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 III
Strange Fire: A Refutation – Part II
I can see how John MacArthur’s book could cause a lot of trouble. I’ve made some videos on Youtube about cessationism and I hae written some little articles about it myself.
There are some house church people on that list. Since house churches often have people from a number of backgrounds who have to get along together and whose church experience goes beyond a sermon topic one person picks out, and since the use of the gifts is very important to the church meeting, of course this issue could cause a lot of division.
Here are some of the problems I see with MacArthur’s view.
STRANGE FIRE
If what we do in church– what he calls ‘worship’ is analagous with what Nadab and Abihu did in the temple, then who is really offering the strange fire. They offered fire the LORD did not command. But doesn’t what MacArthur teaches lead to doing in church what God does not command?
Paul calls his instructions to the Corinthians ‘commandments of the Lord.’ What are the commands? We are to let ‘every one of you’ have a psalm, doctrine, tongue, revelation, interpretation ‘unto edifying.’ If one speaks in tongues, there is to be an interpreter. We are commanded to ‘let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge.’ If another sitting by receieves a revelation, the speaking prophet is to hold his peace. We are told ‘for ye may all prophesy….’
I Corinthians is the only long passage that tells us what to do ‘in church’ aside from passages on the Lord’s supper.
MacArthur’s cessationism leads to disboedience to this passage. What’s left? Your traditional preacher centered, pulpit centered church meeting?
MACARTHUR’S DOCTRINE IS BASED ON EXTRABIBLICAL DOCTRINE
He talks about fidelity to the scriptures, but the main argument he has against the continuation of the gifts comes from a ‘sufficiency of scripture’ doctrine that isn’t in the Bible.
II Timothy 3 is used as a prooftext, but the passage is telling Timothy about two sources of revelation. One source is the word he has heard. The ‘apostles’ doctrine’ was oral back then. The other source is the scriptures. Timothy grew up learning what we call the Old Testament. For those of us who take a conservative, Pauline authorship approach to II Timothy, the book of Revelation had not been written yet.
If II Timothy 3 is teaching cessationism, then II Timothy 4 and the book of Revelation are not a part of the canon of scripture, since they were given by revelation.
INCONSISTENCY WITH HIS OWN ESCHATOLOGY
John MacArthur is a dispensationist. So the two witnesses are supposed to come and prophesy in the future and do miracles like shutting up the heavens. Restarting the gift of miracles after a supposed pre-trib rapture doesn’t resolve the issue. If miracles today present a challenge to the word of God or the scriptures, then we can’t be having them in a future time period either. I don’t subscribe to his eschatology. Even preterists would to have the two witnesses prophecy fulfilled after the canon was completely written. I haven’t encountered an interpretation system except for a liberal idea that it was written after the events as if it were written before.
CALVIN SAID SO
That was Steve Lawson’s approach at the conference. Much of the rejection of spiritual gifts comes from trying to stay in the Reformed tradition, rather than follow scripture.
Lawson argued that for Calvin, miracles ceased after the first century, that they were like the rockets on a space craft that got it into space that were dropped after it got into space. Calvin thought the gospel had already been confirmed by signs and wonders and that they were no longer necessary.
So many Reformed people think that signs and wonders were a one-time thing, that once the word was confirmed, they were no longer needed. But the Bible doesn’t teach this. Signs followed those who preached the word. It wasn’t a one-time deal wither. Jesus did not say, “I could do some miracles for you, but I won’t, because my word has already been confirmed by the miracles of Moses. He wrote of me.”
Peter did not say, “I am preaching a true message from God. Jesus was attested to you by signs and wonders. Since that word has already been confirmed, I won’t do any miracles. But I can tell you about some of Jesus’ miracles that you may or may not have seen, or write them down for you to read about. After all, reading about them has the same impact as seeing and experiencing them. Since I have proven that what I say is true, not believe.”
Peter did tell the crowd in Acts 2 that Jesus was attested to them by signs and wonders. Yet the Spirit still gave speaking in tongues on that occasion, and the apostles went on to do signs and wonders.
After the apostles did signs in wonders in Acts 2, they could have stopped and said the Gospel was once for all confirmed, if they thought like John Calvin. They would then have not prayed for God to stretch out His hand to do signs and wonders in Acts 4.
When Paul went among the Gentiles, he could have said, “I declare to you the gospel which has already been confirmed by the miracles of the Twelve apostles in Jerusalem. You haven’t seen these miracles, but I am telling you about them, and I’ll write about them so you can read about them. This serves the same purpose as seeing them yourselves.” He didn’t say that because that would have been silly, and he did not hold to John Calvin’s theory on the subject.
PROOFTEXTS
Cessationists like certain prooftext. John MacArthur has used the quote in Jude where it says that to contend for ‘the faith once delivered to the saints’ to argue for not having spiritual gifts because we have the Bible. But apparently, this faith had already been delivered before this part of the Bible was written. So how could he use this to argue that the verse is saying only use the Bible, don’t experience gifts, and that God does not reveal things through the Bible? If the faith was delivered before he stated this verse, and the point of his statement was to exclude any further revelatory work of the scripture, this verse and subsequent verses could not be included in scripture? ‘The faith’ is not exactly the same thing as the canon. Notice that Revelation was likely written after the faith was once delivered to the saints.
There are many more things I could say. The real problem with the view is that it takes a man-made system of doctrine and elevates it above the scriptures. Instead of following Biblical teachings and even commands for the church, we follow some extra-Biblical doctrines ABOUT the Bible, for example, the idea that God only communicates and reveals through the Bible. But the Bible doesn’t teach that God only reveals through the Bible.
Romans 1 shows us that God has revealed things about Himself through creation. I Corinthians 12 shows us that the Spirit gives gifts like the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, prophecy, the working of miracles, and gifts of healing. The Bible commands ‘despise not prophesyings’ and ‘covet to prophesy’ and ‘forbid not to speak with tongues.’ In speaking of believers with different gifts, we are taught that one part of the body cannot say to another, “I have no need of the.” Following this cessationist view leads us to disobey the direct commands of scripture to the church. It is putting a man-made doctrine of scripture above what scripture teaches and can easily lead to disobedience.
Dear Frank,
Today I’ve subscribed to your blog for obtaining your ENTIRE critique of John MacArthur’s two ‘rebuttals’ on the larger charismatic Christian sector, for want of a better description. As you said Frank, there is no way that it can correctly be referred to as a movement with a specific agenda …
For me, am a product of the former Boston Movement, a tag supplied to the now DEFUNCT International Church of Christ. Also, I then departed via an ‘exit’ counsellor and moved to the ICoC’s historical roots, namely the ‘mainline’ Church of Christ, then completed one of their biblical studies programmes in Athens, Greece. That college was a branch school of Sunset International Bible Institute in Lubbock TX, US.
Found out two years after graduating that I was never qualified, as I was formerly lead to believe I would be! Also, I came to the realisation that I was part of a religious system that I consciously disavowed myself of and had no choice to, once again, debunk from yet another system. That’s when I discovered that being outside an institutional church brought loneliness, rejection, isolation, both from a regular church and the world as well. But I’m now on the upswing!
Both the ICoC and CoC were one fellowship before 1979. Today, they are both seriously fragmented from their own detractors INDIVIDUALLY, but also seem to be drifting further afield! Yet, the PLEA of their spiritual forefathers, namely Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Walter Scoot and Barton Stone in the early to mid- 1800s was to be a UNITED body FREE from sectarianism, elitism etc.
Both the CoC and the ICoC have had stages where they believed and ostracised any others NOT baptised in THEIR institutions. Some are still sectarian in this way. The VERY spirit they strove towards eluded them even to becoming often far MORE divisive over time!
Why have we NOT learned from the history of the Stone Campbell Movement, as some have called it?
So, I can see a strikingly similar ‘war’ that the charismatics have had with one another and with their critics.
What’s certain to me is this: The MORE we focus of publicising error in books written by our brothers in the faith, the LESS we focus on having the indwelling Christ formed in us (from glory to glory) as a body TOGETHER. We are quite divisive and the world has too often seen through OUR duplicity!
I do honestly accept that you, Frank, have been gentle in ‘pouring holy water on strange fire’ so as to correct the unnecessary ‘war’ that erupted, partially through MacArthur’s publications, within charismatic Christian communities. I do honour that you’ve striven towards setting the record straight, as it were.
So, where does that leave us as a fragmented body of believers? Your views Frank …
Love in Christ,
Philip
Chadwell Heath
Romford
Essex
United Kingdom
Here’s a thought.
Does John MacArthur believe, as he intimated in his Strange Fire presentation, that most Charismatics are not really Christian?
I am sure that many Charismatics did not start their spiritual journey in the Charismatic Movement. I accepted Christ in a mainline Bible teaching conservative church. So did my wife.
Gradually over the decades we migrated to more of a Charismatic mindset, and we now consider ourselves to be Charismatic.
Is John MacArthur saying that because I am a Charismatic (and irrespective of where my wife and I fall in that very broad description), I am not saved? That my initial conversion experience was not valid?
What kind of a theology would support that determination? It would have to be based on a belief that it is possible to get saved and then lose your salvation. I can find no other possibility.
Does anyone know if that is what MacArthur believes.
His exact words are part of my critique. Stay tuned.
Isn’t it a bit strange (heh) that the term “charismatic”, (regarding a believer who embraces and walks in The Spirit ala gifts, signs, and wonders), is somehow a source of contention and a separate class of Christians?
Shouldn’t all of us in Christ Jesus be charismatics? I mean, how does one relate to Christ Jesus without the daily application, ministry, and power of His very Spirit?
Like having the image of God yet denying the power theroef. I think I read something about that somewhere. 🙂
Please send me your blog. Am interested in your critique of Strange Fire. Thks. Pastor George
George, subscribe here: https://www.frankviola.org/subscribe
Since the whole Strange Fire controversy erupted, I have been asking Jesus to give me some insight and clarity around these issues. Frankly, I have had some sleepless nights.
Yesterday morning I reached a point of some frustration. I was asking and seeking, but nothing was happening. No answers. So
I decided that I would get up and take a long walk.
I was walking, still asking, and all of a sudden I had a thought. Read Galations 5. Ok, I know how to be obedient (most of the time, anyway), so I got out my phone, loaded up Galations 5 and started reading.
In that Chapter, Paul lays out two lists. One list contains the deeds of the flesh, and the other is the fruit of the Spirit. I guess what Paul is getting at is that these lists are for self-evaluation. In other words, in looking at myself, I should evaluate whether my mindsets and behaviors look like the flesh list or the Spirit list.
I noticed that the deeds of the flesh include impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery and drunkenness. Well, with respect to the excesses and fringes within the Charismatic/Pentacostal movement, I can not help to agree with John MacArthur here. Some of what goes on really looks like that to me.
But God also pointed out to me that those “deeds” are not the only ones on the list. So are enmity, strife, ill will, disputes, dissensions, and factions.
And apparently anyone who practices any of these deeds will not inherit the Kingdom.
The other list Paul calls the fruit of the Spirit. I guess this is a list of things I ought to see in me if I am in fact and in truth walking the the Spirit, or, as Paul days elsewhere, walking in the Light. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, and gentleness etc.
So I began asking myself a question. Did John MacArthur’s presentation and his language at Strange Fire, when viewed as a whole, look more like the first list or the second. Sadly, I must admit that it looked to me more like the first list. It sounded to me like enmity, strife, and especially dissensions and factions. I did not sense love, peace, kindness or gentleness at all.
I then realized that what I had heard from Mr. MacArthur was actually the fruits of the Spirit being sacrificed on the altar of “truth”. So I wondered why dispensing truth is not on the list of the fruits of the Spirit. I have read the Scriptures, and I know that “truth” is important to God. So why is it not on the list? The only thing I could come up with is that God has priorities, things that are more important to Him than others. And I think possibly the dispensing of truth, while important, is not as crucial to Him as the fruit of the Spirit.
Two things came to mind. First, even assuming that Charismatics are what Mr. MacArthur says they are, what would bring them to repentance? I think I recall that the kindness of God brings people to repentance. Not truth, kindness. Second, assuming that, as Mr. MacArthur says, Charismatics are not saved, then they are in the world, not the Kingdom. And how are Christians made known to the world. I think Jesus said we would be known, not by the truth we dispense, but by our love.
It is one thing to call for clarity, confession, and correction when there are excesses, fringes and even heresies in the Kingdom. But when a man’s presentation and vitriolic language generalizes all Charismatics (half a billion people, I think he said) into one group and then states that not only are these folks not saved, but they are committing blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, a sin which arguably condemns every person to hell without possibility of redemption or reprieve, well, that is another matter altogether.
It seems to me that this is both sad and bad for the body of Christ. But perhaps more importantly, what does this communicate to those in the world that watch us? They already see us as hyper-judgmental, critical people who, in the name of God, make ourselves better and above them. Talk about behavior that reinforces that perception. Are we called to dispense “truth” to them, or to love them?
I am not a Biblical scholar, so all I can share is my non-academic beliefs regarding this issue. However, two things I do know. The disciples were not scholars either. Yet Jesus said that to them was given the ability to understand the things of the Kingdom. Also, if the Bible is really God’s Word for all of us, it seems unlikely to me that He would design it in a way that only scholars could understand “truth”.
By the way, didn’t Jesus say that we can only enter the Kingdom if we come like children. If He did, I guess I am sort of glad that I am not a scholar.
Last question (which I have yet to answer for myself). What grieves Jesus more? Is He hurt more when there is weird, aberrant or even outright sinful behavior in the Body. Or when the Body seems hell bent on tearing itself apart in the name of “truth”. Didn’t He say that a kingdom divided against itself can not stand? I wonder…..
I think I will just focus on loving Jesus and loving others. I will leave the judgments to Him. I think I read that somewhere in the Bible.
I have just been reading Devern Fromke’s book, Ultimate Privilege and the following quote made so much sense to me, especially in the current controversy:
“It is of equal importance that he uses his renewed mind to feed upon the word of God. If man emphasises only the fellowship of the Spirit, and neglects the Word, he tends to become too mystical. If he emphasises only the letter of the Word, and neglects the Spirit of Truth, he is reading without the help of His Teacher – and tends to vain rationalism.”
Oh for such balance!
I know it is not the place to ask for help but I am unable to get in touch with Amazon who was supposed to deliver my book “Gods favorite place on earth” ordered from you on the pre-launche special in April/May 2013 Bert Pretorius, Po Box 1248 Montanapark 0159 South Africa
You can contact them by email. If they don’t respond, write to jeff@amazon.com
Frank, as a non-charismatic I fervently embrace my non charisma but am assured that I do not have all the answers(theologically speaking or otherwise ). My father is deeply charismatic and I’ve always known he is genuinely and sincerely as much a Christian as I. Painting anyone or any group with a broad brush is dangerous. Thanks for your insight.
I’m glad that there have always been those through the centuries that have fought for the truths found in the Word of God. What would we have, and what will future generations have, if we fail to do that?
“Why waste your time on responding to MacArthur’s writings against the charismatics?”
For the love of God, His Word, and His people- that’s why!