This passage is often treated as an argument from experience, that is, as if Paul appeals to the Galatians' experience in order to prove a theological position. We will consider arguments from experience in general, and then what it means to this passage in particular.

Elsewhere I have explained the problems associated with ordinary arguments from experience, and the related problems of induction and sensation. Among other things, an experience does not compel necessary inferences – that is, one can always infer an infinite number of conclusions from an experience, so that a simple argument from experience never proves anything. Rather, an experience must be interpreted by a certain standard, and once the standard is known, the truth that the experience is supposed to yield is already known, and thus rendering the experience useless as a basis for proof. In addition, induction and sensation can never yield any knowledge, so that all ordinary arguments from experience are in fact invalid.

However, as I have also explained, statements from or concerning experiences in Scripture are true by divine inspiration, so that they are not subject to the criticisms against ordinary arguments from experience. Also, since they are true by divine inspiration, in reality they are not really arguments from experience, but arguments from revelation about experiences. The epistemological foundation in these cases is revelation, not sensation, induction, or experience. Therefore, even if Paul appeals to the Galatians' experience in this passage, it does not follow that we can appeal to our own experience in the same way to assert or refute a theological position today. This is because Paul's understanding of the Galatians' experience is founded on divine inspiration, and not from their experience itself. Thus it remains that it is not experience that produces theology, but revelation that interprets experience.

That said, what does the passage actually say? Does any portion of it in fact appeal to experience? In what way does it do so? First, notice that nothing in verses 1, 3, and 4 truly appeals to experience in a way that is relevant to our present concern. In verse 1, Paul calls the Galatians stupid, and reminds them of his preaching. In verse 3, Paul again calls them stupid – that is, it is stupid to begin in the Spirit but continue in the flesh. This does not appeal to experience to advance a theological position. Verse 4 suggests that for the Galatians to forsake the way of faith would mean that they have experienced all that they did "for nothing." Again, no theological position is advanced on the basis of experience. A spiritual truth is implied, but not inferred. That is, to turn away from the gospel would render their previous experience "for nothing," but this is not inferred from their experience, but rather applied to it.

Only verses 2 and 5 resemble an appeal to experience, but even then we must pay attention to what Paul says and what he does not say. In verse 2 he refers to the Galatians' receiving of the Spirit, and in verse 5 the same thing but from God's perspective, the giving of the Spirit. Apart from the rest of these verses, whether this is an appeal to experience, and what is just as important, what kind of an appeal to experience this is, depend on the meaning of to "receive the Spirit."

This is an appeal to experience only if it refers to something that the Galatians could recognize as a distinct event in their consciousness or perception. Otherwise, even if there was a distinct experience, there could be no appeal to it in the process of argument. So if Paul is referring to the Galatians' initial conversion that is not associated with some special event, feeling, or any other indication that sets itself apart in their consciousness, it cannot be said that he is appealing to experience to make an argument.

Now, verse 5 does add the working of miracles, and this is the closest and clearest reference to an experience in this passage. Some commentators think that Paul has in mind the inner working of God's power within the Galatians. But I tend to agree with others that this is more likely a reference to God's outward display of power among them, even if the former is not excluded. So, if there is any appeal to experience at all, the clearest point as to where this is done is here, and as we have seen, perhaps only here.

This possible argument from experience should be qualified by at least two considerations:

First, to repeat what we said earlier, an apostolic assertion concerning experience is different from an extra-biblical argument from experience. The latter cannot overcome the logical problems associated with induction and sensation, and is therefore fallacious. But an apostle writes out of divine inspiration, so that the epistemological foundation of what seems to be an appeal to experience is in fact revelation, and not the experience itself.

Second, verses 2 and 5 are expressed as rhetorical questions, which as we have also mentioned before, are in fact implicit assertions. In other words, we could paraphrase Paul as saying, "You did not receive the Spirit by observing the law, but by believing what you heard," and "God does not give you the Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, but because you believe what you heard." Once the questions are rephrased according to their meaning in this manner, any indication of an appeal to experience disappears. Paul is not deriving a doctrine from their experience, but applying a doctrine to their experience, reminding them of the association between the true Christian gospel and true Christian experience, and that the false gospel has made no contribution to it. If this is the meaning of the two verses, then why does Paul use rhetorical questions? He uses them for the same reason that we use them, that is, for effect.

Therefore, it is illegitimate to use this passage to endorse arguments from experience in general, or the idea that theology is founded on experience, or even the idea that there are two sources for theological construction – revelation and experience. Except in a general or indirect sense, the passage is also irrelevant in a discussion of the importance of Christian "experience" (in its various meanings as used in discussions on spirituality). Paul is arguing for the way of faith in contrast to the way of law, and not the importance of experiencing one thing or another.

This is not to minimize experience as such, but to limit the passage to its proper applications. In fact, we must insist that "experience" is absolutely necessary in a Christian's life – but only in the sense that God must apply his blessings to a person in order for him to benefit from them. In this sense, one must have a personal "experience" of God and his promises. A person must actually receive regeneration, faith, and so on to be a Christian, and to be able to commune with God and live in holiness. But "experience" in this sense has nothing to do with subjective intuitions, feelings, or encounters, whether or not these things might at times accompany the kind of experience that is necessary, as in the actual application of redemption and its blessings.

A related issue is how we are to refute false experiences. Those who wish to avoid directly dealing with specific claims about spiritual experiences could simply adopt a strong cessationism. However, this doctrine is not supported by anything remotely resembling a biblical case. In his Sola Scriptura and the Revelatory Gifts, Don Codling points out the obvious when he shows that cessationism simply does not follow from Sola Scriptura or the finality of biblical revelation. The connection has been assumed by force and prejudice, not by logic.

This means that when someone claims to have heard from God, or claims to have seen a vision of Christ or an angel, it is biblically and logically fallacious to dismiss the claim by saying that the event could not have happened, that this type of experience is impossible today, for the simple reason that these things are indeed still possible, whether or not they actually occur. Because there is no biblical or logical refutation to the claim itself, one cannot respond, "You have not heard from God, and you have not seen anything. You imagined all of it."

Instead, we must examine the content of the alleged experience. For example, consider how we addressed Rick Joyner's vision in connection with Galatians 2:20. We understand that it was a false vision not because visions no longer occur, but because the vision assumes or presents a false interpretation of Scripture. Did Joyner see a vision? Perhaps he did, but whatever he saw could not be considered a revelation from God, and is therefore unreliable. Rather, Joyner should have received official church discipline for his false claim.

Moreover, it is fallacious and misleading to use modern charismatic excess as the sole or even main reference point to refute the very idea of continuing charismatic powers and practices. Those we label Pentecostals and Charismatics have no exclusive rights to the manifestations of the Spirit. So whether or not they continue, or how they should be implemented and regulated in the church, have no direct relevance to the Pentecostals and Charismatics. It is dishonest to imply that if we affirm the continuation of the spiritual gifts, then we will become like them. No, if they are wrong, then they are wrong. What does that have to do with us? What does that have to do with other people who affirm the continuation of the gifts? Rather, we will still need to derive a theology of the charismatic powers from Scripture.

Posted in Expositions | Permanent Link