Jesus had healed a demon-possessed man. The people were astonished and wondered if he was the Son of David, whose coming was predicted by the prophets. When the Pharisees heard this, they said that Jesus drove out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons. However, since Jesus in fact drove out demons by the Holy Spirit, the Pharisees had indirectly insulted the Holy Spirit by calling him Beelzebub, the prince of demons.

In reply, Jesus first set forth a theological refutation to their assertion, and then added a warning – anyone who speaks against Christ could be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit could not be forgiven. Most explanations on the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit stress how difficult or even impossible it is to commit this unforgivable sin. But since Jesus intended his statement as a realistic threat, we shall consider how easy it is to commit this sin, a sin for which there is no forgiveness.

Blasphemy against Jesus Christ is categorized as the same kind of sin as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Even if we can think of the latter as another level of blasphemy, although the text does not suggest this, the thoughts and actions involved are similar. The main difference is the object that receives the insult. To commit blasphemy against Jesus Christ is to speak against Jesus Christ. To commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is to speak against the Holy Spirit.

Christians scholars are professionals at neutralizing biblical teachings that they dislike, and they dislike this very much. So they scramble to define this sin as so difficult and remote that it is practically impossible to commit. But in the same context, Jesus added, "But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned" (v. 36-37). The sin is not difficult or impossible to commit, but it might be so easy to commit that even a careless word could do it.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is often portrayed as only a more stubborn or a final rejection of Jesus Christ. But this does not fit the context, which has to do with the ministry of miracles and the casting out of demons. And it does not fit the explicit teaching, which distinguishes blasphemy against Christ and blasphemy against the Spirit as two different offenses. The objects that receive the insults are different. Jesus said that speaking against the Son is forgivable, but speaking against the Spirit is unforgivable. So it is possible to speak against the Son instead of the Spirit, and it is possible to speak against the Spirit instead of the Son.

The effort to merge the two so that the different offenses become only different points on a scale seems intended to doom Jesus' teaching to irrelevance. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would become less frightening if it could be absorbed by the blasphemy against Jesus Christ. But Jesus himself distinguished the two. Using words against Christ is not the same as using words against the Spirit. The teaching is intended to be frightening, and as a warning against committing this unforgivable sin. To weaken its fearfulness would only heighten the possibility of committing it.

It begs the question to place the two sins on the same scale in a way that they become only different degrees of the same sin. Speaking against the Holy Spirit could very well be considered a worse sin, but this does not necessarily mean that it becomes only a more stubborn and final rejection of Jesus. He could have said, "Whoever speaks against the Son could be forgiven, but whoever litters the street with chewing gum could not be forgiven." The statement is entirely intelligible, and the latter would be the unforgivable sin, but the two would not be only two different points on the same scale, or different degrees of the same offense.

Another attempt to render Jesus' teaching irrelevant suggests that this unforgivable sin was possible only during the ministry of Jesus, because only he demonstrated the truth and power of God without mixture, ambiguity, and imperfection. This argument is unintelligent and self-defeating, since God sends millions upon millions upon millions to burn in hell because they have rejected our imperfect preaching of Christ. God does not think that rejection of the truth is possible only when the truth is perfectly presented. Although we might not preach Jesus Christ with perfect clarity, force, and accuracy, it still counts as blasphemy when someone speaks against him.

Thus although we do not manifest the Holy Spirit with perfect faith, power, or order, it must still count as blasphemy when someone speaks against him. But we are becoming more and more suspicious that the theologians are setting up an excuse for their own disobedience. In addition, when Jesus stated the teaching on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in another place (Luke 12:10), he had in mind a time when the disciples would be ministering on their own and suffer persecution (v. 11-12). Therefore, it is not true that the sin is possible only during the ministry of Jesus.

Scholars insist that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit must be an informed and deliberate offense. However, this is not the nature of blasphemy as the Bible describes it. Paul indicated that although he acted in ignorance, he was still a blasphemer (1 Timothy 1:13). He did not truly perceive the identity and deity of Christ, but what he said about Christ still counted as blasphemy. And as mentioned, in the same place where Christ taught about this, he warned that "every careless word" would be judged. Therefore, it is possible to commit blasphemy that is not informed and deliberate. Otherwise, an atheist, or almost any non-Christian, could never commit blasphemy against God or Christ, but only an informed believer could do it. But Paul blasphemed when he was ignorant and an unbeliever.

It is possible for a man to blaspheme Christ even if he does not know or admit that Christ is the Son of God. To say or imply anything negative about Christ would count as blasphemy. In fact, one does not even have to strictly suggest anything negative. Jesus himself was accused of blasphemy because he said something that suggested he was equal with God. And if he had not been telling the truth, it would have counted as blasphemy. It was not blasphemy only because he was indeed equal with God, and that God was indeed his Father. But this shows that it is easy to commit blasphemy.

Then, it is said that if one fears that he has committed this unforgivable sin, then it is the strongest indication that he has not committed it. This is based on the assumption that the sin can be committed only by an incurably hardened individual, and in an informed, deliberate, and malicious manner. Thus someone who commits this sin is entirely given over to unbelief and has no fear of the wrath of God. However, by now we have destroyed this assumption. The biblical texts on the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit do not suggest any of this, and even demons are afraid of God, although they cannot be saved. Moreover, the fear that one has committed this sin is no indication that he has not committed it, because this fear could very well be nothing more than worldly sorrow that leads to death (2 Corinthians 7:10).

A man has not committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit only if he has not committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The way to ensure that you have not spoken against the Spirit is to ensure that you really have not spoken against the Spirit. And if you have spoken against the Holy Spirit, then you have spoken against the Holy Spirit, and you have committed the unforgivable sin. There is no way around this or to avoid the issue. The solutions of the theologians – to make the sin harder to commit, to merge it with the rejection of Christ, to designate fear or guilt as the sure indication of innocence – offer false comfort.

The Pharisees called the work of the Holy Spirit the work of a demon, thus indirectly calling the Holy Spirit a demon. This indirect insult was sufficient to incite Jesus' teaching on this unforgivable sin. But it is likely that even less specific or extreme insults would count as blasphemy against the Spirit. Consider what would count as a blasphemy against Jesus Christ. Of course it would be blasphemy to directly or indirectly deny his deity. But it would also be blasphemy against him to deny the necessity or the success of the atonement, or to suggest that he was dishonest when he made a certain statement or that he made a mistake about something. It is easy to commit blasphemy.

The Bible instructs us to test spiritual manifestations, and it is conceivable that after careful examination, we would conclude that some manifestations are false or even demonic. Jesus' teaching cautions us to test spiritual manifestations with knowledge and integrity, and not to oppose something just because it threatens our theological and ecclesiastical traditions. Now, what if a man truly speaks in tongues by the Holy Spirit, and someone mocks him for it? What if, without an irrefutable biblical basis, he states that the Holy Spirit no longer does something like this? What if he calls all speaking in tongues gibberish and nonsense? What if he declares that the gifts of the Spirit such as prophecy and healing have ceased, so that whatever happens now cannot be genuine? If he is mistaken, then he has insulted all such manifestations of the Spirit since the passing of the apostles up to the future coming of Jesus Christ. He has slapped the Spirit across all the centuries.

Cessationists are in imminent danger of committing the unforgivable sin of speaking against the Holy Spirit. They regard themselves as watchers of the cults, defenders of the faith, and guardians of orthodoxy, heading the charge against heretics and fanatics. So did the Pharisees, but they were blaspheming the Holy Spirit left and right, because what they considered as orthodoxy was in fact their own theological tradition and ecclesiastical heritage. Jesus Christ came in the power of the Holy Spirit, and threatened to take away their respect from the people, their status as scholars, and their place as authorities of the faith. So they called Jesus a deceiver, and they called the Spirit a demon.

Do we not need to test the spirits? But how can you test the spirits, when you do not even believe in the true manifestations of the Spirit? You say, "I believe God performs miracles when he wills, but I believe that the sign gifts have ceased, or this and that have ceased." But the Bible does not separate some powers as "sign gifts," and most of the Bible does not even refer to the miraculous powers given to believers as spiritual gifts. Gifts or no gifts, Jesus said anyone who has faith can command a mountain to move. And if one can command a mountain to move, he can command a fever, a cancer, or a demon to leave. All this talk of gifts is just a subterfuge, a "divide and conquer" tactic against the power of God.

Jesus said that the Pharisees were like vipers on the inside, and out of their evil hearts they spoke evil words (v. 33-35). You also speak against the Holy Spirit because your heart is full of unbelief and poison. Like the Pharisees, you call yourself a defender of orthodoxy, but you are a liar, because yours is not the biblical orthodoxy of the Spirit. You take what pleases you, and you reject what threatens you. You exalt what makes you look good, and you oppose what makes you look weak.

When someone mentions the Holy Spirit's power at work today, you say, "Yes, but even Satan works miracles." Why is this your reaction? Why do you say this as if to dampen the significance of the Holy Spirit's work? The Bible teaches that even Satan can appear as an angel of light, and I realize that he can appear as a cessationist theologian as well. Rather, when I hear you say that Satan works miracles, I say, "Yes, but the Holy Spirit works miracles! And he can defeat the power of Satan." In any case, instead of calming the miracle claims, now we end up with miracles all over the place, with you in praise of Satan's power, and I in praise of the Holy Spirit's power.

Just as theologians have for centuries undermined Jesus' teaching on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, of course I expect opposition when I repeat the Lord's teaching. But I am more afraid of Jesus' warning than I would ever be afraid of some nobody like you. What you are going to do, do quickly. As for me, I will see to it that I revere the works of the Holy Spirit, including his mighty manifestations of power. "For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." Come on, let us be witnesses to the words that you will speak and write. Show the world what is in your heart. Perhaps to this point you have not blasphemed the Holy Spirit, and this is God's way to incite you to do it, so as to fill up the measure of your sins and to seal your damnation.

"O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me." Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, "Why couldn't we drive it out?" He replied, "Because you have so little faith." (Matthew 17:14-20)

Jesus had brought Peter, James, and John up to a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as the light (17:1-2). When he came down, he was not greeted with faith, but with unbelief and failure, for a man told him that the disciples were unable to cast a demon out of his son.

Centuries ago Moses ascended a mountain to meet with God, and when he descended, he saw that his people had turned to idolatry (Exodus 32). He called them an unfaithful and perverse generation (Deuteronomy 32:20). Likewise, Jesus answered, "O unbelieving and perverse generation, how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you?" Earlier he had called the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the scribes "a wicked and adulterous generation" (Matthew 12:39, 16:4), for they met his messages and miracles with unbelief. Now he issues a similar rebuke against his disciples, and afterward he told them that they failed because of their weak faith. In Mark's account, he also admonished the father to have faith, and said, "Everything is possible for him who believes" (Mark 9:23).

Thus the indictment applies to all kinds of unbelief – to those who worship idols, to those who resist the messages and miracles of Christ, to those who fail to perform miracles in his name, and to those who waver in their confidence as they seek miracles from him. Moses and Jesus demonstrated that it is entirely fitting to display annoyance and indignation against such people. Like many of our church leaders, preachers, and theologians, the Pharisees were more eager to defend their status and tradition than to have Jesus heal the sick and alleviate their suffering.

In one place, we read, "He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand.' He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored" (Mark 3:5). They were not concerned about the man, but they wanted to catch Jesus in the act of violating their doctrines and policies. Jesus looked around at them, seething with anger, and healed the man anyway. My brothers and sisters, what should we teach, and how should we behave, when the religious establishment has outlawed the faith and love of Jesus? We must always regard this hardness of heart with anger, and do the works of Christ anyway.

He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."

At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure." (Luke 10:17-21)

It was never true that the apostles exercised a kind or level of supernatural power out of the reach of other believers. That is a myth invented by preachers and theologians to explain why they have no power at all, and the people of God are rather satisfied with it because it also appeases their own conscience.

The majority of these disciples were not apostles, but Jesus sent them out to preach his message and to heal the sick. They came back and reported that even the demons submitted to them in his name. One man was not even with Jesus, but still used his name to cast out demons, and the Lord allowed him to continue (9:50). What right do church leaders have to criticize Christians who do this today, Christians who follow Jesus and have received the full written legacy of the prophets and the apostles? Cessationism is one big middle finger in the face of Jesus Christ.

Under Jesus Christ, even what the world and the church regard as ordinary people can exercise the powers of prophets. This was the reason for Jesus to command his disciples to work miracles, and for him to pour out his Spirit upon them. But the world's philosophers and the trained scribes were unable to wield this power. The theologian boasts, "I have been teaching unbelief in the seminary for forty-five years." And the preacher gloats, "Hundreds of members had their enthusiasm dashed under me." They should not celebrate these accomplishments.

When the disciples spread out to preach the message and perform the works of Jesus, Satan fell from the sky like lightning. They dealt a decisive blow to his hold on men and his influence on affairs. Yet Jesus said that even this was nothing to rejoice about, not that it was something bad, but because relatively speaking, the ministry of miracles should not be a big deal, but it is a normal aspect of the gospel ministry. The marvelous thing is that our names are registered in heaven through faith in Jesus Christ.

All these things, from authority in his name to salvation by faith in him, were hidden from those who were expected to know the most about them. Father, as Jesus praised you for this, we also praise you for this, because you have hidden these things from preachers and theologians who despise you and who decide to have their own way. But you have revealed them to little children, the unlearned and the unauthorized, because you delight in rubbing it in the face of men's unbelief and self-righteous arrogance, and those who regard themselves as the elite of the church but who have not an iota of power. This seems good to you, and therefore it seems good to us as well.

Moab had decided to rebel against Israel, and so the kings of Israel, Judah, and Edom joined forces to attack. As they marched through the wilderness of Edom, they ran out of water and feared that the campaign would end in defeat. Then they found Elisha the prophet and consulted with him. The Spirit of God came upon him, and Elisha instructed the kings to dig ditches in the valley, because God would send water without wind nor rain, and he would grant them victory over Moab. He added, "This is only a trifle in the sight of the Lord." And it happened as Elisha predicted.

The kings were desperate. From men's perspective, they were in great trouble. But God's power broadens our minds to all kinds of possibilities and enables us to take up a different perspective. May Elisha's words resound in our minds as we experience our own wilderness march. God could send total deliverance and victory, and "This is only a trifle in the sight of the Lord."

Elisha did not say, "This is a trifle because I am a prophet" or "This is a trifle because we are so lucky that miracles have not ceased." He did not say, "This is a trifle in this dispensation." For many of those who oppose the false schemes of dispensationalism would themselves butcher God's revelation and redemptive plan into different eras in a way that exempts them from the faith of an age of miracles, and so that they could fling everything that they have ceased to believe in into ancient history. It is a conspiracy to legitimize unbelief.

Elisha was not weak in faith, and he did not make excuses. He said, "This is a trifle in the sight of God." He was the best friend you could have in the wilderness, because he believed and declared God's power. God despises the dispensations that theologians impose on him. He laughs at the boundaries that preachers put up to fence him out. He does not need to be a prophet, and for him signs, wonders, and spiritual gifts have never ceased. It is an easy thing for God to deliver us and cause us to triumph through Jesus Christ, but we must have faith to seek a release of God's power, and stand against the conspiracy of unbelief.

The non-Christian's doctrine of positive thinking believes that a strong optimism even in the face of contradictory circumstances result in greater happiness and attainment in life. Confidence in one's self releases human potential and dissolves mental blocks to success, and empowers one to seize his dreams and achieve desirable outcomes.

However, this optimism is unfounded and results from delusion. The non-Christian man is depraved through and through. He is dead on the inside. He is a walking corpse, and all his faculties are defective. His optimism makes himself into an idol, and blinds him even more to the God who is the master of his fate and the Christ who is only the savior of the soul.

On the other hand, the Christian has more reason for positive thinking and an extreme optimism than any non-Christian. The Christian has been regenerated, and the Spirit of God infuses life and power into him, healing and renewing him from the inside out. So it is ironic that much of Christian teaching, in opposition to Jesus Christ, advances a deadly pessimism that drains the life out of God's people, and rots their bones and their very souls.

Yet a Christian's confidence is not in himself, but in God who is without limit in his ability and wisdom. As Paul wrote, "I can do all things through him who strengthens me" (Philippians 4:13, ESV). This does not mean that a man of faith never faces hardship, for in this statement Paul referred to his ability from Christ to remain content in any situation, even when he had to endure hunger and poverty.

Although this suffering faith has been disproportionately emphasized, God's people in general remain feeble and whiny. This is the case because most preachers and theologians cannot teach anything right, so suffering faith is taught in a way that produces people who suffer without much faith at all. And perhaps the people remain feeble and whiny precisely because suffering faith has been disproportionately emphasized, and an entire realm of faith has been unexplored.

A Christian's faith is not only a suffering faith, but it is also an overcoming faith. It does not only put up with things, but it also changes them. It is a faith that acts. It is a faith that wins. Just as Paul wrote that by Christ he could suffer hunger and poverty, David said that by God he could go against an army and leap over a wall.

Human tradition lulls people into a loser piety, so that while wallowing in self-pity and defeat they could congratulate themselves for being so spiritual. Then they would not know to interrogate their church leaders and the theologians as to why believers do not have more power and victory in their lives.

But Jesus introduces us to all the possibilities of faith. He said, "For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you" (Matthew 17:20, ESV). If you have faith, nothing will be impossible for you. Nothing will be impossible. You can even command a mountain to move, and it will happen.

This is far more than a matter of human potential. It is positive thinking on a whole different level, because it reaches into the realm of miracles, into the realm of God and the powers of the coming age. Jesus talked about this over and over again. He wants us to know that this power does not belong to the apostleship or to a certain century, but it belongs to faith. And it belongs to you, if you believe.

God is interested in meeting our material needs. Jesus talked about this a number of times. He told us to have faith in God not only for spiritual things like the forgiveness of our sins, but also for material things like food, shelter, clothing, and health. He went about, not only declaring spiritual freedom through faith in him, but also demonstrating God's interest and power when it comes to our material needs as he multiplied food, obtained money from a fish's mouth, and even more prominently, brought health to multitudes as he healed the sick.

He associated God's material provision to our faith. "O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them" (Matthew 6:30-32). If we worry about material things today, many of our preachers would comfort and encourage us, and tell us how they understand that life is difficult. They take this approach because most preachers are out of touch with the doctrine and attitude of Christ, and in fact disagree with him. And they also oppose those who teach the same thing he did.

Jesus would rebuke us. While the lack of faith is the last accusation that some preachers level against worry for material things, Jesus repeatedly came back to it. To worry about material things indicate a lack of faith. He said the pagans run after these things, so we should not be worrying about them. His point was not that we should not have material things, but that "your heavenly Father knows that you need them."

Then he said, "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well" (v. 33). This does not mean that we should think only about the kingdom, because when he taught the disciples how to pray, although he mentioned the kingdom first, he went on to say, "Give us today our daily bread." He was defining the proper priority. Seek first God's kingdom and his righteousness, but then have faith for material things and ask God for them. As Paul wrote, "And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:19). God will meet all our needs, not according to what we need, but according to what he has in Christ Jesus.

Many Christians are zealous in opposing the so-called "health and wealth gospel" or the "word of faith" movement. It is true that some serious errors and heresies are taught by these "faith teachers." They are far from ideal models, and many of their doctrines and practices are excommunicable transgressions. However, as much as some Christians hate Jesus for it, and as much as they fight and distort the Scripture, the gospel indeed includes health and wealth in a sense, and the gospel indeed relates the receiving of material blessings to faith. Jesus said, "According to your faith be it done to you" (Matthew 9:29, ESV), and "You can pray for anything, and if you have faith, you will receive it" (Matthew 21:22, NLT).

The Bible's message is simply not one of sickness and poverty. It insists that we should exercise patience when we suffer these things, but it does not glorify these things, and it does not condemn health and wealth. Just as the faith teachers often ignore and distort the biblical verses and doctrines that do not suit their purpose, their critics refuse to take seriously those texts that these faith teachers draw attention to. The critics cannot make good sense of these texts because they have rejected what they teach from the start. Both sides are selective about what they admit into their idea of the Christian faith and lifestyle.

Thus although many of the objections against the faith teachers are well-deserved, the critics are also using them as a scapegoat to disguise their own unbelief and their resentment against the faith teachings of Jesus. The Lord often sounded exactly like the faith teachers, only even more literal and extreme, and these critics despise him because of it. The Bible's teachings on faith and power make them look very bad, exposing their unbelief, tradition, and numerous spiritual deficiencies. Instead of repentance, they harden their hearts and conspire to redirect people's attention to the faults and dangers of a movement that emphasizes faith, power, and our covenant provisions. As a result, all those who are carried along by this diversion become impoverished and fall into disobedience.

Does your preacher boldly declare the faith teachings of Jesus, or does he avoid them or hide them from you? When he deals with them, does he tell you that Jesus meant what he said, or does he bury you with reasons for why it might not happen for you? Preacher, if you are going to be faithful to the gospel, you will have to talk more about the power of God, not in the larger sense of how he rules his creation, but his power in how he helps us in our circumstances, how he heals our bodies and meets our needs.

There is a concern to avoid a man-centered focus in our sermons, but even this legitimate point has become an excuse in despising the teachings of Christ, who taught that "the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matthew 10:30). He was not worried that this statement was too man-centered, because when we relate all things to God, even our daily bread becomes a revelation and a confirmation from him about his love, his power, and his care. When a preacher thinks that it is too man-centered to talk much about healing, our daily bread, and so forth, it shows that he is already too man-centered, since Jesus could talk about these things and make them draw attention to his Father.

The truth is that it is such a preacher who becomes man-centered when he talks about God's blessings of health and wealth, and how these relate to faith, so that he must either avoid the teaching or attack it. Perhaps he has no idea how to think about the matter at all. He does not grasp it. He cannot process it. And he resents Jesus for having taught it, because of all the characters in Scripture, the Lord was the one who most strongly and frequently stressed this aspect of the faith, and in the most explicit and extreme manner. The preacher does not want someone like this as his Lord.

The hypocritical opposition and self-righteous neglect of this aspect of the Christian faith has contributed to the turning of the world and the church to truly man-centered solutions, where self-help gurus convince people that they could achieve their goals and satisfy their needs, not by faith in God, but by realizing their human potential. Thus the Christian crusade against Jesus' teachings on faith and power, including what he said about health and wealth, has done little other than to drive the world and the church away from faith in God and right into the arms of Satan. And then they think God owes them for dealing with the heretics.

Christians are unclear on the relationship between God, Satan, and sickness, and how they ought to respond to sickness in the light of God's sovereignty over all things. This results in confusion, unbelief, and unnecessary controversy and suffering.

Those who claim to believe what the Bible teaches about God's sovereignty might say that sickness is the will of God, and therefore saints ought to endure it with patience for his glory. But those who claim to believe what the Bible teaches about God's healing power through faith and the gifts of the Spirit might counter that if sickness is the will of God, then why do they call on the doctors to fight the will of God? Why would they call on the doctor to help them get rid of the will of God, but they would not believe and receive healing directly from God, or lay hands on the sick for their healing?

As stated this way, each side offers an incomplete understanding of the topic and an unfair assessment of the other. For the discussion to move forward, we must recognize the distinction between God's decree and God's precept. Both are called the "will of God" in Scripture, but in different contexts and with different meanings. When God's will designates God's decree, it refers to his decision concerning what he would do. When God's will designates God's precept, it refers to his definition concerning what we should do.

God's decree determines all things, and nothing happens except by God's decree, including men's thoughts and actions, and even the fall of Satan and of Adam. On the other hand, God's precept does not determine what occurs, but it is only a definition of what is right or wrong. Therefore, God's decree can determine that a creature would transgress God's precept. For the sake of clarity, in what follows we will often refer to the decree and the precept of God instead of the will of God.

The Bible often declares that it is God's decree for certain people to sin, that is, to transgress God's precept and then be punished for it. He himself would never tempt anyone to sin, for he is not the tempter (James 1:13), and if he were to tell someone to do a certain thing, by definition it could not be a temptation to sin, since it would then become a precept for righteousness, because righteousness is to believe and obey what God says. Thus God commands Satan and the evil spirits to tempt men.

Contrary to the theologians, this does not mean that Satan is a "secondary" agent or any silly thing like that, because God is the one who directly controls him. The alternative is that Satan possesses the power to exist in himself and to control himself apart from God, which would make Satan into another God. Those who deny that God is the direct cause of all things, that he is the only real cause of anything, and that he directly controls Satan and all men – those who deny any of this – are in fact declaring Satan as deity, equal with God.

The Bible says that God himself sustains all things (Colossians 1:17). It would be unintelligible to say that he sustains a thing apart from its properties, because a thing's properties define that thing, and a thing that is without properties is nothing at all. If God sustains a thing – all its properties – moment by moment, this means that he sustains a man's evil thoughts and actions from this moment to the next moment. And if it is not the man who sustains his own thoughts and actions in this moment or in the next moment, then he is not the one who continues or transitions the thoughts and actions from this moment to the next moment (the man in this moment does not sustain or create the man in the next moment), nor can the thoughts and actions exist apart from his mind and body to sustain and transition themselves. Thus there is no inherent and necessary relationship between the man or the thoughts or the actions in this moment and the next moment. Rather, God must be the one who sustains, and in this sense even create, the man and the thoughts and the actions continuously, or moment by moment.

Therefore, God is the direct cause, even the only actual cause, of all things, including evil thoughts and actions; otherwise, evil thoughts and actions simply cannot exist. In this metaphysical or ontological sense, God is the author of sin, because he is necessarily the author of all things. Christians who wish to protect their own tradition or agenda sometimes complain that this biblical doctrine amounts to pantheism. However, although God directly controls Satan and evil, it does not mean that he is Satan or evil or that he becomes Satan or evil. Just as God can directly and completely control a rock without being or becoming the rock, he can control Satan without being or becoming Satan. The foolish accusation shows that these people either believe that God does not control anything, or that they themselves are the pantheists.

To illustrate the relationship, that God often causes Satan to carry out the divine decree, he sent Satan to destroy everything that Job had, but not to harm the man himself (Job 1:12). After a while, God sent Satan to inflict Job with sickness, but to spare the man's life (2:6). Thus it was God who sent Satan and gave him precise instructions on what to do. One might say that it was God who inflicted Job, and another might say that it was Satan who did it. Both could be considered correct, but not in the same way.

Then, 2 Samuel 24:1 says that God in his anger incited David to sin by taking a census. We know that God did not incite David by divine command or persuasion, because if he had, the census would be an act of obedience. Thus 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that it was Satan who "rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census." Both verses are correct, but they refer to the same event from different perspectives. It was indeed God who was angry and incited David to sin, but he did it through Satan, so that the census would be an act of sin and not obedience.

Micaiah told Ahab in 1 Kings 22, "And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?' One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' 'By what means?' the LORD asked. 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.' 'So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you'" (v. 20-23).

God is the one who controls evil spirits, lying spirits, the false prophets and their messages, to entice people to sin and to make harmful decisions, in order to fulfill his decree. As Ezekiel explains, when an idol worshiper goes to a prophet, "I the LORD will answer him myself. I will set my face against that man and make him an example and a byword. I will cut him off from my people. Then you will know that I am the LORD. And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the LORD have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel. They will bear their guilt – the prophet will be as guilty as the one who consults him" (Ezekiel 14:7-10).

God himself would entice the prophet to do wrong and then punish the prophet for doing wrong. This is because moral responsibility is measured not by God's decree (his decision on what would happen) but by God's precept (his definition on what is right or wrong). Thus God's decree could be that a man would transgress God's precept so as to incur guilt and then be punished. That this would occur only because God decrees and causes the transgression is irrelevant, because guilt is measured only by God's precept or command, not by the decree or the cause.

The Spirit of God had departed from Saul, and instead God had anointed David with the Spirit and with power. And we read in 1 Samuel 16: "Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him….Whenever the spirit from God came upon Saul, David would take his harp and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him" (1 Samuel 16:14, 23).

Just because something occurs by God's will (decree) does not mean that it is not in some sense of the devil (we will say the same about sickness), since God would even send evil spirits to torment people. And just because something occurs by God's will (decree) does not mean that we should embrace it and endure it, since it might be God's will (precept) for us to fight it – it depends on what it is and what he says to do about it.

A father may throw a ball to this son, but just because he is the one who throws it does not mean that he wants his son to be smashed in the head by it – it depends on what the father has told the son to do about the ball. Perhaps the point of throwing the ball over to the boy is so that he would hit it away with a baseball bat – HARD!!! But theologians are not known for understanding simple things.

By God's decree and power, an evil spirit tormented Saul. But David, anointed with the Holy Spirit, countered the evil spirit and drove it away. And David did not sin or rebel against God's "will" by this. It was God's decree to send that evil spirit to torment Saul. And it was God's decree to send David so that he could carry out God's precept in driving out that evil spirit by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Although the evil spirit came from God, from the perspective of God's precept, David was not fighting God when he played the harp, but he was fighting the evil spirit. From the perspective of God's decree, which explains all that occurs, it would be wrong to say that the evil spirit did not come from God. And from the perspective of God's precept, which defines what we ought to do, it would be wrong to accept the evil spirit without fighting it by the power of God.

God is also sovereign over all sicknesses. He causes them and controls them. He inflicted people with barrenness, with boils, and he would strike them dead. He told the Israelites that if they disobeyed him, "The LORD will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind" (Deuteronomy 28:27-28). God could – and would – afflict people with both bodily and mental diseases. And the same God is the Lord who heals their sicknesses (Exodus 15:26). All things are in his power.

However, God's sovereignty over sickness does not in itself suggest what we should do about sickness. Paul said that many of the Corinthians were weak, sick, or even dead because God was disciplining them (1 Corinthians 11:30-32). But his point was not that they should endure this; instead, he wanted them to repent and change so that they would no longer be weak, sick, or dead.

At least some sicknesses are said to be of Satan. On one occasion, Jesus said, "Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?" (Luke 13:16). Is no one bound by Satan in the form of sickness today? What are our preachers and theologians doing about it? Are all the people today sick because of "God's will"? So what? All the people who were ever sick in the history of mankind were sick because of God's will, as in his decree, but what does his precept say we should do about it? Are these preachers and theologians doing it? Or do they use God's sovereignty to excuse their unbelief and failure, just as some use God's grace to excuse their licentiousness?

Jesus said that a daughter of Abraham ought to be set free, and Paul wrote that we are the children of Abraham by faith in Christ. Then, James said that the prayer of faith will heal the sick. God's precept instructs us to believe for healing, to pray for it and to receive it, and to pray for others so that they will also receive healing. Regardless of where sickness comes from, or where a particular instance of sickness comes from, God's precept is that we should fight it by prayer and faith, so that a miracle could occur by God's power. Are the preachers doing this? Are the theologians teaching this? How about you? What are you doing about God's instructions on sickness? What do you do for someone who is sick because he is disciplined by God? What do you do for someone who is sick because he is oppressed by Satan?

Again, the fact that something is God's will does not mean that it does not come from Satan in some sense, and where something comes from, whether God or Satan, does not automatically tell us what we should do about it. Both sides that we mentioned in the beginning are wrong. The first is wrong in that although sickness may occur because of the decree of God, it is the precept of God that instead of endlessly enduring it, we should be fighting it in faith, even by repentance, by prayer, and by miracle power. The second is wrong in that although it is the precept of God that we fight sickness with repentance, prayer, and miracle power, sickness indeed occurs by the will and decree of God, because all things occur by the will and decree of God. Thus both divine sovereignty and the healing ministry are maintained.

When it comes to receiving and preaching salvation from sin, we would never tolerate someone who consigns the whole matter to some unknown will of God, as in his decree. We would realize that someone like this is using divine sovereignty as an excuse for his rebellion against God's command to believe and to preach the gospel. This is because we have the precept of God that tells us to believe in Jesus Christ and to preach him to all nations, even though according to the decree of God, not everyone could believe when he hears and not everyone is converted when we preach.

Likewise, when it comes to receiving and ministering miracle healing, there is no reason to tolerate someone who consigns the whole matter to the unknown decree of God. We should realize that someone like this only pretends to respect God's sovereignty in order to resist God's instruction and to cover up his own unbelief, rebellion, and spiritual deficiency. He is a failure and a hypocrite. Whatever the decree of God is concerning a specific case, we have the precept of God that tells us to seek and to minister miracle healing through faith in Jesus Christ.

The officer on whose arm the king was leaning said to the man of God, "Look, even if the LORD should open the floodgates of the heavens, could this happen?"

"You will see it with your own eyes," answered Elisha, "but you will not eat any of it!" (2 Kings 7:1-2)

Samaria was under siege, and on top of that there was a famine. This lasted so long that food – including dove's dung – became scarce and expensive. The people were starving so severely that they ate their own children (2 Kings 6:24-29). When Elisha announced that deliverance would arrive in a day, and that the price of food would come down, an official expressed unbelief at the prediction. Thus Elisha declared that he would be punished for this: "You will see it, but you will not eat it."

God is annoyed when people doubt his ability or willingness to work miracles. He was angry with the Israelites in the wilderness, because they heard the gospel but did not combine it with faith (Hebrews 4:2), and he said, "So I declared on oath in my anger, 'They shall never enter my rest'" (v. 3; Psalm 95:11). God left them to die in their unbelief.

If some people do not enter into God's rest, it is not because God has ceased performing mighty works, and it is not because he has ceased manifesting his power through his people, but it is because they have ceased combining faith with the gospel. It is because they have ceased in their faith, and God will leave them to die in their unbelief. They can fight us all they want, just as the Israelites resisted the leadership of Moses and contradicted the faith of Joshua and Caleb. God will see to it that they die in their unbelief, but those who have faith will enter into his rest.

When Gabriel announced the "good news" (Luke 1:19) that John the Baptist would be born, Zechariah doubted him, and so the angel said, "And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words" (1:20). His speech was restored when he aligned himself with God's program and named the child according to Gabriel's message (Luke 1:13, 63-64).

Peter was already experiencing a miracle when he doubted and began to sink. Jesus held him up and said, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?" (Matthew 14:31, ESV). Peter was told that he could come walking on the water, so it was demanded of him that he would have the faith to do it.

Even a little hesitation irritated Jesus. A man came seeking healing for his child and said, "But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us" (Mark 9:22, ESV). Jesus returned the burden for the miracle back to faith and exclaimed, "'If you can'! All things are possible for one who believes" (Mark 9:23, ESV). This approach to faith and miracles is the very thing that many mainstream preachers and theologians condemn today, but they do not have the forthrightness or demonic courage to blast Jesus himself, and so they attack those who agree with him and teach the same thing.

The disciples had learned the lesson, and so James wrote that when a man prays, he must believe and not doubt, and that a man who doubts should not think that he will receive anything from the Lord (James 1:6-7). Again, this is the exact doctrine that numerous Christian leaders oppose today, and those who expound on it are often castigated as false teachers and heretics. And James said, "The prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well" (5:15). This is also fiercely opposed, and those who agree with James are mocked, criticized, interrogated, and persecuted.

Sometimes cessationists complain that they are misrepresented. They claim that they do not reject God's power, but as long as they are cessationists, it remains that they reject God's power and the Spirit's operation as these are taught in the Bible. If the Bible teaches it one way, and they teach it another way (making adjustments so that the doctrine becomes something that their feeble faith can live up to), then they reject God's power and the Bible.

Cessationists, hypocrites! If you truly believe the Bible, then stop making excuses. Go out and pray for the sick in faith like James told you to, so that they may be healed and offer thanks to God. But you offer all kinds of reasons to explain why you are not doing it. And when you are finally shamed into going through the motions, you offer all kinds of reasons to explain why it does not happen for you. So you are still arguing, and still making excuses.

The truth is that you are weak in faith, if you have any faith at all, but you are too proud to admit it, and it seems easier to argue and delay, argue and delay, than to face your own unbelief and tradition. You are angry with us, because we are on to you, and we are telling people about it. You want people to think that you are scholarly and spiritual, but no matter what you say, we know that you are not, and we are going to tell it to the world. We realize that this makes you very angry, probably angry enough to conspire with unbelievers to crucify Jesus Christ.

For a long time, churches, seminaries, and denominations have conspired against the power of God and spread hostility against the manifestations of his Spirit. They have systematized their doctrines of unbelief and codified them in their creeds, so it has become a test of orthodoxy to affirm unbelief and tradition. Nevertheless, God is sovereign. When he decides to unleash his power, it will happen even when his enemies fight it. If you doubt that something will happen by God's miracle power, it will still happen, but he will rub it in your face when it does, and he will stampede you to death as his people rush out to embrace his deliverance.

God would not endlessly contend with the unbelief of this official. After a while, no argument was necessary. The refutation was their feet on his face. Just as he has never ceased performing miracles, and never ceased endowing his people with gifts and powers, he has never ceased rebuking and punishing unbelief. To preach the gospel is also to condemn unbelief in the name of Jesus Christ. The claim that God's power as it is taught in Scripture and enjoyed by the early Christians has ceased or changed is not a topic that should be restricted to detached and polite academic discussion. It is a demonic doctrine, one of Satan's most effective schemes, and we must incite God's people to despise it and condemn it.

Christians, take the side of faith and power. If you listen to those who teach unbelief and rebellion, you are the ones who will continue to suffer a lack of God's power, who will continue to starve for his Spirit, who will have to endure needless failure and frustration. Therefore, heed the good news of God's power and his Spirit, and rush out to embrace his deliverance. That keeper of the gate, that defender of the faith, might not believe, but what is that to you? Why should you care what he thinks? What is he to you, that you should share in his unbelief and suspicion? Why do you owe him any respect or allegiance? Do not let his sophistry tarry you. Answer him with your words, but then answer him with your feet as you trample his face and body. Go! Seize the spoils of war that Jesus Christ has won for you. God can deliver you in a day. Pray, believing, so that you may receive. And the God of peace will soon crush critics under your feet.

Biblical theology – not just theology that is biblical, but that approach to interpretation that is called biblical theology – interprets the text of Scripture in the context of God's plan of redemption through Jesus Christ. This is appropriate, but in the hands of unbelief it becomes an excuse to neutralize what the individual passages actually assert, because one can always – illegitimately, of course – appeal to the overarching purpose of redemption to destroy the narrower significance of a text.

One recent book on biblical theology describes an incident in which the author was speaking to some children at church. He taught on a biblical account of miracle healing and practically bullied a child into confessing that the miracle was not the point of the text, but that it was really about some broader concern regarding Christ and his work of redemption. However, to that sick man in the text, healing was very much the point, and Jesus did not tell him that the healing was not the point, but he granted him the healing, so that he thought it was enough of a point to do it for the man. And to a sick man who reads the Bible today, healing is also very much the point, even if it is not the only point or the most important point.

When there is a larger point to be grasped from a text, what is stated by the text does not suddenly become a non-issue. When Jesus talked about sparrows, his main point was not about sparrows, but what he said about the sparrows remains true to this day, so much so that we could make an independent point out of it. We can make the point that God regulates the lives of sparrows without mentioning what this implies about his relationship with us, because that point about sparrows is true by itself and can stand by itself (Matthew 10:29). If a biblical account of miracle healing advances a larger point about Jesus Christ, the passage is still intelligible in itself. It is still about the miracle healing, and miracle healing is still a legitimate topic that can be discussed on the basis of the text.

Although it may take churches and seminaries several years to exorcise basic reading comprehension out of a person, these institutions are persistent and successful in making people unlearn intellectual skills so that they could accept total nonsense. Indeed, it is strange that when the Bible refers to healing of the body and salvation of the soul as if they are bundled together and as if they fulfill the same prophecies (Matthew 8:17; 1 Peter 2:24; James 5:15-16), the preachers and theologians wish to separate them and even spiritualize the healing of the body into the salvation of the soul, and then force healing to be absorbed into salvation. And when the Bible refers to conversion to Christ and reception of the Spirit as distinct blessings and events, the preachers and theologians wish to combine them and force the reception of the Spirit to be absorbed into conversion.

They keep separate what the Bible bundles together, so that they could disguise their opposition to the healing power of God, and they bundle together what the Bible keeps separate, so that they could disguise their opposition to the fullness of the Spirit. Then, with the tools of their scholarship, they bully and shame people into going along with their theological and ecclesiastical program. Even little children are not spared. They would not be allowed to run to Christ for all his blessings. Their faith to receive the Christ of the Gospels and to receive the Spirit of the Acts will not be tolerated. Whatever it takes, their faith will be educated out of them.

Against all of this, if you will cling to Christ alone, you will find liberty in him from the doctrines of men and from the pressure to conform to unbelief and tradition. As for how we should answer them, which is easier: to say, "Turn from your unbelief," or to say, "May your unbelief burn with you"? But so that all would know where unbelief leads, let us say, "Turn from your unbelief, lest you burn with it."

God would perform a miracle not only when there is a desperate need, and he often does it not only to prove himself. It is foolish to always try to come up with a reason behind a miracle or to state one reason to cover all of them, such as to say that he does it to authenticate new revelation. If the Bible tells us the reason, then accept it. If the Bible does not tell us and it is impossible to infer one, then accept that. And he may often have more than one reason for performing a miracle.

God could perform a miracle because he wishes to authenticate a new revelation or to keep his word concerning an old revelation. Or, he could have compassion and decides to provide practical help to someone. Nobody can fault him when he does it in style. Perhaps he would do one, not directly but by a gift of the Spirit, and not by an apostle or church leader but by the lowest and least trained believer, just to rub it in the face of the theologians who tell people that he would not. If God wishes to do something, he will do it, and you cannot stop him, even when he does something or through someone that your religious bias disapproves. Let your bias burn in hell, so that you will not have to.

This miracle seems unusual, but it is not unheard of. Enoch walked with God, and he did not experience death, because God took him away (Genesis 5:24; Hebrews 11:5). Elijah probably experienced this miracle so many times that he was known for it, so that people assumed that it would happen to him. When he said that he would wait for the king, Obadiah was worried and answered, "I don't know where the Spirit of the Lord may carry you when I leave you" (1 Kings 18:12). Then, like Enoch, Elijah was carried up to heaven and did not experience death (2 Kings 2:11-12). The company of the prophets did not realize that he had been taken up to heaven, and so they said, "Perhaps the Spirit of the LORD has picked him up and set him down on some mountain or in some valley" (v. 16).

It is possible that John 6:21 describes one such miracle associated with Jesus: "Then they were willing to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading." This could mean that the boat arrived without further incident, but if this refers to a miracle, then it means that when Jesus stepped in, the boat and all its passengers were miraculously transported to the shore. This would be consistent with the fact that some of the people regarded Jesus as the return of Elijah, although there were a number of other things regarding Jesus that could have reminded them of that prophet.

Some of the greatest or most significant feats were not performed through the apostles or even in association with the apostles. One of the most glorious and pivotal chapters of the early church focused on Stephen as he confronted the non-Christians with a brilliant account of God's dealing with his people, and as heaven opened up to him and he saw Jesus Christ at the right hand of God. Here Philip was transported by the Spirit of God. He disappeared before witnesses and appeared in another place.

Although Philip is always portrayed in a positive light, some theologians attempt to undermine his ministry in Samaria. This is not because the Bible says that there was anything defective in Philip's work, but because Luke, as he does in other places, represents the conversion to Christ and the reception of the Spirit as distinct blessings. "When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:14-17). This is a tremendous threat to the theologians of unbelief, and they refuse to allow this. No matter what the Bible says, they are determined to have it their way.

So they claim that Philip's ministry was so deficient that the Samaritans were not in fact converted until the apostles arrived. What? Did the apostles convert the people by laying their hands on them? But Luke insists that the people "had accepted the word of God" and had "been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." This satisfied Peter's demand in Acts 2: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." And after this, Peter added, "You will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (v. 38). The Samaritans were undergoing the same process that Peter described. It is nothing less than a demonic prejudice to suppose that they were not converted under Philip's preaching.

But theologians still refuse to accept the word of God, and they insist that being converted to Christ and being filled with the Spirit should be identical and simultaneous. Holding this assumption constant against all contradictory evidence, the two-stage experience of the Samaritans must have occurred because God wanted to show them that they were formally accepted into the church by sending the apostles and by delaying the filling of the Spirit. They are blinded to another possibility. Perhaps God sent the apostles and delayed the Spirit to make a point of showing future generations and these theologians that these are indeed two distinct blessings.

The text itself suggests that it is a separate ability or ministry to lay hands on people for the reception of the Holy Spirit, so that Simon tried to purchase it (Acts 8:19). "If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be" (1 Corinthians 12:17-18). So Philip preached to the people, and then Peter and John laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit.

The theologians insist that this was a privilege of the apostles, and that the reception of the Spirit was separated from conversion to Christ only as exceptions. That is, all the biblical passages that disprove their theory are exceptions. Perhaps the non-Christians can learn something from these scholars, because by this method they might be able to prove atheism from the Bible. In any case, the very next chapter says that Ananias, an ordinary believer, laid his hands on Paul so that he could be filled with the Holy Spirit three days after his conversion. Just as Peter and John laid hands on the Samaritans to impart the Holy Spirit and to initiate their Christian lives, Ananias laid hands on Paul to impart the Holy Spirit and to initiate his astounding ministry as an apostle.

God leaves testimonies for himself throughout Scripture as obscene gestures against the scholarship of the theologians. He says, "Take that!" over and over again to their unbelief, prejudice, and personal agenda. We ought to remember that God can transport people straight to hell just as easily as he can transport them to heaven. And indeed hell would be one big middle finger against unbelief. As for us, we do not regard God as obscene, for all his blessings are gestures of wisdom, power, and love. Those who are perishing consider the aroma of Christ "the smell of death" (2 Corinthians 2:16), but to us his wrath to destroy them are instructive and glorious (Romans 9:22-24).

Your preachers and theologians boldly proclaim the priesthood of all believers. But they are liars – they do not believe it. They will assert the doctrine against those they consider too restrictive or authoritarian, but then they will turn around and undermine your liberty in Jesus Christ. They will limit the application of the doctrine to press you down and fence you in, not according to biblical principles, but according to their own traditions, codified as orthodoxy in their creeds.

But the Bible teaches the priesthood of all believers, so that if you are a follower of Jesus Christ, then you are a priest under him. You have direct and complete access to God, and you possess the authority and the ability to dispense the grace of God to any person and in any place. More than this, Luke teaches the prophethood of all believers. Moses had said, "I wish that all the LORD's people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!" (Numbers 11:29). His dream was at last realized on Pentecost when Jesus Christ received the promise from his Father and poured out the Spirit upon all his people.

To think that the Spirit's miraculous power only belonged to or was only associated with the apostles, and that it passed away with them, represents a fundamental estrangement from God's heart and a thoroughgoing defective understanding of Scripture from Numbers to the Gospels and the Acts. Yet this is the position of multitudes of preachers and theologians who purport to be reliable guides in the way of Christ. They are frauds. Do not believe them. They have rejected the privilege and they wish that you would reject it too. But the Bible teaches that all of God's people can be prophets. They can be channels not only of his saving grace, but also of his mighty power.

The Spirit of God can do great things through you regardless of your title and regardless of which century you live in. The issue has never been whether the apostles are dead, but whether God is dead. If God lives, then all things are possible to him who believes. We can advance in Jesus Christ, even as far as our faith takes us, and the doctrines and institutions of men cannot hold us back. Of course, we ought to have realistic aspirations, but we ought to be realistic not according to a doctrine of unbelief, but according to our measure of faith.