Strange Fire Misfire

The "Strange Fire" conference held by John MacArthur and friends has caused quite a stir in Protestant circles.  But what is somebody like me supposed to make of all this?  Here it is.

John MacArthur is a cessationist, believing the gifts believed in by the charismatic movement have ceased.  I used to be a cessationist.  I was a cessationist, mainly, because I attended cessationist churches with cessationist leaders and listened to teachers that were cessationists.  The only arguments to the contrary were from continuationists - those who believed that the gifts in question continue to this present day.  Their arguments were mostly brought by the cessationists in order to show how they were wrong.  So, I had a biased view of the issues.

I'm not a cessationist

I stopped being a cessationist when I stopped listening to cessationist arguments and the proof texts they used.  I found that I could not support their arguments from the bible alone.  Their arguments were largely logical conclusions that they reached.  The foremost is the closure of canon.  The gifts of tongues and prophesy were used by God as new revelation because the bible wasn't complete yet.  The New Testament was still a work in progress.  Once the bible was complete, God stopped bringing new revelation because the bible is our final authority.  With the bible complete, we no longer need revelation.

But where does the bible say that all use of tongues and prophesy necessarily introduces new revelation not previously available to God's people?  If prophesy is declaring the word of the Lord, it certainly can include declaring an already existing part of scripture but simply applying it to a given situation.  Same with tongues.  Tongues were speaking to somebody who spoke a different language, but the hearer heard your words in his language.  Why does that necessarily mean new revelation?  In Acts, on the day of Pentecost, those who were speaking in tongues were simply "speaking the mighty deeds of God." Acts 2:11.  Additionally, Paul says in Corinthians that tongues shall cease.  But he doesn't say when.  So, I don't buy the arguments for a cessationist viewpoint.

I'm not a continuationist

But neither am I a continuationist.  By that I mean that I don't believe that these gifts are a normative thing for all believers in all ages.  I reject the idea that all true believers must speak in tongues or prophesy, and I also reject the idea that tongues are a second blessing that come at a later time than conversion.  One is baptised at conversion, then a second "baptism in the Holy Spirit" gives one extra gifts.  I don't believe this, and the arguments of the continuationists are the same as the arguments of the cessationists; logical conclusions based on their own interpretations.

I'm neither

I'm neither a cessationist nor a continuationist.  I hear of Acts-like conversion stories for Muslim converts in the Middle East.  I've heard of people claiming to speak in tongues.  But for me, experientially, I've never heard anybody speak in tongues, and I've never had anybody directly tell me they speak in tongues.  And I attended a Pentecostal church for two and a half years!  I'm open to God being God and using what He wants when He wills.  I don't have these gifts, but what if others legitimately do?  I can't prove they don't, and I can't prove they do.

But I can question the extremes on both ends, legitimately.

John MacArthur on Public Criticism

Blogger Tim Challies conducted a ten question interview - on various topics - with evangelical pastor John MacArthur, and has split the interview into two parts on his blog, Challies.com.  In part 2 of this interview, Challies asks MacArthur the following question:

How can we best critique people who are “in our camp” and yet believe things different from us? Or behave in ways we do not appreciate? How can we know where to draw those lines?

In his response, which touches several aspects of criticism, MacArthur gives his own interpretation of people "in our camp," which he "understand[s] to mean those who affirm a biblical gospel but differ with us on secondary issues."  A final thought MacArthur gives on this subject is the following:

One final thought to add is this: I believe that it is appropriate to respond publicly to that which has been taught publicly. If someone has published something in a book or on a blog or preached it in a sermon (which has then been made available online), it is now subject to public critique. I certainly believe this is true with regard to my own teachings. Anything I have preached or published (and therefore made public) is consequently subject to public criticism. And I don’t consider my critics to necessarily be unloving just because they disagree with me. In fact, I welcome their feedback, because it is part of the sharpening process.

Very interesting.  Very interesting, indeed.  I think I'm going to hold on to this quote for those people who have been critical of the times other people have been critical of MacArthur and other public figures.  How do you criticize a critic for being critical?

Doing What You Desire In The Lord

I was reading a very short post on Pulpit Magazine by John MacArthur about the decision making process of the Christian. He boils it down to three factors. First, if it is prohibited by Scripture, don't do it. Second, you need wisdom. Third, consider your own desires.

In short, if it's okay to do, then do it if you desire. I agree with this, and don't think I hear it enough from conservative leaders that doing what you want, if it's not wrong, is what God uses to advance his kingdom. But in real life there's a catch...

What is prohibited by Scripture or dictated against by wisdom is a great debate within Christianity. Coming to your own conclusions may irk quite a few people and gain their judgment against you. Laundry lists of sins not actually prohibited by the bible make an impact upon people that can be very negative, and liberty is lost.

I've never heard a legalist describe himself as such, have you?

A Few Homeschooling Thoughts

A while back I posted some thoughts on homeschooling that were triggered by an article by John MacArthur on homeschooling. I have found differing views on homeschooling within the Christian community. Many favor it. Many believe it is mandated by the bible. Some doubt it. Here in California, it is as common as water with people I know, and isn't only a Christian phenomenon. One family I know homeschooled their children here, then moved to a part of the Midwest where homeschooling was almost non-existent and seemed to be reserved for a cultist mentality.

One thing I've come to realize is that homeschooling is only as productive and valuable as the parents make it. Several of my friends are avid homeschoolers. For one family, it is a major part of life. They organize groups and go to conferences and promote curricula. Another has homeschooled all their children for decades now. You might call these people experts. Yet, one thing they have in common is that they believe there are many families that simply shouldn't be homeschooling. One says about a third of families shouldn't be, while the other has a laundry list of abuses and failures observed over the years.

Some families homeschool out of conviction. Others because they believe the public schools are lacking. Some believe the public schools indoctrinate children in false belief systems, while many of these same people believe the public schools are poor at educating children. If the public schools are so bad at educating, how come they are so good at indoctrinating? Popular songs by Alice Cooper and Pink Floyd make me wonder just how indoctrinated all the children really are. In any case, if homeschoolers can effectively make a difference in the world, then great. The foot is in the door in this country and hopefully the bad examples don't make it tough on the good ones.

Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 2)

Read entire series here and Part 1 here.

It just so happens that after my decision to start this series that Pulpit Magazine (a ministry of Shepherd's Fellowship, with John MacArthur and other pastors at Grace Community Church) decided to run a two part series on church membership. Read part 1 here and part 2 here. I have commented in each section at least once, and I think the content of both their original posts as well as the comments sections will provide a wealth of topic matter as I discuss church membership.

Part 1 . . . . . . . . Part 3

John MacArthur's Wine List

I came across a written outline of a sermon John MacArthur preached a number of years ago about alcohol in the life of the Christian. I heard this sermon on his radio program. In this sermon, he asks eight questions of his listeners in order for them to examine their own lives in light of the bible's teachings about alcohol. I've decided to answer these questions here.

Question #1: Is drinking wine today the same as in Bible times?

I don't know, I wasn't alive then. But if they enjoyed it as much as I do, then praise God.

Question #2: Is drinking wine necessary?

No, but it sure can be a blessing.

Question #3: Is drinking wine the best choice?

No, beer is.

Question #4: Is drinking wine habit forming?

It can be - for some people. It is for me. I have a habit of drinking one beer per day, plus or minus. A little wine (always red) here and there, too.

Question #5: Is drinking wine potentially destructive?

Yes, but so is reading the bible.

Question #6: Is my drinking wine offensive to other Christians?

I don't know, I've never been confronted by somebody who claimed to be offended. I'd hate to think that there are Christians out there who are harboring secret grudges against me for enjoying God's creation, which He pronounced "good," by the way.

Question #7: Will drinking wine harm my Christian testimony?

No, actually it has helped it fairly well.

Question #8: Am I absolutely certain drinking wine is right?

Yes. Hey, "absolutely" is a good word for this question!

Any more questions?