corinthians to see whether it refers to knowledge obtained by natural means (i.e. being taught), or by supernatural revelation.

1 Cor 1:5 in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge – probably natural knowledge

1 Cor 8:1 we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. – again probably natural knowledge

1 Cor 8:7 However, not all possess this knowledge. – again natural knowledge (also 1 Cor 8:10,11)

1 Cor 12:8 to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit – the verse in question. not enough information from the context to decide

1 Cor 13:2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. – could be either in this context.

1 Cor 13:8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. – OK, now we have the feeling that Paul can use “knowledge” to refer to some kind of supernatural revelation. Surely we will not all be ignoramuses in heaven.

1 Cor 14:6 Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? – I’ve seen lots of attempts to differentiate between these four terms. I have no idea who is right. Here’s my suggestion. Paul is saying: “revelation or knowledge … in other words … prophecy or teaching” i.e. revelation is another word for prophecy and knowledge is another word for teaching. Its only a guess though.

1 Cor 15:34 For some have no knowledge of God. – this is talking about personal knowledge rather than factual so doesn’t help us

I won’t bore you with all of Paul’s other uses of this term (and there are a lot), but suffice to say that on the whole when “knowledge” refers to knowledge of factual information rather than personal knowledge of God, its source seems to be through natural means. So someone teaches us doctrine, or we study the scriptures ourselves, and we come to have knowledge – knowledge of the truth about God, about doctrine, about the mystery of salvation. In other words, with the exception of 1 Cor 13:8, it seems Paul does not usually use knowledge to mean “something that I didn’t learn from any person or book – God dropped it into my head”. Prophecy or revelation are the words to describe that. What’s more, the knowledge Paul is usually talking about seems to be doctrinal in nature – which again is out of keeping with the idea of facts about people being the normal content of a “word of knowledge”.

So on balance I am tempted to think that the gift of knowledge refers to some who has a working understanding of the Bible and a good grasp of theology, who edifies the church by explaining things to people, whether it be one on one, in a small group context, or in a teaching ministry. They bring a “word of knowledge”, by applying that knowledge in a way that teaches people, and gives them insight to see and appreciate how the Bible applies to them, and to understand God and the gospel better. This is not a dry intellectual gift – the Holy Spirit is impressing these truths on them as they study the word so they can share them with others.

What prompted me to finally post about this was that I listened to Mark Driscoll preaching on 1 Cor 12 (listen here), and he takes a similar line, arguing that the person with this gift is a “book geek” who loves to study and research, and is over the moon at the arrival of a new parcel from Amazon. People with this gift assimilate loads of information and like to hear all sides of an argument. They become a “google for Jesus” as people come to them to ask difficult questions and they love to explain what they have learned in a way that is accessible. Although its a long sermon, its well worth listening to. He also explains in it that his position on the gifts is that he is a “charismatic with a seatbelt”, and his definition of how you know whether you are in a charismaniac church is hilarious (11 minutes in to the sermon). The discussion of the gift of knowledge is towards the end of the sermon.

Anyway, whatever the gift of “knowledge” really means, I like the idea of studying to be a “google for Jesus”. I think that kind of describes a lot of Christian bloggers – theology book lovers who are looking for people to share what they have read with.

http://www.wordandspirit.co.uk/blog/2006/08/11/the-word-of-knowledge/

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-

***RECOMMEND THIS BLOG*** CLICK HERE TO SEND an E-mail referral to a friend

The modern beginnings of Oneness by LetUsReason.org

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “The New Oneness Translation (N.O.T.)“, posted with vodpod

 

 

 

 

The Pentecostal movement was from its inception Trinitarian. It was from the revival at the Azusa Street Mission from 1906 to 1909 that the Pentecostal experience spread throughout the world. When this modern day revival had first occurred with the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues, it was upholding Trinitarianism.

Their message of Oneness was first delivered to the Pentecostals that fateful day on 1913 in a camp meeting in Arroyo Seco, California, where hundreds of preachers were attending. The truth of the Oneness of God was given accompanied by the new revelation of baptism in the name of Jesus. Evangelist R.E. McAlister was selected to preach on the subject of water baptism. He began with the accepted baptismal message and spoke on the different modes of baptism, mentioning trine immersion by which the candidate was immersed three times face forward. He summed it up by “they justify their method, by saying that baptism is in the likeness of Christ’s death, and make a point from scripture that Christ bowed his head when he died.” that to them, it was necessary to baptize once for each person in the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). He concluded his message abruptly by saying that the Scriptural answer to this was that the Apostles invariably baptized all their converts once in the name of Jesus Christ. He ended by stating the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were never used by the early church in Christian baptism .

McAlister introduced in 1913 a “new thing,” a Jesus name baptismal formula–  that had no mention of the Father and the Holy Spirit.  McAlister was taken aside at the time and told not to preach the this new theory about the “baptismal formula.”     

However, many hearing McAllister speak received the new revelation of the name Jesus.  Three important men attended and were influenced by this new revelation, these were Frank Ewart, G.T.Haywood, Glenn Cook.

By the spring of 1914,Ewart accepted the “new found truth “became one of its leading advocates. Ewart reached the conclusion that the singular “name” in Matthew 28:19 was Jesus Christ. He came to believe that the one true God who had revealed himself as Father, in the Son, and as the Holy Spirit was none other than Jesus Christ. To support this view, he pointed to Colossians 2:9, which states that in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Ewart explained his discovery to other Pentecostal ministers, some of whom rejected his teaching, but others enthusiastically embraced it. On April 15, 1914, Ewart rebaptized Glenn A. Cook, his assistant and a veteran evangelist of the Azusa Street Mission, in the name of Jesus Christ, and Cook rebaptized Ewart. This would set in motion an issue that would divide the Pentecostal movement between the Trinitarians and the Jesus Name only, or Oneness, believers. After Ewart and Cook were rebaptized, they began to rebaptized thousands of Pentecostals with the shorter  new found formula “in Jesus name.” Claiming those baptized with Mt.28 were not valid, it must be “in the name of Jesus” (only). Anyone baptized in the threefold name of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, must renounce that baptism and be rebaptised with the right words said over them, before they can be regarded as biblically baptised.   Today it is added one must speak in tongues to have salvation.

This evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit (i.e. speaking in tongues) must be present or they are not born again, and they cannot enter the Kingdom of God.Frank Ewart stated of this message it was “the shot had been fired, and its sound was destined to be heard around the world, as Christendom would soon be shaken by this new doctrine (p.106) But it was hardly new, it was a revived ancient heresy of Sabellian. Not unlike the Campellites and Kip Mckean, who also stated of his discovery in restoring the ancient Gospel of salvation by water, what a revelation !

When the new baptismal formulae was promoted and accepted it opened the door to the Sabellian heresy that was dealt with so long ago in the early Church. All these conclusions were arrived by a method of interpretation, that used only a “part” of Scripture not the “whole” teaching in Scripture.  In other words they made the whole bible to “fit” the new baptismal formula.This movement began to sweep through the church’s, especially the newly formed Assembly’s of God. The issue of baptism in Jesus name was debated at the general council in 1915.Trinitarians within the Assembly of God stood their ground, opposing the new doctrine and embraced the traditional formula. A “Statement of Fundamental Truths was drawn up adopting a Trinitarian statement in 1916 as a basis for membership. With this stand it severed 156 ministers from the 585 which were in the organization. From this the Oneness denomination was formed. The Pentecostal Church officially Incorporated in 1945 separating with the Assemblies. In January 1918 the General Assembly of the Apostolic Assemblies merged with the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, a Pentecostal organization that be in Los Angeles in 1906 (Golder, 1973, 31)

According to Oneness, they were promoting false doctrine and were not saved because they did not follow the prescribed formulae of being baptized in Jesus’ name “only,” nor did they renounce the Trinity. But Oneness wouldn’t even know there was a baptism of the Spirit or the gift of glossalia if it were not for those Trinitarians who received it first. Considering  the Oneness position that is held today, we would have to believe that those who first had the evidence of the gift of tongues (but were Trinitarians) were unsaved and practicing paganism.

So they trace their own beginnings to Trinitarian’s, then turn around and claim they alone have the truth, being the one true Church. So the Church was refound 85 years ago by a new revelation and an experience. What started as a new baptism formula actually became a restoration of a lost gospel — salvation by water. It was not salvation in Jesus name but specifically salvation by baptism in Jesus name. They then took the position of being the “only church” who preaches the true “Apostolic doctrine” the same as the first church.” Up until this time all the people that loved and served the Lord were all lost, not having the Spirit or truth, because of an improper baptism and no tongues. The truth of the matter is that most agree it was they who departed from historic Christian doctrine. By isolating themselves and thinking that they alone hold to the true Apostolic doctrine apart from the Christian church, they have joined with many others that have preceded them to lay their claim to restoring the truth. The Mormons, 7th day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, the Campellites     ( today’s Int. Churches of Christ) and those who came afterwards like Iglesia ni Cristo, ad infinitum.

***************************************

This  is from Bob Ross’ “The Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ.” a defense against “Oneness attacks on Historic Christianity. (1993)

Observations:

(1) The “baptism of the Spirit and speaking in tongues” had been experienced about thirteen years before the introduction of the new “baptismal formulae” in 1913.

(2) Up until the new formula was introduced in 1913, the movement was Trinitarian in doctrine and in its baptismal formula, except for Parham’s abortive effort, if in fact this was true [Foster, p.121].

(3) Following the acceptance of the new baptismal formula, changes were made in both interpretation of Scripture and in theological concepts so as to “fit” the new baptismal formula.

(4) The hermeneutic,” or method of interpretation, was therefore “inductive,” from a “part” to the “whole”. Or, in simple terms, they made the whole bible fit their one theory on the formula for baptism, even to the denial of the trinity.

(5) This interpretation not only revised their interpretation of every verse in the Bible that has to do with the Godhead, so as to bring these passages “into line” with the new baptismal idea, it also implied or expressly stated that all of the past Christian history was “paganistic” in its doctrines, practices, and interpretations relating to the trinity .

All of the denominations, such as Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Methodists the Episcopalians, the Congregationalists, the Lutherans, the Reformed churches, and any other Trinitarians, were wrong on the Godhead and their Confessions of Faith were filled with the false doctrine of paganism. Outstanding Christian leaders, such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, the Puritans, John Wesley, George Whitfield, John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Andrew Fuller, C.H. Spurgeon and a galaxy of other similar names were wrong and were advocates of “paganism.”

The men who translated the Bible, such as Wycliff, Coverdale, Tyndale, the King James translators, and the like, were also wrong and were advocates of “paganism.”

The only people in history that the “Oneness” movement can identify with are heretics such as the early post-apostolic “Modalists”– like Noetus, Praxeus, Sabellius, later on the heretic Servetus who was famed for his blasphemy of the trinity, and “clairvoyant”, Emmanuel Swedenborg, none of which we covet for our own theological “family tree”. They also are in the habit of quoting agnostics, “monotheistic” [Christ-rejecting] Jews- – perhaps anyone- – who rejects the trinity on some grounds.

(6) The fallacy, therefore, was not only one of basic doctrine, but the route pursued in the arrival at the ultimate “oneness” theology was faulty. The proper method of biblical hermeneutics (interpretation) is deductive – – that is, you draw the truth from the text; you do not force theories upon or into the text. You do not come to the Bible with a theory, an axiom, a principle, and force the entire Bible to conform to that particular view. To quote an old, old saying, Let the Bible say what it says.”

Every heretical movement is marked by what might be called “all kinds of fancy twistings and turnings,” as a gentlemen once said of a piece of hand-crafted furniture. A great deal of “hacking-and-hewing” must be done to make the passages fit the “hobby-horse” of its advocates. We see this in Campbellism, in Russellism, in Adventism, in Romanism, and in all the sects and cults that have peculiar notions to maintain. It calls to mind the idol of the Philistines, Dagon: the creation of their own minds and hands becomes the predominant hobby of all their energies, They read the Bible with this hobby constantly in mind, bending every statement into a distortion to keep from decapitation the idol.

(7) The ultimate discrepancy of the “Oneness” movement is the fact that their current “baptismal formula” calls for “baptism in Jesus’ name for the remission of sins and baptism with the Holy Ghost, with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues,” yet when this “gift” was supposedly “restored in 1901,” none of those who “received it followed this immutable “formula”! The “new revelation” did not arrive on the scene until thirteen years after the original “restoration” (1913)! And it was even later still that the “new truth” was finally developed into the full-fledged “Oneness” system that it is today, represented by such writers as Bernard.

http://www.letusreason.org/Onenes21.htm

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-

***RECOMMEND THIS BLOG*** CLICK HERE TO SEND an E-mail referral to a friend