THE CASE FOR CESSATIONISM STILL STANDS

by Tom PenningtonPastor-Teacher, Countryside Bible Church, Southlake, Texas
When Grace to You asked me to present the biblical case for cessationism at the Strange Fire conference last October, I was excited about the opportunity.  Although I am a convinced cessationist and had addressed this issue with my own congregation, I spent several months studying the Scripture and reading the relevant literature on both sides of this contentious issue.  But it wasn’t long before my initial euphoria turned to discouragement.
The problem was not (as some continuationists argue) because there is insufficient biblical evidence for cessationism to preach on for an hour.  My problem was the sheer extravagance of biblical material.  I was faced with a difficult decision between equally tempting choices:  to spend the hour I was given developing one argument or to present a brief summary of the primary arguments.  Both choices were fraught with slippery slopes and gaping chasms.  If I concentrated on one argument, the uninformed on both sides of the issue would race to the conclusion that cessationism is a tune with only one string and one note.  But if I tried to cover all the main arguments, I would have to leave crucial points and counterpoints on the cutting-room floor, appearing to leave holes in an argument that has none.  If you listened to my message at Strange Fire, you know that I eventually opted for the lesser of two evils—the second.  
In light of the difficulty of that decision, I have been fascinated by the responses to the biblical case I presented.  Cessationists have written to say that the conference strengthened their confidence in the Scripture.  I have heard from practicing charismatics who had been told there are no biblical arguments for cessationism but who were troubled by what they saw in their churches.  In God’s providence they listened to Strange Fire, the truth they heard resonated with their hearts, and they have since left the charismatic movement for good.
Frankly, much of the online opposition has been all heat and no light.  Some critiques have been so apparently self-defeating that they neither require nor deserve a reasoned response.  Among the mostly gracious and careful responses to the case for cessationism, Andrew Wilson’s critique stands out.  Several on both sides of the issue have suggested I respond to the issues he raised.  So that is what I will do here.
Surprisingly, Wilson devotes the first half of his critique to defending the common arguments for continuationism that I mentioned in passing in my introduction.  First, he quotes the arguments as Tim Challies summarized them, and then he defends them.  So I will quote Challies’s summaries and the key portions of Wilson’s critique.

(1) The New Testament doesn’t say they [miraculous gifts] have ceased. But then again, it doesn’t say that they won’t either.

Wilson responds:

The burden of proof is firmly on the shoulders of the one who would place a break at the end of the New Testament period, for the simple reason that, throughout Scripture, substantial changes in the way God communicates with people—and cessationism posits a substantial change… —are clearly communicated.

But there were, in fact, two huge changes at the end of the New Testament period—changes that even most charismatics (including Wilson) admit can be discerned from the New Testament but that are not clearly announced in one clarion passage.  Those two changes are (1) the end of the unique apostolate and (2) the end of canonical revelation.  When charismatics state their case against cessationism as Wilson does, they unintentionally also surrender the field to apostolic succession and ongoing canonical revelation.

(2) 1 Corinthians 13:10 - they [continuationists] say this means that only when Christ returns will the partial gifts of tongues and prophecies cease. This implies that the gifts continue. But this is an uncertain interpretation.

To this argument Wilson responds:

The charismatic case here [1 Corinthians 13:10] is immensely strong (and the overwhelming scholarly consensus in the commentaries would confirm this). For Paul, the imperfect (prophecy, tongues, knowledge) will cease at the arrival of the perfect (the return of Christ, when we shall see him face to face). Not much uncertainty there.

That is a case of both overstatement and misdirection.  It is overstatement because a survey of commentaries will reveal as many as ten possible interpretations of what “the perfect” is.  It is misdirection in that charismatics ignore that for most of church history this text was used primarily to argue against the continuation of the miraculous gifts.  I freely admit that some cessationists have tried to make this text bear too much weight.  But it is equally true that many charismatics, including Wilson in the quote above, try to make it bear too much weight in their defense.

(3) The New Testament speaks only of the church age, and so, [continuationists] argue, the gifts that began the church age should continue throughout it. They say we artificially divide it between apostolic and post-apostolic eras. But they do this, too, by not believing that the apostolic office still continues.

Wilson writes:

Actually, a huge number of charismatics don’t believe this at all. Many believe, for reasons outlined in my recent article in JETS, that even in the New Testament period there were eyewitness apostles (the twelve, Paul, James) and people who never witnessed the resurrection but were referred to as apostles anyway (Apollos, very likely Barnabas, Silas, possibly Timothy, and so on), and that while the eyewitness category ceased with Paul, the other category didn’t.

Here, I confess, I was personally disappointed in Wilson.  His comments reveal either that he just read the paraphrased version of my message on Tim Challies’s site or that he was careless—either of which is troubling in a person of his intelligence and education.
If he had listened to my complete message or read the transcript, he would have known that I acknowledged that most charismatics don’t believe there are eyewitness apostles today.  That was my point.  I specifically said that unless charismatics believe that there are apostles today at the same level as Peter and Paul—and most charismatics don’t—they also divide the church age.  And they relegate at least apostleship solely to the apostolic era.  They have become de facto cessationists—at least in part.
Positing a second tier of apostles as some do (which ignores any nontechnical, nontitular sense of the word apostolos in the New Testament) doesn’t change the point.  In fact, their protest proves the point.  There was a marked difference between the apostolic and postapostolic eras.  And by agreeing that the most significant mark of the age of the apostles—the men Jesus Himself appointed and called to be His official proxies—ceased, charismatics tacitly accept one of the key tenets of cessationism.

(4) 500 million professing Christians who claim charismatic experiences can’t all be wrong.  But if we accept this, then logically we should accept the miracles attested to by one billion Catholics in the world.  The truth is that 500 million-plus people can be wrong.

Wilson responds:

This is not really a fair representation of any responsible charismatic argument. Of course billions of people can be wrong: billions of people do not believe the gospel, and virtually no charismatic would contest that. A fairer representation would be to say that, in order to explain the enormous number of miraculous experiences testified to by charismatics . . . a cessationist has to resort to an awful lot of accusations of fraud, deliberate deceit and delusion amongst some extremely level-headed, critical and theologically informed individuals.

My statement is not only a fair representation of responsible charismatic argument, it is a very common—albeit informal—argument of reputable charismatic authors and scholars, as well as laymen.  To appeal as Wilson does to what he calls the “enormous number of miraculous experiences testified to by charismatics” only reinforces my point.  We have to accuse more than a billion Roman Catholics of “fraud, deliberate deceit and delusion” to reject their “miracles,” yet that is exactly what the church has always done—and what I suspect Wilson himself does.  If charismatics want to argue that sheer numbers lend credibility to their “miracles,” they have to own the weakness that comes with this argument.
After spending half of his critique on the arguments continuationists use to defend their position, to which I devoted less than five minutes, Wilson comes to the primary arguments I presented.
I began by defining cessationism.  Cessationists believe it is neither the Spirit’s plan nor His normal pattern to distribute miraculous spiritual gifts to Christians and churches today as He did in the time of the apostles.  Those gifts ceased being normative with the apostles.  In Scripture we find at least seven arguments that the miraculous gifts have ceased.  Again, since Wilson quotes Challies’s summary of my points, I will as well.

(1) The unique role of miracles.  There were only three primary periods in which God worked miracles through unique men. The first was with Moses; the second was during the ministries of Elijah and Elisha; the third was with Christ and his apostles.  The primary purpose of miracles has always been to establish the credibility of one who speaks the word of God—not just any teacher, but those who had been given direct words by God.

Wilson writes:

The crucial word here, which appears twice and is somewhat mysterious on both occasions, is “primary.”  Where in the Bible does it say that the miracles of Moses, Elijah or Elisha are more “primary” than those of Joshua (opening the Jordan and stopping the sun in its tracks isn’t bad), or Samuel (who had the odd prophecy), or David or Solomon, or Isaiah, or Daniel, or for that matter any of the canonical prophets (who, by Pennington’s definition, are exercising miraculous gifts)?

First of all, the point is not about God’s working miracles directly—something He did as He chose in both Old and New Testament history.  Instead, the focus was on those epochs in redemptive history when God chose to give men the capacity to work miracles.  There is a difference between God’s giving Moses the capacity to perform miracles and God’s directly giving Samson superhuman strength.  Samson used the strength God gave him, but he never performed a miracle.  And prophecy is a miraculous gift because God miraculously reveals His truth to a man.  But the prophet is not performing a miracle.
When you examine the biblical record, it is clear that there were three main time periods when there were miracle-working men.  Again, Wilson apparently didn’t listen to my message or read the transcript, because the first period I mentioned was not that of Moses but that of “Moses and Joshua.”  And although God performed miracles directly during the ministries of Samuel, David, Isaiah, and Daniel, where is the biblical evidence that they were given miracle-working power in the way Moses and Joshua or Elijah and Elisha were?  Create a comprehensive list of miracles performed by men in Scripture—not those performed by God directly—and the resulting list will support the point.  In thousands of years of human history, there were only about two hundred years in which God empowered men to work miracles.  And even during those years, miracles were not common, everyday events.
Wilson adds:

Where does it say that the “primary” purpose of a miracle is always to establish the credibility of the one who speaks the word of God?  One might have thought the primary purpose of the exodus was to lead Israel out of slavery, and the primary purpose of the fall of Jericho was to defeat God’s enemies, and the primary purpose of the destruction of the Assyrians was to preserve Jerusalem, and so on. And even if the “primary” purpose of all miracles was authenticating a preacher, which cannot be shown, it would by no means indicate that this was the only purpose.

When God granted Moses—the first human miracle worker—the power to work miracles, He gave Moses only one reason:  “that they may believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you” (Exodus 4:5).  I provided a number of other examples throughout the Scripture to demonstrate that God’s primary purpose in giving men power to work miracles was to validate them as His messengers.  Of course, God used Moses’ miracles to free Israel from Egyptian bondage.  But why did God give miracle-working capacity to Moses, rather than simply free the Israelites Himself?  According to God’s own statement, it was to validate His messenger.  At Sinai, no one doubted that Moses spoke for God.  Look up the other references I cited and you will find exactly the same pattern.

(2) The end of the gift of apostleship. In two places in the New Testament Paul refers to the apostles as one of the gifts Christ gave his church (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4).

Most Christians, including most evangelical charismatics, agree that there are no more apostles like the twelve or like Paul.  So at least one New Testament gift—the gift of apostleship—has ceased.  That means there is a significant difference in the work of the Spirit between the time of the apostles and today, because one of the most miraculous displays of the Spirit disappeared with the passing of the apostolic age. Once you agree that there are no apostles today at the same level with Peter and Paul, you have admitted there was a major change in the gifting of the Spirit between the Apostolic Age and the post-apostolic age.  The one New Testament gift most frequently associated with miracles—the gift of apostleship—ceased.
Wilson responds:

This argument takes us nowhere: all agree that the eyewitness apostles have ceased, and all agree that (say) pastors and teachers have not ceased.  Only if we can show that all New Testament miracles, prophecies, tongues and healings came via apostles—which is patently not the case—would this hold any water at all.

Here, Wilson’s argument isn’t clear, but he seems to be relying on an article he wrote for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) in which he argues for a two-tier approach to apostleship.  He maintains that the Twelve, Paul, and several others were “eyewitness apostles,” and those have ceased.  But there are lower level apostles who are the Spirit’s ongoing gift to the church.
Wilson concludes his JETS article with this:

Within conservative evangelicalism, it has become commonplace to divide the apostolate into two, neat types.  There are the Apostles (capital “A”) of Jesus Christ, comprising the twelve, James, Barnabas, possibly Silas, and then finally Paul: eyewitnesses of the resurrection, officers of the church, personally commissioned by Jesus, and with the capacity to write or authorise the scriptures, pioneer into new areas, lay foundations in churches, and exercise authority over them.  Then there are the apostles (lower case “a”) of the churches, including Andronicus, Junia, Epaphroditus, the brothers of 2 Cor 8:23, and possibly Timothy: messengers that were sent out among the churches, but with no eyewitness appearances or commission from Jesus, and without the capacity to write Scripture, pioneer, lay foundations or exercise authority over churches.  On this view, although there is occasional debate (as to which category, say, Eph 4:11 should correspond to), it is theoretically possible to dig up every occurrence of the word apostolos and put it squarely into one of these two categories.

The view that Wilson rejects above is not merely the common view of “conservative evangelicalism.”  It is the understanding of historic Christianity and even of many charismatic theologians.  Wilson finishes his JETS article by saying that a possible reference to Apollos as an apostle in 1 Corinthians 4:9 (which the entire article argues for but never proves) “may . . . suggest that, according to Paul, although the appearances of the risen Jesus ceased with Paul’s encounter on the Damascus road, the apostoloi did not” (emphasis added).  In other words, maybe there is another office in the church—Apostle, Second-Class—that continued after the death of the Paul and the twelve.
The weight of proving this novel idea falls on charismatics.  Wilson’s conclusion that the best evidence he can muster “may suggest” a two-tiered apostolate is hardly enough to overturn two millennia of Spirit-enabled interpretation.  The argument for cessationism based on the end of the gift of apostleship stands.

(3) The foundational nature of the New Testament apostles and prophets.  The New Testament identifies the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20-22). In the context, it is clear that Paul is referring here not to Old Testament prophets but to New Testament prophets.  Once the apostles and prophets finished their role in laying the foundation of the church, their gifts were completed.

Wilson:

This [argument] runs aground on the sandbanks of Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 in particular, in which it is assumed that local churches experience prophecy in their meetings, yet without such prophecy serving as foundational for the church for all time, or being written down in the canon.  Clearly, there is a foundational role for the apostles and prophets of whom Paul speaks in Ephesians (2:20; 3:6), but this in no way implies either that all prophecy has now ceased, or (obviously) that tongues or healings have now ceased.

Most charismatics admit that the New Testament “prophets of whom Paul speaks in Ephesians (2:20; 3:6)” play “a foundational role.”  But then without any clear scriptural support, they assume that the prophecy mentioned in Romans and 1 Corinthians must be lower level prophecies.  However, if there are not two levels of prophecy—which remains unproven—then Ephesians 2 is definitive.  Both the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, and their roles were never intended to last.

(4) The nature of the New Testament miraculous gifts. If the Spirit was still moving as he was in the first century, then you would expect that the gifts would be of the same type. Consider the speaking of tongues. At Pentecost, the languages spoken were already existing, understandable languages. The New Testament gift was speaking in a known language and dialect, not an ecstatic language like you see people speaking in today. Prophecies (which were then infallible) and healings are also different in character today from the NT period.

Wilson writes:

Again, this hits serious problems when it comes to 1 Corinthians 12-14, which scholars widely agree refers to ecstatic speech rather than known earthly languages, and to prophetic revelation which needs to be weighed or judged, rather than instantly being added to the infallible canon of scripture.

Contrary to what Wilson implies, there are many scholarly works and commentaries that do not support the view that 1 Corinthians 14 refers to ecstatic speech.  But even more important is the analogy of Scripture.  When Luke wrote the book of Acts, he knew what Paul had written six or seven years earlier in 1 Corinthians 14.  Moreover, Luke knew what was actually happening in the church in Corinth.  Yet without any caveat, Luke defines speaking in tongues as “we hear them speak in our own language” or our own dialect (Acts 2:7-8).
Wilson:

To say, further, that healings are different in character is to beg the question: there are numerous testimonies out there (I have heard many personally) of blind eyes seeing, deaf ears opening, the lame walking and even the dead being raised, unless one prejudges the veracity of such testimonies by assuming cessationism (or, of course, naturalism).

It is important to remember that all Christians believe God can cause blind eyes to see, open deaf ears, and even cause the lame to walk again.  But the key issue is whether God still distributes to people the miraculous ability to heal others.  When it comes to the supposed modern miraculous gift of healing, there are always “testimonies out there” and those who believe them “have heard many personally.”  But there are rarely firsthand accounts, and there is never verifiable evidence of the miraculous gift of healing—much less of the ability to raise the dead!

(5) The testimony of church history. The practice of apostolic gifts declines even during the lifetimes of the apostles. Even in the written books of the New Testament, the miraculous gifts are mentioned less as the date of their writing gets later. After the New Testament era, we see the miraculous gifts cease. John Chrysostom and Augustine speak of their ceasing.

Wilson:

There are two errors here. The first is that miracles are mentioned less in New Testament books that are written later; the book of Acts is certainly written after the books of 1 Thessalonians and James, and very probably after the other Paulines and Petrines, yet contains far more miracles (and John, among the latest books, has one or two miracles in it as well!).

I was not speaking of the working of miracles by the apostles (2 Corinthians 12:12) as Wilson seems to imply, but rather of the miraculous gifts given to individual Christians other than the apostles. When you trace the practice of the miraculous gifts by those other than the apostles against a time line of New Testament history and its letters, you will find that the miraculous gifts decline in their mention and use even during the apostolic period.
Wilson continues:

The second [error] is that we see the miraculous gifts cease after the New Testament; again, this begs the question by assuming that subsequent accounts of and responses to miraculous or prophetic activity, from the Didache and the Montanists onwards, are inaccurate or exaggerated. . . .  In any case, this sort of argument—that, since something gradually disappeared from the church over the course of the first two or three centuries, it must therefore be invalid—should strike any five sola Protestant as providing several hostages to fortune.”

Many scholars believe the original version of the Didache was probably written during the apostolic age, so it proves nothing about the continuation of the miraculous gifts after the time of the apostles.  There are scattered reports of the miraculous throughout church history, but many of them are connected to groups and leaders whose doctrine was seriously aberrant in some way.  And in spite of Tertullian’s connection to the Montanists, the church eventually spoke with one voice against them.
The consistent testimony of the church’s key leaders is that the miraculous and revelatory spiritual gifts ended with the Apostolic Age—they didn’t “gradually disappear” over several centuries.  I provided a sampling of quotes from across church history as proof.  John MacArthur cites many others in his book Strange Fire.  The consistent testimony of the Christian church’s key leaders across church history poses a huge problem for our continuationist friends.  As Sinclair Ferguson expressed it, continuationism provides no convincing theological explanation for the disappearance of certain gifts during most of church history.

(6) The sufficiency of Scripture. The Spirit speaks only in and through the inspired Word. He doesn’t call and direct his people through subjective messages and modern day bestsellers. His word is external to us and objective.

Wilson responds:

This is not so much an argument for cessationism as a restatement of it. Suffice it to say that James and Paul, to mention just two apostles, envisage Christians being given wisdom by God, experiencing the Spirit crying out “Abba!” in their hearts, and being given spontaneous revelation during church meetings, none of which conflict with their high view of the scriptures.”

I intentionally did not develop this point, because I knew Steve Lawson planned to address this issue in his message on sola Scriptura.  You can listen to or read Steve’s excellent defense here.

 (7) The New Testament governed the miraculous gifts. Whenever the New Testament gift of tongues was to be practiced, there were specific rules that were to be followed. There was to be order and structure, as well as an interpreter. Paul also lays down rules for prophets and prophecy. Tragically most charismatic practice today clearly disregards these commands. The result is not a work of the spirit but of the flesh.

Wilson writes:

I’m not qualified to comment on whether this is true of “most” charismatics, rather than “some,” but to the extent that this is true, I wholeheartedly agree with Pennington that miraculous gifts need to be governed and practiced wisely, in line with the New Testament.  Clearly, however, this is not an argument against using charismatic gifts—it is an argument against using charismatic gifts badly.

To his credit, Wilson decries the unbiblical practice of the charismatic gifts.  And I would agree that there are a few charismatic churches making valiant efforts at following Paul’s directives.  But he is too well read and informed not to know that charismatics claim to be 500 million strong.  Of that number, more than 125 million are Roman Catholics who have embraced a false gospel.  And of the remaining number, even charismatic writers estimate that close to 40 percent of the 500 million are involved with the prosperity gospel (other estimates have the percentage as high as 90 percent).  Add in the huge audiences watching charismatic television programs and services where the biblical directives are not followed, and far more than 50 percent of a movement that claims to be a work of the Spirit is either preaching a damning gospel or completely disregarding the Spirit’s clear New Testament commands regarding practice of the gifts.  That is more than a few charismatics behaving badly.  Instead, it demonstrates that the movement as a whole can claim neither the Scripture nor the Spirit.
Wilson concludes his critique:  “I think that the cessationist position is biblically distorted, theologically confused and historically exaggerated.” Sadly, it is the charismatic position that is out of step with the Scripture, with historic theology, and with the key figures of evangelical church history.  The biblical case for cessationism still stands.
If you want to read more on charismatic issues, see the brief bibliography below.
A Brief Bibliography of Books Arguing for Cessationism

• John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos.
• John MacArthur, Strange Fire.
• Samuel Waldron, To Be Continued?.
  [Best brief work on the issue for laymen]
• Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit.
  [Best work on the role of the Holy Spirit, and a helpful defense of cessationism]
• Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.  Perspectives on Pentecost.
  [Recommended]
• B.B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles.
  [Classic historical defense of the end of the miraculous but not a biblical defense; recommended]
• Robert Reymond, What About Continuing Revelations and Miracles in the Presbyterian Church Today?[Recommended; deals primarily with the gift of tongues but also addresses the issue of cessation; out of print]
• Larry Pettigrew, The New Covenant Ministry of the Holy Spirit.[Helpful work on the roles of the Spirit in the Old Testament & New Testament; section on cessation and tongues is helpful]
• Walter Chantry, Signs of the Apostles.
  [Helpful but a bit dated]
• Robert Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts.
  [Great exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14]
• Robert Gromacki, The Modern Tongues Movement.
• R.C. Sproul, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit.
• Arthur Johnson, Faith Misguided: Exposing the Dangers of Mysticism.
• Graham Cole, He Who Gives Life: the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

9 LESSONS FROM GOD CONCERNING SICKNESS

Sickness is meant…

1. To make us think—to remind us that we have a soul as well as a body—an immortal soul—a soul that will live forever in happiness or in misery—and that if this soul is not saved we had better never have been born.
2. To teach us that there is a world beyond the grave—and that the world we now live in is only a training-place for another dwelling, where there will be no decay, no sorrow, no tears, no misery, and no sin.
3. To make us look at our past lives honestly, fairly, and conscientiously. Am I ready for my great change if I should not get better? Do I repent truly of my sins? Are my sins forgiven and washed away in Christ’s blood? Am I prepared to meet God?
4. To make us see the emptiness of the world and its utter inability to satisfy the highest and deepest needs of the soul.
5. To send us to our Bibles. That blessed Book, in the days of health, is too often left on the shelf, becomes the safest place in which to put a bank-note, and is never opened from January to December. But sickness often brings it down from the shelf and throws new light on its pages.
6. To make us pray. Too many, I fear, never pray at all, or they only rattle over a few hurried words morning and evening without thinking what they do. But prayer often becomes a reality when the valley of the shadow of death is in sight.
7. To make us repent and break off our sins. If we will not hear the voice of mercies, God sometimes makes us “hear the rod.”
8. To draw us to Christ. Naturally we do not see the full value of that blessed Savior. We secretly imagine that our prayers, good deeds, and sacrament-receiving will save our souls. But when flesh begins to fail, the absolute necessity of a Redeemer, a Mediator, and an Advocate with the Father, stands out before men’s eyes like fire, and makes them understand those words, “Simply to Your cross I cling,” as they never did before. Sickness has done this for many—they have found Christ in the sick room.
9. To make us feeling and sympathizing towards others. By nature we are all far below our blessed Master’s example, who had not only a hand to help all, but a heart to feel for all. None, I suspect, are so unable to sympathize as those who have never had trouble themselves—and none are so able to feel as those who have drunk most deeply the cup of pain and sorrow.
Summary: Beware of fretting, murmuring, complaining, and giving way to an impatient spirit. Regard your sickness as a blessing in disguise – a good and not an evil – a friend and not an enemy. No doubt we should all prefer to learn spiritual lessons in the school of ease and not under the rod. But rest assured that God knows better than we do how to teach us. The light of the last day will show you that there was a meaning and a “need be” in all your bodily ailments. The lessons that we learn on a sick-bed, when we are shut out from the world, are often lessons which we should never learn elsewhere.

~ J.C. Ryle

Tract: Christ in the Sick Room

FALSE PROPHETS AND LYING WONDERS

John MacArthur
Have you noticed that no matter how many times charismatic televangelists make outlandish false prophecies, they never lack for followers, and they don't stop claiming the Lord has spoken directly to them?
Benny Hinn, for example, made a series of celebrated prophetic utterances in December of 1989, none of which came true. He confidently told his congregation at the Orlando Christian Center that God had revealed to him Fidel Castro would die sometime in the 1990s; the homosexual community in America would be destroyed by fire before 1995; and a major earthquake would cause havoc on the east coast before the year 2000. He was wrong on all counts, of course.
That did not deter Hinn, who simply kept making bold new false prophecies. At the beginning of the new millennium, he announced to his television audience that a prophetess had informed him Jesus would soon appear physically in some of Hinn's healing meetings. Hinn said he was convinced the prophecy was authentic, and on his April 2, 2000, broadcast, he amplified it with a prophecy of his own: "Now hear this, I am prophesying this! Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is about to appear physically in some churches, and some meetings, and to many of His people, for one reason: to tell you He is about to show up! To wake up! Jesus is coming saints!"
Hinn's failed prophesies are more outlandish but nearly as memorable as the notorious claims Oral Roberts began making about three decades ago. In 1977 Roberts said he saw a vision of a 900-foot-tall Jesus, who instructed him to build the City of Faith, a 60-story hospital in south Tulsa. Roberts said God told him He would use the center to unite medical technology with faith healing, which would revolutionize health care and enable doctors to find a cure for cancer.
The building, completed in the early 1980s, was a colossal white elephant from the very start. When the City of Faith opened for business, all but two stories of the massive structure were completely vacant.
By January of 1987 the project was saddled with unmanageable debt, and Roberts announced that the Lord had said unless Roberts raised eight million dollars to pay the debt by March 1, he would die. Apparently not willing to test the death-threat prophecy, donors dutifully gave Roberts the needed funds in time (with the help of $1.3 million donated at the last hour by a Florida dog-track owner).
But within two years, Roberts was forced to close the medical center anyway and sell the building in order to eliminate still-mounting debt. More than 80 percent of the building had never been occupied. The promised cure for cancer never materialized, either.
A list of similar failed charismatic prophesies could fill several volumes. And yet, amazingly, the "prophets" who make such fantastic claims now appear to have more influence than ever—even among mainstream evangelicals. And the idea that God routinely speaks directly to His people has found more widespread acceptance today than at any time in the history of the church.
The charismatic movement began barely a hundred years ago, and its influence on evangelicalism can hardly be overstated. Its chief legacy has been an unprecedented interest in extrabiblical revelation. Millions influenced by charismatic doctrine are convinced that God speaks to them directly all the time. Indeed, many seem to believe direct revelation is the main means through which God communicates with His people. "The Lord told me ... " has become a favorite cliche of experience-driven evangelicals.
Not all who believe God speaks to them make prophetic pronouncements as outlandish as those broadcast by charismatic televangelists, of course. But they still believe God gives them extrabiblical messages—either through an audible voice, a vision, a voice in their heads, or simply an internal impression. In most cases, their "prophecies" are comparatively trivial. But the difference between them and Benny Hinn's predictions is a difference only of scale, not of substance.
The notion that God is giving extrabiblical messages to Christians today has received support from some surprising sources. Wayne Grudem, popular author and professor of theology and biblical studies at Phoenix Seminary believes God regularly gives Christians prophetic messages by simply bringing spontaneous thoughts to mind. Such impressions should be reported as prophecy, he says.[1]
Similar ideas have found sweeping acceptance even among non-charismatic Christians. Southern Baptists have eagerly devoured Experiencing God by Henry Blackaby and Claude King, which suggests that the main way the Holy Spirit leads believers is by speaking to them directly. According to Blackaby, when God gives an individual a message that pertains to the church, it should be shared with the whole body.[2] As a result, extrabiblical "words from the Lord" are now commonplace even in some Southern Baptist circles.
Why do so many modern Christians seek revelation from God through means other than Scripture? Certainly not because it is a reliable way to discover truth. All sides admit that modern prophecies are often completely erroneous. In fact, the failure rate is astonishingly high. In my book Charismatic Chaos I quoted one leading "prophet" who was thrilled because he believed that two-thirds of his prophecies were accurate. "Well that's better than it's ever been up to now, you know. That's the highest level it's ever been."[3]
In other words, modern prophecy is not a much more reliable way to discern truth than a Magic Eight-Ball or Tarot cards. And, I would add, it is equally superstitious. There is no warrant anywhere in Scripture for Christians to listen for fresh revelation from God beyond what He has already given us in His written Word. In fact, Scripture unsparingly condemns all who speak even one word falsely or presumptuously in the Lord's name (Deut. 18:20-22). But such warnings are simply ignored these days by those who claim to have heard afresh from God.
And not surprisingly, wherever there is a preoccupation with "fresh" prophecy, there is invariably a corresponding neglect of the Scriptures. After all, why be concerned with an ancient Book if the Living God communicates directly with us on a daily basis? These fresh words of "revelation" naturally seem more relevant and more urgent than the familiar words of the Bible. Is it any wonder that they draw people away from Scripture?
That is precisely why modern evangelicalism's infatuation with extrabiblical revelation is so dangerous. It is a return to medieval superstition and a departure from our fundamental conviction that the Bible is our sole, supreme, and sufficient authority for all of life. In other words, it represents a wholesale abandonment of the principle of sola Scriptura.
The absolute sufficiency of Scripture is summed up well in this section from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1.6, emphasis added).

Historic Protestantism is grounded in the conviction that the canon is closed. No "new" revelation is necessary, because Scripture is complete and absolutely sufficient.
Scripture itself is clear that the day of God's speaking directly to His people through various prophetic words and visions is past. The truth God has revealed in Christ including the complete New Testament canon is His final word (Heb. 1:1-2; cf. Jude 3; Rev. 22:18-19).
Scripture—the written Word of God—is perfectly sufficient, containing all the revelation we need. Notice 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Paul tells Timothy:
From childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
That passage makes two very important statements that pertain to the issue we are looking at. First, "All Scripture is inspired by God." Scripture speaks with the authority of God Himself. It is certain; it is reliable; it is true. Jesus Himself prayed in John 17:17: "Your word is truth." Psalm 119:160 says, "The entirety of Your word is truth."
Those statements all set Scripture above every human opinion, every speculation, and every emotional sensation. Scripture alone stands as definitive truth. It speaks with an authority that transcends every other voice.
Second, The passage teaches that Scripture is utterly sufficient, "able to make you wise for salvation ... [and able to make you] complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." What clearer affirmation of the absolute sufficiency of Scripture could anyone ask for? Are extrabiblical messages from God necessary to equip us to glorify Him? Certainly not.
Those who seek fresh messages from God have in effect scorned the absolute certainty and absolute sufficiency of the written Word of God. And they have set in its place their own fallen and fallible imaginations.
If the church does not return to the principle of sola Scriptura, the only revival we will see is a revival of the superstition and darkness that characterized medieval religion.
Does this mean God has stopped speaking? Certainly not, but He speaks today through His Word.
Does the Spirit of God move our hearts and impress us with specific duties or callings? Certainly, but He works through the Word of God to do that. Such experi­ences are in no sense prophetic or authoritative. They are not revelation, but the effect of illumination, when the Holy Spirit applies the Word to our hearts and opens our spiritual eyes to its truth. We must guard carefully against allowing our experience and our own subjective thoughts and imaginations to eclipse the authority and the certainty of the more sure Word.

---

[1]. The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testa­ment and Today (Wheaton: Crossway, 1988).
[2]. (Nashville, TN: LifeWay, 1990), 168.
[3]. Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 67.



For more click here

PENTECOSTALISM AND IT'S IMPACT

By a former participant in Pentecostalism
Edited by Rick Ross

Introduction

In writing this analysis, it is important to note that the Pentecostal movement is diverse and heterogeneous. Some charismatic Christian groups are extremely adhoc and fluid in technique, such as the Wesley and quasi Pentecostal-Baptists churches, whilst other groups are more organized and rigid. For example, the United Pentecostal Church, other so-called independent "Oneness" Pentecostals and at times the Assemblies of God. And as a result, the diversity of Pentecostal movements must be taken into account when reading this analysis. This paper attempts to examine the main differences between mainstream fundamentalist and/or evangelical Christianity and the Pentecostal movement. As a rule, many believe that Pentecostals are identical to fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and only possess different techniques of presenting the gospel. However, this is far from the truth. Some Pentecostal movements cannot be included alongside mainstream Christian groups, that is the Baptists, Anglicans, Church of England and so forth.
I am sure such an assertion may be seen by some as somewhat controversial and debatable. Many are divided over this issue. Whilst some assert that Pentecostals are like any other Christian group, many such as Robert Bowman and John Weldon contend that some Pentecostal sects can be said to exist alongside organizations such as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses as heretical organizations. For example, the United Pentecostal Church International and/or "Jesus Only" or "Oneness" Pentecostals, the Latter-Rain Movement and Snake Handling Pentecostal sects. Again, many are divided about these issues.

My Background

I first became involved with a Pentecostal, Assemblies of God Church at the age of 14. Since then, until the age of 17 church, my attendance was on and off. Often I would go to more mainstream Christian churches, but at times still attended a Pentecostal church. During my teens, most of my family went to a mainstream Christian church. At that time, I was confused as to which church I ought to join. By the age of 17, I had become more attracted to the Pentecostal movement for various reasons. The people seemed more inclusive, warm, open and friendly than at other churches. I'd always thought the members of other churches were rather indifferent, unfriendly and exclusive by comparison.
Even though I wanted to get closer to Christ, my focus was not entirely on Christ.
In the Pentecostal church the lively atmosphere also fascinated me. The music the singing, the clapping of hands, dancing and so forth. Even the minister was more appealing. Often he talked of Christ excitedly, arms swaying in the air, with a vibrant voice exhorting the audience to contribute by saying: "Hallelujahs" and "Praise God Almighty"!
My friends and leaders would tell me that the Pentecostal church would be more beneficial for me. They constantly emphasized that other churches were "lukewarm" and that God would "spit the lukewarm out." On the other hand, they considered their church as somewhat closer to God because they were hot-hearted towards God. They'd tell me, "your family doesn't really know the lord."
During praise and worship people would "speak in tongues," often all at once. Then the minister would at times share a "prophetic word," whereby he pointed someone out of the audience and rebuked them for their sins. I was always in fear that one day the minister would point me out. If the minister were not rebuking someone for a sin of some sort, he would predict how a person was suffering and verbalize their feelings in front of everyone with emotive words and metaphors and tell them what they should do. Even when people would start weeping and violently shaking. But I would just brush my doubts away and instead, became swept up in the emotion and hype. I now realize that I lacked a basis of knowing who Christ really was.

Praise and Worship Techniques

In the Pentecostal/ Charismatic movement, Praise and Worship is not organized around the clock. Singing, clapping speaking in tongues and dancing can often last for hours. Here, it is important to draw attention to the techniques and aims of the church in order to gain an understanding of how Pentecostal worldview differs from mainstream Christians. Within Pentecostal church services the minister often encourages the convert to seek spiritual gifts that are said to intensify religious experiences. Some of the favored Pentecostal spiritual gifts, which are not necessarily prominent within mainstream Christian churches, include "baptism in the Holy Spirit" (i.e. "speaking of tongues"). "Speaking of tongues" is when a person speaks whatever comes to mind. The Pentecostal believes that what is spoken, which is a language only recognized by God (i.e. glossalalia) or, a foreign language, which is not known or understood by the speaker. But this can be interpreted by someone else and is used to edify the church (i.e. xenoglossia). Of the two, glossalalia is more common. It seems xenoglossia is quite rare nowadays. Other spiritual gifts include the ability to interpret these tongues, the gift of prophecy, discerning between godly and demonic spirits and the ability to heal. Pentecostal services call for the converts full involvement and attention in the church.
According to Poloma, the church 'service is often designed to make an emotional impact and produce an emotional response.' (Poloma: 1989:188-9). For example, the ministers' talk in emotive tones, varying his pitch from high to low. Furthermore, musical instruments such as guitars, pianos, drums and saxophones seem to continually play an emotive tune over and over again. Such techniques seem hypnotic. This can be seen as a subtle form of manipulation. If one allows himself or herself to be carried away, feelings may reach an emotional high and even culminate in an altered state of consciousness.
Feelings and emotions play a large role in the Pentecostal religious experience. "In many Pentecostal churches today, once the drum stops beating and the organ stops throbbing and the volume of the service dies down, the emotionally motivated Christian goes into an emotional low" (Poloma: 1989:189). Such techniques seem to offer the convert a temporary form of escapism from the big, bad world and often prepare the believer for his or her next hectic week in the world. The techniques used are also very attractive and appealing. This is because the more appeal a service has, the more likely the faithful will return, participate and contribute their time and money.
From my own experience, it seemed the Pentecostal Church services were warm, vibrant and inclusive for newcomers. Such services aim to produce "good" feelings and a sense of belonging. New or potential converts are never excluded and old believers are always told to look after someone new at the service. Cult experts have called such a technique "love-bombing" (i.e. seemingly unconditional love). If the convert conforms to the community, the love bombing continues. However, if the convert chooses to disregard Church rules and those in authority, regular members are exhorted to persist encouraging the potential convert, and, if the potential convert breaches church regulations the love is withdrawn.

Divisions between Charismatics, Pentecostal Christians and Mainstream Christian Churches

Speaking In tongues

Mainstream Christian churches approach this issue with extreme caution. They make a huge effort not to "forbid" people to speak in tongues; hence they are not really opposed to this supposed "spiritual gift." However, they also feel the need to stress that "gift of tongues" must be used within the right context. According to most Christian scholars if the majority of a Pentecostal congregation is speaking in tongues all at once during church services, then it cannot be properly interpreted. The bible clearly states: "If anyone speaks in a tongue, two- or at the most three should speak one at the time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God." (1 Corinthians 14:27-8).
Hence tongues must be used in a biblical manner. From these passages it is obvious that it must be used in an orderly way. Furthermore, the bible also states, "In the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." (1 Corinthians 14:19).
Also it seems that the gift of speaking in tongues is not necessarily for everyone. The bible states that there are many differing spiritual gifts each coming from the same spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:4). Whilst some speak in tongues, not everyone speaks in tongues just like whilst some are great helpers there are also others who are not so great at helping and may have strengths elsewhere. (1 Corinthians 12 8-11). On the other hand, Pentecostals state that all should speak in tongues. However, in many of the so-called "baptisms in the spirit" alter calls I've observed, some people just cannot bring themselves to speak in tongues and hence cannot bring themselves to be "baptized in the spirit." Also, since tongues are considered a "spiritual gift," many of the more extreme Pentecostals may look down upon those who do not speak tongues. Those who do not speak in tongues may not be considered "spirit filled." Such an assertion and attitude would be considered unbiblical by most Christians.
Unlike many Charismatic Christians and Pentecostals, mainstream Christians argue that once you accept Christ into your life you have the spirit. In such Mainline Churches the primary emphasis is on Christ rather than spiritual gifts. Furthermore, if someone has the gift of tongues it is not seen as more significant than other spiritual gifts such as encouragement, administration, mercy etc. On the other hand, amongst some charismatic Christian groups and Pentecostals the focus is often too much upon the so-called "spiritual gifts," which are seen as something meant for everyone to edify the church. Obviously though there are problems speaking in tongues at a church if no one is there to interpret what's been said.
Throughout history such phenomena has been ambiguous and paradoxical. For example, in the past religious sects such as the Mormons (Latter-day Saints) and the Quakers have claimed the gift of tongues. Since not a lot is known about xenoglossia and glossalalia it is important to approach this issue with caution. Since there is also a lack of objective proof regarding the origin and/or nature of glossalalia and xenoglossia it is obvious that people base such an experience largely upon faith. This attitude can be potentially dangerous. It may be unsafe to be ruled by subjective feelings alone without some objective balance.
Pentecostals often place their emphasis on feelings and emotions and encourage, what can be seen as unbalanced thinking. For example, many claim to speak in tongues and believe they are speaking in another language, though this cannot be objectively observed. 'It is significant that though linguistic experts have studied hundreds of hours of tongues recorded on tape, they have never been able to identify any of them as a known human language.' (Culpepper: 1977:101-2). There are also arguments that there is no proper syntax to study and that only a few vowels and consonants are made. Vowels would include A-E-I-O-U; the consonants include all the other letters in the alphabet. Perhaps Pentecostals might argue this is because the languages spoken through tongues are "spiritual" languages, which are therefore unknown to humanity and only known by God. But if this is the case, subsequently tongues cannot be interpreted within the church and perhaps it would be preferable if people practiced this and prayed at home, allowing for a more private setting between a believer and God. This is reminiscent of the scripture; "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself." (1 Corinthians 14:4).
Another substantial problem with the practice of tongues is that "Many Charismatics acknowledge that often when Christians begin speaking in tongues they have doubts as to whether the experience is authentic, whether the Spirit is giving the words, or whether they are just making them up.' (Culpepper: 1977:91). Since the nature of this experience is so ambiguous and it causes substantial doubts perhaps Christians ought to approach this practice with more caution. Again, this does not mean Christians should reject tongues altogether. Because in the bible it states:
'Do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.' (1 Corinthians: 14:39-40).
Hence, the issue remains sensitive and can be approached from a biblical perspective, with caution and common sense. Certainly though, if someone does not speak in tongues, this does not mean they are any less of a Christian. An evident attitude though amongst many Pentecostal and Charismatic churches is, "I can speak tongues and this means I'm superior and more spiritual than other Christians who don't." OR, "Since I speak tongues and that person doesn't, I'm a spirit-filled person Christian and that person isn't. And they need to learn from me."
This attitude breeds spiritual elitism, a superior attitude and does damage to some individuals, while building up the egos of others, but does little to edify the whole church.

Prayer

According to some Pentecostals prayer should be done as if speaking to a KING. However, Baptists and other Christians say that prayer should be done as if speaking to your father or friend. I've noted the differing styles of prayer. Charismatic Christians and Pentecostals seem to make their prayer more emotional and exciting. They often speak with a quasi-language; that is, they may say a phrase in English then switch to tongues and back to a recognized language again. Thus their prayer may seem more elaborate and colorful. Charismatic and Pentecostal Christians often criticize mainstream Christians for being lukewarm, even in their way of addressing God. Mainstream Christians often pray in a neutral tone of voice, some preferring to read out of a prepared prayer book. They may leave out repetitive "hallelujahs,' "we worship you Lord" and/or "praise God almighty" and then save the Amen until the end of their prayer. The bible states:
"But when you pray, go to your room, close the door and pray with your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 'This, then is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'" (Matthew 6:613)
The bible encourages believers to pray in a way, which is straightforward, thankful, honest and/or to ask for help. Since God already knows what we need before we ask, clearly there is no need to use the same repetitive phrases over and over again. After all, the Lord knows if we pray with honesty. Therefore there is no use in emotional hype when praying. The problem with trying to be "hot-hearted" towards God in prayer is the danger of building up a façade. That is, trying too hard to make God, and others see how hot-hearted we are about God because of how we pray. This is not only unbiblical; it also obscures the reason for prayer. For example: Generally, if you approach a very close friend because you need their help, you would explain the situation in a straightforward manner, ask directly for help and then thank them. It would be unnatural to purposely become over emotional and/or continually repeat a contrived refrain such as:
"Thank you for all you've done for me in our friendship. You're a great friend, just so cool. For you've always been here for me. I'm in trouble and need something. Help me Joe. Help me! You're my best and most coolest friend. Thankyou Joe, Thank you Joe, Thank you soooo much for helping me. I love you. Thank you Joe. I love you. You're a great friend!"
Actually a friend might find such excessive emotion somewhat strange and suspect that there was some amount of insincerity or phoniness involved. This previous refrain would be comparable to a Charismatic Christian or Pentecostal in prayer saying, "Oh Lord God almighty I feel your presence. I worship you Lord with all my heart and soul. I praise you-- for you are the Alpha and Omega the beginning and end. Hallelujah! Amen! Praise God Almighty! Forgive me for I have sinned. Separate my sins as far as East is to West. Oh Lord Hallelujah. Amen. You are so holy, help me Lord, help me Lord. For you are the King of Kings and Lord of Lords."
This repetitive memorized prayer technique does not seem natural or spontaneous. It is instead a contrived jargon taken from the bible seemingly for effect.

Prophecies

Prophecies are in the bible. They are mentioned throughout the bible, especially within the books of Daniel and Revelation. However, there are differing types of prophecy. The books of Daniel and Revelation are prophetic about the future. Other types of prophecy include those used to build up and edify the church (1 Corinthians: 14:4-5). It is important to note that the term prophecy means different things to different people. Some see it as superstitious, something that comes from fortunetellers with a crystal ball. Others see it as addressing social catastrophes in the world that have been predicted. And still others believe it is connected to helping people through inspired encouragement and/or preaching. (Culpepper: 1977:112-13).
Most Christian churches today seem to see prophecy as inspired preaching or encouragement. They also see prophecy as predominantly historical as expressed through the time of prophets and apostles recorded in the bible. However, Charismatic Christians and Pentecostals see prophecies as contemporary and common today. And also, the Pentecostal tends to view the idea of prophecy as either addressing something that has been predicted or as inspired encouragement or preaching.
Some Christian groups have gone too far with prophecy, which when used incorrectly, can generate superstition and even turn some people away. For example, within many Pentecostal churches I visited prophecy time usually comes after or during praise and worship services. The music and tongues die down, but gently and persistently keep playing whilst the ministers voice rose to a firm pitch. Then, the minister would pick people out of the crowd and rebuke them of sin or tell them what they should or should not do about their current situation. Many vague metaphors and emotionally charged words were used. For example: "Don't change the way you are, you are beautiful and your life will flow like abundant rivers." Or, "You feel like a broken and twisted arrow, the Lord recommends you move on." Often, those picked out for a prophecy either began weeping or violently shaking. Some were so shaken that they fell back and had to be caught by another church elder.
These so-called prophecies seemed to target a specific person rather than include the entire church. How then can this really be considered as edifying the church? Again, as I said before, I was often in fear that the minister would one-day single me out. It is this very fear that the many of the more manipulative churches may operate upon. Such fear is used as a tool to ensure that the convert stays in line and keeps on track. Sometimes a Pentecostal church might clearly use such "prophecy" to manipulate and judge a member.
Another prophecy I once heard stated, "Oh come to me my flock, come to me and you will never thirst of grow weary." According to Schwertley, 'this kind of vague, nonspecific sort of 'prophecy' can never be confirmed as real, because it contains nothing specific regarding the future.'"(Schwertley: [ http://www.reformed.com/pub/charist.htm ] :p10). It is obvious that this kind of talk doesn't really do much to edify the church in a reasonable manner. It seems that members are just allowing themselves to move into a kind of transcended temporary mode and going along with the flow without questioning or challenging themselves.
Some Pentecostal believers are gullible and/or ignorant. They really do believe that what the minister is saying comes directly from God and that no one else knows about it. However, it also seems that if a member is said to be behaving in a devious manner, or a member chooses to share with another fellow member about a distressing situation they're in--it's not surprising that the first place the fellow member will disclose this information will be to the pastor. Such information often enables the minister to manipulate his flock. And since the issues are either addressed or condemned in the public worship space, it seems that the problems people are undergoing are not necessarily kept confidential.
The manipulative techniques of so-called prophecies may cause long-lasting psychological and mental damage. For example, one problem that exists within some Pentecostal churches regarding prophecies, is when a person speaks out and has not necessarily been commanded to do so by God. In such a situation, another member of the church is to weigh what is being said and tell that person to be quiet. In such a circumstance there is also the danger of not speaking out. Furthermore, many prophecies, which have been made, are untrue. In many cases these prophecies generate unreasonable fears within believers. The faithful church member is always trying to find and/or make meaning of the prophecy. They may constantly seek to ask God what it meant. Such a dilemma often leads to a type of mysticism and superstition, which is inconsistent with the bible. One might compare such prophecy to looking into a crystal ball or tarot cards.
Howard is certainly correct to argue that some Charismatic Christians have a similar worldview to the New Age movement and to other groups such as Christian Science. "Both Charismatics and New Agers offer simplistic, quick fix solutions, which are based in magic and superstition, to social and personal problems." (Howard: 1997:138). This argument is further consolidated in their attitudes to sicknesses and healing.

Sicknesses and Healing

Within the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements the system of dualism is deeply entrenched. There are often sharp divisions, which are emphasized between the good as opposed to the bad, and the godly as opposed to the ungodly. There is little leeway for gray areas or ambiguity. Such an attitude leads to an intensified dogmatic and simplistic attitude to the bible and to life situations in general. For example, in relation to sicknesses and illnesses within there is an attitude that "He's sick because he has an unconfessed sin.' Or, 'She's sick because she's harboring an unresolved grudge.' Or, 'Benny Hinn is unable to heal her because she lacks faith." Such doctrines are not only illogical, but biblically unsound. If these assertions are valid, why is it that so many people today, who harbor a grudge, are not sick? Think of all the Christians and non-Christians alike who have unconfessed sins. Some are jealous, lustful, arrogant, and boastful. Since ALL of us have unconfessed sins, why is it that some aren't sick? But instead only some of us are sick, while others are not. Just because someone is sick, doesn't necessarily mean that person has an unconfessed sin or is harboring a grudge. Such an attitude within the Church is dangerous. (See Matthew 7:1-5) First, this is a judgmental attitude. If a person feels condemned and judged it will only motivate them to feel worse about themselves and/or leave the church. Church should be a place for building up people. And church should never be a place to make someone feel they're somehow less of a person for being ill. Any assertions made about someone being sick because he or she holds some grudge is clearly biblically incorrect. Christians believe humans suffer in this world because we live after the fall, (i.e. within a "fallen world").
Many Pentecostal Christians attend huge healing gatherings whereby anyone who's sick is encouraged to attend in the hope of being healed. Perhaps the most prominent healing ministry within the so-called Pentecostal "Word of Faith" movement are the Benny Hinn crusades. Ten of thousands of people often attend a single Benny Hinn crusade, which are frequently held in huge stadiums. Benny Hinn has his own television show, which is used to publicize so-called "miracles" of healing. In Sydney, the Benny Hinn show is on television almost every morning at 5:00 AM or 5:30 AM. The program includes Benny Hinn teaching, Benny Hinn and his believers in praise and worship and Benny Hinn healing the sick. What's most astounding is the fact that Mr. Hinn has even claimed the ability to heal people watching his rerun shows. Of course Benny Hinn carefully explains he is the instrument of God, Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit, who use him only as a channel for healing. This is somewhat similar to the claims made by Christian Scientists and/or many New Age healers.
Generally, such faith healers say, "Oh Jesus hallelujah, hallelujah&there is a woman sitting somewhere in the middle of the audience, her daughter is suffering from ulcers in the gum, God is healing you daughter right now." The healer often exclaims, "Come out to the stage and be healed." Is there any real evidence that the person has actually been healed?
Although some people are said to have broken legs and crutches have been thrown onto the stage, this does not necessarily mean a person has been healed. Anyone can throw crutches on a stage and/or make claims. It is important to objectively evaluate any healing not evident to the naked eye by a process of expert medical review. Hence critical thinking is required.
According to Schwertley, Jesus Christ healed people entirely who were permanently deformed i.e.: had no ear, was blind, deaf, mute and suffering from leprosy. Jesus healed in public places spontaneously in front of both non-believers and believers. (Luke 22:51-52). He even made the dead come to life. For example: Lazarus. Jesus healed people so that they might come and believe in Christ. (Matthew 9:18-34).
Quite the contrary, modern faith healers like Benny Hinn only appear to be able to heal temporary, common illnesses such as back pain, mouth ulcers, and leg pain. Furthermore, modern healers today seem to heal largely if not exclusively in front of their own following in planned and confined Christian settings. Weren't miracles such as healing supposed to be a sign for both non-believers and believers rather than just for believers? Something is clearly not quite right if these so-called healers are only conducting healing miracles in front of believers. Are these modern healers really what they claim to be?
People like Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland have their own TV shows, which are broadcast internationally. But should God's gifts be used for show? These modern healers seem to take advantage of naïve believers who contribute much money to their ministries. They then draw substantial salaries and expenses, fly first class, buy expensive cars and often live in exclusive neighborhoods. Healing crusades appear to be big business and generate big money. According to Benny Hinn ( November 6, 1990, TBN sermon ) "poverty is from the devil and that God wants all Christians prosperous."
Within the "Faith Movement" many people have been told that they don't need to take their medications anymore. Taking this advice some really believed they were healed and died as a result ( Cited within a 1998 "60 Minutes" episode ). Such tragedies will hopefully cause people to question and consider such advice more clearly. Belief in healing should be coupled with a proper medical examination, before any medication or medical treatment is ended.
"Prophecy, healing, exorcism and spiritual warfare have all caused deep and lasting harm to people with genuine faith. To many outsiders, the movement would appear to represent a frightening return to medievalism and superstition." (Howard: 1997:119).

Pentecostalism's Impact

According to Robin Arnaud, "Pentecostalism has become the largest and fastest-growing form of Christianity on earth! Yet in its wake it leaves broken lives, false hopes, a warped view of God and man, and often, especially in the United States, financial ruin. An exodus of believers from such churches began a few years ago and have now become a torrent! Former Pentecostals and ex-Charismatics may soon become the second-largest and second fastest growing Christian groups on earth." (Arnaud: 1998, from unknown web page). Charismatic Christians certainly appear to be zealous in their attempts to gain converts and create miracles. But by acting too extreme the net result may be a judgmental attitude and causing division in the church rather than edifying it. Many Charismatics seem to love showing mainstream Christians how things should be done. Again, the example stated previously, "We're baptized in the spirit, we speak in tongue, that means you should learn from us."
Charismatic Christians also tend to focus perhaps too much on feelings and personal experiences rather than the bible. They place their emphasis largely upon "spiritual gifts" rather than on Christ, who He was, what He said and did. As a result, they often become inward thinking and self-centered rather than focused on Christ and what He wants us to be. In my own personal experience as a Pentecostal Christian, Jesus became clouded like a distant figure.
In some cases it seems Pentecostal groups may almost worship a different Jesus and some are apparently heretical according to Christian scholars. For example, the so-called "Oneness" or "Jesus Only" Pentecostals, which are largely comprised by the denomination known as the United Pentecostal Church. Just because the words Jesus, God and Holy Spirit are used constantly in sermons doesn't necessarily mean their teachings are biblically sound and/or historically consistent with established Christian doctrines and beliefs such as the trinity.
In today's society, it's easy for Christians to become caught up with what spiritual gift you have and what spiritual gift you don't have. And as a direct result many Christians seem to forget about who Christ is and their own salvation. It can be destructive to become so focused on works and so self-absorbed.
Is Pentecostalism "Cult like"?
There is a diverse range of Pentecostal and charismatic groups. They cannot all be considered "cult like." Here are some points (Howard: 1997:140) to consider though, if you are in such a group and evaluating its safety:
"A convert becoming increasingly dependent on the movement for definitions and the testing of 'reality'.''
"A movement drawing sharp, negotiable boundaries between 'them' and 'us', 'godly' and 'satanic', 'good' and 'bad' - and so on.'"
"Leaders claiming divine authority for their actions and demands."
Some other points from (Bowmen: Weldon: 1999:375) especially in relation to "Oneness Pentecostals" that deny the doctrine of the trinity.
"Social isolation: Members are encouraged to distance themselves from "outsiders" insuring further isolation and dependence on the particular group."
"Spiritual intimidation: Members who leave may be told God will judge them or they will be turned over to Satan. To leave the church is to forsake God and court damnation."
"Compliance through shame: Those who violate OP (Oneness Pentecostal) standards or holiness must confess their sins before the entire church."
If you are involved with the Charismatic or Pentecostal movement or know someone who is involved that you worried about, I'd encourage you to consider that involvement carefully and leave if you find that church doctrinally unsound or destructive.

References:

Books: The Holy Bible: NIV (New International Version)
Ankerberg, J & Weldon, J. Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions: Harvest House Publishers, USA; 1999.
Culpepper, Robert. H. Evaluating the Charismatic Movement: A Theological & Biblical Appraisal: Judson Press, USA; 1997.
Howard, Roland. Charismania:When Christian Fundamentalism Goes Wrong: Mowbray: London, UK; 1997.
Poloma Margret, M. The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads: Charisma & Institutional Dilemmas: University of Tennessee Press: Knoxville; 1989.
Web sites:
Institute for First Amendment Studies, Skipp Porteous
Reformed Witness, by Pastor Brian Schwertley
The Word is a Lamp to my feet: Houstons...we have a problem
The Word is a Lamp to my feet: Jumping on the bandwagon


Copyright © 2001 Rick Ross.

IS IT UNLOVING TO CALL OUT FAL$E TEACHER$

Shai Linne is no stranger to those who love Christian Hip-Hop music (he’s been my personal favorite for years).   He is not even a stranger to those who don’t love Christian Hip-Hop, although I’m convinced that Shai is on Phil Johnson’s playlist (see Phil Johnson’s GTY post here).   But now he is apparently no stranger to Paula White Ministries either.

Shai Linne’s new album “Lyrical Theology” features the pre-release single “Fal$e Teacher$”, which calls out 12 well known prosperity preachers.   So who made the list?  Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, TD Jakes, Joyce Meyer, Paula White, Fred Price, Kenneth Copland, Robert Tilton, Eddie Long, Juanita Bynum, and Paul Crouch are all identified as false teachers (each of whom we could spend an entire post on).  

Wadeoradio.com made the bold move to request a response from each of the 12 preachers and received at least 1 response from Bradley Knight, the manager of Paula White’s ministry.  Not only is Mr. Knight the manager of Paula White’s ministry, he also happens to be her son.  In an effort to defend his mother, he calls Shai Linne’s song “pure cannibalization without Biblical precedence.”

Of course, we know there is “biblical precedence” to call out false teachers.  Not only did our Lord Jesus call out false teachers (Matthew 7:13-36) but so did the Apostles Paul (1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 2:16-18) and John (3 John 1:9).  There is no question that there is “biblical precedence”.  But the question remains, is this the loving thing to do?

You can’t help but feel Knight’s pain.  After all, this is his mother.  If there ever was a reason to get into a fight in the school yard, this is it.  But I would contend that calling out false teachers is not only the most loving thing you can do for the sheep, it is also the most loving thing that you can do for the false teachers themselves.

Referring to false teachers in Titus 1:13 Paul says, “reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith”.  The “so that” indicates that part of the reason we are to reprove false teachers is for their own spiritual health! To be “sound in the faith” speaks of spiritual health and wholeness.  Far from being unloving, it is actually to the false teachers’ advantage that they be reproved.

As Shai Linne points out “today the only heresy is saying that there’s heresy”.  It might be strong medicine for false teachers to be “put on blast” but it’s the right biblical prescription.  There is no competition between love and truth.

If you are interested, see See Shai Linne’s response to Brad Knight.

Related Posts

• The Death of History's Worst Heretic
• The Devil is in the White Spaces
• Evangelicalism's Got Talent
• Five Dangers of Fallible Prophecy

EDITORIAL ON ABUSING MATTHEW 18

D. A. Carson
D. A. Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois.

Several years ago I wrote a fairly restrained critique of the emerging church movement as it then existed, before it morphed into its present diverse configurations.1 That little book earned me some of the angriest, bitterness-laced emails I have ever received—to say nothing, of course, of the blog posts. There were other responses, of course—some approving and grateful, some thoughtful and wanting to dialogue. But the ones that displayed the greatest intensity were those whose indignation was white hot because I had not first approached privately those whose positions I had criticized in the book. What a hypocrite I was—criticizing my brothers on ostensible biblical grounds when I myself was not following the Bible’s mandate to observe a certain procedure nicely laid out inMatt 18:15–17.

Doubtless this sort of charge is becoming more common. It is regularly linked to the “Gotcha!” mentality that many bloggers and their respondents seem to foster. Person A writes a book criticizing some element or other of historic Christian confessionalism. A few bloggers respond with more heat than light. Person B writes a blog with some substance, responding to Person A. The blogosphere lights up with attacks on Person B, many of them asking Person B rather accusingly, “Did you communicate with Person A in private first? If not, aren’t you guilty of violating what Jesus taught us in Matthew 18?” This pattern of counter-attack, with minor variations, is flourishing.

To which at least three things must be said:

(1) The sin described in the context of Matt 18:15–17 takes place on the small scale of what transpires in a local church (which is certainly what is envisaged in the words “tell it to the church”). It is not talking about a widely circulated publication designed to turn large numbers of people in many parts of the world away from historic confessionalism. This latter sort of sin is very public and is already doing damage; it needs to be confronted and its damage undone in an equally public way. This is quite different from, say, the situation where a believer discovers that a brother has been breaking his marriage vows by sleeping with someone other than his wife, and goes to him privately, then with one other, in the hope of bringing about genuine repentance and contrition, and only then brings the matter to the church.

To put the matter differently, the impression one derives from reading Matt 18 is that the sin in question is not, at first, publicly noticed (unlike the publication of a foolish but influential book). It is relatively private, noticed by one or two believers, yet serious enough to be brought to the attention of the church if the offender refuses to turn away from it. By contrast, when NT writers have to deal with false teaching, another note is struck: the godly elder “must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9 NIV).

Doubtless one can think up some contemporary situations that initially might make one scratch one’s head and wonder what the wise course should be—or, to frame the problem in the context of the biblical passages just cited, whether one should respond in the light of Matt 18 or of Titus 1. For example, a local church pastor may hear that a lecturer in his denominational seminary or theological college is teaching something he judges to be outside the confessional camp of that denomination and possibly frankly heretical. Let us make the situation more challenging by postulating that the pastor has a handful of students in his church who attend that seminary and are being influenced by the lecturer in question. Is the pastor bound by Matt 18 to talk with the lecturer before challenging him in public?

This situation is tricky in that the putative false teaching is public in one sense and private in another. It is public in that it is not a merely private opinion, for it is certainly being promulgated; it is private in the sense that the material is not published in the public arena, but is being disseminated in a closed lecture hall. It seems to me that the pastor would be wise to go to the lecturer first, but not out of obedience to Matt 18, which really does not pertain, but to determine just what the views of the lecturer really are. He may come to the conclusion that the lecturer is kosher after all; alternatively, that the lecturer has been misunderstood (and any lecturer with integrity will want to take pains not to be similarly misunderstood in the future); or again, that the lecturer is dissimulating. He may feel he has to go to the lecturer’s superior, or even higher. My point, however, is that this course of action is really not tracing out Jesus’ instruction in Matt 18. The pastor is going to the lecturer, in the first instance, not to reprove him, but to find out if there really is a problem when the teaching falls in this ambiguous category of not-quite-private and not-quite-public.

(2) In Matt 18, the sin in question is, by the authority of the church, excommunicable—in at least two senses.

First, the offense may be so serious that the only responsible decision that the church can make is to thrust the offender out of the church and view him or her as an unconverted person (18:17). In other words, the offense is excommunicable because of its seriousness. In the NT as a whole, there are three categories of sins that reach this level of seriousness: major doctrinal error (e.g., 1 Tim 1:20), major moral failure (e.g. 1 Cor 5), and persistent and schismatic divisiveness (e.g., Titus 3:10). These constitute the negative flipside of the three positive “tests” of 1 John: the truth test, the obedience test, and the love test. In any case, though we do not know what it is, the offense in Matt 18 is excommunicable because of its seriousness.

Second, the situation is such that the offender can actually be excommunicated from the assembly. In other words, the offense is excommunicable because organizationally it is possible to excommunicate the offender. By contrast, suppose someone in, say, Philadelphia were to claim to be a devout Christian while writing a book that was in certain ways deeply anti-Christian. Suppose a church in, say, Toronto, Canada decided the book is heretical. Such a church might, I suppose, declare the book misguided or even heretical, but they certainly could not excommunicate the writer. Doubtless they could declare the offender persona non grata in their own assembly, but this would be a futile gesture and probably counter-productive to boot. After all, the offender might be perfectly acceptable in his own assembly.2 In other words, this sort of offense might be excommunicable in the first sense—i.e., the false teaching might be judged so severe that the offender deserves to be excommunicated—but is not excommunicable in the second sense, for the organizational reality is such that excommunication is not practicable. The point to observe is that whatever the offense in Matthew 18, it is excommunicable in both senses: the sin must be serious enough to warrant excommunication, and the organizational situation is such that the local church can take decisive action that actually means something. Where one or the other of these two senses does not apply, neither does Matthew 18.

One might of course argue that it is the part of prudential wisdom to write to authors before you criticize them in your own publication. I can think of situations where that may or may not be a good idea. But such reasoning forms no part of the argument of Matthew 18.

(3) There is a flavor of play-acting righteousness, of disproportionate indignation, behind the current round of “Gotcha!” games. If Person B charges Person A, who has written a book arguing for a revisionist understanding of the Bible, with serious error and possibly with heresy, it is no part of wisdom to “Tut-tut” the narrow-mindedness of Person B and smile condescendingly and dismissively over such judgmentalism. That may play well among those who think the greatest virtue in the world is tolerance, but surely it cannot be the honorable path for a Christian. Genuine heresy is a damnable thing, a horrible thing. It dishonors God and leads people astray. It misrepresents the gospel and entices people to believe untrue things and to act in reprehensible ways. Of course, Person B may be entirely mistaken. Perhaps the charge Person B is making is entirely misguided, even perverse. In that case, one should demonstrate the fact, not hide behind a procedural matter. And where Person B is advancing serious biblical argumentation, it should be evaluated, not dismissed with a procedural sleight-of-hand and a wrong-headed appeal to Matthew 18.

1. ^D. A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005).
2. ^This argument could be ratcheted up to the denominational level for those who—mistakenly, in my view—think that “church” in Matt 18 has that sort of multi-assembly organization in view.

For more from this site, click here