Matthew 18 and Authors

Article: Shouldn’t We Share Our Concerns About a Book Directly with the Author Instead of in the Public Forum? by Randy Alcorn (original source here)

Recently someone asked me, “When you have concerns about a book, and disagree with it, shouldn’t you talk directly to the author rather than posting about it on your blog?”

In some cases, yes. I’ve gone directly to authors when I have a relationship with them, in the spirit of Matthew 18:15-17. For example, for years I didn’t share my review of The Shack publicly, and just emailed it directly to those who asked me about the book. Because the author and I live in the same area, I was able to invite him to discuss his book. We sat down in a coffee shop for nearly three hours in constructive dialogue. After we talked about a lot of things, I read to him most of the parts of the book that concerned me. When we met together face-to-face, he graciously agreed to respond to my questions, as I had underlined many places in the book where he has God make statements that I believe are not biblically accurate. I actually met with him a second time to discuss the issues.

When it became apparent that he wasn’t going to revise the book in light of the doctrinal concerns that I and many others have expressed, and because the book’s influence was growing and I was still getting questions about it, it seemed appropriate to finally post on my blog a link to what I wrote years before.

However, Matthew 18 addresses the need to go to people privately when they’ve sinned against us, or perhaps when we’ve sinned against them. But I’ve never read a book where I think the author has sinned against me, or I’ve sinned against the author. The author publicly takes a stand, so any ideas in the book are subject to public disagreement. This comes with the territory of being an author. After writing 55 books this is something I’ve long accepted. People routinely criticize my works and ideas, and they absolutely have the right to do so. I don’t lose sleep over that. True, sometimes I feel they have no regard for what I’ve said in context, and that they’re misrepresenting me. But I too have the right to say that just as they have the right to criticize me.

Also, often it’s simply not practical to connect directly with an author, since we don’t have a relationship. In such cases I can certainly hope and pray there are others in their lives who are willing to speak the truth in love to them. I have personally contacted several people with concerns about what they’ve said, and never heard back from them. I get that. Honestly, there are so many people who’ve taken issue with me on various things I’ve written, that often one of our staff members ends up addressing their concerns.

I could spend the rest of my life trying to respond to people’s objections and never be able to do anything else again. So I fully understand the limits of time to respond.

I think what’s central to this issue is that a book is by nature something placed in the public sphere, and is no longer a private matter. When it impacts and influences Christian readers, sometimes after careful consideration, I might feel the need to point out doctrinal and theological issues that readers should be aware of. I believe that just as others are free to do so, I am also.

Those who regularly read my blog know how rare it is for me to express opposition to a book or author. I only do so when I feel God is compelling me to. In each review of a book where I share concerns, I am not attacking the author, but rather simply expressing honest disagreement. Usually my disagreements are with some—not all—of the things he or she says.

Yes, we should all examine our hearts and motives before sharing a review. Yet every published book is fair game for honest evaluation. My books have received their share of criticism, but still I appreciate it when people are even-handed and kind, as I seek to be in my posts. My heart isn’t to tear down others or cause unnecessary division in the Church. (Ironically, some people have judged my motives while calling me judgmental.)

Scripture is clear: we’re to know the truth (1 Timothy 4:3), handle the truth accurately (2 Timothy 2:15), and avoid doctrinal untruths (2 Timothy 2:18). But even as we share what we believe honors and reflects God’s revealed truth, we are to be full of grace, humility, and gentleness. An author isn’t necessarily an opponent, but the principle found in 2 Timothy 2:25 still applies: “Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.”

Rome and the Gospel

My heart was deeply impacted and stirred today as I watched this:

Compelled by the need of the gospel in Rome, Reid and Kyra Karr move their family to Italy to plant a church. When an unimaginable tragedy strikes, Reid is left questioning his calling and his future.

The Gift of Tongues?

Article: Why There is No Such Thing as the Gift of Tongues by Eric Davis, pastor of Cornerstone Church in Jackson Hole, WY. (original source here)

From time to time pastors are asked about a phenomena common to Christianity in the past one hundred years called “the gift of tongues.” The phrase generally refers to a spectrum of experiences, ranging from a supposed private, non-earthly prayer language spoken between the believer and God enabled by the Holy Spirit, to an angelic, non-earthly prayer language by the believer in prayer and worship, to an ecstatic non-earthly utterance enabled by the Spirit spontaneously in the believer in private and/or public worship.

Understandably, the phenomena has created much excitement and inquiry since its rise in the early 1900’s. Professing Christians who experience the phenomena often testify to things such as the encouraging feeling it brings, comfort in the Christian life, and joy. Notwithstanding these, and many other experiences, God’s people must evaluate all things claimed to be of God by proper interpretation of Scripture. When done so, it becomes apparent that this phenomena cannot be justified from the word of God. Having said that, Scripture does teach that there existed a miraculous gift of languages during the foundational, apostolic era of the New Testament church. As clear from Scripture, this was the miraculous ability to speak an unlearned language that is known by others on earth for the purpose of exalting Christ and building up others, while pronouncing judgment on Israel. This was a critical gift for laying the foundation of the church, and, as such, has ceased. However, phenomena as previously mentioned and beyond the biblical gift of languages cannot be justified from Scripture. Briefly, here are eleven reasons why there is no gift of tongues.

The meaning of the word “tongues.”
“Tongues” is an unfortunate rendering of the Greek word γλῶσσα. The word refers either to the tongue organ or spoken human languages understood by other people groups on Earth. Thus, references both in Acts and 1 Corinthians 12-14 refer, not to a private prayer phenomena, but a gift of languages, involving human earthly languages.

The definition of New Testament spiritual gifts.
In 1 Corinthians 12-14, the gift of “tongues,” or “languages,” is referred to as a spiritual gift. There, the apostle Paul teaches that a spiritual gift is an enabling of the Holy Spirit given to regenerate individuals to exalt the lordship of Christ, serve the common good of others, to be used in love for others’ edification, and exercised in an orderly manner. Therefore, the idea of an individualized, private communing contradicts the meaning of New Testament spiritual gifts and renders a gift of tongues as unsubstantiated from Scripture.

The transitional nature of redemptive history in the first century.
Tragically, Israel had spurned Yahweh for centuries, culminating in the rejection of her Messiah. Consequently, God judged Israel in faithfulness to his word and covenant warnings. In part, this judgment involved setting Israel aside for the sake of the church. God would no longer center his redemptive plan on the ethnic nation of Israel, but a spiritual nation; the church. Acts records this glorious transition, as the Spirit empowered believers to make disciples from and among all nations. The idea of an individualized private prayer language contradicts the redemptive historical purpose of the gift of languages in the transitional time of Acts.

In a very vivid way, the God of the nations showed with the gift of languages that one need not immerse themselves in Israeli ethnicity to enter his favor. Believers need no not speak Hebrew and become a Jewish proselyte. Instead, God miraculously enabled people to speak the languages of the nations in order to speak the good news of Christ to the nations. Thus, the transitional nature of salvation history in the first century forbids the idea that this gift was a private prayer language. In no way is it a private phenomenon, but a corporate marvel for the nations and in judgment of Israel (cf. 1 Cor. 14:21).

Jesus’ teaching on prayer in Matthew 6:7.
In Matthew 6:7, Jesus teaches Christians how to pray:

“And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words” (Matt 6:7).

The word translated “meaningless repetition,” is from the Greek verb, battalogeo. Similar to the TDNT (1:597), A.T. Robertson comments that the word carries the idea of “stammerers who repeat the words,” “babbling or chattering,” “empty repetition.” John Nolland says it’s the idea of the repetition of either intelligible or unintelligible sounds in order to multiply effectiveness (Osborne, Matthew, 226). Many commentators agree that the prefix, “batta,” is onomatopoetic. In other words, the prefix sounds similar to the thing it describes; prayers sounding something like, “batta, batta, batta.” Being onomatopoetic does not mean that the word exhaustively covers everything which it describes, but the general idea.

Christ forbids praying this way for two reasons. First, because it is characteristic of Gentiles (Matt 6:7). Praying in a way that piles up language, or non-language, unintelligible, or babbling sounds is prayer characteristic of those who do not know God. Second, our heavenly Father already knows what we need before we think to pray about it, thus we need not pray or worship in a non-earthly linguistic, unintelligible way (Matt 6:8). Therefore, Christian prayer must consist of simple, earthly languages to our God.

The context of 1 Corinthians 14.
Proponents of the gift of tongues often refer to 1 Corinthians 14 to support their position. In that chapter, the apostle Paul corrects the chaotic frenzy which characterized Corinthian church gatherings. The purpose of the chapter was not to give details on the practice of non-language utterances and trances (whether private or public practice), but just the opposite: intelligibility and orderliness must characterize Christian worship gatherings.

Paul is correcting error with respect to what a spiritual gift is and how things ought to operate in the corporate gathering. In the Corinthian congregation there appears to have been a frenzy surrounding this spiritual gift. Continue reading

The Drawing of “All”

Does the Spirit Draw All People That They May Have An Opportunity to Respond?

Visitor: “…the Holy Spirit draws everyone at some point in their life. It is up to man to respond.”

Response: Thank you for your comment but it has no biblical basis. I often hear persons appeal to John 6:44 as if the word “draw” somehow means that man is placed in some neutral semi-regenerate state outside of his natural depravity leaving man with a new moral ability to either 1) believe or 2) not believe. But when read in context verse 44 cannot possibly mean that. Jesus leaves no room for such a view. Here’s why:

Take the time to read verse 44 in light of verse 37 which uses the same language “come to me”, clearly indicating that Jesus is keeping on topic … Verse 37 reads, “ALL that the Father gives to me will come to me.” So according to this verse, HOW MANY of those who the Father gives the Son will come to faith in him? Verse 37 says ALL. It does not say some. It does not say 50. It says all. And it also teaches that the Father giving them to the Son precedes their coming to him. So saving grace is not a reward for faith but the effectual/infallible cause of it.

Jesus is not teaching what you are saying… Instead in light of verse 37 we can only conclude that ALL THOSE whom the Father DRAWS will come. (Also see verses 63 & 65 which teach the same idea).

We are not privileged to know whom God elects. That is not the reason for discussing this subject. This is why we should preach the gospel indiscriminately to all. The Scripture says that God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. The purpose of talking about this is not to find out who is elect (which we have no knowledge of) … rather we discuss it because Jesus and the Bible talks about regeneration and election so frequently. Why does Jesus and the Bible do so? Well … everything in the Bible is for our benefit… so we ignore it at our own peril. The purpose the bible gives us is that it drives us back to the critical truth that salvation is by Christ alone. Not partly man and partly God… no … if man believes we ascribe all glory to Christ who not only justifies all who believe, but by his Spirit quickens the dead that they may believe. it is “because of Him that we are in Christ Jesus… so let him who boasts boast in the Lord.” (1 Cor 1:29, 30)

But what about John 12:32 which appears to some to be a universal drawing of humanity?

“And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

First, remember that Jesus speaks of John 12 in a completely different context as John 6. Take the time to read that passage and you will quickly discover that it is an entirely different discussion. In John 6 Jesus is speaking to some unbelieving Jews and in John 12 to a group of Gentiles. The emphasis is that Jesus was doing something new… Up to that time only the Jews were privy to God’s revelation … Gentiles were largely excluded. Now Jesus was grafting the gentiles onto the vine … so in content of John 12… Jesus is not teaching that he is going to draw all men without exception, but all men without distinction – Jews and Gentiles alike.

This concept can be seen by the same author John in chapter 11: “Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish. … He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

Notice that Jesus would die, not for all the Gentiles but for the scattered children of God from among the nations.

Revelation 5:9 (also the apostle John) also teaches the same “by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.”

So when Jesus says he will draw all men in John 12 he is referring to all men without distinction. People OUT OF every tribe, language, nation etc.

Also don’t forget that the immediate context of John 6:44 makes the “all men without exception” interpretation an impossibility. In verse 37 Jesus excludes it.

Mon, 03/10/2014 – 17:08 — John Hendryx

Evaluating the Modern Gift of Prophecy

A Word from the Lord? Evaluating the Modern Gift of Prophecy by Nathan Busenitz

Introduction

The title for our seminar this afternoon is “A Word from the Lord? Evaluating the Modern Gift of Prophecy.” And that subtitle really defines our goal in this session. We want to look at prophecy in the contemporary charismatic movement and compare it to the Word of God.

It is important for me to note, at the beginning of this seminar, that much of what we will talk about today parallels what is found in the Strange Fire book. So, if you want to dig into this topic in more depth, I would recommend that resource as a place to start.

Definition of Terms

Now, before we begin, it is important that we define several terms:

Charismatic – The term “charismatic” is very broad, encompassing millions of people and thousands of denominations. Charismatics are known for their belief that the miraculous and revelatory gifts described in the New Testament are still in operation today and therefore should be sought by contemporary Christians. According to the International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, there are more than 20,000 distinct Pentecostal and Charismatic groups in the world. Those groups are generally subdivided into three broad categories or “waves.”

The First Wave refers to the classic Pentecostal Movement which began in the early 1900s under the leadership of men like Charles Parham and William Seymour.

The Second Wave is known as the Charismatic Renewal Movement. It began in the 1960s as mainline Protestant denominations were influenced by Pentecostal theology.

The Third Wave represents the influence of Pentecostal theology within evangelical denominations. It started under the leadership of C. Peter Wagner and John Wimber, both of whom were teaching at Fuller Theological Seminary at the time. Today, we will be using the term “charismatic” to encompass all three waves, doing so in an admittedly broad fashion.

(2) Continuationist – The term “continuationist” is similar to the term “charismatic” in that it refers to a belief in the continuation of the miraculous and revelatory gifts of the New Testament. Thus, continuationists assert that things like the gift of prophecy, the gift of tongues, and gifts of healing are still functioning in the church today.

However, the term “continuationist” is often used to differentiate theologically conservative charismatics from those in the broader charismatic movement. Well-known evangelical continuationists would include Christian leaders like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and Sam Storms. And, it is important to note, that while we do not agree with their position regarding the charismatic gifts, we have much that we appreciate about these men. Thus, the term “continuationist” often helps us differentiate conservative evangelical charismatics from those in the broader movement.

Here is how one continuationist author explained the term:

The term charismatic has sometimes been associated with doctrinal error, unsubstantiated claims of healing, financial impropriety, outlandish and unfulfilled predictions, an overemphasis on the speech gifts, and some regrettable hairstyles. . . . That’s why I’ve started to identify myself more often as a continuationist rather than a charismatic. (Bob Kauflin, Worship Matters, 86)

(3) Cessationist – The term “cessationist” refers to those who believe that the miraculous and revelatory gifts passed away in church history after the apostolic age ended. Cessationists therefore assert that supernatural phenomena like the gift of apostleship, the gift of prophecy, the gift of tongues, and the gift of healing are no longer functioning in the church today. Rather, they were given as signs to authenticate the ministry of the apostles during the foundational age of the church. Once the apostolic age has passed, and the canon of Scripture completed, the primary purpose for those gifts was fulfilled and they ceased.

Prophecy

With those key terms defined, we can now turn our attention to the gift of prophecy. When we speak about “prophecy” or “the gift of prophecy” or a “word of prophecy,” we are talking about the declaration of divine revelation. I think most charismatics and most cessationists would agree that—at a very basic level—prophecy might be defined as the human report of God-given revelation. For example, continuationist Sam Storms defines prophecy as is “the human report of divine revelation” (Four Views on Miraculous Gifts, 207).

And, in terms of a very rudimentary definition of prophecy, I think that is one that most cessationists would be happy to agree on. Biblical prophets like Moses and Isaiah received new revelation from God and they reported that revelation to the people both by speaking that truth and by writing it down. Many charismatics today similarly claim that they receive new revelation from God which they are then able to articulate as words of prophecy to others.

The word prophet itself comes from the Greek prophētēs which means “to speak in the place of” or to be a “spokesman.” So a prophet is a spokesman for God. And when someone claims to be exercising the gift of prophecy or claims to have a word from the Lord that is exactly what they are claiming. In that moment, at least, they are claiming to be a spokesperson for God.

The Need to Test Prophets

Throughout history, there have been many people who have claimed to be prophets, who have claimed to speak for God. But all Christians—whether charismatics or cessationists—would agree that at least some of these prophets were false prophets.

For the sake of time, I’ll provide just three examples.

In the second century, there was a false prophet named Montanus. Montanus claimed to speak for God. He said that the world was about to end, promoted extremely legalistic ethical standards on his followers, and claimed that God was going to establish the New Jerusalem, not in Jerusalem, but in the town of Pepuza in Phrygia. Needless to say, his predictions did not come true. He was declared a heretic by the early church. Continue reading

The Matchless Miracles of Christ

In the course of His earthly ministry, Jesus

healed diseases
cast out demons
calmed storms
raised the dead
fed thousands at one time
walked on water
turned water into wine
and even controlled the placement of fish (e.g. Matt. 17:23–27; Luke 5: 1–11).

Because His miracles were so well-known, Jesus Himself pointed to them as verification that He came from God. As He told His critics, “For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me” (John 5:36; cf. Matthew 11:5; John 10:38).

Significantly, Jesus’ opponents never denied His miracles. Though they questioned the divine origin of His power (Matthew 12:24), they were never able to deny that the works He and His apostles performed were supernatural (John 11:47–48; Acts 4:16). Even today, “the fact that miracle working belongs to the historical Jesus is no longer disputed.” [1]

In the words of the German scholar, Wolfgang Trilling: “We are convinced and hold it for historically certain that Jesus did in fact perform miracles. . . . The miracle reports occupy so much space in the Gospels that it is impossible that all could have been subsequently invented or transferred to Jesus.” [2]

Jewish literature from the first few centuries A.D. confirms that the Jews, like the Christians, accepted the fact that Jesus performed supernatural acts. Unlike many of the pseudo-miracles done today in the name of Jesus, the actual miracles of Jesus were irrefutable. But while they could not deny His power, the Jewish religious leaders rejected the idea that God was the source behind it.

The Pharisees of Jesus’ day attributed His power directly to Satan (Matthew 12:24). In later centuries, the rabbis attempted to pass it off as sorcery and magic. [3] Thus, in the Babylonian Talmud we read this accusation: “Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray.” [4] Though intended pejoratively, that statement provides backhanded confirmation of the fact that Jesus performed amazing wonders (which His enemies misconstrued as “magic”). The statement also indicates that His miracles were so compelling that many in Israel believed in Him.

Jewish sources further acknowledge that Jesus’ immediate followers also had the power to heal in His name. [5] Princeton Scholar Peter Schäfer comments on one particular account in the Talmud, in which the grandson of an unbelieving Jewish man named Yehoshua b. Levi was miraculously healed by a Christian. Though the healing was successful, Yehoshua b. Levi was mortified that his grandson had been subjected to such “magical” powers. Based on that account, Schäfer explains the Jewish perspective of Jesus’ miracles:

The story about Yehoshua b. Levi and his grandson . . . presents an ironical critique of Jesus’ and his [apostle’s] power [to perform miracles]. True, it argues, their magical power is undeniable: it works, and one cannot do anything against its effectiveness. But it is [in the minds of the Jews] an unauthorized and misused power. [6]

Again, the opponents of Christ (and the apostles) could not deny His miracle-working ability. The best they could do was try to deny the heavenly source of that power.

Faced with the reality that Jesus and His immediate followers could perform miraculous deeds, the Jewish leaders (both in Jesus’ day and in the generations that followed) had a clear choice. But rather than attribute “the chaste, ethical, and redemptive nature of the miracles of Christ” [7] to God, they chose instead to attribute them (either directly or indirectly) to Satan. Their wild accusations exposed the irrational nature of their blinding unbelief.

Jesus Himself pointed out the self-contradictory nature of their claim (cf. Matt. 12:25–32): Why would He use His miracle-working power to fight against Satan, if He was in fact empowered by Satan? That Jesus used His miracles to further the kingdom of God clearly revealed the true source of His power. [8]

Though neither the Pharisees nor the later rabbis responded in belief, their writings (from the first few centuries of church history) provide historical confirmation of Jesus as a miracle worker. [9] His ability to perform mighty wonders was undeniable.

Thus Christians today can look to Christ’s miracles as verification that He is indeed the Son of God (John 3:2); Acts 2:22). As the early Christian leader Justin Martyr (d. 165) explained to the Jewish antagonists of his day,

“[Jesus] was manifested to your race and healed those who were from birth physically maimed and deaf and lame, causing one to leap and another to hear and a third to see at his word. And he raised the dead and gave them life and by his actions challenged the men of his time to recognize him.” [10]

Even today, two millennia later, the accounts of Jesus’ miracles leave us in amazed wonder as we reflect on the majesty of who He really is.

Modern Day Tongues

A series of 4 short articles by Nathan Busenitz (original source thecripplegate.com)

Article 1: Are Tongues Real Languages?

We begin today’s post with a question: In New Testament times, did the gift of tongues produce authentic foreign languages only, or did it also result in non-cognitive speech (like the private prayer languages of modern charismatics)? The answer is of critical importance to the contemporary continuationist/cessationist debate regarding the gift of tongues.

From the outset, it is important to note that the gift of tongues was, in reality, the gift of languages. I agree with continuationist author Wayne Grudem when he writes:

It should be said at the outset that the Greek word glossa, translated “tongue,” is not used only to mean the physical tongue in a person’s mouth, but also to mean “language.” In the New Testament passages where speaking in tongues is discussed, the meaning “languages” is certainly in view. It is unfortunate, therefore, that English translations have continued to use the phrase “speaking in tongues,” which is an expression not otherwise used in ordinary English and which gives the impression of a strange experience, something completely foreign to ordinary human life. But if English translations were to use the expression “speaking in languages,” it would not seem nearly as strange, and would give the reader a sense much closer to what first century Greek speaking readers would have heard in the phrase when they read it in Acts or 1 Corinthians. (Systematic Theology, 1069).

But what are we to think about the gift of languages?

If we consider the history of the church, we find that the gift of languages was universally considered to be the supernatural ability to speak authentic foreign languages that the speaker had not learned.

In the early church, the writings of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Hegemonius, Gregory of Nazianzen, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Augustine, Leo the Great, and others all support this claim. Here are just a few examples:

Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390): “They spoke with foreign tongues, and not those of their native land; and the wonder was great, a language spoken by those who had not learned it. And the sign is to them that believe not, and not to them that believe, that it may be an accusation of the unbelievers, as it is written, ‘“With other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people, and not even so will they listen to Me” says the Lord’” (The Oration on Pentecost, 15–17).

John Chrysostom (c. 344–407), commenting on 1 Cor. 14:1–2Open in Logos Bible Software (if available): “And as in the time of building the tower [of Babel] the one tongue was divided into many; so then the many tongues frequently met in one man, and the same person used to discourse both in the Persian, and the Roman, and the Indian, and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him: and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak divers languages” (Homilies on First Corinthians, 35.1).

Augustine (354–430): “In the earliest times, ‘the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spoke with tongues,” which they had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance.’ These were signs adapted to the time. For it was necessary for there to be that sign of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth” (Homilies on the First Epistle of John, 6.10).

In reaching this conclusion, the church fathers equated the tongues of Acts 2 with the tongues of 1 Corinthians 12–14, insisting that in both places the gift consisted of the ability to speak genuine languages.

The Reformers, similarly, regarded the gift of tongues as the supernatural ability to speak real foreign languages. By way of example, here is John Calvin’s treatment of 1 Corinthians 12:10):

John Calvin: “There was a difference between the knowledge of tongues, and the interpretation of them, for those who were endowed with the former [i.e. the gift of tongues] were, in many cases, not acquainted with the language of the nation with which they had to deal. The interpreters rendered foreign tongues into the native language. These endowments they did not at that time acquire by labor or study, but were put in possession of them by a wonderful revelation of the Spirit.” (Commentary on 1 Cor. 12:10)

To the names of the Reformers, we could add the names of the Puritans, and the names of theologians like Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, Charles Spurgeon, and B.B. Warfield among many others. Continue reading