Charismatics Just Don't Get It!

Experience, as we have noted repeatedly, is the foundation upon which much of the charismatic belief system is built.  Experience is also the authority charismatics most frequently cite to validate their teachings.  Their experience-centered approach to truth even influences the way charismatics handle Scripture.  The book of Acts -- a journal of the apostles' experiences -- is where charismatics usually turn in search of biblical support for what they believe.

Acts is historical narrative, in contrast to the epistles, which are didactic.  Acts is a chronicle of the infant church's experiences, the epistles contain instructions for believers throughout the church age.  Historically, Christians committed to a biblical perspective have recognized the difference.  That is, evangelical theologians have drawn the heart of their doctrine from Bible passages penned expressly to teach the church.  They have understood Acts as an inspired historical record of the apostolic period, not necessarily viewing every event or phenomenon recorded there as normative for the entire church age.

Charismatics, however, craving the experiences described in Acts, have assembled a doctrinal system that views the extraordinary events of the early apostolic age as necessary hallmarks of the Holy Spirit's working -- tokens of spiritual power that are to be routinely expected by all Christians for all time.

That rather serious interpretive error undermines charismatics' comprehension of Scripture and muddies several key biblical issues crucial to a right understanding of the charismatic controversy.  Gordon Fee, himself a charismatic, commented on the hermeneutical difficulties posed by the way charismatics typically render the book of Acts;

If the primitive church is normative, which expression of it is normative?  Jerusalem?  Antioch?  Philippi?  Corinth?  That is, why do not all the churches sell their possessions and have all things in common?  Or further, is it at all legitimate to take [any] descriptive statements as normative.  If so, how does one distinguish those which are from those which are not?  For example, must we follow the patterns of Acts 1:26 and select leaders by lot?  Just exactly what role does historical precedent play in Christian doctrine or in the understanding of Christian experience?

But the book of Acts was never intended to be a primary basis for church doctrine.

It records only the earliest days of the church age and shows the Church in transition from the Old Covenant to the New.

The apostolic healings, miracles, signs, and wonders evident in Acts were not common, even in those days.

They were exceptional events, each with a specific purpose, always associated with the ministry of the Apostles and their frequency can be seen decreasing dramatically from the beginning of Acts to the end.

Written by Luke the physician, Acts covers a crucial period that started with the beginning of the church at Pentecost and ended some thirty years later with Paul in prison, following his third missionary journey.

Transitions are seen from beginning to end in the book of Acts.

Changes happen in almost every chapter.  The Old Covenant fades away and the New Covenant comes in all its fullness.  Even Paul was caught in the changes.  Although he was an apostle in the New Era, he still had ties to the old, as indicated by his taking Jewish vows (see Acts 18:18 and 21:26).

In Acts we move from the synagogue to the church and from law to grace.  The church is transformed from a group of Jewish believers to a body made up of Jews and Gentiles united in Christ.  Believers at the beginning of Acts were related to God under the Old Covenant; by the end, all believers were in Christ, living under the New Covenant, indwelt by the Holy Spirit in a new and unique relationship.

Acts, therefore, covers an extraordinary time in history.

The Transitions it records are never to be repeated.  
The Transitions it records are never to be repeated.  
The Transitions it records are never to be repeated.  

And so the only teachings in the book of Acts that can be called normative for the Church are those that are explicitly confirmed elsewhere in Scripture.

" Charismatics just don't get it!!"