A RECIPE FOR DISCERNMENT - PART 3

by John MacArthur

True biblical discernment isn’t developed by osmosis. It’s cultivated over time, as a believer matures in faith. The last few days, we’ve been considering the essential ingredients for discernment, including consistent prayer, the pursuit of godly wisdom, moral integrity, and the necessity of faithful Bible teaching and teachers. But none of those elements can function properly apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Depend on the Holy Spirit

The Spirit of God is ultimately the true Discerner. It is His role to lead us into all truth (John 16:13). First Corinthians 2:11 says, “The thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.” Paul goes on to write:

We have received . . . the Spirit who is from God, so that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. (1 Corinthians 2:12–15)

Discernment ultimately depends on the Holy Spirit. As we are filled with and controlled by the Spirit of God, He makes us discerning.

Study the Scriptures

It cannot be overemphasized: True discernment requires diligent study of the Scriptures. None of the other previously stated steps is sufficient apart from this. No one can be truly discerning apart from mastery of the Word of God. All the desire in the world cannot make you discerning if you don’t study Scripture. Prayer for discernment is not enough. Obedience alone will not suffice. Good role models won’t do it either. Even the Holy Spirit will not give you discernment apart from His Word. If you really want to be discerning, you must diligently study the Word of God.

God’s Word is where you will learn the principles for discernment. It is there you will learn the truth. Only there can you follow the path of maturity.

Discernment flourishes only in an environment of faithful Bible study and teaching. Note that in Acts 20, when Paul was leaving the Ephesian elders, he warned them about the deadly influences that would threaten them in his absence (Acts 20:28–31). He urged them to be on guard, on the alert. How? What safeguard could he leave to help protect them from Satan’s onslaughts? Only the Word of God: “And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32).

Let’s look once more, closely, at 2 Timothy 2:15: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.” Notice what this mandate to Timothy implies. First, it suggests that the discerning person must be able to distinguish between the Word of Truth and the “worldly and empty chatter” mentioned in verse 16. That may seem rather obvious. But it cannot be taken for granted. The task of separating God’s Word from human foolishness actually poses a formidable challenge for many today. One look at some of the nonsense that proliferates in churches and Christian media will confirm that this is so. Or note the burgeoning stacks of “Christian” books touting weird views. We must shun such folly and devote ourselves to the Word of God. We have to be able to distinguish between the truth and error.

How? “Be diligent.” Being diligent pictures a worker giving maximum effort in his or her work. It describes someone driven by a commitment to excellence. “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God.” The Greek phrase literally speaks of standing alongside God as a colaborer worthy of identifying with Him.

Furthermore, Paul says this approved workman “does not need to be ashamed.” The word “ashamed” is very important to Paul’s whole point. Any sloppy workman should be ashamed of low-quality work. But a servant of the Lord, handling the Word of Truth carelessly, has infinitely more to be ashamed of.

What Paul suggests in this passage is that we will be ashamed before God Himself if we fail to handle the Word of Truth with discernment. If we can’t distinguish the truth from worldly and empty chatter, if we can’t identify and refute false teachers, or if we can’t handle God’s truth with skill and understanding, we ought to be ashamed.

And if we are to divide the Word of Truth rightly, then we must be very diligent about studying it. There is no shortcut. Only as we master the Word of God are we made “adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17). That is the essence and goal of discernment.

(Adapted from Reckless Faith.)

A RECIPE FOR DISCERNMENT - PART 2

by John MacArthur

Discernment is not automatically built in to the lives of Christians. The ability to wisely divide truth from error is something that must be pursued and developed as a part of the sanctification process. As we saw last time [link], the biblical recipe for discernment starts with fervent prayer and earnest desire. Both of those are foundational, but not enough on their own. A third vital ingredient in developing biblical discernment is obedience to the truth.

Obey the Truth

Someone will point out that with all his abundance of wisdom, Solomon was nevertheless a dismal failure at the end of his life (1 Kings 11:4–11). “His heart was not wholly devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been” (1 Kings 11:4). Scripture records this sad assessment of the wisest man who ever lived:

King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the sons of Israel, “You shall not associate with them, nor shall they associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after their gods.” Solomon held fast to these in love. He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods. . . . For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites. Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not follow the Lord fully, as David his father had done. Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon. Thus also he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.

Now the Lord was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the Lord. (1 Kings 11:1–9)

But Solomon did not suddenly fail at the end of his life. The seeds of his demise were sown at the very beginning. First Kings 3, the same chapter that records Solomon’s request for discernment, also reveals that Solomon “formed a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt” (1 Kings 3:1). Verse three tells us, “Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of his father David, except he sacrificed and burned incense on the high places.”

From the very beginning his obedience was deficient. Surely with all his wisdom he knew better, but he tolerated compromise and idolatry among the people of God (1 Kings 3:2)—and even participated in some of the idolatry himself!

Knowing the truth without obedience is worthless. What good is it to know the truth if we fail to act accordingly? That is why James wrote, “Prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves” (James 1:22). Failure to obey is self-delusion; it is not true discernment, no matter how much intellectual knowledge we may possess. Solomon is biblical proof that even true discernment can give way to a destructive self-delusion. Disobedience inevitably undermines discernment. The only way to guard against that is to be doers of the Word and not hearers only.

Follow Discerning Leaders

Another key ingredient in biblical discernment is this: Emulate those who demonstrate good discernment. Do not follow the leadership of people who are themselves “tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14). Find and follow leaders who display an ability to discern, to analyze and refute error, to teach the Scriptures clearly and accurately. Read from authors who prove themselves careful handlers of divine truth. Listen to preachers who rightly divide the Word of Truth. Expose yourself to the teaching of people who think critically, analytically, and carefully. Learn from people who understand where error has attacked the church historically. Place yourself under the tutelage of those who serve as watchmen of the church.

I do this myself. There are certain authors who have demonstrated skill in handling the Word and whose judgment I have come to trust. When I encounter a difficult issue—whether it is a theological problem, an area of controversy, a new teaching I have never heard before, or whatever—I turn to these authors first to see what they have to say. I wouldn’t seek help from an unreliable source or a marginal theologian. I want to know what those who are skilled in exposing error and gifted in presenting truth have to say.

There have been outstanding men of discernment in virtually every era of church history. Their writings remain as an invaluable resource for anyone who wishes to cultivate discernment. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and J. Gresham Machen are just two of many from the last hundred years who have distinguished themselves in the battle for truth. Charles Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, and scores of other writers from the nineteenth century have left a rich legacy of written material to help us discern between truth and error. In the century before that, Thomas Boston, Jonathan Edwards, and George Whitefield battled for truth, as did many others like them. The preceding era was the Puritan age—the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which gave us what is undoubtedly the richest catalog of resources for discernment. And before that the Reformers fought valiantly for the truth of God’s Word against the traditions of men.

Virtually every era before the Reformation also had godly men of discernment who stood against error and defended the truth of God’s Word. Augustine, for example, preceded John Calvin by more than a thousand years, but he fought exactly the same theological battles and proclaimed precisely the same doctrines. Calvin and the Reformers drew heavily on Augustine’s writings as they framed their own arguments against error. In the year 325, a contemporary of Augustine, Athanasius, took a decisive stand against Arianism, the very same error that is perpetuated by modern-day Jehovah’s Witnesses. His writings stand today as the definitive response to that error.

Much of the written legacy these spiritual giants left behind is still available today. We can all learn from these men of discernment—and we would do well to emulate the clarity with which they spoke the truth against error.

Those who can expose and answer the errors of false teachers are set in the body of Christ to assist us all to think critically and clearly. Learn from them.

(Adapted from Reckless Faith.)

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.

BIBLE LOGIC FALLACIES OF LIBERTARIAN FREEWILL THEISM

The following numbered items are common assumptions made by synergists (Arminians, Roman Catholics and semi-Pelagians) in rejecting the bondage of the will and God's sovereign grace in salvation.

Fallacy #1. God would not command us to do what we cannot do.

God gave the Law to Moses, The Ten Commandments, to reveal what man cannot do, not what he can do.

A. Premise #1 is unscriptural. God gave the Law for two reasons: To expose sin and to increase it so man would have no excuse for declaring his own righteousness. Why? Because in the context, he does NO righteousness. As Martin Luther said to Erasmus, when you are finished with all your commands and exhortations from the Old Testament, I’ll write Ro.3:20 over the top of it all. ["Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." Rom 3:19, 20] Why use commands and exhortations from the Old Testament to show free will when they were actually given to prove man’s sinfulness? The law came so that the trespass might increase (Rom 5:20).It exists to reveal what we cannot do rather than what we can do; our spiritual impotence, not our moral ability. Yes, God gave commands to man which man cannot do. Therefore commandments and exhortations do not prove free will. Nowhere in scripture is there any hint that God gives commands tounregenerate men to prove they are able to perform them. It no more unfair for God to call men to do something they cannot do than it is for a bank to call people to repay their debts (even if they don't have the money to do so).

B. This premise is irrational. There may be many reasons for commanding someone to do something, other than the assumption that the can do it. The purpose, as above, may be to show the person his inability to perform the command. Thus, NOTHING can be deduced about abilities from a mere command. As Luther said, passages which state things such as "If thou art willing" and "whosoever believes” are spoken in the subjunctive (hypothetical) mood. A grammarian would explain that this is a conditional statement that asserts nothing indicatively. In such passages, what we "ought" to do does not necessarily imply what we "can" do.

C. The consequences of Adam's disobedience on his descendants includes spiritual impotence in several areas: man's inability to understand God (Psalm 50:21; Job 11:7-8; Rom 3:11); to see spiritual things (John 3:3); to know his own heart (Jer 17:9); to direct his own steps in the path of life (Jeremiah 10:23; Proverbs 14:12); to free himself from the curse of the Law (Galatians 3:10); to receive the Holy Spirit (John 14:17); to hear, understand or receive the words of God (John 8:47; 1 Corinthians 2:14); to give himself birth into God's family (John 1:13, Romans 9:15-16); to produce repentance and faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9; John 6:64,65; 2 Thessalonians 3:2; Philippians 1:29; 2 Timothy 2:25); to come to Christ (John 10:26; John 6:44); and to please God (Romans 8:5, 8, 9).

Fallacy #2. Unless our will is free, then we are not responsible.

Or, "If not free, then not responsible." This means if we are unable to make a contrary choice, then our wills are not free. Thus, if we are completely bound in sin so that we can do nothing else but sin, then we are free from responsibility for those sins. The assumption behind this is the idea of moral neutrality.

A. The Bible does not present the concept of freedom in this way. According to Scripture, freedom is described as holiness. The ultimate freedom is absolute holiness. If that is true, then God is the most free being in the universe. Otherwise, we must say that God is the most enslaved being in the universe because He is the one least neutral on moral issues. Plus, God is not free in the libertarian sense to do something contrary His own nature. For example God cannot lie or be unholy or He would violate his own essence and thus no longer be God (an impossible supposition). but He is free in the Biblical sense...free from sin and the bondage of corruption ... as will be the saints in heaven when glorified on the last day. That they cannot choose otherwise [to sin] when glorified does not hinder their freedom, according to the Bible, these persons are the MOST free.

B. Likewise, if we affirm that bondage of will eliminates responsibility, then the best way to avoid responsibility for ours sins to be as bound by them as possible. The drunk who is bound by alcoholism is therefore not responsible for his actions. Should we encourage people to sin all the more therefore, so that they are not responsible any more?

C. The entire idea of neutrality of will is absurd. If the decisions of the will are not determined by the internal nature of the person, then in what sense can it be said that those decisions are the results of a decision of the person himself? How in fact could be a decision be truly a moral one if it is morally neutral? How can morality be morality at all and be neutral?

D. It is directly ontrary to the gospel. It is for this very reason that Christ came - to liberate captives, those in bondage who are unable to help themselves.

Fallacy #3. For love to be real, it must have the possibility of being rejected.

God wants us to love him freely, not by compulsion. Therefore, fallen man must have the ability to love God. It is simply that he chooses to love other things.

A. Scripture teaches that love for God is a product of His grace. 1Ti.1:14. If grace is necessary to make us love God, then it follows that we had no ability to love him before the arrival of grace. It also means that grace is not given because we chose to love God. We chose to love God because grace is given. Grace, not a virtue in man, takes the initiative.

B. This premise is similar to the one that says, "Contrary choice is necessary for freedom to exist." Does God periodically give the saints in heaven an opportunity to hate him so as to be ‘fair’? Did Jesus have some ability to hate the Father? Or was His love for the Father a reflection of what He himself really is?

C. If faith is a gift of grace, as we saw above, then why is it strange to think that love may not be also a gift of grace?

D. This fallacy can easily be demonstrated to be wrong in every day life.  If a parent sees their disobedient child doing something that is imminently life threatening, is it 1) more loving to first test the child's love to see if he will obey the parent (meet their condition) or 2) more loving if the parent, in spite of the disobedience of their child, to run over to save their life because they know better than the child what is good for them? Obviously the later which demonstrates beyond question that love can be real even if it cannot be rejected. What kind of parent makes his child meet conditions if his life is in danger? Thank God for his mercy, Christ meets the conditions for us.

Fallacy #4. A person cannot be punished for what he cannot help doing.

If that is the case, then a Christian may not be rewarded for what his new nature compels him to do. Let us not forget that the nature of a person is not a thing he possesses. It is something he is.

Given this logic, if a person borrowed and then subsequently squandered millions of dollars from a bank, he should not be held accountable for being unable to repay.  Makes no sense.

John Hendryx & Roger Smalling

Copied from  this site

HOW CAN I KNOW IF I'M ELECT?

Response: First of all, the Bible does not teach justification by election, but that our just standing before God is by grace alone in Christ alone as evidenced by our faith. Election does not save but is a blueprint of what God intends to do in time in Jesus Christ. If you are a sinner who has cast aside all self-righteousness and trusts in Jesus Christ as your only hope for salvation, you can know, based on God's certain promise that He has done a work of grace in you, that your sins are forgiven and are, therefore, counted among the elect.
God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. But when someone actually comes to faith in Christ we can know from Scripture that it was God who, in His great mercy, opened their blind eyes, unplugged their deaf ears and gave them a new heart to understand and obey the command (Deut 29:4, 30:6; Matt 16:16-17; Rom 9:15, 16). When God removes the scales from our eyes, when He turns the heart of stone to a heart of flesh (Ezek 36:26) there is no longer resistance because the heart is no longer hard like stone. All resistance has been disarmed.
"Our Lord did not come to tell us what we have to do in order to save ourselves; He came to save us... The Christian doctrine of salvation and redemption is this - that Christ Himself is the salvation."- Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”  And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. - Matt 16:16-17

Jesus declares Peter's confession was supernatural. That means the fallen sinner's faith in Christ is not self-generated but a work of creation (regeneration) which the Holy Spirit broods over until hatched, so to speak.  And since it is a work of God we have confidence that He will finish what He began (John 6:37-39).

Recommended Resources
Studies on Saving Faith (free eBook) by A. W. Pink
Assurance by J. C. Ryle
Reflections on Assurance by D. A. Carson
The Assurance of Salvation (Study Guide) by R. C. Sproul

MY SIN MAKES ME WORRY IF I AM SAVED

Once in a while I will receive an email like the following from someone who is worried that some sin they have committed may have crossed the place of no return to God's favor.
Visitor: Even after I was sealed for the day of redemption, I still have sinned against God. I continue to fight addicting sin(s), and though most of the time I defeat the sin, sometimes I foolishly give in to it. I'm so sorry that I have given in to foolish and sinful lusts, and all I want to do is to cast away those actions forever, and to be forgiven, and sin no more. But I don't know if I am saved anymore, because I have really been scared that my repentance is not true, because I have again sinned, and that God has cast me away. Please help me, because I am very scared. I want to be forgiven and be different.
Response: Your sin is not greater than Christ's grace and work. Having been united to Christ, the Spirit of adoption can come to you no more with a Spirit of bondage and fear because in Christ you no longer stand in your own sins, merit or performances, but are clothed in His righteousness. Becaue of Jesus you are already on the other side of justice and it can no longer have you (Rom 8:1). No condemnation for you in Christ for the full justice of God has been satisfied. Christ's once for all sacrifice means there is no longer necessary a sacrifice for sin year after year (as in Leviticus) but now His atoning work is sufficient for all time for you before God. Remember, you can neither attain, nor maintain, your right standing before God. You never did and never will, for sin cannot disolve the covenant which God has graciously granted you in Christ any more than He would disolve his relationship with Christ himself. Now as always, our only hope is Jesus Christ. When God justified you, He did not then, and does not now, look at you but rather, at the covenant He made with you in Christ. Consider, when God made the covenant of grace with Abraham, God made Abraham sleep and God himself walked through the divided animals and so promised to take on Himself the punishment if Abraham failed to fulfill his side of the covenant. And so it was, the seed of Abraham (that's us) all failed to keep the covenant and so God Himself came in the flesh to fully bear up the punishment we justly deserve for not keeping our side of it. Jesus Kept it for us. He did for us what we could not do for ourselves, from our side. We are justified for His sake, not for anything God sees in us or will see in us.
It was not your obedience, repentance or faith that caused God to justify you because none of these things can pay for sin - not now, not ever. Only Christ alone can save and pay for sin. And He did. Your safety is based, therefore, on Christ's merit, not on what you do, otherwise you are looking in your self for confidence before God, rather than Christ. No one, not one of us would have any hope if we had to look to ourselves even a little for our final salvation. So look to Christ. He is the author and perfector of our salvation. He alone is able to keep you. Herein is the gospel.
And if one thinks they can lose their salvation because of some sin they committed, they are essentially acknowldging that what Christ did for them was insufficient. They are looking at least partly to themselves for their right standing before God - looking to Christ PLUS their keeping of the Law (Gal 3:3). It misses the whole point of the gospel which is that Christ saves from first to last. The passage that warns the Hebrews against falling away is warning them against one thing: abandoning trust in Christ alone by going back to now worthless and obsolete things, such as trusting in the temple sacrifice and the Law in order to be justified. The warnings in Hebrews are given to those in the covenant community that they would not be tempted to turn from trusting Jesus alone (who is God over all) for some lesser or meaningless ritual act or law keeping that supposedly now can improve on Christ's redemption to curry God's favor. Trusting in anything except Christ alone, who is the light that scatters all shadows, is said to be tantamount to "trampling under foot the Son of God", that is, believing that His once of all sacrifice is insufficient in itself to save. If something in place of, or in addition to, Jesus is trusted in it is no different than a denial of Him. So in context, the persons who go back by trading in Christ for the now-empty ritual of the temple (that itself was meant to point to the fulfillment in Christ), are then re-crucifying the Son to their shame. But unfortunately, Hebrews 6:4-8 is often read in isolation apart from this context.
In fact this is a backdoor to the Galatian heresy where Paul says, "Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3:3) To believe one can lose salvation, therefore, is trusting in something other than Jesus Christ to keep you righteous in Him. The Hebrews were tempted to go back to temple sacrifice (trusting in something other than Christ) and the doctrine that one can lose salvation is likewise trusting in ones' own moral ability to maintain a just standing before God, since Jesus, according to them, is unable to save completely those who He came to save. Either we are trusting in Christ alone to both attain and maintain our justification or we are trusting in something worthless which the author of Hebrews gives severe warnings about. Quite ironic. That passage is a warning passage for the very error those who teach we can lose salvation are making.
So if your faith is in him today, no matter what you have done, by the promise of God in the gospel you can know that your sins are forgiven. As surely as God is good, in Christ's blood He remembers to never treat you as your sins justly deserve because justice has already been carried out (past tense) for them. You have been set free in Christ and have been given a new heart that loves God. We trust and obey Christ, not in order to be saved but because He has saved us already. May he grant you a Spirit of revelation and an increasing knowledge of Him that your affection for Him would overcome all other vain affections.
by John Hendryx
Similar Articles
How Do I Know I am Saved?

DRAWING LINES

by John MacArthur

After providing three exegetical reasons for believing that the gift of prophecy continues beyond the apostolic era, John Piper set out to offer some critique of charismatic abuses.  The Ask Pastor John podcast addressed doctrinal and emotional abuses in episode 216, and discernment and financial abuses in episode 217. Piper’s constructive criticisms raised several issues that must be addressed.

Are Charismatic Errors/Abuses Linked to Charismatic Doctrine?

John begins by asserting, “Every charismatic abuse has its mirror image in non-charismatic abuses.  Nothing I am going to say is unique to charismatics.”^[1] He encourages charismatic listeners not to feel picked on because, as he says, “I know that in some of these cases the non-charismatic church is more guilty than the charismatic.”^[2]

Now, by framing the issue that way, John (at least formally) dismisses any connection between (a) the abuses he goes on to address and (b) the theology that leads to and enables those abuses. If it’s true that nothing he brings up is unique to charismatics, he is not really doing what the host asked him to do—to address charismaticabuses. It seems he doesn’t really believe that those abuses arise from the particular theology embraced by charismatics.

But I, along with the other speakers at the Strange Fire conference, contend that nothing could be further from the truth. There is a clear line from charismatic theology to a myriad of doctrinal errors and practical abuses. When a movement is built upon the conviction that feelings or emotions, rather than truth aimed at the mind, are the surest guide to the knowledge of God,^[3] it is a movement ripened and ready for the abuses of aberrant theology.  Experientialism, emotionalism, and subjectivism have proved defenseless against heresy and error.

And that is precisely what we observe. Of the roughly 500 million people worldwide who self-identify as charismatics, 120 million are Roman Catholic, 24 million are anti-Trinitarian Oneness Pentecostals, and hundreds of millions would mistake the prosperity gospel, preached by many on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, for the true gospel.^[4] What could possibly unite these groups who cannot agree on the most basic tenets of Christian conviction, such as the doctrine of justification and the Trinity? It is certainly not the objective truth of Scripture, but rather the shared mystical experiences of redefined spiritual gifts.

Further, the idea that God continues to speak through modern-day prophets encourages people to seek “fresh wind–fresh fire.”  After all, why depend on old revelation from God when you can get something new, something contemporary, something fresh? That temptation to prefer a new, immediate word from God and ignore the old and written Word is very strong. Sadly, charismatic churches encourage their people to yield to that temptation as a matter of normal Christian living. That throws the door wide open to every false teacher who wants to peddle aberrant theology in the name of God.  Conrad Mbewe gave a clear picture of how terrifying that can be in other parts of the world (see here and here).  He has watched the shaman-like charlatans claim to receive ongoing, subjective revelation by the Holy Spirit; exalt themselves; and lord it over others as “the man of God” in order to extract money from poor, needy, and desperate people.

The point is, there is an organic theological link between the doctrines of the charismatic movement and the abuses that arise within it. And while no one would deny that there are doctrinal errors and emotional abuses in non-charismatic churches, one would be hard pressed to trace those errors and abuses back to cessationist theology, which is built upon the sufficiency and finality of the Scriptures.

Is Cessationism a Pathway to Liberalism?

In addition to softening the criticisms from charismatics, John shifted the focus to emotionless churches, which, he believes, are on the pathway to liberalism.  He ended the episode saying, “lest I leave it unsaid, there are emotional abuses in the non-charismatic church, namely, the absence of emotion, which is probably more deadly than the excess.”^[5]  That line of critique continued in episode 217:

I would say that non-charismatics taken as a whole—all the Christians who don’t practice the gifts—are far more guilty of [doctrinal and emotional abuses] than charismatics.  Think of all doctrinal errors in the history of the church. Those weren’t charismatics, by and large.  Think of all the dying mainline churches today, with all their moral and doctrinal aberrations. These aren’t charismatics.  And think of the emotional deadness in thousands of non-charismatic evangelical and mainline churches.  Those are deadly emotional abuses.  And, we just need to remember that if we target the charismatic church because of things that are happening there, doctrinally and emotionally, let’s remember the mirror image—which are equally deadly—are happening among non-charismatic churches as well.^[6]

Now, first of all, it’s necessary to point out that the doctrinal errors we read about in church history cannot be laid at the feet of the charismatics because charismatic theology is not a part of church history. Protocharismatic movements, led by self-proclaimed prophets who advocated continuing revelation by the Spirit, cropped up at various points in church history.^[7] However, their prophecies were summarily dismissed by the church as arrogant, presumptuous, and false; their theology was condemned as aberrant or heretical.

Secondly, no one has argued that errors and abuses exist only within charismatic churches.  That is not the issue at all.  What we’re talking about here are charismatic errors and abuses, the aberrations of doctrine and practice that are taught, promoted, developed, and/or tolerated within charismatic circles.  The Ask Pastor John podcast titles acknowledge the existence of such errors and abuses, even if the critique in those programs falls short of addressing the theology that produces the problems.

Thirdly, John refers to the emotional deadness of the mainline churches as evidence that emotional abuses exist in the cessationist camp as well, namely, the lack of emotion. However, mainline liberals are emotionally dead not because they are cessationists but because they deny fundamental doctrines of Scripture. By cutting themselves off from the gospel and the Savior, they forfeit the theology that gives life and brings joy. When mainline churches deny the inerrancy of Scripture, penal substitutionary atonement, and the deity of Christ, it’s no wonder they don’t have renewed spiritual affections—they are unregenerate. Their emotional deadness has nothing to do with their cessationism. And though there are doctrinal, emotional, discernment, and financial abuses in all kinds of churches—charismatic and cessationist, liberal and conservative—you cannot draw a straight line from those problems to a theology that insists on the sole authority and absolute sufficiency of the Scripture (i.e., cessationism). 

How Should We Deal with Charismatic Error and Abuse?

So, this debate isn’t a matter of “my church does it better than your church;” nor is it about those who are more emotional or less emotional.^[8]  This is a matter of truth and error.  My pastoral duty is to call Christians to abandon all other forms of revelation, and to bind their consciences to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture alone.  That not only keeps them away from error and within the safe boundaries of Scripture—it connects them with the transforming power of God’s Word, which the Holy Spirit uses to conform Christians to the image of Christ.  It’s a ministry of love—passion for God and compassion for people.

John Piper prefers to take a more indirect approach to confronting charismatics.  In his words:

I don’t go on a warpath against charismatics.  I go on a crusade to spread truth.  I am spreading gospel-centered, Christ-exalting, Bible-saturated, Calvinistic truth everywhere, and I’m going to push it into the face of every charismatic I can find.  Because what I believe is, if they embrace the biblical system of doctrine that’s really there, it will bring all of their experiences into the right orbit around the sun of this truth.^[9]

That sounds great, and I wholeheartedly affirm the need for the positive preaching of the truth.  Paul commands pastors to “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season.”  But there’s a negative, corrective side to pastoral ministry as well: We are also to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with great patience and instruction” (2 Tim. 4:2).

You can preach a “truth crusade” to T.D. Jakes and Benny Hinn until you’re blue in the face.  They’ll smile and call you “brother,” all the way to the bank.  Their theology and practice, which are consistent with one another, need to be confronted head on, and Christians need to be warned to stay away from them.

Conclusion

The abuses that have arisen in the charismatic movement are not merely incidental to their theology; they are organically linked to it. If charismatic and continuationist leaders ignore that direct link, any call to correct errors and abuses will prove to be ineffective—you can’t deal with the fruit if you don’t deal with the root.

The final chapter of Strange Fire is called “An Open Letter to My Continuationist Friends.”  John is one of those friends. The Lord has used him mightily over decades to strengthen and encourage the church and reach the world with the message of salvation. It would be very impactful if he were to speak definitively in condemning the errors and abuses that arise in the charismatic movement.  As I wrote in Strange Fire:

I am convinced that the dangers inherent in the continuationist position are such that a clear warning needs to be issued.  There is too much at stake for my Reformed charismatic and evangelical continuationist friends to ignore the implications of their view.  As leaders in the evangelical world, they wield a great deal of influence; the trajectory they set will determine the course for the next generation of young ministers and the future of evangelicalism.  That is why a line in the sand needs to be drawn, and those who are willing to stand up and defend the Spirit’s true work must do so.^[10]

John’s willingness to confront aberrant theology and practices was encouraging to hear, but my hope is that he will excel still more.  I know he will, as I will, as we pursue Christ together to our dying days.  It’s my greatest joy and pleasure to serve alongside him in all aspects of gospel ministry.

---

[1] Ask Pastor John, episode 216, 0:27–0:40.

[2] Ask Pastor John, episode 216, 0:21–0:55.

[3] “The common element in all these varieties of mysticism is that they all seek all (or most, or the normative, or at least a substantial part) of the knowledge of God in human feelings, which they look upon as the sole (or at least the most trustworthy, or the most direct) source of the knowledge of God” (Benjamin B. Warfield, “Mysticism and Christianity,” in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003], 9:653–54, lightly formatted).

[4] MacArthur, Strange Fire, 14.

[5] Ask Pastor John, episode 216, 7:34–7:47.

[6] Ask Pastor John, episode 217, 0:44–1:33.

[7] E.g., the Montanists, the Zwickau Prophets, the Quakers, and the Irvingites, to name a few.

[8] This is the subject of episode 239. While I would join John Piper in decrying the excesses of emotionalism as well as the anemia of so-called “dead orthodoxy,” it is imprudent to say that we prefer the excess of emotion to the absence of emotion. Scripture demands that we prefer neither and combat both.

[9] Ask Pastor John, episode 216, 4:09–4:40.

[10] MacArthur, Strange Fire, p. 247.

For more, click this link