Strange Fire or Gifts of the Spirit?

Introduction
There is a huge controversy shaking the institutional Churches and it has once again been brought to the forefront. One of the principle players in this "in house" debate is John MacArthur, the author of Charismatic Chaos and sponsor of the recent trange !ire conference. "e is not #ithout his critics $ here is a #ell #ritten, do#nloadable %&! called A 'esponse to Charismatic Chaos by 'ich (athan. MacArthur is a rather strict cessationist and an "old school" proponent of Calvinism. %ersonally, ) re*ect Calvin+s cold determinism and identify more closely #ith the particular brand of Arminianism espoused by John ,esley. (evertheless, ) do appreciate the contributions of the 'eformed tradition, and the sober minded sincerity of men like MacArthur. "is style can be some#hat acrimonious and dogmatic, but ) share his concerns. ,hile ) disagree #ith his cessationist interpretation of several key scriptures, ) can easily relate to many of MacArthur+s criticisms of the foolishness, fakery, and false spirituality found in much of the charismatic movement. ome of it appears dangerous, having more in common #ith the -undalini force of .astern mysticism, than it does #ith gifts of the pirit. ) agree that it is #ise /and 0iblical1 to "test the pirits" $ since pagans, and #itches also manifest tongues and various ecstatic "experiences".

)n other #ords, *ust because something supernatural is taking place, does not necessarily mean it is "of" 2od. That being said, #e also don+t #ant to "limit" 2od. %art of the problem is that Christendom has put great emphasis on Christology, and ecclesiology, but pneumatology has been largely neglected. 2od is sovereign and can pour out his pirit upon men if he chooses. )n fact, according to scripture he has already done so. Acts 3456 $ +In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams." Cessationists claim that #hat is being manifested by the over 788 million charismatic Christians in the #orld today, is at best fakery and at #orst demonic. Continuists ackno#ledge there are counterfeits and charlatans at #ork, but the pirit of the living 2od is still being poured out upon those #hose hearts are open. ,hat is the truth on this issue9

Proves Too Much

There is much fodder for cessationist cannons. They can point to many strange and /to be kind1 :uestionable manifestations, such as the embarrassing saga of Todd 0entley, or the #icked -ansas City %rophets #ho #ere embraced by some of the most prominent continuists before they #ere e;posed. Cessationists, rightly /in my opinion1 :uestion #hether the ho#ling hyenas of the Toronto blessing are filled #ith the "oly pirit of 2od Almighty, or by something else9 They see no discernment, testing the pirits, or sound doctrine apprehended by a sober mind in such bedlam and chaos. )s 2od the author of confusion9 5 Cor. 5<4== For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. s in all the churches of the saints... (o one disputes these type of shocking events are taking place, but are they being used by MacArthur in an attempt to prove too much9 "e doesn+t confine the topic to cessationism. "e makes s#eeping generali>ations from these aberrations, building an "ugly caricature" of the charismatic movement. Then he contrasts his traditional 'eformed theology to this "stra#man", as if that someho# lends credence to his dogma. This is a false dichotomy, an appeal to e;tremes #hich employs reductio ad absurdum to insult the truth. MacArthur says "0y contrast, 'eformed theology, sound doctrine, is not a haven for false teachers...", #hich is a great insult to 'eformed Charismatics #ithin his o#n camp. They are charismatic not because they are ignorant of scripture, or of traditional Calvinism, but because they can+t deny #hat the 0ible teaches and their e;istential e;perience confirms. Moreover, his rhetoric is even more insulting to Arminians. "e seems to forget that Arminius, 2rotius, ?aud, ,esley and many other brilliant

and reno#ned theologians overturned the dogmas of Calvinism from scripture. %erhaps this short video #ill be helpful ,hy )+m (ot a Calvinist. ) love our Calvinist brothers, and since they hosted the conference #e must forgive their dogmatism in presenting Calvin as the "touchstone" of Christianity. (ot to put too fine a point on it, but that honor belongs to another $ Christ. )n the rather lengthy article #hich follo#s, cessationism is refuted and the ackno#ledged problems #ith the charismatic movement are put into proper perspective. )n the process, MacArthur+s deceptive "strawman" argument is ske#ered on the pitchfork of truth, it+s innards e;posed to the #ithering light of scrutiny.

Undeniable Problems
&espite his overreach, ) do appreciate the good talking points brought out by MacArthur+s rhetoric. "o#ever, ) find his cessationist e;egesis of some of the relevant scriptures to be fla#ed. ) must agree /for the most part1 #ith Andre# ,illiams in his assessment. )n fact, ) think that the division of the gifts such that the miraculous or "sign" gifts have ceased, including tongues, prophecy and healing, but the "normal" gifts like teaching carry on, is an imposed and artificial distinction based on bias, not sound e;egesis. Many of the nuances, subtleties, and vagaries of the opposing positions are touched on here !or me, the key is that 5 Cor 546, 5=458 have the gifts continuing to the perfection obtained at the second coming of Christ, not the closing of the canon. Joel 3 3@$3A places the gifts eschatologically in the last days, not limited to %entecost but starting there. There is no getting around these facts, ho#ever the case for ecstatic tongues is te;tually very #eak. "o# #eak9 .arly %entecostals themselves believed that tongues #ere real earthly languages /;enoglossia1 and not private prayer language, or "ecstatic" tongues. A ne# interpretation began to receive attention in the 5Ath century, but the traditional vie# still dominated until the mid 38th century. .ventually "categories" of tongues became accepted, accommodating "sub*ective e;periences" #ith the type of glossolalia common among pagans. 0iblical and historical support is strained, and some continuists re*ect ecstatic tongues as counterfeit, a repeat of the ancient Montanist heresy. S.!. "odd of the #ible $issionary Society investigated eighteen %entecostals who went to &apan, !hina, and India 'expecting to preach to the natives in those countries in their own tongue,( and found that by their own admission 'in no single instance have )they* been able to do so.( s these and other missionaries returned in disappointment and failure,

%entecostals were compelled to rethin+ their original view of spea+ing in tongues, -.obert $apes nderson, /ision of the 0isinherited1 "he $a+ing of merican %entecostalism2. "he conclusion was soon reached that their 3tongues" were not earthly languages but a 3heavenly, or special prayer language $ A %rivate %rayer ?anguage9 This video is produced by someone #ho gre# up in the Assemblies of 2od and is #ell ac:uainted #ith tongues. "e argues that the ecstatic tongues commonly practiced today are a counterfeit, but the true gift is legitimate, relevant, not for everyone, and produces real languages. )n addition to accepting ecstatic tongues, %entecostals also insist that A?? must speak in tongues as initial evidence of pirit 0aptism, though this is not currently accepted by most charismatics. Could it be that continuationism is correct and desiring the gifts is commendable, but these radical amendments to the nature and role of tongues are ill$ advised9 That is a vital :uestion, but it is not the only one #e should be asking. Are #arnings of a false -undalini spirit fear mongering, or some type of conspiracy theory9 )s the charismatic movement a repeat of the ancient Montanist heresy9 ,hat about the numerous tongues speaking charlatans that keep getting e;posed9 Can #e allo# sub*ective e;perience to drive our interpretation of scripture9 At the very least, these :uestions should underscore our need to be cautious and discerning $ #ere #e not told to test the pirits9 5 John <45 $ 0ear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God... )n any case, ) must add my voice to the gro#ing chorus of critics on both sides, be#ailing the loathsome and repulsive prosperity 2ospel. )t is so vile and heretical as to be beneath the dignity of a critical response. 5 Timothy B4B$ 58 condemns it, Matthe# B45A$=< as #ell, plus many other te;ts. Contrary to MacArthur+s assertions, many leaders and groups #ithin the continuist camp oppose it. ,hy make millionaires out of greedy charlatans #hile innocent children starve to death9 )f you have the means, so# into pure religion rather than feed #olves. "ere are some needy orphans #ho really do need your help $ Change for Children

Disagreements on Interpretation
)n the " trange !ire" conference, Tom %ennington makes the clearest, most direct case for cessationism. Though logically laid out, his arguments are easily countered as not demonstrably 0iblical. The short simple response of Andre# ,illiams destroys both his contentions and the foundation of the entire conference. (evertheless, %ennington+s point on ecstatic tongues vs real tongues is #ell taken, and ,illiams neatly sidestepped it.

%hil Johnson goes beyond %ennington+s clearly stated but unconvincing position. "e complains that he can+t find the "baby in the bath#ater", and dra#s the #rong conclusion out of the murk instead. ?ike MacArthur, much of #hat he says in criticism of the Charismatic movement is true, but he attacks the #eakest points, uses the most e;treme e;amples, and paints #ith too broad a brush. ) agree that charlatans abound and there is #idespread counterfeiting of gifts occurring, but does that preclude the genuine9 "is un#orkable attempt to deny modern miracles, #hile simultaneously denying charges of deism, involves some interesting theological gymnastics. ?ike %ennington, he spends a great deal of time fishing #ith the "red herring" of primary usage. ) agree that the eye#itness Apostles #ere indeed testified to #ith mighty signs and #onders, but that in no #ay limits the gifts to believers. 5 Corinthians 5<4<,3B sho#s that the specific spiritual gifts being denied, #ere given to ordinary Christians /not *ust apostles1 for the edification /or building up1 of the Church. 5 Corinthians 546, 5=4@$53 sho#s they #ill continue until the coming of the perfect #hich is the perfection obtained at the second coming of Christ /not the closing of the canon1. Johnson appeals to a need for precision of terms, but then uses providence as a sort of "#easel #ord". ,ithin 'eformed Tradition itself there is no agreement on ho# to define the #ord miracle. The simple truth is lost in a ma>e of categories and layers of providence, all convoluted around a frame#ork of predestination. "e mi;es in some valid points about fakery and frauds but after all his rationali>ing and categori>ing is over, the miraculous is buried beneath the skirts of providence, parado;ically ackno#ledged and denied by his sophistry. Modern miracles are conceded as a technical possibility under the category of rare e;traordinary providences, but denied as an e;periential reality, or as a continuation of 2od pouring out his pirit to edify the Church. lippery semantics not#ithstanding, nothing can e;tradite a cessationist from the dilemma that 2od is still immanent, still miraculously ans#ers the prayers of the faithful, and still besto#s spiritual gifts to edify and build up the body of Christ until he returns. 5 Corinthians 546 4ow you have every spiritual gift you need as you eagerly wait for the return of our 5ord &esus !hrist. ) #ould agree #ith Johnson that miracles are no #here near as routine and commonplace as the shenanigans in Charismatic circles. There are certainly tares among the #heat, shamelessly counterfeiting signs and #onders to dra# huge follo#ings after themselves. (evertheless, 2od+s arm has not been shortened, and there is no e;cuse for rank unbelief in the truly miraculous happening in the here and no#.

Musical Machinations
On the topic of #orship music, MacArthur shoots himself in the foot and sticks the other one in his mouth. "e promotes anachronistic hymns and pipe organ music as pious and reverent, #hile sanctimoniously condemning contemporary styles as unfit, irreverent, even dangerous. This is a biased unbiblical position, #hich is totally "'.&&.& in a free e$ book entitled )n &efense of Contemporary Christian Music. Think about itC "is introduction to the conference involves 2od striking do#n those #ho offer improper #orship, using ?ev. A,58 as an e;ample. ) agree, 2od is deadly serious about proper #orship. )n fact, he also struck D>>ah do#n in 5 Chron. 5=4A for simply touching the Ark. o, as MacArthur suggests #e should ask the :uestion $ #hat musical #orship style does 2od accept9 )n ans#er, #as 2od displeased or did he strike anyone do#n for their loud and *oyous musical merrymaking #hich obviously employed strong rhythm and even dance $ around that very same Ark9 3 amuel B47 And &avid and all the house of )srael #ere making merry before the ?O'&, #ith songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals... And &avid danced before the ?O'& #ith all his might. %erhaps in claiming the ,ord as his final authority, MacArthur should have the integrity to incorporate scriptures like 3 amuel B47 /not to mention %salm 5<A, 578, and do>ens more1 into his theological perspective. taid, somber, and rhythmless, does not e:uate to reverent in the 0ible. 'hythmic and danceable does not e:uate to evil in the 0ible. 2od is sovereign and can decide for himself #hat is acceptable, scripture is far from silent on the sub*ect.

Wac os vs !rainos
MacArthur also points to "#ackos" in the continuist camp, mired in gross sin and suffering from lack of scholarship. "e makes the Todd 0entleys of the charismatic movement representative of the #hole, such that they become a "stra#man" to knock do#n 788 million confessed Christians. %ersonally, ) find that to be an offensive and fallacious form of ad hominem attack. To illustrate the pe*orative nature of this unsavoury tactic, one only has to e;amine the intellectuals #ith solid degrees in theology and great ecclesiastical standing, #ho are often #orse than the "#ackos" /not that the 'eformed tree doesn+t have it+s share of nuts1. omeone may have &.&. behind their name, possess a great depth of criptural kno#ledge, be #ell spoken and #ell dressed in a dark suit or flo#ing

robes, but does that mean they are born of love, have correct doctrine, or are even remotely moral9 (ot according to the sorted history of the Church, or to recent revelations in the modern media. 0ishop 'aymond John ?ahey had a 0achelor of Theology /0.Th1, a ?icentiate in Theology /?.Th.1, and &octor of %hilosophy /%h.&.1. "e graduated magna cum laude /#ith honors $ above average1. "e served as a %rofessor of 'eligious studies, and head of the department. "e had a distinguished ecclesiastical career #ith many postings, including chancellor of a top ranked Dniversity. &espite the letters behind his name, and his scholastic kno#ledge of cripture, this man #as caught lying to protect the pedophile %riests in his charge and #as himself caught importing child pornography of the most graphic, horrendous, and torturous kind. Obviously, something more is re:uired than *ust rationally apprehending the ,ord, one must be in a saving relationship #ith the one the ,ord points to $ Jesus. This involves being born again by the pirit of 2od #ho does indeed give gifts, the greatest of #hich is love. 5 John <46$@ 6veryone who loves has been born of God and +nows God. 7hoever does not love does not +now God, because God is love. Although the abuses of the Catholic clergy are legion and infamous, %rotestant Ministers are often guilty of the same crimes, though #ell studied and holding respected positions in their various ecclesiastical institutions. )n my country /Canada1 the Catholic, Anglican, and Dnited Churches #ould A?? be bankrupt if the government did not pay off the abuse claims against them, generated by the long list of horrors perpetrated against helpless native children at residential schools. To listen to MacArthur and %hil Johnson, one #ould think the perpetrators #ere all charismatic and ignorant. %erhaps they should look in the 'eformed closet for skeletons, starting #ith Calvin #ho #as no angel as the Je#s and anabaptists can attest. ,hy limit their search engine to only find deviants in the "enemy" camp, this small study belo# provides a vie# that isn+t colored by their bias and deception. Of the accused clergy, 67 #ere Catholic priests /=A.7E1 and 555 #ere %rotestant ministers /7@E1. /Also charged #ere 5 Mormon clergyman, 5 occult minister and 3 cult ministers.1 %rotestant cases involved e:ual numbers of mainstream and fundamentalistFevangelical denominations. !lergy 7ho $olest

" !oat #eeds !oth $ars

The sad and disgusting state of affairs in the Churches today serves as a cautionary tale, but don+t let revulsion or reaction lead to e;treme positions. %erhaps this analogy #ill illustrate the basic problem. A boat needs both oars #orking in unison to travel straight and true, thro# one a#ay and you are apt to ro# in circles. .;perience and intuition should complement, not replace, supplant, or contradict the ob*ective truth of 2od+s special revelation $ the 0ible. At the same time, doctrine should not violate conscience, or th#art a living relationship #ith 2od. )f it does, it is false dogma not sound doctrine.

Consider the #ords of Christ. John <43< $ God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth. !or instance, )t #ould be a great mistake to follo# the transcendentalist 'alph ,aldo .merson in limiting oneself to individualism and the natural revelation described in 'omans 3. 2ranted, history is replete #ith #ars and in:uisitions #here false religious dogma #as enforced to the violation of 2od given conscience. "o#ever, 2od+s #ord is true and he gave it for a reason $ #e can+t thro# it a#ay because of ho# it+s been abused. The natural #itness of the inner man is important, valid, and 2od given, but it should not be the only oar in your boat. The ob*ective truth of scripture keeps one from becoming lost on a sea of sub*ective thought. 3 Timothy =45B ll Scripture is God8breathed and is useful for teaching, rebu+ing, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly e9uipped for every good wor+. Many highly trained Churchmen err in the opposite direction, and thro# a#ay the other oar. They vie# inner revelation as inherently unreliable and a potential lure a#ay from the "truths" of dogmatic religion. They give no ear to the voice of 2od in their hearts, having only a dead intellectual understanding of scripture. ,ell studied and credentialed religious academics, but bereft of relationship. Mark &riscol does a good *ob of communicating the problem in this short clip.

,e need the "oly pirit and his gifts. ". is our teacher $ the one #ho #rote the book is not limited to the book. "e speaks to us generally through creation and directly to our conscience. .ven the heathen /#ho have no scripture1 have no escape from 2od. ,hat he re:uires is written on their hearts, their o#n thoughts defending and accusing them /'omans 345<$571. "o# much more so those #ho diligently seek 2od and are receptive to his pirit9 5 John 3436 #ut you have received the :oly Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don;t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to +now, and what he teaches is true /John 5<43B, 5John =43<, 5 Cor. 3 58$5B, Col 54A1. All scripture is 2od breathed and useful in making one #ise to the #ay of salvation and

obedience. )t is the final authority on doctrine and sufficient to guide us, but book learning should lead to and inform /not replace1, a personal e;periential relationship #ith 2od through the Ministry of the pirit. 'omans @4A ...the Spirit of God lives in you. nd if anyone does not have the Spirit of !hrist, they do not belong to !hrist. ?isten to this short clip from John MacArthur and you #ill reali>e that he has only one oar in his boat. "e makes the 0ible the O?. authority and source of revelation, but ola criptura doesn+t deny other sources it only subordinates them to scripture. There is a huge difference.

The pirit inspired the scriptures and MacArthur is absolutely right that #e should study them. They are truth, they are authoritative, they do have a sanctifying effect, #e should internali>e them, they do speak to us, #e should share them, but he leaves out the most important thing $ #e should do #hat they say. -no#ledge of scripture is not an end in and of itself $ they point us to Jesus. ,e must choose to let Christ into our hearts for real, not *ust as a theoretical abstraction of intellect. Christ didn+t *ust leave us a book, he left us his pirit. ,e must partake of the divine nature, there is a synergism #hich must take place and it is more than *ust studying scripture. ,e must be led by the pirit /'omans @45<1. 5 Cor. B45A ,hat9 kno# ye not that your body is the temple of the "oly 2host #hich is in you, #hich ye have of 2od... )ronically, the book itself tells us that, but some are forever studying and never coming to a kno#ledge of truth. )n that short clip, as in many of his diatribes, MacArthur calls upon his "stra#man" to deceptively mischaracteri>e Charismatics as 0iblically illiterate. Mean#hile, they apparently kno# scripture better than he does, because they seek the pirit of 2od and his gifts as the book says #e should. ?uke 554A$5= s+ and it will be given...how much more will your Father in heaven give the :oly Spirit to those who as+ him< 5 Cor. 5<453 Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church.

The %ise of !ibliolatr&

There are currently over <8,888 denominations #ho disagree over doctrine. Men have argued, fought, and killed over the meaning of scripture for centuries. ,hy are there so many interpretations #hen there is only one pirit9 ?ong ago, the Catholic Church elevated it+s teaching authority over scripture They claimed that their Magisterium had to interpret it for us, usurping the pirit+s role as teacher. ,hen %rotestants broke a#ay, they rightly upheld scripture over tradition, but neglected to restore the Ministry of the pirit to it+s rightful place. Cursory ackno#ledgment #as given, but in their great rush to defend the sufficiency of scripture, the role of the pirit in illuminating scripture #as an afterthought at best. "4evertheless, we ac+nowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the 7ord" /,estminster Confession of faith, B4B1. The 'eformation left us a #ealth of sermons, creeds, and treatises defending the sufficiency of scripture but today they are often misapplied and misunderstood. Originally #ritten to defend against the traditions of 'ome, they are no# used by some against the "oly pirit. They think the pirit+s ministry #as confined to inspiring the book and is no# over. (o longer does he speak through nature, or e;perience, or relationship, or strive #ith men+s hearts. Contact #ith 2od has been reduced to a rationalist understanding of scripture. 2uidance from 2od through dreams, visions, prophetic #ords, #ords of kno#ledge and #isdom are re*ected outright, as a knee$*erk reaction to the counterfeits of charlatans. !ear of receiving a false pirit has led to e;clusion of the true pirit. )llumination of scripture becomes impossible, and multiplied disagreements among dead religionists abound. This do#nloadable %&! by J.%. Moreland %h.&., Th.M., e;plains ho# 0ibliolatry has become entrenched in .vangelical Christianity. "e is one of the fe# scholars seeing the issue clearly and raising the alarm. To be fair, here is a defense against the charge of 0ibliolatry by John MacArthur. MacArthur once again evokes his "stra#man" and argues from e;tremes. "e grudgingly concedes to the need for illumination and ind#elling, albeit in the most diminished sense possible. "e admits he has never really felt the presence of 2od, and sees the pirit as a one time permanent deposit that is static, unchanging, and imperceptible, rather than a person #e have a dynamic living relationship #ith. ,e receive the pirit #hen #e enter into a saving relationship #ith 2od, but #hat of all the verses that e;plain the nature of this relationship9 ,hether one believes in a secondary baptism of the pirit, or being filled and refilled, it is evident that the relationship is not static. 2od is seeking us, but are #e pursuing him, yielding to him, limiting him, or

e;cluding him. "ere is a do#nloadable %&! that e;plains $ ,e have as much of 2od as #e actually #ant.G H A.,. To>er )t is up to us to let him in /'ev. =4381. ,e must ask for the "oly pirit /?uke 5545=1. ,e can :uench /5 Thess. 745A1, #e can grieve /.ph. <4=81, #e can resist /Acts 64751, #e can blaspheme /Mark =43A1, or #e can be #illingly led by the pirit /'omans @45<1.This synergy created by our desiring, yielding, and cooperating is the key to life in the pirit. ,e can be !)??.& /.ph. 745@1 and unlike the barrenness of MacArthur+s self imposed desolation, the pirit+s presence ) kno#n by those #ho are *oined to "im. 'omans @45B "he Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God;s children. )f the pirit lives in you, ". can lead you into a right understanding of the book, since ". inspired it. )f you make the book the only oar in your boat, you are doomed to go in circles that lead no #here, lost on an endless sea of dead religion. 5 Corinthians 345< $ #ut people who aren;t spiritual can;t receive these truths from God;s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can;t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. ufficiency of scripture doesn+t mean the book is sufficient to save you, it+s only sufficient to guide you into a spiritual relationship #ith the one #ho can save you $ Jesus Christ. "is #ords to the %harisees are *ust as relevant today as they #ere then4 John 74=A$<8 You diligently study the Scriptures because you thin+ that #Y ":6$ you possess eternal life. "hese are the Scriptures that testify #=>" $6, yet you refuse to come "= $6 to have life.

" 'uestion of !alance

?et+s get do#n to #here the rubber meets the road. Most Christians #ould agree that there is a great danger to abandoning oneself to sensationalism, sub*ective e;periences, and untested pirits. On the other hand, the pirit of 2od is real and the ob*ective truth of scripture should not be only intellectuali>ed, such that there is no e;periential relationship #ith 2od. The pirit of 2od must live in us, such that #e are born of his ind#elling presence. This rebirth is no less than supernatural, e;periential, and miraculous. The debate is not so much about continuationism vs cessationism, as it is about the influence of rationalism and supranaturalism on the interpretation of scripture. ,hich philosophical and linguistic hermeneutics are considered to be applicable, #hat interpretive formula is to be applied. "o# can bias born of preconceived notions be prevented from coloring the e;egesis brought to the table by each camp. Most %rotestants /including me1, believe in ola

criptura #hich does not deny other authorities but demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the #ritten #ord of 2od. "o#ever, as in the ,esleyan Iuadrilateral, some /lesser1 #eight has to be given to reason, tradition, and e;perience. )t+s this balance that is at issue. 'eformed %rotestants are :uick to point out the danger of %rima criptura /and ) agree1, but they are seemingly oblivious to 0ibliolatry. cripture is the final authority, but #e are not to make an idol out of our 0ible such that it replaces a relationship #ith 2od. The .nlightenment gave rationalism a prominent place at the table, but #e must not become fettered by chains of reason. Tradition shouldn+t be undervalued, it bears the #itness of history. %ersonal e;perience cannot be dismissed, as it validates the 0iblical promises of 2od as reali>ed and present in the life of a believer. To kno# 2od is to be born of love #hich is a mystical, supernatural e;perience. ?ike the #ind in the trees, it+s something hard to pin do#n #ith #ords or logic. At some point, #e must ackno#ledge the limits of rationalism and stop trying to catch time in a bottle. 2od transcends our understanding, his #ays are past finding out /'omans 554==1. Moreover, it is the immanence of 2od that is being denied by cessationists, almost to the point of becoming deists /though they deny this1. The rationalism of the enlightenment /#hile beneficial in many respects1, s#ung the pendulum too far, leaving no room for mystery and no possibility for the truly miraculous. ?ike the people of Christ+s hometo#n, cessationists don+t have faith to e;perience the miraculous. They have no e;pectancy of 2od pouring out his po#er, even though he stands in their midst.

What "bout the Gifts?

&oes the pirit of 2od still give gifts9 Jes, different ones to different members of the body as he sees fit. )n fact, #e are to desire the better gifts such as prophecy, and use them to edify the body. %aul+s :uestion $ do all speak in tongues, carries it+s o#n ans#er $ no. Are these tongues real languages9 They #ere on the day of %entecost #hen they #ere first poured out. The case for ecstatic tongues, or a private prayer language, is /to be generous1 te;tually very #eak. To be fair, that interpretation can be found here, a refutation can be found here /decide for yourself1. )n any case, no one should be "babbling" in Church #ith no interpreter, that is e;pressly forbidden. )t must be ackno#ledged that sincere Christians, genuinely seeking 2od are speaking in ecstatic tongues, but so are kno#n charlatans. Moreover, Koodoo practitioners, 0uddhist and hinto priests, Muslim dervishes, )ndian fakirs, #itches, spiritualists, and "indu gurus can also speak #ith ecstatic tongues. pastic movements, shaking, energy, ecstasy, laughter, love, miracles, and healings are also associated #ith their manifestations. )n light of these facts, it seems un#ise to allo# these sub*ective e;periences to influence our interpretation of scripture. On the other hand, #e can+t rule out the genuine, *ust because there are counterfeits. o, #here does that leave us9 This video belo# from %astor Tim Con#ay attempts to address that :uestion.

The ecstatic tongues controversy is as old as Montanism, and has flared up again and again over the centuries. The arguments have gro#n increasingly sophisticated but the underlying tension remains unresolved. ,e are right to desire spiritual gifts, but at the same time #e must test the spirits to see #hether they are from 2od /5 John <451. The 0ible #arns that convincing signs and #onders #ill be used in an attempt to deceive in the last days. "For there shall arise false !hrists, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders? insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." Matt. 3<43< LMark 5=433M ?uke 354@N o, are the gifts really for today9 Jes, but given as ". sees fit, in ") timing, according to ") #ill, to fit ") plan. )n longing for them, don+t thro# caution to the #ind and accept counterfeits $ test the spirits. The genuine gifts are given to build up the body, not for individuals to dra# attention to self, authenticate false doctrines /or teachers1, or to replace orderly edifying Church services, #ith the babbling spasmodic ecstasies of paganism. Avoid the e;tremes on this issue as in so many others. 'ather than become polari>ed and create a false controversy #here none should e;ist, #e should attempt to integrate the ob*ective truth of sound doctrine, #ith a personal born again e;perience, #hereby 2od+s pirit ind#ells, gifts, guides, empo#ers, sanctifies, and most importantly imparts love. After all, if it does not become natural for us to love, then #e have missed the boat entirely and our faith is in vain $ no matter #hat theological position #e hold on these issues. 5 Corinthians 5=45$3 If I spea+ with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and +now all mysteries and all +nowledge? and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. -en 'ich kenrich.me /3<F55F5=1 ?atest Kersion4 http4FFindiegospel.orgFprofilesFblogsFstrange$fire