Join C. Michael Patton, Tim Kimberley, Sam Storms and J.J. Seid as they discuss issues surrounding spiritual gifts.


C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    28 replies to "Theology Unplugged: Why I Am/Not Charismatic, Part 5"

    • Mark

      I’m curious about other charismatics and some of Mark Driscoll’s claims of seeing the past, present and future lives of other people. I’ve documented his words here Mark Driscoll On Prophetic Dreams and Seeing the Future.

      Is what Driscoll describes a normal thing for charismatics?

    • Jim Zeirke

      When will this be up on iTunes?

    • Maurice Edwards

      This was a good broadcast. You guys brought out some good points concerning spiritual gifts. I shall study further into them Thanks!

    • Richard Klaus

      I agree that not much has been written on this topic in the past decade. There are few items to note. Sam Waldron wrote To Be Continued? Are the Miraculous Gifts for Today? (Calvary Press, 2007) from a Reformed Baptist cessationist perspective. Craig Keener published Gift and Giver: The Holy Spirit for Today (Baker, 2001). J. P. Moreland discusses these issues somewhat in his books Kingdom Triangle (Zondervan, 2007) and In Search of a Confident Faith (IVP, 2008).

      I do think that with the growing stream of “young, restless, and reformed” crowd (which is mostly continuationist) there will be some backlash against the charismatic emphasis in this group. I think we are already seeing this in the blogosphere. This will probably give rise to more polemical works. We can only hope for sophisticated exegetical and theological contributions. It would be nice to see Wayne Grudem enter this arena again and defend his view of prophecy against a number of detractors.

    • george57

      TD Jakes,,spiritual gifts…for all his gifts baptism is added on to salvation,does not believe in the trinity,Jesus is God the Father,Being born again means repentance, baptism, and speaking in tongues,Speaking in tongues is a necessary requirement to demonstrate that a person has been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and is, therefore, this true,, what about b hind, does he refect a true gospel,Kenneth & Gloria Copeland,And I think that the tongues heresy is wrong and does harm and that it some way blocks people, turning them away from the main truth of the fullness of the Spirit which God wants us all to have. I believe that the gifts of the Spirit are for today,but in a controlled manner, false teachers hide ,in this type of church, and end up making blind for the truth, i and many of us out here would like sam ,to give his list of false teachers to look out for,,+let us know what he thinks of Peter Popoff also speaks in Charismatic tongues, making a mockery of God’s church

    • Craig Bennett

      @ George…I wonder what it is about tongues that you think it is heresy? I wrote about tongues here…
      I concluded that –
      In the past the issue of tongues has been divisive within the global church…and in many parts of the church it is still a divisive issue today. Yet – they question I ask is why? Why, why why! Are we not united globally around the world with people worshipping, praying in languages given to them by God; languages that I don’t and you don’t understand? And yet, we are united not by the language we speak; rather by the Spirit of God who causes us to speak?

      Therefore whether we pray in our natural tongue, or pray in an unknown tongue; let us together celebrate the same God who inspires us to pray and glorify that Jesus is Lord!

    • Richard Klaus

      Regarding your Driscoll material: I don’t know if it’s “normal” if by that you mean it happens to an individual everyday. If you read in the literature you will find examples of such things like visions and words of knowledge which seem to fit what Driscoll is speaking about. See John Wimber Power Evangelism; Sam Storms Convergence (ch. 3 is entitled “Dreams, Visions, and Deliverance); Jack Deere Surprised by the Voice of God. Charles Spurgeon also claimed to have a few of these type of experiences as Sam Storm documents in the Four Views book Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? (see pp. 201-203). Jack Deere in the book mentioned above speaks of some of the Scottish Covenanters who also had prophetic and visionary experiences (pp. 64-78; note especially the vision of Alexander Peden (1626-1686) on p. 77.
      Hope that helps your investigation into these matters.

    • Craig Bennett

      I enjoyed your pod cast..I previously commented before listening to it…

      One question I would like to see addressed is who receives the gift? I believe the person who is healed receives the gift of healing. The person who receives a prophetic word, receives the gift of prophecy etc.

      I have heard that the Peter list of gifts are more motivational / personal traits and so are somewhat individualistic…a view I tend to agree with..

      Whereas the Corinthian listing of gifts are not so much individualistic in nature; rather are meant within a corporate / collect setting and the Spirit will manifest himself within that body of fellowship as is needed…and therefore is not such a individualistic gifting.

    • george57

      craig, i know about this [,think it is heresy bit,,] after 6 years in this type of chuch in south africa, i seen all,, people running about in uncontrolled manner, sceaming,,all sorts of rubbish,, lots of the people were forced into tongues , the gospel was very rarely never preached, and money, money,was,,, healing, was never a person in a wheelchair getting up and walking,, it was ringing in the head, or pains in the back that would be most types,, what got to me was people jumping up and giving a so-called messages from god,,,this was never checked ,,or stopped,, people slain-in -the spirit,,,falling down,,, my god is in charge,, and his church,,, is for telling of the gospel,,, christ had to take a back-seat,, the holy spirit, was called on most of the time,, this part alone, craig, had me worried bigtime, power,, and gifts were asked for all the time,,, please dont think me having all bad,, it was a great time,, for me as a young christian, ,god bles

    • Craig Bennett

      George, from what you described…I totally agree it was a heretical church, or at the bare least a huge mess….and if your caught into that type of scenario you wouldn’t know any different.

    • george57

      craig, thanks for understanding, i ended going to the baptist church just to hear the gospel preached, and lets face it craig, benny hind,and his pal Peter Popoff also speaks in Charismatic tongues, making a mockery of God’s church, we must be seen craig, to be in order, and this whole church system,, is a real bad advert, for christ,, how a heretical church, system like this gets its followers, is it too much for the people to ask the right questions, let me tell you gifts that was lacking in this church system was the gift Interpretation of tongues, and Self-Control,+not forgetting discernment, its stops ,or when acted apon,lots of uncontrolled false rubbish,, [email protected] if you want craig to talk more on this or let me know your life in christ,, god bless. from scotland

    • IWTT

      I read your article that you referenced. Good article. I am not really sure if tongues would be so divisive if the rules were followed. Paul certainly draws the line on how they are to be used and most churches let it become a free for all and everybody does it at once.

      For me personally, I remember when I “received the manifestation of tongues” and in reality it was alot different than what I used afterwards. In fact it was not a pleasure to use it at all, I was never encouraged by using it and because I never understood it, I am not sure if I was really praying to God or mocking him with something from my flesh.

      I personally hold to tongues being a foreign language specifically given for the express purpose of preaching the good news supernaturally when needed and disbursed by the Holy Spirit at His own time of determination. So I stopped and I don’t miss it and I don’t feel like I am missing anything special.

    • Mark


      Thanks for the references. I will check them out.

      Maybe the oddest part about Driscoll’s visions are the revelations about events of peoples’ life in the past. Is that something that can be maintained from Scripture?

    • Craig Bennett

      mark…didn’t the women at the well say to Jesus that she could tell he was a prophet because he told her, her past?

      Also we see Elisha doing the same with his offsider who hit Namem up for some cash. The significance is that this was a role of the prophets also.

    • Mark


      Are you saying Driscoll is a prophet? Was the women at the well a professing believer? Are we to do everything Jesus did, etc.? I’m asking because I don’t fully get the parallel you are drawing.

    • Craig Bennett

      Mark, you asked if what Driscoll said could be substantiated by Scripture. Paul does say in Corinthians that a non believer will come to Know Jesus through prophecy when the secrets of their hearts are revealed. Perhaps past events also fall into this category?

    • Craig Bennett

      Ho IWTT sorry for hogging the comments here Michael..I only just noticed the reply to myself. I have seen the manifestation of tongues being spoken in a known language before….important to note though that the first time tongues was spoken in Act’s it seem’s that
      God gave the listeners a gift of interpretation… for some heard and understood…others thought they were drunk and speaking gibberish/

      Paul also clearly says that tongues is a prayerful language also. I find it a important gift and often ask people who say its not for them… if God’s foolishness is greater than our wisdom..who are we to say that any of his gifts are not for us? Particulary when Paul commands us to eagerly desire the spiritual gifts!

      However I would rather see a brother walk and exercise their gifts in faith and grow in faithfulness in what they have, then to use any gift in doubt and unbelief.

      Blessings cb

    • Richard Klaus

      You wrote: “Maybe the oddest part about Driscoll’s visions are the revelations about events of peoples’ life in the past. Is that something that can be maintained from Scripture?”

      Craig provided three scriptural examples of this: woman at the well, Elisha and 1 Cor. 14.24f. This shows there is precedent for revelations about events of people’s life in the past. There is no claim for exact correspondence between the situations or the people involved. Thus, it is irrelevant whether the woman at the well is “a professing believer” or whether Driscoll is a prophet. According to the Grudem/Storms model of prophecy the gift can function in a situational manner as God deems fit without making the person a “prophet.” This is how Storms explains Spurgeon’s ability to know the past of people’s lives on about a dozen occasions (see the Four Views Book-Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?). If one wants to criticize Driscoll for this then consistency demands we criticize…

    • Richard Klaus

      Spurgeon as well.

      (I thought I was within the character limit–sorry!)


    • Alfonso

      Hi Richard. Craig Keener discusses miracles extensively on an interview with Mike Licona at You’ll find that Dr. Keener has done quite a thorough job of explaining miracles in the 2nd and 4th century including present day miracles, farther than what’s considered to be “uniform human experience”.

    • Alan Lininger

      I am more interested in having the fruits of the Spirit be evidenced in my life, I think that is where God wants us to be. If they are being evidenced then they will help direct the lost to him.

    • IWTT

      God gave the listeners a gift of interpretation… for some heard and understood…others thought they were drunk and speaking gibberish/

      I ask? Acts 2 does not say that they were given the gift of interpretation, it says, They heard them speaking in their own language. They knew they were Galileans. In order to hear, don’t the Apostles have to be actually speaking the unknown language that they could not speak? To say that those outside where given the gift to intrepret seems to me to position ones self tha the Apostles were speaking gibberish and that thes people interrpeted that gibberish into a known tongue to them.

      I’m not sure that fits other translations????

    • IWTT

      Wiat I digress, your statement gives me more cause to think about this…. delete :0

    • IWTT

      Ok this is what I was eluding to… think I have my thoughts straightened out…

      Acts 2:4 All7 of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages8 as the Spirit enabled them.

      sn Other languages. Acts 2:6-7 indicates that these were languages understandable to the hearers, a diverse group from “every nation under heaven.” (NET Bible site)

      As noted above, I believe your comment to me makes it sound like the speakers were speaking gibberish, but the hearers were given the gift of interpetation. I do not believe the scriptures support that. I believe they actually spoke those languages, others in their disdain or hardened hearts or whatever you want to call them were just mocking them. Maybe they were Galilians as well and didn’t know the languages spoken?

    • Craig Bennett

      Hi IWTT.

      The amazing thing is that the whole crowd heard them speaking in their own particular language. Yet, some didn’t and thought they were speaking gibberish and were drunk.

      So how did the whole crowd hear them speaking in their own particular language?

    • IWTT

      4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.

      I undertsatnd where you are coming from. I have been asked this question before, “Did the Apostles speak in other tongues” or “Did those in the crown only hear, in the tongue?”

      I choose to go with vs 4 that says, “All of them began to SPEAK in other tongues…” And because they were speaking tongues (foreign languages) and these are listed …“Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,[b] 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs… Then I believe the text in context supports that they were speaking and it wasn’t that the “gift of Interpretation” was in action, but that they actualy heard what was actually being spoken.

      Or in another way, the Apsotles learned to speak, for the moment, actual different language. It’s ok though, it certainly doesn’t have anything to do with the tenants of faith, and actually I would probably label myself a modified Charismatic or a reformed continuist and have no problem with it. I just think, after much “experience” in this area, that most “tongue talking is either done unbiblically, not to the rules that Paul taught the church, or alot from the flesh and is not tongues at all.

      Please understand, I am coming from my own experiences in this.

    • IWTT

      So how did the whole crowd hear them speaking in their own particular language?

      Simple, the Apostle spoke the language and I see no reference that the whole crowd did hear or that those who mocked, the languages listed, none of them were theirs. Maybe they were Galilieans as well!

      Maybe the unspoken is here, not all of the crowd did hear in their own language. Maybe some that were there were not being spoken to in their language. Or maybe they were hearing and understood but just like today, many hearts are hardened, many hear the gospel but mock the whole idea.

      Look at 17:32 – “now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked But others said, “We will hear you again about this.”

      Also 1 cor 14:23 let’s us know that, “If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of youe minds?”

      This could be the very heart of some of the people that were there. It also eludes to us that many were added to the church but not all of the crowd was. Why is that?

      I think trying to take the word hear, out of the context of the whole section of chapter 2 of Acts, is trying to add something to it that isn’t there.

      I, once again submit from NetBible this note in regards to Acts 2; sn Other languages. Acts 2:6-7 indicates that these were languages understandable to the hearers, a diverse group from “every nation under heaven.”

      I believe they are actually speaking a language. I think the real essence here is that many are trying to support the idea of the “gibberish” of tongues to support the type of tongues that is used today. There is no one in the church, or I should say, very little amount of people who can actually interpret a foriegn language. So, and I have been guilty of this myself, I hear a “tongue” and then interpret, but the real fact is I didn’t really even know the tongue and it is a complete guess on my part as to the interpretation. I even gave an interpretation once and somebody else came to me and said, that was not what the person said.

      I believe there are tongues today, but in fact, Acts gives us the real boundry of how this really works. It will be an actual known language, there will actually be someone there who knows the forgein language and can interpret it. Otherwise we wouldn’t be told by Paul to keep silent if no interpreter is present.

      I think that most tongues of hicky, hicky, hicky, blah da dee is nothing more than flesh and or possibly demonic, and the real gift is not in true operation as it should.

      For what it is worth, that is my opinion and how I understan this portion of scripture and the day of Pentecost.

    • IWTT

      I also would like to add this…

      “The effectual call of the Spirit to salvation reveals the identity of Christ to the hearts of the sheep and compels them to cry out to Jesus for mercy. Upon receiving it they follow Him for the rest of their days (Matt 20:29-34; Rom 10:13; Matt 16:17) And the effectual call of the Spirit never fails, justifying each to whom adoption has been promised (jn 10:3) The Lord lays down His life for the sheep, atoning for their sins (jn 10:11) The goats receive a general call of gospel that goes out to the world. But they neither understand it nor respond positively to it sneering in unbelief (jn 10:26-28; 1 cor 2:14) Behold the mercy and justice of God. To those following the Good Shepherd let us give thanks that our names are written in the Lambs Book of Life!”

      If, then, the goats are unable to respond positively to the call, then even in the experience of Acts 2, the call was to worsgip God and those who mocked were unable to respond positively to the call.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.