Revivalists claim that when one receives the Holy Ghost, apart from being saved from sin, one is endowed with ‘power from on high’ (Acts 1:8) which gives one the miraculous ability to function as one called of God and able to proclaim the gospel in ‘Spirit and in truth’.

An almost instant infilling and gaining of the true knowledge and meaning of the scriptures.

The word ‘Dunamis’ or ‘dynamite’ was often used to describe the type of power one receives with signs following, to speak in tongues, to heal, operation of “gifts” in the Church, and so on.

It gives one a sense of superiority and that one is ‘higher” than the rest, a special place in God’s domain. Such self-righteousness and not the right-standing before God.

 The Apostles message; “Jesus Christ, in fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament, was sent by God, preached the coming of the Kingdom of God, died, was buried, rose from the dead, and was raised to the right hand of God in heaven. To those who accepted this proclamation, the reward was deliverance from sin, or salvation.” (from article, The Encyclopædia Britannica)

The Gospel message far removed from the false gospel teaching of Revivalist delusion.

What part does the Holy Spirit play in Salvation?

The Holy Spirit is instrumental in revealing the will of God on earth. The third person of the Godhead he continues the work of Jesus, bringing comfort and faith to those that are sick and oppressed, giving discernment of scripture and its meaning to those whom are called and would seek out the correct knowledge and wisdom that God has revealed in his word.

John the Baptist witnessed the Holy Spirit fall upon Jesus and we note was the very start of Jesus’ commission in proclaiming and establishing the Kingdom of God on earth.

We (true believers) have the Holy Spirit, who is also worthy of worship, as an ‘integral headrest’ in the resurrection and glorification of Jesus Christ and for us today.

To proclaim “salvation” as in the case Revivalists, is degrading and must surely ‘grieve’ the Holy Spirit of God and Jesus.

Hi Ian

One point that does trouble me is the statement that Luke writes in Acts 2:38 is this:

“ λημψεσθε την δωρεαν του άγιου μνευματος ‘”

..and this is a genitive of apposition (Wallace,95) (Epexegetical Genitive).. So what Luke is saying in effect is “you will receive the gift WHO is the Holy Spirit” . Now given that Peter is addressing an exclusive Jewish audience here and there is no reference at all in this part of the narrative discourse to gentiles and noting also that gentiles are not at included at this time of the gospel history that Luke presents within the narrated pericope that commences in Acts 1:1 and concludes in Acts 5:42 “And everyday in the temple and at home, they did not cease to teach and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah", then I can state that 1) revivalist pneumatology is completely full of fault and 2) revivalist soteriology is non-existent.

Blessings

Eric

Hi, Epi.

I'd be interested in your comments on exerpts from a Revivalist leaflet I recently came across.  It's quite a recent one, although some of the wording seems to be out of Lloydian times, titled :-

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IS BIBLE EVIDENCE OF HOLY GHOST BAPTISM . . .

"JESUS CHRIST, Son of God, author and finisher of our faith says believers will speak in new tongues (Mark 16 : 15 - 18). Actually, it's probable that Jesus didn't say that at all. The 'longer ending' to the Gospel According to Mark was penned by someone other than the author whom we refer to as Mark. Furthermore, neither Matthew nor Luke includes such a saying in their respective (synoptic) gospels, and neither does John in his. Consequently, if speaking in 'tongues' is the be-all, end-all; then why is there absolutely no mention of the practice anywhere in the four Gospels, apart from a single, late-in-date, and clearly secondary addition?

1.  "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature ... "

What Gospel?  A Gospel that will bring prople to believe, to be baptised, to speak in tongues, to work miracles:  Or another Gospel?  A Gospel described in both Old and New Testaments as one of Holy Ghost fire and power, or the insipid apology for a so-called Gospel the professing "church" has foisted on to the unwary today? According to the logic applied by the author of this tract, Paul and Mark clearly had in mind something altogether different with respect to the nature of the gospel message. Reflecting the teaching of Jesus, Mark and his fellow evangelists understood the gospel to be the 'good news' about the Kingdom of God being ushered in by Jesus the King. And Paul ... hang on! He understood it to be precisely the same thing! But such is not the message that Revivalism presents, so I can only assume this implies that Revivalists have misunderstood and misconstrued the simple teaching of Jesus and his apostles :)

2.  "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved ... "

He that believeth what?  The Gospel!   The Gospel identifies a living Christ, one who died and rose again.  One who calls us to personal repentance and to the waters of separation --- to our burial with Him in baptism.  The Gospel also promises "signs following: --- something our modern theologians know nothing about. Well now, I'm not so sure about that last statement. The first clause is perfectly orthodox; it's how Revivalists understand the thrust of the second where they part company with the Christian faith.

5.  "They shall speak with new tongues ..."

........We are reminded that, despite the reprimand Paul brought to the Corinthian Church, he addressed an assembly where all had the ability to speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 14 : 23). Nope. Not even close :)

(etc etc and finishes with :- )

WHAT THEN, IS THE GOSPEL WE PREACH?

These verses from Mark, the signs promised are part and parcel of the ministry and message of Jesus Christ: The Gospel must be preached, believers must be baptised, unbelievers will be damned (judged by the Word) and the signs we have listed will be in the midst of the Church of the Bible. And they ... are. Just not in the mistaken manner believed and promoted by Longfieldians.

Repentance and baptism will bring the mighty infilling of the Holy Spirit to to all, with the same evidence or proof now as then,  (Acts 2 : 37 - 39). I've spilled enough ink on the proper meaning of these verses over the years to not be interested in repeating myself afresh, now ;)

                                       -------------------------------------------------------------

Hardly the kerygma of the early church  - to which they liken themselves. Indeed. Revivalists believe themselves to be restoring the practices of the ancient Church. What they've done, however, is restore certain of the errors of the post-apostolic sects and heresies.

This is what Revivalists accept as gospel.  Others have an "insipid" Gospel which they foist on people.  Those not "Spiritfilled" in a fully tongues speaking church are the unsaved. And yet Scripture nowhere teaches that those who don't speak in 'tongues' aren't saved. To the contrary, the New Testament teaching is perfectly clear: faith in Jesus Christ as God + nothing = salvation.

Interestingly neither the words "Spiritfilled" or  "unsaved",  used freely by Revivalists,  are to be found in scripture. To be honest I'm quite hardpressed to think of a single Revivalist practice which is representative of what's found in Scripture! ;)

Lastly, who says that what Revivalists 'do' actually is the biblical gift of tongues anyway? Assumptions, assumptions.

Blessings, girlie.

Ian

Hello Ian,

I have held my suspicions of that longer ending of Mark for some time now. Now that you have brought it up, I'll do a journal and source search, perhaps starting with Wallace and of course my NIGTC commentary on Mark in my library here at home. I suppose the longer ending might only be found among a particular family of MSS - time I had a closer look

thanks Dude

Eric

Hi, Epi.

I've read that most reliable manuscripts of the gospel of Mark end at verse 8 while other manuscripts include various endings to the gospel. There's an essay of mine somewhere on this site that addresses precisely this issue, and its implications. There's also a thread devoted the same, the link to which appears below:

forum1.aimoo.com/revival/Didaktikon-debunks-Revivalist-Theology/The-Longer-Vs-the-Shorter-Ending-of-Mark-16-1-1677535.html

UPDATE: a copy of my Mark 16 essay is available here:

https://image.aimoo.com/ForumImages/69dabc5d-4055-4ea0-a38a-9fcf49f1742d/080418_150449_55437823.pdf

Blessings,

Ian