In Part 1 of this series, we surveyed the landscape of Pentecostalism and traced the biblical story of the Baptism in the Spirit, ultimately landing on the historic Protestant understanding of Spirit baptism. In Part 2, we turn our attention to the more controversial question of spiritual gifts—particularly prophecy, tongues, and other revelatory gifts—and ask a practical question: What place, if any, should these gifts have in the church today?

Do Revelatory Gifts Accompany the Baptism in the Spirit today?

We have already established that the initial Jewish (Acts 2) and Gentile (Acts 10) outpourings, both of which included the gift of tongues, were highly inaugural.  Joel’s prophecy was being fulfilled first for the Jews, and secondarily for the Gentiles (Rom 1:16).  We shouldn’t expect tongues to accompany the baptism in the Spirit today any more than we would expect literal tongues of fire and rushing winds, or any more than we would require water baptism and apostolic laying on of hands to precede it (Acts 2:38, 8:12-17, 19:1-10).  In fact, most Pentecostals and charismatics believe that the office of “apostle” has ceased, which would make the latter impossible!

In addition, Paul rhetorically asks, “do all speak in tongues?” (1 Cor 12:30), expecting an obvious answer of “no”.  He also confirmed that ongoing tongues were not purposeful “in the church” but were signs for unbelievers outside the church, especially the Jews (1 Cor 14:18-22).

Therefore, we can confidently assert that, while the baptism in the Spirit entails spiritual empowerment, it was never necessarily accompanied by a revelatory gift.

A Temporary Cessationist Proposal

What about the exercise of revelatory gifts apart from the baptism in the Spirit? I believe the same foundational considerations apply. These include:

• The foundational offices of apostles and prophets. Paul describes the church as “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20). Their unique role was tied to the laying of the once-for-all foundation of the church (cf. Eph. 3:5; 4:11–13). A foundation does not need relaid.
• The definitive revelation of Christ through apostolic witness. In times of old, God spoke through the Prophets, but His climactic revelation came in His Son, who was then made known through the authoritative testimony of the apostles who personally witnessed Him and received His revelation (Heb. 1:1–2; Col. 1:25-27; cf. John 15:26–27). Their apostolic witness was ultimately preserved for the church in the canonical Scriptures.
• The signs that authenticated this revelation. God Himself “bore witness [past tense!] by signs and wonders and various miracles” (Heb. 2:4; cf. 2 Cor. 12:12). These extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit therefore served to authenticate the foundational messengers and the revelation they proclaimed.

Nevertheless, there are several reasons we cannot simply conclude that all revelatory gifts were necessarily limited to the First Century.

The “last days,” during which “all flesh” would prophesy, were inaugurated at the commencement of the church age (Acts 2:17; Joel 2:28). Yet the prophecy also contains features associated with the consummation, such as the sun being “turned to darkness and the moon to blood.” This reflects the already-not-yet nature of apocalyptic prophecy, suggesting a future fulfillment. Accordingly, 1 Corinthians 13 teaches that revelatory gifts will not finally cease until “the perfect” comes—the age in which “we shall know even as we are known” (13:12). Saucy states:

The statements in the context about seeing “face to face,” suggesting a complete direct knowledge as opposed to the indirect vision of a mirror, and of coming to “know fully, even as I am fully known” (v.12), clearly speak of the state of glorification (v.13). These statements refer to the coming of Christ, when perfection arrives.” This text, therefore, does not indicate that certain gifts will cease before that state comes.[viii]

He concludes, “It is, therefore, impossible to say, on the basis of biblical teaching, that certain gifts cannot occur … according to God’s sovereign purpose.”[x]

In fact, “Genuine manifestations of prophecy are predicted for the future (e.g. Rev. 11:3, 10)”[ix]. According to the major interpretations of Revelation 11, the two witnesses prophesy, potentially in a time of tribulation at the end of the church age, just preceding the coming of Christ. This provides an intriguing possibility of temporary cessationism:

• The New Testament church actually contained prophets and believers exercising the prophetic gift (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor. 12–14).
• Yet these revelatory ministries belonged to the foundational era of the church, in which the apostles and prophets laid the foundation upon which the church was built (Eph. 2:20; 3:5). Once that foundation was laid and the apostolic witness preserved in the canonical Scriptures, the revelatory gifts ceased as ordinary features of the church.
• Nevertheless, Scripture may anticipate their temporary revival at the close of the age. Just as major redemptive-historical events such as the Fall, Exodus, Incarnation, and Pentecost were accompanied by extraordinary divine revelation, so too may the consummation be marked by renewed prophetic witness (Rev. 11:3–12) immediately preceding the revelation of Jesus Christ, when He will finish His story.

Such a modified cessationism better accounts for the biblical witness than classic cessationism. Many classic cessationists, including Calvin, reduce prophecy by making it synonymous with preaching. However, this diminishes its clear distinction from pastoral functions (Eph. 4:11; Rom. 12:7–8), its association with revealed mysteries (1 Cor. 13:2), and Paul’s repeated admonitions to all believers—not merely preachers—to earnestly desire prophecy (1 Cor. 14:1), regulate its exercise (v. 40), test it (v. 29), and not despise it (1 Thess. 5:20). My proposal retains the more straightforward biblical definition: prophecy is genuine new revelation from God.

Unfortunately, many Pentecostal approaches make a similar reduction, though in the opposite direction. Rather than redefining prophecy as preaching, they broaden it to include fallible impressions, promptings, or anything someone believes God has placed on their heart. This is equally dissatisfying. But I believe there is a solution.

Not so great a divide: Evangelicals sounding Pentecostal

I often hear evangelical pastors use phrases like:

• “I felt like God was telling me to call Frank and pray for him”
• “God gave the leadership team a peace about this land purchase”
• “We sensed that God was leading us in that direction”
• “I planned to preach on love today, but God placed another topic on my heart last night”

Are these, in some sense, experiences of God’s guidance beyond the explicit words of Scripture? Yes—but many evangelicals carefully distinguish such providential guidance from the biblical gift of prophecy. The Reformed theologian John Murray acknowledged that the Spirit’s illumination may produce “feelings, impressions, convictions, urges, inhibitions, impulses, burdens, resolutions,”[xxiv] while insisting that these should not be confused with direct revelation. Likewise, the eighteenth-century Reformed minister Samuel Pike acknowledged that God may sovereignly work through such impressions, even saying,

“it is very likely that God may sometimes enlarge our hearts in prayer, with a design to excite and encourage us; or contract our hearts, with a design to prevent us from using those means, or taking those steps, which may be detrimental” [xxv].

Keener argues,

Some noncharismatics have reproved charismatics for using terms such as revelation and inspiration for something other than Scripture, yet they agree that God’s Spirit can lead our daily lives, which is what most charismatics mean by the terms.[xi]

I agree with Keener that this is often what charismatics have in mind when they speak of “revelation” or  “inspiration.” The problem is not necessarily the experience they are describing, but the strength of the terminology they use to describe it. By labeling ordinary impressions, promptings, or perceived guidance as “revelation,” they risk giving these subjective experiences an authority that properly belongs to genuine divine revelation.

A true prophecy is an infallible and authoritative word from God, communicated through means such as an audible voice, a vision, a prophetic dream, or some other unmistakable form of direct divine communication—not merely a nudge, impression, or spontaneous thought (Num. 12:6–8). When prophecy is predictive, its fulfillment must likewise demonstrate the accuracy expected of a genuine word from God (Deut. 13:1–5; 18:21–22). Nothing in the New Testament suggests that the meaning or nature of prophecy was fundamentally altered from its Old Testament usage. Indeed, the prophecy of Joel 2:28, fulfilled in Acts 2:17, speaks of the same prophetic phenomenon. Both Keener and Saucy recognize this continuity:

In prophecy, one was inspired to speak directly as God’s agent, essentially declaring, “Thus says the Spirit” (Acts 21:11; Rev. 2:1; 3:1).[xii]

If prophecy is truly an inspired revelation from God, it is authoritative no matter who is the vehicle through whom it is received. The biblical question that is still pertinent today is not that of levels of authority, but rather whether it is genuine prophecy.[xiii]

If Pentecostals were told that their alleged prophecies were to carry the same authority as Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, would they be more hesitant to call their words “prophecy”? Would they test their prophetic words much more critically? Too many are giving prophecies that either contradict scripture or prove to be false predictions — a natural fruit of the view that prophecy is a fallible report of revelation and that God is okay with varying levels of authority and accuracy. In the early church, this would not fly. The judgment of prophecy was essential (1 Cor 14:29). In fact, the testing of all things was essential (1 Thess 5:21). Even a brief revival of revelatory gifts in the eschaton would not cancel that mandate—not even for the two witnesses of Revelation 11!

In sum, I do not find any support in Scripture either for the definition of prophecy as the [fallible] report of revelation or for prophecy with error … it does raise questions concerning much of what is purported to be prophecy by the continuationist today.[xvi]

Jeremiah gave stern warnings regarding the false prophets that were reporting impressions from their own minds as words directly from the Lord:

Thus says the Lord of hosts: “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord … 31 Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who use their tongues and declare, ‘declares the Lord’ … 38 Because you have said these words, “The burden of the Lord” when I sent to you, saying, “You shall not say, ‘The burden of the Lord,’” 39 therefore, behold, I will surely lift you up and cast you away from my presence … (Jeremiah 23:16, 31, 38b-39, emphasis added)

Given the above considerations, continuationists should change their terminology and align with other evangelicals.  They should stop calling spontaneous impressions “prophecies” and stop adding the verbiage “thus says the Lord”. What they perceive as God’s providential guidance should be expressed with appropriate humility—“I sense…,” “I have a peace about…,” or “I feel led to…”—rather than presented as revelation from God with the authoritative formula, “Thus says the Lord.” Saucy discusses this semantic tension:

God does guide or reveal his mind to us today in matters that transcend the explicit teaching of Scripture-for example, in specific directions in personal or even church decisions. Strong divergence, however, remains over the nature and place of contemporary “prophecy” in this guidance. While I remain personally convinced that all biblical prophecy is inspired infallible utterance, I am not at all sure what difference there is between some “fallible prophecy” accepted by many continuationists and the “guidance” or “leading” of God that the church has always taught, except that “prophecy” may appear to be more miraculous. In this area, I believe that care should be taken that our disagreements are really substantive and not merely semantic.[xvii]

Not so great a divide: Pentecostals sounding Evangelical

While the above suggestions press continuationists to reconsider certain practices and terminology, it is important to recognize that they are not as far removed from other evangelicals as they may think. Most Pentecostals and charismatics already acknowledge significant differences between the church today and the unique, foundational period of covenant transition recorded in Acts.

• Most would agree there were more spectacular miracles then. “The apostles in their miracle-working were different from others in the church both in the New Testament and subsequently”[xviii] (e.g. limbs growing out, dead people rising, etc.)

• Most would agree there were non-repeatable signs (e.g. flames over heads at Pentecost, thousands of people hearing tongues in their languages, etc).

• Most would agree that the canon of scripture closed and God stopped giving new universal revelation

• Most would agree there is no office of Apostle (capital A) today. “Even those who hold a present church ministry as successors of the apostles agree that the original biblical apostles were in some sense unique.”[xix]

If they acknowledge these differences between the church today and the church of Acts, they should likewise have no difficulty recognizing the inaugural nature of the revelatory gifts that accompanied the Spirit’s initial outpouring, and therefore considering whether those gifts should remain necessary components of Spirit baptism today.

I’ll go one step further and invite Pentecostals to reconsider what tongues are altogether.

Reassessing the Nature of Tongues Today

Tongues as Real Languages

As I pointed out earlier, it is evident that in Acts 2 the tongues spoken were real languages. They weren’t unintelligible ecstatic speech, such as the repetition of the same syllable over and over again. They could be readily understood by someone who either already knew that language or was miraculously endowed with such an understanding.

Keener boldly confesses, “In contrast to some Pentecostals, I believe that “tongues” in both Acts and 1 Corinthians refers to genuine languages, albeit languages unknown to the speaker.”[xx]  Saucy concurs:

The important point is that they were all language, i.e., they conveyed conceptual thought. The gift of tongues could be interpreted with understanding …  some studies have shown that many expressions of contemporary tongues have no linguistic characteristics.[xxi]

Since Acts 2 is the first real narrative of tongues in practice, we should be very wary of claiming that the definition changed between Acts 2 (real languages) and 1 Corinthians 12-14 (supposed unintelligible ecstatic speech), as many Pentecostals do.  Right in the middle of Paul’s discourse on the gifts, 1 Corinthians 13:1 explicitly states that the Pauline tongues are “tongues of men”:

1Co 13:1  Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Here Paul explains that even if we employ our spiritual gifts to a hyperbolic (perhaps unattainable) degree, they are useless without love.  For example, in verse 2, Paul states, “Though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge … and have not charity, I am nothing.”  We know from the same chapter that prophecy and knowledge are only endowed “in part” during the church age (v9).  Therefore Paul is using hyperbole when he refers to understanding “all mysteries” and “all knowledge”.  He is making the point that even if such a degree of prophesying were possible, without love, it is useless.  With that pattern, we should understand 13:1 as defining tongues as the “tongues of men”.  Paul only mentions “tongues of angels” to make the point with hyperbole that, even if we could speak the languages of divine beings (which by the way would also be real languages as opposed to gibberish), without love it would be useless.  This corroborates with what we discovered in Acts 2.  “Tongues” are “tongues of men”, not unintelligible ecstatic utterances.

The “Two Kinds of Tongues” Argument

Many Pentecostals have asserted that there is a self-edifying personal prayer language, which is distinct from the public kind of tongues that occurred on Pentecost.  This category can allegedly include unintelligible ecstatic utterances, or even real languages, which occur in private and don’t require interpretation.  Such a notion is based on 1 Corinthians 14.

1 Cor 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

The key here is to read the whole chapter in context, and really get Paul’s point.  First, we are told in verse 22 that the gift of tongues is not designed for believers, but is rather a sign for unbelievers (cf Mk 16:17).  It has the most value, not “in the church”, but outside the church (v29); not in our prayer closets at home, but out on the mission field. I have heard of occasions where this gift has manifested in the presence of foreign unbelievers, and they heard and understood, and were converted. If God did sovereignly grant the manifestation of tongues during the post-apostolic era, that’s what they would look like!

Secondly, Paul’s context from chapters 12-14 is one of body life and edification.  Therefore Paul is addressing the negative, self-serving nature of uninterpreted tongues, in contrast with the positive body-serving effect of prophesying in verses 3-4.  The former is cast in a negative light, while the latter is encouraged.  When someone speaks in a miraculously endowed language that most (or all) of the congregation doesn’t know, he is wasting the congregation’s time.  He is not speaking to men, but only to God (v2).  Why?  Because no one understands a word he is saying.  “With his spirit”, or his innermost being, he is speaking but it’s not “fruitful” to those around him (v14).  It’s only edifying to himself.  This is not the purpose of the gifts of the Spirit. “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” (12:7).

The Self Edification Argument

Even if one argues for self-edification based on verse 4, if edifying the church means “giving the church intelligible information they can understand”, then self-edification should have a similar requirement.  Therefore, the edification he is receiving must be very minimal at best, as he doesn’t understand a word he himself is saying. He is speaking “mysteries” that neither he nor the church understands.  He is only edified to the degree that he is actively praying and knowing that God is hearing him and answering the prayer.  However, the edification would be much greater if he prayed, not just with his spirit, but also with his mind, which is precisely Paul’s solution, “I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also” (v15).  Even Mary, prior to ever receiving the gift of tongues prayed with her spirit:  “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour” (Lk 1:46-47). Therefore, praying “with the spirit” is not limited to speaking in a tongue, any more than serving “with the Spirit” (Rom 1:9) is serving in tongues, or loving in the spirit (Col 1:8) is loving in “tongues”.  The New Covenant is a spiritual covenant. 

In contrast to the Old Testament economy, which was filled with physical types and shadows, New Testament worshippers now worship “in Spirit” (Gr. en pneumati) and “in truth” (John 4:23).  Surely an English speaking Christian who sincerely prays in English is not merely praying with her brain to the exclusion of her spirit.  That would mean that all of her English prayer is fleshly and carnal.  The truth is, whether a person prays in a different tongue or in her native language, she is praying with her spirit.  The difference is in the understanding, or lack thereof, in those who hear her.  If no translator is present and I don’t have the gift of translating my miraculously endowed language, then I should simply pray in the common language which is both “with my spirit” and “with my understanding”, simultaneously! This provides maximal edification and fruit for both me and those around me.  Isn’t this exactly the teaching of Jesus – “The good ground is he that hears the word, and understands it; which also bears fruit” (Mt 13:23).

And the Winner is… Human Languages

The human language interpretation is the only interpretation that makes sense given Paul’s emphasis on interpretation.  The word “interpret” (Gr. diermeneuo) commonly means “to translate” (e.g. Acts 9:36). So Paul’s context of interpretation means that human languages, not gibberish, are involved.  If tongues consisted of gibberish, there is no way of knowing if someone is present who can or will interpret it.  Therefore, Pentecostals often speak out in shear faith that someone, normally the pastor, will step up and attempt an “interpretation” of the ecstatic speech – an approach which has been demonstrated to yield multiple conflicting interpretations.  If tongues consist of human languages, on the other hand, the presence of an interpreter of that language (whether by recent miraculous gifting or natural knowledge) would be readily known beforehand.

The fact that Paul quotes Isa 28:11 in 1 Corinthians 14:21 is yet another proof that Paul is speaking of human languages.  He writes,

1 Cor 14:21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.

In Isaiah 28, God is telling Israel that when they hear the language (“tongue”) of another people group, namely the Babylonians, it will be a sign that God’s judgment is upon them.  In the same way, the plethora of tongues spoken by the first century Christians was a sign, especially to the Jews, that God had now opened up the covenant to all people groups.  Both Acts 2 and Acts 10 corroborate this fact about tongues.  In both cases we see explicit references to Jews being confounded when they hear tongues spoken (2:6, 10:45).

The Romans 8:26 Argument

Doesn’t Romans 8:26 teach that all believers should intercede in tongues when they don’t know how to pray?  No.  The word “tongues” is not mentioned at all in this verse, nor do any historical commentaries ever suggest that tongues is in scope.  Let’s look at the passage in context:

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. 26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.

Notice when we read the context, Romans 8:26 has nothing to do with intercessory tongues.  The “groaning” is not tongues, or else creation is also speaking in tongues (v22).  No, the groaning is figurative language emphasizing the pain and agony that the curse has brought upon creation only to be alleviated by the future redemption of the body. Until then, we may not even know what to pray for in the midst of our anguish, but the Holy Spirit is silently interceding for us with groanings that are too deep for words (Gr. Alaletos – unutterable, not verbalized, in any language or tongue)!  To claim that this verse is speaking of any spoken language, whether ecstatic or intelligible, is to miss Paul’s entire point.  Paul is emphasizing the Spirit’s silent sympathy for our weaknesses, as He asks the Father, in our stead, for those things that are His ultimate will.  We don’t know those things, but He does – “And he who searches the hearts [the Father] knows what is the mind of the Spirit [the Holy Spirit], because the Spirit [the Holy Spirit] intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.” (v27).  This is why all things ultimately work out for our good, even when we don’t know how (vv28-30).

Concluding Thoughts

So where does this leave us? I believe we can affirm much of what both sides of this debate are trying to protect. The Spirit is not merely a doctrine to study but a living presence who gives us new life, dwells within us, fills us, and empowers us to live as witnesses for Christ. We should eagerly desire the gifts He has given His church, while also being humble enough to admit that not every gift or manifestation recorded in Acts was intended to continue in exactly the same way throughout the church age.

That is why I believe a temporary cessation of the revelatory gifts offers a helpful middle ground. The foundational work of the apostles and prophets was completed, and the revelatory gifts that accompanied that foundation appear to have ceased. Yet this does not mean God has stopped working supernaturally, nor does it require us to deny the possibility that genuine prophecy could attend Christ’s return. Revelation 11 leaves that possibility open.

For those coming from charismatic backgrounds, perhaps the challenge is not to become less dependent upon the Spirit, but to become more discerning about what we attribute directly to Him. We can pray expectantly without manufacturing experiences. We can seek the available gifts without feeling pressure to manufacture unavailable ones. We can say, “I sense,” or “I believe the Lord may be leading,” without casually declaring, “Thus says the Lord.” And we can leave room for God to do whatever He chooses without feeling the need to make Him do it.

Ultimately, “Scripture is the “canon,” the “measuring stick,” hence, the final arbiter of revelation”[xxiii]. Whatever our tradition—Pentecostal, charismatic, cessationist, or somewhere in between—we should be willing to bring our experiences, practices, and assumptions back to the Word and let it correct us. We have more in common than we think: a shared desire to honor Christ, trust His Spirit, obey His Word, and build up His church.

End Notes:

[i] Some might classify Keener in the third wave category, but I placed him in the open but cautious category because of his insistence on tongues being intelligible language, prophecy being infallible, and all revelatory gifts being scrutinized meticulously

[ii] Keener, Craig.  Gift and Giver: The Holy Spirit for Today [E-book]. Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker’s Academic, 2001.  “The Spirit and Salvation”

[iii] Saucy, Robert (Article).  Grudem, Wayne (General Editor).  Gundry, Stanley (Series Editor).  “Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views”. Zondervan Academic (October 11, 2011).  Pg 98.

[iv] Keener. “When are we Baptized in the Spirit?”

[v] Those who are dogmatic about the necessity of water baptism for new birth should consider this, especially since we are in the times of the Gentiles (Lk 21:24).  A strict adherence to the Acts 2:38 pattern seems misplaced in the church age. Some may argue that Acts 2:39 places the repent–be baptized–receive the Spirit “promise” on all future people that the Lord will call, including Gentiles. However, the “Promise” does not include the conditions. The “Promise” is the “Spirit” Himself (Acts 1:4, 2:33), and God sovereignly decides how and when to grant the Spirit (John 3:8). In the case of the first Jews, He desired a more stringent Acts 2:38 sequence. However, in the case of the Gentiles, such a sequence was not as important. Nevertheless, water baptism still served an important role for Gentiles, as Peter immediately wanted to baptize Cornelius’ household after they believed (Acts 10:47). So even though the water baptism/Spirit baptism sequence wasn’t as rigid, the two events should still be proximate to each other.

[vi] Saucy.  Pg 303.

[vii] Keener.  “When are we Baptized in the Spirit?”

[viii] Saucy. Pg 123.

[ix] Saucy. Pg 128.

[x] Saucy.  Pg 100.

[xi] Keener.  “When are we Baptized in the Spirit?”

[xii] Keener. “A Closer Look at Some Spiritual Gifts”

[xiii] Saucy.  Pg 148.

[xiv] Keener.  “A Closer Look at Some Spiritual Gifts”

[xv] Saucy.  Pg 161.

[xvi] Saucy.  Pg 232.

[xvii] Saucy. Pg 331.

[xviii] Saucy. Pg 329.

[xix] Saucy.  Pg 101.

[xx] Keener.  “Tongues and the Spirit”

[xxi] Saucy. Pg 131.

[xxii] Saucy.  Pg 128.

[xxiii] Keener.  “A Closer Look at Some Spiritual Gifts”

[xxiv] John Murray, “The Guidance of the Holy Spirit,” in Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 1: The Claims of Truth (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 187–89.

[xxv] Samuel Pike and Samuel Hayward, Religious Cases of Conscience (London, 1755), Case XI, “How may a person…know the mind and will of God in any particular circumstance?”; repr. in Religious Cases of Conscience (New York, 1808), 107–108.