This post has been revised and is now part of my full critique of Strange Fire.
Frank Viola | Beyond Evangelical
Official Blog of Author & Speaker Frank Viola. Digging below the surface and moving beyond the shallows in today's Christianity.
Strange Fire: A Refutation – Part II
Strange Fire: A Refutation – Part I
I’m a bit late to the conversation – Lol! (and the furore thankfully, though I’m not sure it – or the effects – has subsided yet!) But I just wanted to say how much I appreciate both the tone and content of your writings in general (which I am only recently starting to read) and this response in particular. Best wishes, Paul
Wowzer. You have some interesting commentators here. I can only imagine how popular I’ll be in a few minutes…
So you invited me to engage with you, so let’s do that, shall we?
So here’s your refutation:
Point 1 – MacArthur sees problems (but we do it too)
This isn’t any form or refutation…?!?
Point 2 – Charismatics make Jesus a footnote (but you do it too)
This isn’t any form or refutation…?!?
Point 3 – MacArthur paints the entire charismatic world with the same brush…
This is demonstrably untrue. In his first plenary session, he clearly differentiated between the movement as a whole and individuals within the movement. He could have been more clear, but he didn’t paint every single individual charismatic with the same brush.
Point 4 – MacArthur misrepresents people (with the only example being Kathryn Kuhlman), wrongly says that the Charismatics acknowledged that the gifts had ceased in the early years, and MacArthur selectively quotes the early church fathers.
I look forward to seeing MacArthur’s research on 1 woman being debunked and the whole book tossed in the trash on the basis of one error.
As for the early beliefs about the gifts in the 1900’s, I’ve actually heard that from Charismatics…kinda like how Peter Wagner says that the offices of apostle, intercessor and prophet were recently re-given to the church. The fact that you haven’t heard it doesn’t mean anything one way or the other.
With regards to the early church fathers, I’m looking forward to you providing quotes about the sign gifts existing in the post-apostolic church…not miracles and not healing in response to prayer; the specific sign gifts.
Cessationists don’t deny the miraculous and we believe in divine healing. Divine healing isn’t the same as the sign gift of healing…but you are well aware of those exegetically derived nuances, right?
Point 5 – MacArthur makes smelly statements.
a. Well, what if your nose is broken? Why are you any authority on tone or tenor?
b. And what exactly IS the gospel? I imagine we would agree that involves the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, right? Is it ONLY those three ideas? Is it more? Is the ascension part of the gospel? The Kingdom? What’s more, what if you add something TO the gospel that isn’t part of it? Do you still have the gospel if I add on “and you MUST read the 3rd revision of the King James Bible”? Do I still have the gospel of have I changed it into a counterfeit gospel?
Almost every Charismatic church I’ve been a part of (AOG, ACOP, PAOC, Vineyard, FourSquare, Victory)adds the doctrine of subsequence to the gospel as the practical validation of salvation/the presence of the Spirit in one’s life. If the gospel involves me speaking in tongues, is it still the gospel? If repentance is evidenced by speaking in tongues, is it still the gospel?
What do you call a church that preaches a gospel other than the gospel revealed in the scriptures?
c. As for the idea that the Charismatic “movement is characterized by worldly priorities and fleshly pursuits”, couldn’t help but notice that you had a blatant and rather obvious category confusion. It’s interesting how you pick out 5 individuals to characterize a movement of 500 million. MacArthur didn’t say that Wilkerson or the other four were worldly & fleshly, but rather that the charismatic movement (as a monolithic movement) is marked by worldly and fleshly pursuits (NOT worldliness and fleshliness). Why didn’t you pick out Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, David Oyedepo, Ray McCauley and Frank Houston?
Because those guys are obviously worldly and fleshly, but then hat wouldn’t make your case, would it?
Some might call that kind of rhetoric “deceptive”. Not me though, I’m sure it’s an honest mistake.
Point 6 – “MacArthur’s argument that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit have ceased is not only biblically and historically untenable, but it is discounted by the best New Testament evangelical scholars in the world, both past and present”
a. Biblically and historically untenable? I’ll definitely sleep warmly under that absurd blanket statement. I’d love to engage you on a sheer exegetical level. No commentaries. No cheating. Just the text of scripture and you, and see who can make the more convincing exegetical case. Maybe on Monday I’ll get a chance!
b. So everyone disagrees with him, but you only give four examples, two of which don’t even have concern with this issue at all in the first place…and Keener and Fee…HA!
Fee rejects the doctrine of subsequence, which is a denominational distinctive of his own denomination (AoG). He’s anything but typical when it comes to charismatics (what with loudly denying that Mark 16:9-20 is part of the scripture and all…)
As for Keener, everyone refers to his book on miracles which brings me back to the whole point that Cessationists don’t have any problem with miracles. Keener is arguing with naturalists, not cessationists. As for “Gift and Giver”, I can count on one hand the Charismatics I know who are familiar with that book. Keener is an academic, but he’s NOT a popular level defender. That’s like me saying that some obscure, shotgun-toting pastor with 9 wives from a KJV onlyist cult is a representative cessationist. If people generally don’t know who he is and his literature isn’t widely read, why is he put forth as the official delegate to defend you?
Point 7 – Wait. Where’s point seven? Your title says “7 Points” but there’s only six. Why am I the only one who has noticed this?
Anyways, I look forward to reading your magnum opus on Monday.
Thanks for the response, bro. I trust that I included my reactions to these points in the critique itself. And yes, “7” was a typo that has since been fixed. Good catch on that. Your take on “tongues” with respect to cessation and the other gifts is new to me. I’ll look into it more closely, though I didn’t go into it in the critique because tongues is a minor issue to me. If you believe prophecy, knowledge, and revelation are still extant, then we agree on what I consider to be the essentials in this discussion.
Thanks Lyndon, I am learning. Just keep on writing. And thanks Frank for inviting him into the discussion.
Your thoughts are both incisive and compassionate. I’m wondering if MacArthur was prompted to write this new book since the recently become popular Jesus Culture has made a splash on younger Believers in California and other areas. From outward appearances it does look to be an example of excess emotionalism.
It is one thing to call for caution, clarity and correction regarding what are perceived as spiritual excesses. But when, in the name of a doctrine (cessation) that is at best Biblically unclear, a person generalizes all Charismatics into one group and then proceeds to state that they are committing blaspheme of the Holy Spirit, which is arguably an unforgivable sin that condemns the person to hell without the possibility of reprieve or forgiveness, that is another thing altogether.
The hallmarks of the Gospel are love, mercy, and forgiveness. Overbroad generalizations, judgments and wholesale condemnation are not. Even assuming, arguendo, that the Holy Spirit’s primary job description is to convict the believer of sin, it is clear that this right and responsibility belongs to Him, not me, and not anyone else.
I am a charismatic believer, and I know many other like-minded people. I also have many cessationist mainline friends. We argue sometimes, sure, but we are all shooting at the same target. We want to develop and maintain an ever deeper and more intimate relationship with Jesus. We may have different ways of getting there, but we are all after the same thing. And that is what unifies us.
What good is truth without love? No good at all. I want to reflect Jesus. And therefore the first thing I want the world to see in me is His love. I do not fear extremes. They have happened on both sides of the isle ever since Jesus died, and they will always happen in this world. But Jesus overcomes the world.
So instead of labeling and then condemning 500,000,000 charismatics, maybe I should put my focus into loving Jesus and loving others. I think I heard someone say that once.
Enjoyed this… awaiting part =]
Frank, I do not consider myself to be a cessationist, but I do not think that many of the common actions of Pentecostals/Charismatics when they are “filled with the Spirit” reflect biblical teaching. For example, the ideas of “being slain in the Spirit,” “barking in the Spirit,” and “singing in the Spirit” do not seem to reflect anything in the Bible. Do you have any books that address issues such as these? I would be very interested in reading your view of them. Thanks.
Did a whole series on the baptism of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit on this blog. See the archives https://www.frankviola.org/archives
“If MacArthur had written Strange Fire without the misrepresentations, vitriol, elitism, and broad-brushed associations, it would have been a good book in my opinion and one that I could possibly recommend.”
I really agree whit this sentence.
J. Mc Arthur warms us (pentecotists and charismatics) about some deadly ways many of us have… but he did it in a very bad form.
Doesn’t MacArthur actually violate his own law of hermeneutics when ignoring scripture that accounts for the Holy Spirits ministry in our lives; namely 1 cor. 12 etc.
4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.
Well said Frank. I appreciate your comments and fair analysis on both sides of this book. Arguments which broadly group and then dismiss large diverse sections of believers most always trouble me.
Thank you, Frank. I appreciate your fair assessments.
Thank you for this commentary, Frank.
If Mr. McArthur and the rest of us would simply pour our passion into loving Jesus and seeking His face and His presence, perhaps our lost & dying world would find what they so desperately need. The body of Christ gets so preoccupied sometimes with everything BUT Jesus, that we lead people away from Him instead of to Him. Infighting doesn’t cause unity, it does not create one accord. A house divided against itself cannot stand. We need to go back to Paul’s simplicity of preaching Christ & Him crucified. The power of the Blood. The love of God.
Frank,
The intent of a man’s heart surely cannot be judged but the intent of the enemy of God’s people can be seen capitalizing on this misguided work to divide God’s people only serving to bring reproach to His name further and eroding their unity in Christ, something He prizes dearly. I always wonder what wonderful way He will be glorified that an assault like this is attempting to obscure. Thank you Frank for your crystal clear clarification of the real issues here. Many have ears to hear and many will refuse to be deceived. Onward people of God!
Can’t wait to read the rest, Frank. I know that you have mentioned Jack Deere’s book “Surprised by the Power of Spirit” in other posts, but I think that it is worth mentioning again for anyone who wishes to read about a journey of discovery of spiritual gifts, and strong Biblical support for those gifts, from a former seminary professor with a strong cessationist perspective.
Hey Frank,
How I envy your sense of striking the right balance in defending the truth and handling as sensitive issues as this one… The positions of cessationists are, if I may say, too ridiculous to me… because they usually hide behind the mistakes done by charismatics or pentecostals. But no one can hide behind something/someone which is “smaller” and “contemptible” than themselves! That’s how paradoxical their positions are!
Frank, could give a two or three sentence summary of MacArthur’s intent in this book and maybe pinpoint his target audience? Thanks and have a blessed day.
I can’t judge the motives of his heart so I can’t answer about intent. Target audience … anyone who will listen. Beyond that, I’m not sure.
“Intent” was not quite the right word, since I know we cannot judge another’s motives. I think I was hoping he might have alluded to why he felt the need to write this book in his introduction or elsewhere in the text.
Frank, I love your line:
“Even so, the game of burning down straw man city with a torch is nothing new.”
That almost had me rolling on the floor laughing. Good one, I’ll have to remember it. :-]
Dan