Let me make two statements before I address this topic:
1) I am a longtime fan of John MacArthur’s ministry, his writings, and his theology. I am in no way anti-Mac.
2) I did not attend or stream his recent “Strange Fire” conference, nor have I read the book. My experience with MacArthur and his views on the charismatic movement are based on his older book, “Charismatic Chaos” and other books I read as a young cessationist preacher boy (fresh out of Dallas Seminary), which informed my view on charismatic/Pentecostal issues for the first decade or so of my ministry.
John MacArthur and the strict, passionate cessationists who agree with him have set the theological/social media world on fire (strange fire?) with his conference, just concluding, called “Strange Fire.” In this conference (evidently), MacArthur confronts the dangerous doctrines of the Word of Faith movement and demonstrates that this movement twists the gospel to its breaking point. But, according to discussions, he and his compatriots also seem to be arguing that WoF and other extreme views are the norm in charismatic/Pentecostal circles. Some of the readers of this post may have streamed the conference and may be able to expand upon, or even correct, my representation.
As I said, I read “Charismatic Chaos” and other such books a long time ago, when I was what I now call a “hopeful cessationist.” I found charismatics weird and I badly wanted to believe that the Bible had no support for their doctrine. Then, two things happened to me. First, as I studied the biblical bases for cessationist doctrine, I realized that it just didn’t pass biblical muster – straining exegesis to the breaking point. Then, I began to fellowship with, pray with, and even do some limited ministry with charismatic and Pentecostal friends in Cedar Rapids. I still had some theological differences with them, and at times they were pretty strong differences. But I realized that they were not the wacko extremists that I had expected them to be as a result of my consistent diet of cessationist anti-charismatic propaganda.
I have mixed feelings about John MacArthur (and his fellows) and their teachings on the subject.
1) John MacArthur is RIGHT – Word of Faith, Prosperity and other Extreme doctrines are serious threats to the biblical gospel.
I am glad MacArthur is taking a stand against the false doctrines that have become so prevalent in the world today. The high-profile televangelists offering unlimited health, wealth and happiness to anyone who follows Christ are truly offering “strange fire”, deceiving God’s people and leading Christ-loving folks astray. It is important that we confront those false doctrines – directly and even by name. That is not popular in this world and I appreciate that through the years Mac has been willing to take unpopular and bold stands against false teachers and their destructive teachings. Weak-kneed Christianity is not helpful in a world of false teachings.
I know we have a variety of eschatological here at Voices, but my view (also known as the correct or biblical view – sorry) takes note of the fact that just about every passage in the Bible that deals with the end times also warns that false teachers will abound in those days. To simply assume that every person who names the name of Christ is a genuine Christian preacher is naive at best and spiritually suicidal at worst.
I appreciate that MacArthur and others are identifying and confronting false doctrine.
2) John MacArthur is WRONG – Word of Faith and Prosperity preachers are false, but they are not the heart and soul of charismatics today. This is the problem I have with many of the more virulent cessationists – their tendency to paint the extremes of the C/P movement as the norm.
I’ve seen some of those same people complain about those who have applied the same technique with Calvinists and Calvinism. A lady in my previous church once asked, “Why do you guys spend so much time on these outreaches. If God wants to save them, he will.” That is an extreme and dangerous viewpoint. But it is not representative of the Calvinist movement as a whole. In my church, some of the most actively evangelistic and “missional” people in our church are the “five-point” club (with a few 4 point members). Calvinists do not want their viewpoint defined by those extremes, nor is it fair or accurate to do so. Cessationists, many of whom are Calvinists, should not employ this unfair tactic and define charismatic/Pentecostals by the extremes.
I think it is unfair to sit back in our spiritual enclaves and paint our theological opponents in extreme terms. Calvinists are the enemy. Anti-Calvinists are out to destroy the Calvinists. Charismatics are wackos. Non-Calvinists don’t like the Holy Spirit. When we paint our theological opponents as extremists, we damage the Body of Christ.
The solution, I think, is fellowship and discussion. Frank Page’s Calvinism committee brought theological opponents together and some friendships and better understanding was reached. It was personal fellowship with charismatics and Pentecostals that helped me to realize that the televangelists I disdained (unapologetically) were not representative of rank and file charismatics.
Fundamentally, I think a conference by a cadre of passionately anti-charismatics to discuss the failings of the charismatic movement will be unhelpful and even destructive. Why not engage some of the leading, but less extreme, charismatics in a discussion, rather than marshaling speaker after speaker to lash and bash those on the other side?
So, I appreciate Dr. MacArthur’s willingness to draw theological lines against false doctrine and those who promote them, but I think he goes too far when he tends to paint the extremes of the movement as the norm.
How did you come to the conclusion it is not the norm in the charismatic movement?
As I said in the article – by getting to know, fellowshipping with and even ministering together with a lot of charismatics and Pentecostals.
pastormitchell: how did you come to the conclusion that it *is* the norm?
Perhaps by statistical sampling..
Please look at the statistics yourself. They differ from the dogmatic conclusions promoted by the Strange Fire conference leaders.
Dave, I appreciate your point that the WoF doctrines are not the norm particularly among Pentecostals. That is my experience with Pentecostals in particular. For many years I attended Pentecostal churches and the WoF doctrines were not taught in them. I have heard several Pentecostals wondering aloud why and how some of the current big name WoF teachers went so wrong. In some cases the older Pentecostals knew the parents of the current teachers and knew that their parents didn’t believe that way. During that time in my walk I kept my distance from most independent Charismatic churches because that was where I most often ran into teachers who held to WoF doctrines. At least that was my personal experience.
As a long haul truck driver I have stopped and visited churches all across the SE United States. And I can say to you every church is unique in its own way. I have stopped at a Penticostal church that locked the door behind me and only had a streaming video sermon to a Penticostal church that said the charismactics down the road were a bit out there. (I had left that charismactic church after seeing how freaky they were myself and found the Penticostal church that reminded me of Baptist).
I have seen SBC churches that lean from Charismatic to Calvinism. Methodist who acted like Baptist and Cowboy churches that were SBC and one that held community dances in its Sanctuary.
What I have learned is forget the lables and termonology learn who each person is because most people in the church have different views on doctrine.
I have also learned I rely way to much on spell check and will blame all the mispelling on fat fingers a touch screen phone and the B.I.S.D.
Great article.
Evidently, something I said on Facebook was quoted by Phil Johnson at the Strange Fire conference. I’ve already been made aware of one inaccuracy, but I’m guessing that there were probably more.
Dave,
Here is the link from Phil Johnson’s Cripplegate blog.
Oops, Clipboard not working! Again, here it is: http://thecripplegate.com/strange-fire-providence-is-remarkable-phil-johnson/
It was kind of amazing. He both quoted me and completely, intentionally misrepresented me at the same time. I’ve contacted him about that, but received no response yet.
Curious. Would you elaborate more on your claim of complete, intentional misrepresentation by pastor Phil Johnson?
Please, let us know if you get a reply. I used to read the ‘Pyromaniacs’ blog pretty regularly, but not so much now. In general I respect Phil’s ministry and especially his devotion to using the writings of Charles Haddon Spurgeon.
Grace to You is one of the ministries I provide financial support to. I rarely disagree with John MacArthur and when I do, I accept that his biblical knowledge far exceeds mine so I am always listening.
I’m personally on the fence about the gifts of the Holy Spirit. When I was many years younger I belonged to a church that was charismatic, Melodyland Christian Center. They did speak in tongues and claimed miracle healings. Over time I began to see a pattern of dishonesty (See Rabbi Michael Esses) and the church was eventually disbanded under a cloud of suspicion. Guest speakers included Pat Boone, Andrae Crouch and the Disciples, Barry McGuire, etc.
I was introduced to this church by close family. I don’t claim any personal use of the gifts such as tongues, but I’m not so sure that they are not present, and contributing to a closer walk with Jesus. I’ve read everything I can get my hands on and I ‘m still not sure about them. I would never criticize anyone who does claim them.
I don’t think it’s something to separate over, but it seems these days, anything at all is a reason to separate.
One of the things I so appreciate about you Dave, is your respectful approach towards issues that tend to divide. You consistency show a gracious attitude and we so need more of that in the church.
Katie, I’ve exchanged several emails, would not call the issue resolved, but I do not intend to say any more about this publicly.
I googled to find the post by Dave Miller that Phil Johnson referenced. Which also led to discovering that Jared Moore published a rebuttal.
FWIW, I think Jared had sufficient counterarguments to carry the day.
My guess is that you were already a convinced cessationist when you approached our articles?
I lean towards being a soft, kind, gentle, sweet, yet lovingly tofu-firm cessationist.
Just the same way as I am as a soft, kind, gentle, sweet, yet lovingly tofu-firm Calvinist.
Just the same way as I am as a soft, kind, gentle, sweet, yet lovingly tofu-firm Creationist.
Just the same way as I am as a soft, kind, gentle, sweet, yet lovingly tofu-firm Complementarian.
Just the same way as I am as a soft, kind, gentle, sweet, yet lovingly tofu-firm Chicago Statement of Inerrancy inerrantist.
Just the same way as I am as a soft, kind, gentle, sweet, yet lovingly tofu-firm follower of Christ!
😉
I was just hoping that when someone makes such dogmatic statements there was more conclusive evidence than anecdotal. In my personal experience with charismatics whom I have gotten to know and even ministered with, not a single one of them was not a follower of the WOF teachings. I did not realize there was anyone out there who did not believe this is the prominent view among charismatics. This is a first.
Dave,
Since I have not had much fellowship with the Charismatic/Pentecostal crowd, my question is this: If most C/P pastors disagree with Word of Faith, then are they confronting it? (I honestly don’t know the answer to this)
It seems to me that if the leaders among C/P churches would deal with these issues biblically, then we wouldn’t need someone like MacArthur to organize a Strange Fire conference. The fact that MacArthur has organized such a conference “suggests” that these issues are not being confronted – and if the issues are not being confronted then it becomes much harder to defend the broad C/P spectrum as not endorsing Word of Faith teaching. Basically, they would be endorsing it via their silence.
Again, I’m not sure of the answer here, and I’m trying to guard my bias toward MacArthur because in general I agree with your two points. But I’m just curious if you think that C/P leaders are truly defending THE faith when it comes to heretical Word of Faith teaching.
In Christ,
-Bob
p.s.
I’m not a cessationist and I’m not a Charismatic. I would fall pretty close to Grudem’s view in his systematics book, though I’m not persuaded by his view of tongues.
That is a common question, but if you read Charisma magazine online, they DO confront the false teachings. I think it is a chestnut of the more virulent cessationists (not saying you are one of those) to say, “Charismatics don’t confront the false teachers.”
I have two answers to this.
1) It is not completely true.
2) The highest value of many charismatics is unity – a noble goal – so they are often reluctant to confront when they should.
In fact, a prominent charismatic preacher (he’s appeared on most of the big national shows) told me, “We need you Baptists to keep us biblically grounded.” But when we treat them like deformed aliens, we lose the ability to influence them.
Again, Mac’s conference is more damaging than helpful because it treats charismatics as the enemy. They will respond defensively. Treat them with honor and respect, even where we disagree, and perhaps progress will be made.
Dave,
That’s kind of what I expected you’d say, and I absolutely agree. As I said, I was honestly asking the questions because I don’t have much experience with the C/P folks, so I appreciate your comments.
Regarding the unity being a noble goal, while I do agree, I think you’d agree that without purity the only unity we can have is superficial/false unity. And, like you, this is where it pains me to see our brothers like MacArthur lose their opportunity to actually help bring TRUE unity rather than more division. Regarding the purity/unity issue though, we even see struggles with this within our own local churches – we see those that tend to value unity more and those that tend to value purity more. And I’ve recently (by God’s grace) come to see that this is not necessarily bad, but instead I believe this is by design because we are all different members of the body functioning together. So, back to your point, we need each other.
Thanks for your thoughts and hopefully we will see more profitable discussion emerge as people pursue the glory of Christ.
-Bob
Dave,
I appreciate your comments. I might add that Gordon Fee, an Assemblies pastor, long-time New Testament professor at, Wheaton, Gordon-Conwell, and Regent College in Vancouver, author of many Bible commentaries, wrote a little booklet – “The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospel”, a strong biblical critique.
I remember when I was an associate pastor at a Korean Southern Baptist church, that SBC dignitaries would come to visit and show up at the daily 5 am prayer meeting where the custom was to turn out the lights, kneel down in the pews, and pray out loud – everybody at the same time. Most of the guests were impressed by the Korean’s fervor in prayer. What would have surprised them was that most of the congregation were praying in tongues; they thought they were praying in Korean not “so-called” gibberish. The controversial gifts were not controversial to the Koreans – if one spoke in tongues – great, if not – fine. If someone had a gift of healing -great, if not – fine. None of it seemed to detract from the sufficiency of the Word of God, but they would say that the expectations of these gifts were created by the Word of God.
MacArthur blames many problems on C/Ps because of his foundational belief that these gifts in question had an expiration date on them, and therefore such practices beyond the expiration date are by definition false, and I think he goes a step further to say, of the devil. But I wouldn’t put the blame on the devil. Jesus and Paul created expectations – Jesus by extensive healing, and by training and commanding his disciples to do the same things he was doing, both the 12 and the 70, and then putting into the Great Commission the phrase – “teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you.” In other words the disciples were to train up future disciples in the same way that Jesus had trained them. Paul creates expectations by talking about gifts of the Holy Spirit given to the body of Christ (not just the apostles) for the benefit of the body. Because these gifts are from the Holy Spirit, they are holy and good and to be desired, but they can, just like any other non-controversial gift, such as teaching and administration, be misused and abused. So Jesus and Paul created expectations, and then did not give clear warnings of an expiration date. I don’t mind people believing that certain gifts have passed, as long as they don’t present it as an air tight Biblical argument. In all such arguments that I have read, ideas must be imported into the text with quite a few hermeneutical gymnastics. There is no clarity for discontinuation in Ephesians 2, Hebrews 2, 1 Cor. 13:8-13 or 2 Cor. 12:11. If the arguments were clear, one wouldn’t see outstanding Biblical scholars like Fee, Keener, D. A. Carson, Grudem, former Dallas prof, Jack Deere and others lining up on one side of an interpretation, over against Daniel Wallace, Gaffin, and MacArthur (I don’t really consider MacArthur to be a heavy-weight exegete) and others on the that side. Some of these arguments turn on the usage of Greek cases of nouns and prepositions, of which there is disagreement about how much wiggle room is allowed. Neither Jesus or Paul have given us a clear statement of expiration or continuation of gifts like healing or tongues, and they could have done that for us. And it could have been put into Greek that is unambiguous, and which is easily translated into English. ( such as, “These gifts will only continue until the death of the last of the twelve apostles”, or “These gifts will continue on until I come again, or something like that”). So I put the blame at the feet of Jesus and Paul for not tamping down the expectations they created. I don’t blame the devil – and certainly not my brothers and sisters, who want to be like Jesus and heal the sick and desire such a gift, or want to be like the Apostle Paul and use gifts that he wrote down in a list as coming from the Holy Spirit for the good of the Body of Christ.
I do have some problems with people who accuse many good Christians, who love the Lord with all their heart, who from their prayerful study of Scripture embrace those controversial gifts with the intent to build up the body of Christ, – to accuse them of being heretics and under the deception of Satan. Even when I was a cessationist, that kind of accusation of faithful believers, would have been disturbing to me.
There are other things that MacArthur says that can be shown to be factually true or untrue. He says that C/P’s exalt the Holy Spirit and not Christ in their worship and therefore the worship is not of the Holy Spirit. I haven’t found that to be true at all in the prayers that I have heard in Charismatic worship. I also haven’t found that to be true in the worship songs that have been written by charismatics. The P/C’s have provided the church with many worship songs beginning with Maranatha music in the 70’s up until now, which are sung over and over in non-Pentecostal / non-Charismatic churches. Most of these songs focus on Jesus or the Father; a few are about the Spirit, but every hymnbook of the old hymns also have a few selections that have the Holy Spirit as the focus. The worship songs written by C/P’s provide a paper trail that could be studied to see whether MacArthur is right or not. My preliminary studies on this at the Institute for Worship Studies in Jacksonville, where I am a student, would lead me to believe he is off the mark.
Also a recent major study by a couple of non-charismatic professors was an eye-opener to me. The book is “Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagment,” by Donald Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori. The authors visited hundreds of C/P churches worldwide over several years. They were surprised to find many bold and life changing social ministries to drug addicts, orphans, rescuing people from slave trade, job training for the poor, etc . . . The book comes with a DVD and many interviews and visits to the worship services in churches of many denominations – even some Baptists. Some of their findings fly in the face of statements made by MacArthur at the Strange Fire conference.
I would have to say that I have never really thought that WoF was something prevalent in only Charismatic circles. I did go to a wedding last year at a “Full Gospel” megachurch in Richmond, and it was definitely WoF (even included an apology for prosperity preaching during the service) but I STILL didnt consider this just something exclusive to the C/P’s. Why? Because I see this WoF prosperity bunk being praised by VERY cessationist regular old Southern Baptists every day. These TV preachers are so popular and slick, I cant hardly even be critical of them without being labeled “judgmental”. To many, all Jesus’ are the Jesus of the Bible. In my experience, discernment is rare in the local church.
About the only exception would be Benny Hinn, but all the rest are generally accepted and seen as good teachers. At best they see them like “they couldnt hurt”. Preachers’ wont even speak up against them cause they are so popular with their congregations.
So, if you are in a Wal-Mart north of Raleigh and all of the WoF books are face-down on the racks…that was me
You may have hit on something explanatory, Adam. Perhaps the megachurches/big ministries are dominated by the WoF folks and that has led to a false impression that they are dominant. Just a theory, but it makes some sense.
Well, consider what many think is normative in SBC life, based on megachurches and superstars…
and then compare that to the reality of most SBC churches. What gets published, pushed, and publicized is rarely the norm.
Yep
A former charismatic appreciates John MacArthur and the Strange Fire Conference:
“I was once in the charismatic movement about 5 years ago. At the age of 18 the Lord saved me from the clutches of Satan of a life of crime and darkness. I was attending a charismatic church at that time however I was taught that I had to maintain my salvation. I was taught that I had to speak in tongues, that I had to have these experiences to be truly saved and perhaps if I had enough of these experiences then maybe I would be sealed for the day of redemption. Not only did I spend my Christian life in fear, you had to serve the pastor of the church constantly. I had to wipe his sweat away from his face, there were people who competed in bringing him water because we were told that we would receive a reward for such service. I know we are suppose to honor our spiritual leaders and I do but this was taken to a level of serving the pastor extensively at every moment. The pastor was the object of everyone’s worship, even though it was unspoken our actions screamed it out, everyone was battling to be in the pastor’s good graces and blessings. During the worship service he would tell the congregation “Some times you have to fall on the floor and flap a like a fish.” The members would do so as he stated supposing that made them a true worshipper or a better worshipper than someone else. Only one of the church pioneers was mentioned, Martin Luther, but never discussed who he was or what he taught in depth. The sermon would start with a couple of passages and the rest was he could hear people’s conversation even though they were out of normal sight and hearing, or how your breakthrough (health or wealth) was on its way. Eventually I became an elder of the church and a Sunday School teacher. As I begin to study the Word of God in depth I saw where the pastor was not saying the same thing as the Word of God. When I taught or preached I was openly insulted in front of the congregation for studying too much. In trying to adhere to the pastor I stopped studying and fell into sin. Because of God’s grace I am no longer in that place of worship, I am at a bible church that teaches the Word of God, that led me to listen to men like John MacArthur, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathon Edwards etc. Through the preaching of the Word of God and the ministry of the Holy Spirit I am worshipping and serving Him in spirit and in truth. I am praying for the Strange Fire conference, for a blessing for the speakers (thank you John MacArthur for allowing God to use you to spread the truth you are one of the agents God used to help free me from the clutches of deception) and for the deliverance of those in that movement. While there may be some charismatics who are trying to stand on the Word of God that doesn’t excuse the thousands upon thousands who are lost eternally and, those who may be saved, that are extensively deceived. This deception has hurt an insurmountable amount of people and even if you are freed it is only the grace of God that helps you recover. God bless.”
One persons’ experience is not definitive – not mine or this anonymous person’s.
Hi.. I’m a South African living in the beautiful western cape province. I grew up in the charasmatic movement and most of my family is pentecostle. My experience growing up is almost identicle to that of “Truth Unites… and Divides”. Believe me.. this is much more than one person’s experience.
Not to go into a lot of detail and I am not a cessationist, but do not believe that the gifts used by most charasmatics today is the same as the biblical gifts.
In South Africa the WoF teaching seems to be what separates orthodox Pentecostals from charasmatics. This teaching is dominating and has infiltrated most of our churches. Even some Baptist churches are preaching the so-called “prosperity gospel”.
I’ve listened to some of the strange conference messages and agree with most of what was said. What is called fringe activities and only among the extremes are an everyday reality. I would invite anyone who is able to come visit any charasmatic church in South Africa and 10 times out of 1 you’ll see the weird kundalini manifestations and hear some type of WoF teaching.
Gangsters and drug lords has also taken advantage of this WoF teaching. Gang leaders are now training their own pastors in prisons on the teachings of guys like Creflo, benni Hinn, kenneth Copeland and others. These pastors then are given money to plant prosperity churches in poor communities. Just talking about this makes me sad… so I won’t go in much detail. But they use these churches as fronts to launder their drug money through and to sell drugs to youth.
One of these churches were planted in our community and already have almost 1000 members in less than 2 years.
The charasmatic movement has done a lot of damage to the people of my country.
Dave.. I would suggest that you really investigate the effects of this movement in Africa.
Dave, I believe some perceptions of this topic can be heavily influenced by where you live. While here in West TN, I don’t experience any interaction with false doctrine flowing from WOF here (besides the people who are influenced by watching it on TV), but with charismatics…very much so. So in that sense, I’ve never really intermingled the two very much in my mind because I haven’t experienced them firsthand existing together in a local church.
Now when it comes to charismatics in this area, the majority that I have ever had conversations with are modalists. So in the sense of ever having any fellowship with a charismatic in this area? Probably not going to happen. Now, I realize there are charismatics out there within the realm of what we consider orthodoxy, but for a guy like me living here in the sticks of TN, we just don’t see them too often.
True.
Matthew 5:43-48 teaches we are perfect when we love our enemies as God does.
John 13:34-35 clearly states we are commanded to love and will be known by all for our love for each other.
As much as I agree with a lot of McAuthor’s teachings we are told it is not our words that define us but our love and fruits that we will be known by. Is McAuthor and his followers know for loving there enemies?
As a pastor in a gated community that has banned all previous churches and caused them to fail we know our hope is changing hearts with love, being known by our love even to those who appose us. I wish others could see that.
I haven’t found the cessationist/continuist categories to be helpful, although my thinking isn’t settled enough on the issue to give an alternative dichotomy to draw the balance. Many thoughtful Christians discern problems with both and reluctantly try to find a balance on the fence. Cessationism isn’t solidly supported from scripture and continuationism isn’t shown as normative in the writings of Paul. I don’t buy that creating a category for prophecy that doesn’t exist in the Hebrew scriptures is what Paul would have ever referred to, for example.
Not sure I get your point.
I apologize, Dave, I’ll try to explain a little better.
Neither category in their present-day iterations satisfies exegetical standards. Supporting both categories are strong instances of extrabibilical rationalle.
The biblical support for cessationism is the sufficiency of scripture. The biblical support for continuationism is the lack of any stong indication that miraculous gifts should have ceased.
The non-biblical criticism of continuationism is the high level of abuse, which is no proof that the gifts should have ceased. It’s only proof that they are easily abused. Further criticism is the observation that outside of miraculous spiritual discernment, we have an epistemological problem determining if some claim of spiritual gift is really of the Spirit. That’s not an observation we find in the scriptures although it’s a reasonable observation.
The non-biblical criticism of cessationism is some apparent deadness of faith, which is really subjective but is often cloaked in a bad argument apparntly from scripture about how we shouldn’t blaspheme the Holy Spirit. That goes back to what hermeneutical principles we use to exegete the passages that deal with that and how many non-biblical suppositions we make in order to pursuade people that cessationism is indeed some blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
So, neither one is satisfactory.
I just don’t yet have an alternative dividing line to offer in the place of the two other than to say that excessive display of miraculous gifts doesn’t seem normative in Paul’s writings. He does mention what seems to be some, however. I would find it ill-advised to focus on what shouldn’t be normative.
For example, I wouldn’t take someone coming up to me saying that he had some prophesy of God for me for anything other than personal advice because without some indication to me from God outside of this self-described prophet, I have no way to handle prophesy other than what I have to handle advice. If it’s not binding on me enough to be added to the Bible, it’s no different than advice. That’s not to say that this self-described prophet wouldn’t fulfill the OT test of a prophet. If we aren’t under that law, then we aren’t bound by prophets outside of the law of God that governs his prophets. I would have exceedingly great fear and trembling to claim to speak directly for God and am wary of those who don’t.
Another example: If someone starts yammering in some tongue I don’t know, it doesn’t edify me. I am right to ignore it. That is a biblical case. If it’s distracting in corporate worship, I’m liable to be annoyed. I’ve been in churches where other languages are spoken and generally things are traslated so that I can be edified by it. I have known people to speak in languages miraculously in such a way that it aided communication rather than disturbed corporate worship.
I hope this helps to clarify why I’m not settled on this. Call me a cautious continuationist or a tentative cessationist. I just don’t think the lines of demarcation between them are helpful.
“Another example: If someone starts yammering in some tongue I don’t know, it doesn’t edify me.”
It doesn’t?
Jimbo, have you ever been part of a prayer group, and someone starts yammering in a tongue you don’t know?
If you have, you said it didn’t edify you. If you don’t mind sharing, what were your thoughts when you heard tongue yammering during this time of prayer?
I have prayed with a guy who prayed in tongues. It neither particularly blessed me or offended me. I prayed in English, while he prayed his way – for the same things.
The prayer time was good.
I have prayed corporately with people who spoke a language I didn’t know and wasn’t translated. It didn’t edify me as one who was supposed to be included in the prayer. I bowed my head and prayed my own prayer silently.
Interestingly, the results are similar to prayer in the Southern Missionary Baptist churches my grandfather pastored. During prayer time, the deacons and elders would all kneel down in the front and all pray out loud at the same time. Each voice rising and falling at different times. Individually, they prayed so fast I would have trouble following just one of them. So I just bowed my head and prayed my own prayer.
I have been in English worship services where someone jumps up and starts speaking loudly in what I can only imagine is what people usually mean when they say “speaking in tongues”. It didn’t edify me. I ignored them as best I could because the planned activities of the corporate gathering continued on the same. I must say it was somewhat distracting. Am I going to discount that maybe some miraculous sign is happening? No, but that kind of pattern doesn’t leave the casual observer with enough information to discern the import of such proceedings. All I can observe is that it generally doesn’t seem helpful or orderly. If some miraculous language that no one understands was what Paul meant by glossolalia, then he addressed it when he summarized that God is not a God of confusion. If glossolalia is a language that Paul means that most of the church doesn’t speak, then the same sensibility that Paul is admonishing the Corinthians employ applies also. However, the way I have observed it practiced is not what Paul admonished.
That said, I follow Paul’s admonishment. I have sung special music in my English-speaking church that employs sections in Spanish. I have always provided the interpretation. When I am overseas in a non-English church, I keep quiet unless I have someone to translate.
“I have been in English worship services where someone jumps up and starts speaking loudly in what I can only imagine is what people usually mean when they say “speaking in tongues”. It didn’t edify me. I ignored them as best I could because the planned activities of the corporate gathering continued on the same. I must say it was somewhat distracting.”
It wouldn’t edify me either. it would be really distracting. I wonder if such behaviors were accepted and tolerated in the OT worship of God. If not, then is it because there is a New Covenant that such distractions are tolerated and accepted in some/many charismatic churches today?
“Tongues” – a language that one does not know or has not learned before is well attested in the Tanack (OT) and appears readily in Rabbinic writings and Chasidic esoteric teachings. (A look at this in the Tanack is very interesting). While, it is attested to, it is not something “used in worship” in the manner that we think. It is hard to define all of this without a long explanation except to say the concept of worship is vastly different than we think of today.
The use of “tongues” as an ecstatic utterance (for lack of a better term) as addressed by Paul in Corinth is not attested to in worship in the Tanack. Paul is dealing with something specific. There is some use of “tongues,” as we typically define it today, in the Chasidic movement, but that really doesn’t occur until the 18th century. Most of the “tongues” as used in the Messianic movement is borrowed from modern charismatics and Pentecostalism as opposed to being contextualized from the Tanack.
I don’t think the New Covenant has anything to do with allowing distractions in worship.
“While, it is attested to, it is not something “used in worship” in the manner that we think. It is hard to define all of this without a long explanation except to say the concept of worship is vastly different than we think of today.”
That’s interesting.
Would it be safe to say that distractions in corporate worship would be regarded as a bad thing in both OT and NT times?
No, not really. It would depend on who is doing the distracting and why.
This is a fascinating window for me, as someone who pastors in a Charismatic setting. It’s commendable, in a way, that uninterpreted tongues did not disturb some of you.
However, I specifically teach against uninterpreted tongues in group settings. When we are in meetings at other churches I am careful not to verbalize tongues aloud for all the reasons Paul gives us.
When I’m leading a meeting, I do not allow an uninterpreted tongue to “hang in the air.” This calls for faith that someone there will interpret or that I will. We wait on God for an interpretation. As we are counseled to prophesy by faith or in proportion to faith (Rom. 12:6) we are confident that someone will supply the interpretation.
Sometimes we are questioned about singing in tongues or “singing in the Spirit.” Some find this objectionable in a large setting, but others say it is appropriate since in a time of spontaneous praise the people are not doing something for individual edification. Therefore whether one praises in a tongue or in the vernacular at that moment is said to be of little consequence. Certainly it can be beautiful to listen to and people perceive it as supernatural because there is no human orchestration to the rise and fall of it. It makes me think how Paul says that he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit with the Lord. He can orchestrate all of us at the same time.
All of that to say that people who thoughtlessly speak out in a tongue are not well taught and there is a high possibility for offense and misunderstanding. There may not be due regard for edification for love’s sake.
One question I do have: I see many cessationists referring to modern tongues as “gibberish” and this always makes me chuckle. Linguistic and philological studies aside, how can people possibly know that a given tongue is gibberish given that there are 7000 extant languages today?
I also wonder how people can know that tongues is “ecstatic,” or why people deny that there was a private and devotional use of tongues, considering that Paul says that people who speak in tongues are speaking to God (dative) and Paul also speaks of people praying (proseuchomai) in tongues.
Nick:
I’m not a cessationist. By “ecstatic utterance” I did not mean to imply that they are not real or not spiritual or that the person is in just in a state of ecstasy. It is just a term used to describe that type of religious phenomenon. Paul certainly addresses this as reality, not gibberish.
But, there is a difference between that and tongues as language. Tongues as a language is well attested to in the Tanack and there is an interesting connection of tongues as language in Judaism between Babel, Sinai and Pentecost. This is different than what Paul was addressing in Corinth.
I spent about 7 years attending a weekly prayer meeting at an AoG church here. Also went on Sunday nights when FBC wasn’t having anything. They were definitely not WoF in any way.
All I can say is if God ever drops the “dreaded scourge” of the unknown tongue on somebody, in a spectacular way, somebody’s gonna change REAL quick.
my experience with charismatics has been, basically, negative. In my childhood, we had a woman pastor of a charismatic church who ran off with her deacon who had four sons. And then there was a charismatic church near my first church where they had to have blankets handy for the ladies to hold around those ladies who felt led to stick their feet up in the air. A former holiness preacher told me they had done the same thing in a church he pastored. Add to that the charismatics like Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, and a host of others with moral issues as well as others who faked tongues (and I could tell many stories about such) and the reader can understand why I definitely felt like my experience has been very negative. Now, on the more positive side, I have heard of a missionary who was seized by a fellow from behind, and the missionary started talking in a language he knew not which turned out to be the language of the native and led to the conversion of the tribe. In another case, a friend managed with words which she did not know and with gestures to communicate with the Negritos of the Philippines who had come into the camo of a Guerilla unit during WWII and where she served at the request of the American Captain as the person to see what these little men with baskets on their heads wanted. It seems that the great Spirit had told them to bring that unit food (the unit was on the verge of starvation). And then I know of a person who was given the translation of a teenage girl’s gibberish sounding speech, and she said to her what she said she clearly understood, “You are saying, ‘Praise the Lord.'” The girl thankwed her with tears in her eyes.
While I will buy the experiences of the those who are taking the Gospel to other people groups, I know of members of charismatic churches who take language training, when they go to other nations. I suppose there are those whom the unknown tongues might help, but I think the exegetical basis for such understanding is seriously lacking. I have tried to look at the literature on both sides (if one does not know what an opponent is saying, how does one know he or she is wrong?).
The last statement is one of the reasons why I have a large library. I try to make collections on subjects, theological issues, interpretations, inspiration of Scripture, the Holy Spirit, etc. One can find illustrative materials as well as experiences of all kinds in all of the works on a subject.
Dave,
I did watch the Strange Fire Conference and have the book and will read it. I also have friends in the Charismatic movement and also distant family. I understand what you are talking about when you point out that not all the Charismatics are as far out as the ones who bark like dogs, have health wealth doctrine and change basic doctrines of the Scripture. However, it is still way out there when people like Beth Moore (who I would assume you would NOT put in the “extreme” crowd) builds a whole lesson on “A word God gave me and a vision of taking me up and showing me the church through the eyes of Jesus”, and then proceeds to exposit her “vision giving directly from God” more than she will ever exposit Scripture. In fact after reviewing many of her lessons before removing her for such bad practice from our church, She repeatedly said she “had a word from God” and would tell her listeners to write it down because it was the most important thing they would ever hear (she actually says this about a few of her visions, words, dreams, whispers, from God so I am not sure WHICH one is the most important since she says ALL of them are the most important.) Now my point is this, the extreme cases may not be the norm, I don’t now because I stay away from that chaos and Scripture weakening stuff, but it is not the extremes that is fooling our people, it is the Beth Moores who is doing this with their own brand of subtle but still strange fire. IF she has a “word from God” and it isn’t already in Scripture either she is a liar or we need to take out the first article in our BFM. I am shocked that you are an officer in our convention with such a weak view on the full sufficiency of Scripture, and I do not say that as a slap at you but I truly am shocked.
Alan Davis
I understand your point, but I think I resist the word “strange fire” in general. It designates that which is false, idolatrous, offensive to God.
I believe that people can be mistaken without being described as “strange fire.” In fact, I think it is one of the key failings of the more hardcore cessationist viewpoints – often Reformed as well. They tend to view anything that disagrees with their position as a threat to truth, justice and the American way.
We can be a little more gracious than that. I can disagree with charismatics without describing their POV as strange fire. Benny Hinn? I’ll call that strange fire. Hagin. Copeland. Whomever the latest star in that circle is. Okay. But to paint all the charismatic world as offering strange fire to God is 1) wrong 2) an insult to the Body of Christ.
“But to paint all the charismatic world as offering strange fire to God is 1) wrong 2) an insult to the Body of Christ”
With you both going to the wall on this, I look forward to you and MacArthur going head-to-head in a public forum. After all, to insult (accuse?) the Body of Christ is serious business– is it not in fact what the devil does day and night?
Several have offered to engage MacArthur on the topic, but he has, as I understand it, ignored them.
🙂
Well, I mean yourself.
You suggest MacArthur’s stance is “an insult to the Body of Christ”.
Do you not agree this to be an extremely serious offense, and one which should be debated and either established or denied in a public forum?
Is not such a stance equivalent to the work of Satan, who accuses the saints constantly, and not entirely without truth, before the Almighty (according to the book of Revelation)? The saints overcome due to the blood of the Lamb and the endless advocacy of the Lamb, our High Priest, before the Father. Yes, also by the word of their testimony, which is the Gospel of Christ – but still needing the intercession for their sins.
Therefore to claim oneself to be on the side of the blood, the word and the testimony, while taking on the role of the adversary, “insulting the body of Christ”, surely is not this an insult to the Spirit of Grace?
I really think your constituents and readers deserve to see you make clear your position on this vital issue.
“If” we lend credence to the way most Charismatics view the three main sign gifts then what do we do with Inerrancy and Sufficiency of existing Scripture? Was it inerrant and sufficient at one time but not know? I mean if the Charismatics get a “word from God” it is either a Word from God or it is not. There is no in between with this. If they do get a word from God then who approves it as a word from God? What validates it? The very act of the fact they prophesied or maybe someone “speaking in tongues ? (which by the way is a language not giberious and every Charismatic church I have ever been too which is probably 7-8 through my years have had nothing but gibberish.) Also if we accept all the sign gifts as applicable to the church today then the only consistent Charismatics are the snake handlers. At the end of Mark 16 sandwiched right in with tongues, healings and prophecy is snake handling and drinking poison. Yes, of course that is silly…. my point exactly.
Alan Davis
As I read your comment, I am reminded of how much this sounds like me 20 years ago. Then something happened as I was reading the Bible. I became convicted that it is because the Scriptures are inerrant and sufficient that I can not explain them away. There are biblical instructions for how the gifts of the Holy Spirit are to be used. When we read these instructions in context, it reveals that God’s Word exhorts us to desire and responsibly use these gifts. His sufficient, perfect Word gives us instructions on how to use gifts to build up the body and see the gospel spread. The gifts are not in conflict with the word. The abuse of the gifts are.
I came to the place where I decided to trust what Jesus said in Luke 11:13 was true. If I ask my Heavenly Father for a good gift, I can trust Him to give me His Spirit. Blessings to you.
Brad,
I here you brother, but the revelation of God’s Word was the reason for the sign gifts, either to reveal His Word in prophecy or tongues or to verify it with the direct power to heal. My questions concerning the sufficiency of existing Scripture and the validity of that Scripture is still hung out there. If these sign gifts are still applicable to the church today (and I believe an honest exposition of ALL Scripture pertaining leads to a NO answer) but if, then it is evident the reason for these gifts (per Paul’s writings) is new revelation from God. This most defiantly tears at the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Scriptures we have had revealed for they claim there is no other revelation needed thus new revelation demotes existing revelation and it’s claim of inerrancy and sufficiency. Therefore not only the question I asked concerning the inerrancy and sufficiency of existing Scripture needs to be answered but also why every Charismatic church I have ever experienced in person or on TV or even heard of do not follow the admonition for women NOT to speak in the service and to go home and ask their husband. That admonishment IS in the instructions you are talking about. (actually I have never even heard of a particular church who practiced the sign gifts accurately all the way,ever. Therefore it is an unscriptural practice even for those who say they believe) Then we have the question of validating the use of these sign gifts, if I receive a revelation from God, how is it validated that it truly came from God? Then we have the question, if my revelation contradicts or adds to Scripture we now have is it valid? (I believe we already have a clear admonishment not to add nor take away from the existing revelation) Also what about the sign gifts of taking up snakes and drinking poison? It is sandwiched right in the middle of the command of these other sign gifts in Mark 16? The only consistent non-cessanisits are the snake handlers for if one truly believed that all the sign gifts are applicable today they would promote such. To be a consistent Non- cessainist one would have to include ALL the sign gifts and also view them as either giving new revelation from God or validating that new revelation and one would have to believe in applying ALL the instructions for their use. I have not met nor heard of any church doing such but even if they did I would say according to Scripture they are misusing and misapplying the text for they are now breaking the known Scriptural commands we do have.
Alan davis
Also Brad I would like to point out that an honest interrputation is not answering or explaining the Scriptures away. I too at first thought that maybe these sign gifts should be applicable. However closer study of the Word and being consistent with it led me away from that. I was open for it falling either way as I searched the Scriptures.
A lot of MacArthur’s recent books make this same mistake – rightly criticizing theological views that differ from his own and wrongly extrapolating his critique where it does not remotely apply. That’s unfortunate because he’s perhaps the pre-eminent New Testament scholar of our time. Regarding MacArthur’s materials, I’ve learned to apply the admonition of Al-Anon: take what you like and leave the rest.
Good strategy.
I think your wrong. Most charismatics are in fact Word of Faith at their core, even if not a 100% match on all theological points. I would say a charismatic is like a dog, and a WoF is like a wolf. They may be slightly different, but they are compatible and both have the same health, wealth, prosperity, and ecstatic emotionalism agendas. I know because I was sort of raised around it, and praise God for deliverance from that witchcraft and leading towards a genuine reverence for the Word of God!
It wouldn’t be the first time. I also would observe that this is the kind of dogmatism and lack of grace I’ve come to expect from certain segments of the church, unfortunately.
I don’t know what kind of church you were raised in, but I’m guessing now you are spending more time listening to “Strange Fire” – type rants about charismatics than engaging charismatics themselves.
Actually it’s been a blessing because I spend much more time in the Word than I did before. Also, charismania is similar to Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons. Why would I want to spend time with them? As a Bible believing Christian I am called to love and honor everyone, yet be separated from those who defiantly refuse to submit to right Biblical doctrine.
The charismatic/pentecostal movement is at its core in doctrine anti-Trinitarian.
If there were some unique work of the Spirit in all of this, then we would not hearing about the Spirit and his works and his power; Jesus would be high and lifted up from dawn to dusk.
How more clear do you want it to be? “The Spirit will not speak of himself”; how much less appropriate then for his followers to exalt him and their special knowledge of him.
One, and only one religious movement claiming to be the church and the keeper of the flame, has set a more Sisyphean task for its adherents and spiritual charges – that led by the Bishop of Rome.
Jesus is enough, his grace is sufficient. As someone who people would consider Charismatic( I am nondenom) I’ve never in my whole life heard of wof or prosperity gospel being preached at all ever at my church. I think when we take or focus off of Jesus and his lovingkidness and mercy and focus on each others faults that’s when we miss the gospel.
I’m far from a Cessationist and far from being Pentecostal/Charismatic. I fall somewhere in the middle. While I agree with Pastor MacArthur on certain things and disagree with him on certain things, here is an area I disagree with him at. Of course I agree that WoF and Prosperity Heresy are dangerous to the body of Christ, not to mention our witness in general. It’s our job to denounce them publicly. It’s why there’s Biblical precedent for naming names and calling them what they are: false teachers. If the leadership of every biblical church publicly denounced these teachers and their teachings and those who have a platform did too, I’m pretty sure we’d see a sharp decline in those membership rolls. We as a body aren’t contending for the faith in the spirit of Jude 3 or 2 Peter 2 anymore. This leads to such infections in the church today that we see with the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement. If false teachers were publicly denounced and challenged, and we put a kibosh on people like Dayna self-described “prophetess” Muldoon, I doubt Pastor MacArthur would have much to talk about.
Good thoughts, Dave. I agree with them.
My experience with Charismatics personally has been positive, even the WoF types. They believe the Bible, but in my opinion, are terribly wrong in some areas.
I am not a strict cessastionist. I don’t really find that in scripture. But I do believe that many of the events in Acts and the epistles appear to be different from what has been experienced in much of Christian history and the present. I attribute that to the working of God in ways that we just don’t understand. Many Charismatics would attribute it to a lack of faith and openness to the Spirit, which I don’t buy either.
I have noted that many of the people who are good expositors but who reject cessationism are practical cessastionists. They hold open the possiblity that God might use tongues and other more miraculous appearing gifts, but you don’t see these practiced at their churches. That leaves me wondering whether in many cases the debate over cessationism or a continuance of all the gifts is really just an academic matter.
I think the MacArthur crowd should be labeled “neo-cessationists” in that they as Kevin DeYoung’s post on the Puritan’s and cessationism showed it is not the historic view. At least this way we can not fall into the same trap of not giving distinct where distinction is due as was done at this conference.
We thought you might like this message entitled, “A Pastor’s Thoughts from John MacArthur’s Strange Fire Conference: A Plea for Balance and Meeting in the Middle”: http://vimeo.com/77337223
Thank you.
I have not yet listened to the above sermon but I do plan on it. the title interested me. How do we meet in the middle here? I do not understand how that is possible for both positions are total opposites. Two opposing views can not both be right, Either we get new revelations from God or we don’t. What would a middle position look like?? Would it be “I believe God’s word is inerrant and sufficient but I believe God is still revealing directly His Word to man”?, that statement is really contradictory of itself.
We need to quit playing word games trying to meet in the middle on totally opposite views, we look silly. It is like one man pointing one direction and another pointing in another and both claiming they are pointing north. Then one of them says “hey lets split the difference and head north”. We all know they will NOT end up North! Either we believe God has spoken and Scripture is true about itself and the sign gifts were just that, a sign of validation of God’s revelation in the early church as the scriptures were being written, or we believe the scriptures we have is not enough and we need new direct revelation from God.
If someone says they have a Word from God then it is either a REAL word from God or it is NOT. If it is really a word from God then everybody should pay attention. Those who vacillate in the middle are neither hot nor cold.
Thank you for your approach. Please note our many free resources in English and Spanish, especially the material concerning the Prosperity Movement
http://www.smallings.com/english/books/ProspENG.htm
In His bonds,
Roger Smalling
http://www.smallings.com/index.html
Pastor Dave,
Thanks for your post, and I find this to be a fascinating discussion.
I am an “outsider” here, being that I am a charismatic and I serve a Pentecostal church as its associate pastor. I hate the fact that one must feel the need to term myself an outsider when we are among those who name the Name of Christ, but the events of the past week have made it difficult for me to feel different.
Just on this comment thread I have seen C/P referred to as dogs, and anti-trinitarian at its core. And from the conference I learned that 90% of us are WOF and that it is a movement “largely” comprised of nonbelievers. That the conference was not about dividing the Body of Christ but identifying it. That there are no hospitals and such.
On Twitter and elsewhere, charismatics were being poked as whiners. Maybe in Baptist circles people are accustomed to being accused of blaspheming the Spirit on a weekly basis, but it’s not something we’re used to. So it’s possible some of us got a little too heated.
If I really were a whiny charismatic I could mention that Pat Robertson’s Operation Blessing by itself has done $3.3 Billion (with a “B”) since 1978 and has a 2% overhead rate. And that’s just one TV ministry. Of course, there are entire denominations of us which do quite a bit in preaching Christ and ministering to the poor. I just think it’s funny that a despised TV talk show host who has words of knowledge on TV has managed to raise $3.3 billion in relief. No, I don’t support him financially or work for him. I’m just saying, as they say.
I think what we have here is a failure to understand culture. We do have position papers about things thought aberrant. We do preach the Word and warn people about things but we don’t preach sermons about how bad other people are. We don’t have conferences designed to attack other movements or streams in the Body of Christ.
Color me shocked to think that so many on this page do not even think I’m saved. No matter. I will continue to do and teach what I have been and in support of that stand on the words of Peter that the promise is to as many as the Lord our God shall call. We believe that the availability of the miraculous is predicated upon our being in Christ.
“He that believeth in Me…”
“These signs shall follow them that believe…”
We find no words of limitation there, either for a time or an office. So we just try to do what we see the Father doing. Not perfectly. But we strive according to His Power.
God’s grace be with all of you.
On behalf of all Christians who are also Southern Baptist, I apologize.
Sometimes, the pride of our denomination overrides what should be our humility in Christ. For those who are Southern Baptists first and may or may not be Christians… well, I can’t apologize for the lost.
I’ve not personally experienced (that i know of) the charismatic gifts, save one time at the Oasis of Love church when Mr Osteen (not Joel) was the pastor. I was a kid and didn’t understand and won’t judge according to the childish eyes of my memory. I do think their are many who misuse the charismatic gifts are “ape” them, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
I believe we should be able to disagree without being ugly to each other or dividing. I personally believe they still exist because I believe the Holy Spirit still gives them as needed… He has not ceased to minister as far as I know 🙂
I believe that you and I will discover the whole truth when we stand in glory, until then I believe we will both seek to understand God and His Son and His Holy Spirit more every day.
In the mean time, please excuse my denominational fellows who have been so rude.
Thanks, Greg, for your kind and thoughtful words.
I apologize as well for all the Charismatics and Pentecostals who thought they had “arrived” because they had an experience – and didn’t mind saying so…
We know that even if a man has a valid experience it is a thing received from God. And too many of us in the C/P universe have forgotten that there’s a 1 Corinthians 13 in between chs. 12 and 14, and forgot why it’s there. 😉
God bless
Here is James White’s take on the Strange Fire Conference. It starts at the 50.33 mark.
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2013/10/22/strange-fire-friendly-fire-mis-fire-how-many-puns-do-we-really-need/
truthunites….that’s his name….
Thanks for sharing your reasoned and helpful thoughts, Dave. As a DTS grad who is at a conservative church but also serves on the board of a charismatic church, I agree with you. It’s unfortunate that MacArthur holds that all charismatics are not believers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W80GTU53BE).
“It’s unfortunate that MacArthur holds that all charismatics are not believers.”
It’s ironic that one of the accusations made towards the Strange Fire Conference and John MacArthur is that sweeping generalizations are made, and yet here’s one lobbied at John MacArthur. It’s not true. In the opening session:
Am I discrediting everyone in the movement?
“No. I think there are people to desire to worship God in a true way. They’re caught up in this as well, though, because intention is not enough.
But the movement itself offers nothing to enrich true worship. The Charismatic movement as such has made no contribution to biblical clarity, interpretation, or sound doctrine. We’ve had an accurate biblical interpretation and sound doctrine long before the Charismatic movement happened, going all the way back to the Apostles, a clear stream of truth. The Charismatics haven’t added to that, but have brought chaos, confusion, misinterpretation.
Do some in the movement believe the truth? Yes. Do some hold to sound theology on some issues? Yes. But none of those true understandings have come to them through that movement. The true understandings have always been there in the long line of preachers and teachers that God has used to keep the church and truth on track. The movement adds nothing to that. It detracts and confuses. It’s not a source for any advancement of our understanding of Scripture or sound doctrine.
In Spite of, Not Because of
Have people truly been saved in Charismatic churches? Yes. But nothing coming from that movement has been the reason they were saved. [That is, not that there is nothing good from Charismatics, but the good is in spite of the movement, and not because of.] The Gospel was the reason they were saved, and it wasn’t invented by that movement. In some places it’s still intact. In some it’s not.”
truthunites, thanks for responding and sharing the above quote which I was unaware of. It is much “softer” than the words and tone in the above YouTube link of a Q&A period. If you have the time, I would suggest watching it (about 3 miniutes); Dr. MacArthur’s words are quite clear.
Good post!
For the most part, the “classic” Pentecostal churches believe and operate very similarly to Baptist churches, with the exception being that the gifts of the Spirit are in operation today. There are many within the broader “charismatic” movement that preach unscriptural doctrines, and that is usually where the bizarre things and even “strange fire” come in. Ultimately, we must argue from the Scriptures. If the Scriptures clearly teach that the gifts of the Spirit are no longer in operation, it would settle the matter, but they do not.
I am one of those people who was raised Pentecostal and I have formal training in both Pentecostal Universities as well as the leading Charismatic bible schools. I agree that there are some different ideas that are being taught as scripture. Having said that, let me state for the record that my observation includes most every denomination, association, affiliation and fellowship one can think of in Christendom. What I have found is there are the essentials that we must agree on (those things that give us our eternal security). Everything else, God is more concerned about the heart than the theology. My theology has been wrong and still will be adjusted by the Holy Spirit and continued wisdom and revelation. Yet, God will meet me where I am when my heart is pure before Him. He can, He has and He will fix what is lacking in me. I cannot answer for what others believe. My job is to be a student of the scripture and live in my life what is revealed to me through the principles that the whole council of God presents through the Bible. Today I celebrate that I am a Christian and when I am working with the Baptist, I respect their ideas. When I am working with the Methodist, the Pentecostals, the Charismatics…I respect their ideas. Spirit of God, keep me teachable to know You like I have never known you before
“What I have found is there are the essentials that we must agree on (those things that give us our eternal security). Everything else, God is more concerned about the heart than the theology”
That is a very broad and general statement, and at the same time highly authoritative and suggests you are the holder and purveyor of very deep and powerful spiritual wisdom, a teacher to the whole church of only that which is right.
However I do not think you can sustain these two profound commandments using sound principles of exegesis and Biblical theology.
What do you mean by “ideas”?
As a profoundly discerning pastor to pastors and a teacher of wisdom to the whole church, do you not, when you encounter “ideas” in your brethren, exercise godly discrimination as to whether these ideas confirm to commandment A, which I will call the “essentials test”? And if they fail on the basis of A, should they still be respected? Since you imply in commandment B, the “heart of God test”, that they need to be more carefully instructed on what matters to God.
Surely you can not let these matters left as “respected and tacitly avoided”. Since clearly MacArthur fails both tests and is sinfully dividing the Body of Christ”, you in your responsible role can not ignore what he is doing to attack your constituents — you can not and you must not leave him uncorrected.
A couple of points as to whether the abuses are the norm:
All one has to do is turn on Christian television to see that the “word of faith” leaders
are taking over. Live outside the U.S in the third world (like I do) and you who are
sensible Bible believing people might be shocked at the effect that these false so called
prophets and apostles are having.
Besides the late Walter Martin and a few Calvary Chapel pastors, the silence and lack of condemnation from those who believe all the gifts continue has been sorely lacking.
I am very late to the conversation on this issue. However, I need a little clarification. When “pentecostals” or “a pentecostal church” is being referred to, what is meant? I ask this because the pentecostals, the pentecostal churches I grew up around in Louisiana were modalists, denying the trinity. Thus, they would not be brothers or sisters in Christ.
You speak of “Oneness Pentecostals” and some groups that call themselves “Apostolic” or “Jesus Only.”
They do exist, but they are a small percentage of Pentecostals.
I agree with you about their denial of the Trinity and its significance.
1Co 9:16 For though I preach the gospel…”
1Co 9:26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as “one that beateth the air:”
1Co 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
Ro 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
1Th 5:11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.
1Co 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
Paul did not say things or do things that did not edify, mumbling in a jabbers voice that no one understands does not edify anyone, & Paul did not beat the air, & neither should we beat the air. Seems there’s becoming many air beaters who try to get everyone’s attention making it a disorderly show instead of edifying most everyone.
Once I talked to a woman who started out as a Baptist & went on to name almost every denomination under the sun saying she had tried all of them. At that time her favorite church was one where the pastor spoke in a jabbers tongue that no one could understand while he rolled up & down the church aisles during preaching services. I suppose the Charismatic movement led her to such a disorderly church that did not do things decently & in order during their church services. I wonder just how many more are being mislead with the Charismatic movement making its way into the SBC.
What is a “jabbers” tongue?
I still find it disturbing that people say tongues is gibberish… as if they possess knowledge of all languages known to man.
More importantly, perhaps, it’s disturbing to me that people will tie these issues of behavior to the mere fact of being influenced by the Charismatic “movement,” as if there actually is a “Charismatic movement” in 2013 rather than hundreds of millions of people who have different denominational distinctives and practices and just happen to believe in the continuation of spiritual gifts. In our region we have churches which pray together and worship together at times from different backgrounds: Assembly of God, Presbyterian, Congregational, Anglican, and Lutheran. all having the experience of such spiritual gifts. So, I don’t even accept the premise of a “movement” that has influence in setting some kind of tone or doctrinal standard. Certainly these 5 congregations I mention would disagree about a whole boatload of things but our experience of the Spirit helps us to unite around Christ, not to unite around weirdness.
On the 90% statistic…
One source is the 229-page Pew Forum study “Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of Pentecostals,” which can be downloaded from their website. Needless to say, ten countries is hardly a representative sample of the entire planet (the U.S. and three nation-states each from Asia, Africa and Latin America). I was amazed at the dishonest way the stats on the prosperity gospel were misinterpreted – and ignored – by MacArthur on Tim Challies blog (“John MacArthur Answers His Critics” 11/4/13) where he takes a quote from a book [“Yet the Pew Forum data suggests that the prosperity gospel is actually a defining feature of all Pentecostalism; majorities of Pentecostals exceeding 90 percent in most countries hold to these beliefs”] and yet it’s 90% in only 4 of the 10 countries.
Think, please: if 90% of charismatics and Pentecostals in Nigeria, South Africa, India and the Philippines completely or mostly agree with the statement, “God will grant material prosperity to all believers who have enough faith” (and ‘material prosperity’ was *not* defined), that does NOT suggest that 90% of them worldwide do as well, and the team who conducted the study would be the first to say so.
But here’s the real kicker: the ignored statistics from the study. Non-continuationists were included in this study.
In 8 out of the 10 countries, an average of 77% (between 63 and 93 percent) of the cessationist Christians also agree with the statement, “God will grant material prosperity to all believers who have enough faith.”
Do 3/4 of cessationist Christians worldwide believe the prosperity gospel? According to the way John MacArthur et al. extrapolated the statistics in this study, they would have to say ‘yes.’
Thanks, Kate. That is very helpful.
I might find myself a bit over my theological pay grade here, as I am a surgeon and not a pastor, but I couldn’t help but see if I could add my two cents here. I am not a pastor, but I am a christian who was saved by the power of Jesus Christ from the lie that is atheism. I was brought up in that way and believed in the “power” of science and the scientific method. While I am fully a believer, and accept the authoritative power of scripture as definitive, I do still retain the need for proof or validity, all of which I can find in scripture for my faith (I am also a creationist). I became a christian through a pastor at a independent baptist church who essentially shared with me the “road of Romans.” After this, I was kind of left adrift, and essentially began my believing formative years looking at all of the denominations to find what was essentially true, as I had no upbringing in church. This included several pentecostal churches. My direct observations at those times was that in no way was I seeing real miracles. What I observed appeared to me to be emotionally driven pretending, and in no way was seeing people “slain in the spirit” any direct manifestation to me of God or his power, or the Holy Spirit. I do not mean this to be harsh, as I think some of the people there are still to this day amazing Christians. This was my natural reaction, before I developed all the biases that we all share because of our particular denomination and creed. I eventually gravitated towards the southern baptist church, because I reasoned that if the Bible was God’s love letter to man, then he would want us to literally understand it and literally apply it, and that was where I felt that it was best done. I spent my college years in a Presbyterian offshoot ministry called Campus Outreach and grew by the life and teaching that those men poured into me, and consequently began to believe in Reformed theology. I apologize about the length of the biography, but I want to establish a baseline for where my point is coming from.
I am not a strict cessationist, and I do think that MacArthur is a great teacher on most everything I have read about him. He does seem to be on a “crusade” against the charismatic church. I do not necessarily agree with a conference to “call out” the charismatic movement, but I have seen great harm also come from those who have incorrectly applied the application of the gifts(i.e. one of my best friends has struggled deeply with his faith since his pentecostal pastor-uncle prophesied to him that God was going to raise his mother from the dead after she had just died.)I have been the subject of false prophesies (not requested) and foolishly vague ones that basically couldn’t tell me more than I would be alive in the next minute. I have never witnessed a real prophecy out of the context of the Bible.
I am persuaded that the gifts could still be around, but they would have to be the real miracles, not the fake healing that occurs on TV. I am a doctor, I know when someone has truly been healed and when an upshot of adrenaline can let a weak person stand for a few minutes from their wheelchair. I have seen some “supernatural” healing that comes from the long benefits of prayer, but never have I seen a real healing by direct Benny Hinn movements of dramatic laying on of hands. I still believe that God works through aspirin, and sometimes my hands, and that if he desires a person to be healed then that person will be, and if not, even if there is a 100% chance of recovery that person will not recover.I believe that direct miraculous healing is possible (as in the gospels and Acts), but as a doctor I have never seen or heard of a direct proven time of this occurring except in scripture. I believe speaking in tongues is possible, but I have to say that my interpretation of this refers to the book of ACTS, where people who spoke the language heard what was being said in their native language. While I cannot speak every language, I have never seen (but have heard of) an incident of a person in the American church speaking Spanish or other human language when he/she could not before. Maybe my experience is limited.
My real point to this is that the sign gifts seemed to me to be meant as signs. To the practitioners of signs I ask who is the sign to? The apostles practiced the signs in open public to give authority to GOD, not closed churches where believers prophecy to and speak in tongues to themselves. If the modern American Church is really displaying miraculous signs, why do non believers not take note? Why is the most truly successful message to come from these churches is that God wants me to be rich? Why are these miracles not being done on street corners where non believers congregate? Why are they being done only in the Church? Why is the news not abuzz at “unexplained supernatural phenomenom” occuring by Christians? My argument is because it is not real, and the world knows this. I spend a lot of time in the “educated” circles of doctors, scientists, nurses, and the world as my job and training have demanded, and I can tell you they are not looking at the practices of sign gifts of anything except foolishness and proof that God does not exist, because if he did he wouldn’t need to make his followers do pretend miracles. I mean, shouldn’t a real miracle not be subjective, but obvious to all those present that it is real? If the modern sign gifts are meant as a sign to nonbelievers and gentiles, I believe they have failed, and I do not think of my God as a God of failure, but of success. The obvious counter argument to mine is “well, they are non-believers, of course they would not recognize true miracles”. But aren’t the sign gifts supposed to be to the unbelieving world? 1 cor 14:22-24, Matt 8:8, Acts 3:2-13. The number one thing I have seen change peoples lives toward Christ is the love and true compassion of believers. The greatest sign gift that I can see, and really the only I can (honestly, at the core of my soul) validate as being real is the power of Jesus Christ in his followers, and that mostly being in our love for one another and for the world that we try to tell the truth of his son.
I do not mean these words in offense to anyone. I do believe that many people believe that they are experiencing a miraculous gift, but my experience, which is limited, has yet to see one that I could agree fit the biblical mold as a miracle. I do fully accept that miracles may be possible, as I agree with the above post that neither the cessationist viewpoint nor the continuation viewpoint is either fully supported in scripture. I fully accept that I may be wrong in my views -as I was wrong about God before I was a Christian. As an aside, the only pastor I esteem higher than MacArthur is John Piper, who would probably mostly disagree with me. However, Piper’s dedication, his self sacrifice and avoidance of the millions he could claim from his books, and his utmost desire to make the Joy in Christ first among all nations, argues a lot for his theology. Thank you for your time
You can operate on my any time, sir.
Doctor,
Well said. A welcome and different perspective from the norm here. Balanced, biographical, and Bible based. Quite interesting. Thanks.
While I agree with much of what the good doctor has written, especially about what is seen on TV, I don’t believe that it is the whole picture. I would recommend reading Craig Keener’s exhaustive two volume study: Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, Baker Academic,, c2011, where he catalogs global contemporary miracles comparable to the New Testament miracles, ie. blindness, paralysis, etc. . . as a major part of his case. Secondly, I would read some of the recent work by Candy Gunther Brown, a professor at Indiana University: Testing Prayer: Science and Healing, Harvard University Press, c2012, and a book she edited: Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Healing, Oxford University Press, c2011. Both get at the statement – I haven’t experienced real miracles in response to prayer in my vast or limited experience nor have my colleagues; therefore they aren’t happening.
Sean Sheff, M.D.: “The apostles practiced the signs in open public to give authority to GOD, not closed churches where believers prophecy to and speak in tongues to themselves. If the modern American Church is really displaying miraculous signs, why do non believers not take note?”
Well, um….
The self-supplied answer is reasonable:
“My argument is because it is not real, and the world knows this. I spend a lot of time in the “educated” circles of doctors, scientists, nurses, and the world as my job and training have demanded, and I can tell you they are not looking at the practices of sign gifts of anything except foolishness and proof that God does not exist, because if he did he wouldn’t need to make his followers do pretend miracles.”
What!? Non-believers are scoffing at charismatics as being foolish?? Non-believers are using the Charismatics as proof that God does not exist??
That’s not a good sign.
I don’t think that it is the case that non-believers are scoffing at charismatics as being foolish – and this can be born out by global statistics in regard to conversion growth worldwide. While we are playing our little transfer church growth games here in the West – and, overall, losing, Christian growth is exploding in South America, Africa, China and other parts of Asia. The problem is that this whole issue of cessationism and continuation of Spiritual gifts is such a parochial issue limited in scope and outlook to a minority part of the the American church. The center of Christianity has shifted in a big way to the Global south, where almost no one questions that every Spiritual gift listed in the Bible exists and is presently in use in all kinds of churches. As to doctors and scientists – I used to take a number of university doctors/professors with me to pray for patients in a major university teaching hospital, and I had a few non-Christian doctors who were very glad to have me pray for their patients in Surgery ICU too. I understand your experience, and I’ve seen plenty of skepticism, but overall that has not been my entire experience – I think there are pockets of openness in this postmodern environment to prayer for healing. The TV model is not the primary prayer model for the majority of people using spiritual gifts – it is only the most visible in the U.S., and the easiest to criticize.
Ken Polsley, how are you doing, sir? And where on God’s green earth are you these days?
Dave,
I’m in Jacksonville, FL now. I’m the librarian and doctoral student at a place called the Institute for Worship Studies – started a while back by Robert Webber. I miss you guys – you were my fave Iowa pastor, because I believed you still had a jump shot. I’m also a volunteer prayer minister for Christian Healing Ministries (my wife is on staff) which is why I’m probably weighing in on this subject. My prayer experiences at the University of Iowa hospitals and a course I took at Wheaton kind of led me in this direction. I still have quite a bit of Southern Baptist in me though. Love you, Brother. You’re a great spokesman for the Lord.
Clearly, your judgment is as jaded as ever, but I’m glad to hear that things are good for you.
I’m way out on Iowa’s left coast now, but if you are ever winging your way through Sioux City (headed to Mt. Rushmore or something) I’ll buy lunch.
Actually, I’ll be just south of Jacksonville at Christmas, but its a family reunion, so I’ll be tied up.
but its a family reunion, so I’ll be tied up.
So *that’s* what they do with you.
Are you like the president of the Iowa Convention now? I knew that you moved to a big church in Sioux City – you did that before I left Iowa City. I’ve only been down here for two and a half years. I kind of follow you through the grapevine – probably twisted information. I get back to Iowa two times a year – to the farmstead in SW Iowa, and then to Iowa City. I’ll follow you more closely, maybe we’ll be passing through Des Moines at the same time or something and I’ll wave at you.
My church isn’t all that big. My involvement at BCI is minimal and likely to become more so. It’s good to catch up!
That’s surprising to me. Why? Why is this comment in blue? I’m still trying to figure out how your website works. I’ll try to be judicious and probably scarce in chipping in my two cents. For one thing I don’t have much discretionary time, and more to the point – I wouldn’t want to tarnish your image. You unfortunately have burned your best excuse – that you don’t know who I am. I really do admire how you graciously facilitate discussions and promote civility in these testy family disputes. I’ve saved your site to my favorites – which means I’ll probably check in once a month or so. I go for weeks without going online for anything – frustrates people no end who send me e-mails.
He’s the Pope of Iowa Baptists. He just doesn’t know it yet.
If you only knew how NOT true that is.
I heard you had your own funny hat, as well as a distinctive vehicle to travel in.
Throw in the unique suit, and you can’t get more Baptist-y Popish than that.
Plus, you ex cathedra ended the use of smileys on the website.
If only that were true.
Rev. Ken, it’s worse than that. He’s the former 2nd VP of the SBC. That’s why his family has to tie him up for the holidays.
Rev. Polsley,
You are a great spokesperson for what you believe. You and I share similar, if not identical beliefs. I really appreciate the fact-as you have pointed out-that globally, continuationism is in the majority,and obviously accepted. Only in America is cessationism highly regarded, which by the way is where it originated as a system of doctrine(B. B. Warfield, Princeton). I appreciate your response here.
Warfield was just following Calvin, who was reacting to the Roman Catholic claim to have all the miracles, which, since Augustine, were mostly attached to shrines and relics. I can understand Calvin’s reaction. I am a fan of Calvin, but not in this instance. To say that certain gifts ended with the apostles was a huge overstep – one only has to read Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Cyprian and the stories about Gregory Thaumaturgus from Gregory of Nyssa to know that if the gifts stopped with the Apostles, then nobody informed the Christians throughout the Mediterranean in the 3rd and 4th centuries. In fact Ramsay MacMullen, a Yale classicist/historian- not necessarily a Christian, has made a case that healing and exorcism actually fueled the growth of the early church between 100 and 300 AD. (Christianizing of the Roman World: 100 – 400 AD). Calvin’s reaction is very understandable, but his claim is historically inaccurate. Warfield picked up on it – and used it to discount more contemporary miracle claims from guys like Johann Christoph Blumhardt in Germany (who I find to be very credible) and Charles Cullis in Boston. One of the best books on healing was written by a friend of Dr. Cullis and a prominent Baptist preacher in Boston, who was eyewitness to Cullis’ ministry to those dying of consumption. The book is the Ministry of Healing, by A. J. Gordon. Gordon’s arguments are balanced, well-documented and not dated at all. Gordon was a popular speaker at D. L. Moody’s conventions, and he founded the Gordon Bible Institute which eventually became Gordon College and Gordon-Conwell Seminary. A.J. Gordon is one of my favorite preachers – right up there with Dave Miller. 🙂
Thanks, Wm. Dwight, but I share similar beliefs with everyone who has posted here. I am first and foremost a follower of Jesus Christ – this little exercise in friendly family debate is not to be compared to that shared identity.
Rev. Polsley,
You are quite knowledgeable. I’ve read that BB Warfield developed his book and theology on cessationism in response to the Azusa Outpouring that as you know fan the flames of Pentecostalism globally. I’ve read Warfield’s book in cessationism. He does not reference Azusa. Azusa, as you know was at it’s height from 1905-1909. Warfield wrote his book ’bout 1918. Timing and growing influence/expansion of Pentecostalism might suggest a correlation between the two: Azusa & Warfield’s book. But do you know of any source or historical documents that literally connect the development & declaration of cessationism with Azusa? Thanks.
BTW, thanks for all of the historical data and references in your previous comment. I found that helpful & interesting.
Off hand, no. As far as I know, Augustine first put forward the argument for cessationism, but then retracted it based on his personal experiences, in a document called “Retractions.” Luther held to cessationism for a while in reaction to the Roman claim, until he was involved in the healing of Philipp Melanchthon – his theological right hand, so he retracted it too. Calvin continued to hold it – so it’s been around for quite a while. The argument which is not clearly found in the Bible, nor in Church history, does not depend on any particular miracle claims or modern movements. I used to be a cessationist, and almost didn’t marry my wife, because after three years of dating, I found out that she claimed to speak in tongues. That was a huge crisis in my life – thank God I think I made the right decision. To be honest I don’t really follow modern day cessationism proponents closely, because, firstly, it is such a minority position worldwide, and secondly, my current studies are more concerned with the post-apostolic early church and I dont’ have time, and thirdly, the arguments haven’t changed much over the years. So, sorry, I’m not much help on that. I have found Cecil Robeck’s, The Azusa Street Mission and Revival, to be the best history book I’ve read on the event, but I’ve only read a few books on it.
THE GIFT OF TONGUES:
COMPARING THE CHURCH FATHERS WITH CONTEMPORARY PENTECOSTALISM
by Nathan Busenitz.
(NB: Will post this on the other thread by Pastor Barber as well)
Gentlemen,
Thank you for you kind words, especially the criticisms. I may have gotten a little more “fired up” in my text than was my initial intent, and is something that I do struggle with in sinful pride. I absolutely do not want to put doubt that praying for the healing of a saint is something I am against or do not believe in. I have actually seen this form of intercession work wonders for believers and have produced results that are not explained by the natural process of a disease. I do pray with patients that
are believers for God’s will and potential healing to occur. As I said, I do believe God works through aspirin.
I was more speaking of an individual type “healer” speaking the “arise and walk” type of example that does not usually occur (though I have witnessed some trials of it) in the hospital and more in the “revival tent” or church. This is typified on tv, but is not only found there. There is a fine line here of what I mean and I may not be defining it the best way. It’s kinda of one of those things that “you know it when you see it” examples, the difference between prayerful intercession and the over dramatic “miracle worker”.
Rev. Polsley, I agree with you that I have not, by any stretch of the imagination, experienced everything God has to offer in this world, and I will try to read the books you suggest when time allow. I am grateful for the suggestion.I am NOT convinced that God no longer produces miracles, especially in the third world. I am not a cessationist(sp?) per se. What I was attempting to state was I am very doubtful of what I have experienced that were called miracles when I was present, as what I experienced in my Pentecostal church hopping, and the time since then. I tend to be more the Thomas the doubter type when someone tells me of a miracle without specific proof or witnesses that can add testimony. I have seen used (not on TV but by direct account) the argument of using miracles as proof of God’ approval of an unbiblical action or teaching. I do not think in any way this negates the power of true miracles, but I do wonder if a certain skeptism or discernment should be kept in regarding whether a miracle actually happened. While I think that real miracles do produce faith, and cause the unbelieving world to pause, my opinion is that fake miracles cause harm to real faith and allow the world to scoff at what is undeniably true. I do know personally of several examples of prophecy’s of a stroke victim or other brain injury (as I do trauma surgery as well) regaining what was lost, only to end in utter despair. As I noted above, one of my best friends sufferred terribly, and still to this day, over his mother not being raised from the dead as his uncle prophesied would occur. I do note that these are anecdotal experiences and do not form a stastical basis of fact.
I am persuaded that the examples you listed as occuring in the mission frontier very well could be real. I know my Haitian brothers speak of miracles as common events, but I have not experienced any of these while present with them. I also temper this knowledge by the fact that may of them still fear what “hex” a voodoo priest can lay on them as well.
Regarding my discussion of nonbelievers, scientists, and doctors using charasimatics as non-proof of God, I did not mean to imply that I have a penultimate understanding of everyone in this group, only what I have heard throughout my career. I also will admit that I have been viewed as a fool as well for stating that I did no longer believe in evolution. However, my experience, though it is limited to one life, has seen that the overall view of the scientific minded non believers is not positive to the sign gifts as they are displayed in person and on TV in the US, and regard them with disdain and discrediting of our witness. Why is this different from other doctrines, such as creation, which also cause the scientific minded to view us as fools? In my mind, its because miracles are meant to be a sign to nonbelievers. As to the rest of the world, I will bow to your experience and expertise, because I have very little experience, save for some time in New Zealand and Haiti.
I guess, in summary, what I am saying is that I am somewhat of a “moderate” between the two viewpoints, but I would like more evidence that the miracles that occur here are real and not emotional fakery, but I am hopeful that what occurs outside the US is real. I am decently good at producing troubling questions, and am quite terrible at producing good answers. Thank you for spending time reading my post, and I am grateful that you provided excellent challenges to what I wrote.
That’s why when I tried to put in a smiley in my reply it didn’t work – There hasn’t been a Pope Dave, yet, but if he were pope, he would probably rename himself – Innocent – which would be ironic. Good doctor – we are pretty much on the same page. One thing that I avoid is the use of the word “sign” gifts. It is not a Biblical term. The New Testament does talk about “signs and wonders.” – for instance, “grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, while you stretch our your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” Acts 4:29-30. However, in the gift lists in Paul’s letters he doesn’t make that designation. He doesn’t say, “these are sign gifts, these are non-sign gifts.” Those are designations imported into the texts with a kind of theological overlay that assigns motive to gifts. In one instance the motive of a gift might be a sign, in another situation it may be compassion, or helpfulness. I don’t think we should play Holy Spirit and determine the purpose of a manifestation. When I prayed for people in the University Hospital, we saw remarkable answers. One man who was in a coma in Surgery ICU with, (according to his mother), a 20% chance of survival after a double heart valve thing (it was never fully explained to me). He turned around completely and was up in his bed drinking his Ensure and smiling from ear to ear a few days after our visit – I had assumed he died. I have lots of these kinds of stories, but I always thought of our prayers as a supplement to what the doctors were doing – a help not a sign. In the West the primary way that God heals is through medical science, prayer is usually a supplement. However, I have an acquaintance who was a research scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, who told me that he saw a blind man’s pupils fill in from milky white to clear iris and pupils in response to prayer in Brazil. And the man could suddenly see. The scientist is pretty sharp and doesn’t believe he was being tricked because he knew the prayer person who was from the U.S., and the prayer person and the blind man had just met. He was convinced that he saw what he saw, and it was real. Lots of these kind of anecdotal stories can be found in Keener’s two volume work which, by the way, is not easy reading. Of course you know that anecdotes can’t be considered scientific proof, but if you pile up enough of them, with enough corroboration, they have some value. I’m usually skeptical about it unless I feel strongly about the firsthand witness’ credibility. Some of these phenomenon might be signs leading to evangelism, some may be helps, some may be works of compassion. Using the word “sign” gift is too limiting to the New Testament witness, and as I say, Paul doesn’t go there. Importing ideas into the text to kind of manage, organize, or systematize the Bible is a common thing that we Bible people do; but we should be very careful to recognize what the text says, and what is our organizing idea. The Bible doesn’t present itself systematically but as narrative, even the letters have background stories. In my opinion, it is best that we not wander too far afield. Also we tend to talk about these gifts as something that is separate from the Holy Spirit- Paul calls the gifts, “manifestations of the Spirit for the common good.” I Cor. 12:7 They are not something the Spirit has lost somehow forever. Paul also says that the Spirit gets to choose – not Bible teachers, theologians, historical precedent, not me, not you. I don’t think the Holy Spirit really listens to us when we say, “Now stop that! You can’t do that now! Now cut that out, or I’ll . . .”
Sorry, I put my comment about Pope Dave, the first Pope Dave in history in the wrong place. So I’ll enlarge on it here. Popes don’t go with Old Testament names and because they have to change their names usually stick with historical precedent. Here are a few actual Pope names that might suit Dave: Hyginus, because every time I was around Dave it seemed like he was well bathed, perfumed and had above average minty breath. Urban – Sioux City is not a major city but it’s a city, at least it’s got City in it’s name – so Dave’s an Urban guy. Fabian – isn’t Fabian some kind of movie star hunk – when I hear “movie star hunk”, I think, “yeah – like Dave Miller”. Felix, because Dave, I assume, is still quick as a cat with his jump hook. Lando – wasn’t that the cool dude with the cloud house in Star Wars? Pius, well, OK, I guess? And of course, Innocent – and mild humor in a Pope’s name is always welcome. Those are the choices as I see it. Can’t believe that I was drawn into this when I have so much to do.
If Dave were truly to become Pope, I think he’d choose to be Pope Mariano, or perhaps some other Yankee. Maybe even Pope George, after the boss man himself.
Thanks for the article. I am reading through Strange Fire transcripts and so far have only read Phil Johnson’s. I am not a 4 or 5 point calvinist or cessationist but have always respected MacArthur despite our theological differences. I am deeply grieved by what I have read thus far. I wholeheartedly agree that the WoF movement and New Apostolic Reformation people he mentions are not biblical and their teachings should be called out. However, painting all charismatics with a broad brush and asserting that non-cessationists are unsound is divisive and destructive to the Body of Christ. The conference so far is more a sounding board for pushing cessationism through extreme examples and without solid biblical authority– while placing anyone who is a continuist into the ‘wacko’ Christian category. At one point, he even states that people who do not hold his view on providence are “sub-Christian”. What? I am so grieved. I see the evils of the Holy Spirit counterfeiters and abusers out there, and yet I am deeply saddened by what I read thus far. I would rather see some great verses on order in the church and so forth but feel as though this has descended into more of a means to promulgate a ”non-essentials” belief, at risk of dividing the Body, by giving the most outlandish examples possible–feels a bit like a fear tactic I am sorry to say. It is not a fair representation but a poor generalization. It is as if to say all Christians are evil because of the few who bomb abortion clinics. Furthermore, throwing John Piper under the bus in one of the sermons was ungodly. The reason for doing it was because Johnson felt Piper wasn’t outspoken enough. I am troubled by this, and I am not even a Piper reader. To me, this wreaks of legalism for various reasons. So sad, I am praying for them all and the Body of Christ as a whole. I pray the Lord’s will be done and trust He will cause things to work together for the good of believers. I was looking forward to this conference, but I am sorry it is not more grace filled. I had no idea my position on the works of the Holy Spirit, which is rather mild(I am an expositional student of the Word and not into tongues etc) was so offensive to other believers whom I have always loved and respected. Time to review John 17.
Blessings to you,
Jen
Jen,
Might I suggest that you read JM’s book before jumping to conclusions about him or his positions on this issue….it so common these days for people to refuse to read the book for reasons of some sort of principle…but even without that modicum of research are not abashed in joining choruses of boo birds, many of whom also have not read the book but only cleverly edited snipits on you-tube or selective sections of a talk or the book (using of course a ‘book review’ as the basis for the book text).
Hi Tarheel,
Yes, I do intend to read his book, and I agree with you that people often draw conclusions without having a complete context. I knew before the conference that we(MacArthur and I) were not in agreement on everything, but that is ok with me. I respect his teachings overall and his ministry. As I stated in my post, I am referring to 2 of Phil Johnson’s sermons–I read both transcripts in total–Providence is Remarkable and Baby and the Bathwater. I also heard some of one of MacArthur’s sermons discussing all charismatics around the world–not just select ones. I do not have any issue with calling out false teachings and I totally agree with their assessments of teachers like Crowder, Bickle, Cain etc…and the problems that arise from experiential claims and emphasis. I do not think I am off base when I express concerns that an entire segment of the Christian population all lumped together is said to be the cause of much of the problems within Christianity today i.e. charismatics. So, my comments above are mainly addressing what I have read thus far, and I was clear on that. And that consists of about 2 1/2 hours of sermons which I got directly from his gty.org site. But no, I will not form a conclusive opinion about MacArthur’s most recent stance on this until I read through all of his conference sermons and his book, as is fair. I, did, however find Johnson’s 2 sermons(which is what I referred to above most specifically) troubling enough and as they quite clearly expressed his position, I believed I could comment at this time on those specifically. Lastly, I do value MacArthur’s studies and work over the years and appreciate what he is trying to do, so just because I did not care for one of his speakers does not mean I do not respect him and frankly, if there are boo birds out there, I haven’t really heard them as of yet. I am hopeful MacArthur’s analysis will have a grace filled approach addressing false teaching supported by Scriptural refutation. What I hope not to see from teaches or the general populace is a gross generalization of charismatics or continuists based solely on one’s experience with some of these people. After all, isn’t one of the points of the conference to call out the problem with experiential knowledge alone….and yet some are using experiential knowledge to draw conclusions of charismatics as a whole. Sadly, this is what I am seeing online. Let us reason together with Scripture in hand and analyze the content of what people say and look then at the fruit. Statements like ”In my experience charismatics are…… or in my experience calvinists are…..or in my experience Christians are……” Just pick anything and fill in the blank, and its a generalization. I am basing my evaluation of others on their solid doctrinal essentials–the gospel, Jesus, Trinity etc…and also by their fruit. One fruit of the Spirit is love. 1 Cor. 13 tells us that love believes and hopes all things….I think making generalizations about a group of people or about people who have a differing view of Scripture than you(on the non-essentials)without knowing their heart, fruit, and relationship with Christ and how they strive to carefully study God’s word is not loving–it is not believing and hoping the best in others, frankly it is the opposite. It is assuming the worst. I value what these men are trying to do, I just think the one speaker I have studied is off track in some areas. I intend to keep studying through the transcripts. Blessings to you,
Jen
Sounds fair to me.
🙂
I agree with John MacArthur on speaking in tongues for the most part. I believe it is not for this day and age. I believe the tongues that were spoken were intelligible languages. I do also believe there are many brothers and sisters in Christ in this movement. I think that many of them have gotten wrap up in this emotional experience. I also think there is not a perfect church to worship in on this earth. We are all have preconceived ideas about the church and the church doctrines. I know for myself, God through his word has helped me to see more clearly on various doctrines over the years. Many things I still do not see as clearly as I would like, or clear at all. I think there to be two types of pro-claimers in the pulpit. Those who are sheep and those who are not. The believer will preach based on his spiritual knowledge of the truth to the best of his ability with false interpretations on some doctrines. The unbeliever will preach false doctrine with some truth. In some cases not any truth and in others some truth mixed in. So we need to be spiritually mature enough to know the truth when we hear it. Calling groups on the carpet is tough. The problem we get into is we do not want to look at our own weaknesses concerning our doctrines.