Strange Fire?

I've been listening to the uproar that has been John MacArthur's Strange Fire conference. You may have heard about it. MacArthur is releasing (has released) a new book, Strange Fire, a kind of sequel to his 1993 Charismatic Chaos, where he warns about problems in the Charismatic movement. The argument actually goes much further. The question at hand is not specifically "Pentecostalism or not", but "continuationism" or "cessationism".

If you haven't heard these terms, you ought to be aware of them. Here's the question. The gifts of the Holy Spirit seen in the New Testament included such things as healing, tongues, and prophecy. Were these gifts intended to continue ("continuationism"), or were these gifts only for a season and have now ceased ("cessationism")? Now, to be absolutely clear, it needs to be pointed out that no one (at least that I'm aware of) is arguing that there are no more gifts of the Holy Spirit. Please set down that mistaken impression at the start. The cessationists are not saying there are no more gifts, but that there are no more of the miraculous gifts, the "sign gifts". They are not saying that the Holy Spirit doesn't baptize, fill, indwell, or work anymore today. They're saying that gifts like tongues, healing, and prophecy were intended to substantiate the claims of the original Apostles and are no longer necessary since Scripture is now sufficient for that task. When you choose to disagree with them, disagree with what they are claiming, not what they aren't.

Most people answer this question primarily from their experience and background. "Well," they (we) will say, "I have never been in a tongues-speaking, prophesying, miraculous-healing church and, to be honest, I was always taught it wasn't real (or I've always been skeptical), so I'd say that they've ceased." Or they (we) will say, "I've been a part of these kinds of things and seen them so I know they are real." Both sides can mount an experiential defense: "I've seen it" or "Never happened." Both sides can throw out big names of big supporters. The Strange Fire conference boasted such speakers as R.C. Sproul, Steve Lawson, Joni Eareckson Tada, Phil Johnson, and John MacArthur just to name a few. Named within the conference were folks on the other side like Sam Storms, Wayne Grudem (author of such books as The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today and Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?) and John Piper. Both sides, then, can "bring out the big guns." What is rarely offered is any genuine biblical support ... for either side.

By "genuine" I mean that which is clear and straightforward. For instance, one of the most common passages offered is "For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away" (1 Cor 13:9-10). Now, I dare you. Guess which side you think throws that one on the table as a prooftext. Don't worry. Whichever answer you offered, you would be right. Because, you see, the continuationists say, "See? The perfect hasn't come, so we still prophesy" and the cessationists say, "See? Since Scripture is the perfect revelation of God then the partial is done away with." And that one is the clearest biblical argument. Everything else after that gets a bit hazy. The pentecostal/charismatic side will give examples like Acts 2 where the disciples received the Spirit after they were saved and that they spoke in tongues and carry that out to mean that everyone should. The cessationists will point to Eph 2:20 where Paul explains that the Church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" and then conclude, "You don't lay a foundation more than once in a building." Okay, fine. These are biblical arguments, but they aren't compelling because none of them say, "The miraculous gifts have ceased" or "All these gifts will continue until we get to heaven." And "But I've spoken in tongues" or "The miraculous gifts of the Spirit vanish after the canon of Scripture is set" are all well and good, but not complete.

"Look," you may want to tell me, "just let it go, okay?" Some may suggest I be more like Gamaliel in Acts. Of the Christians he said, "Keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" (Acts 5:38-39). After all, the single fastest growing religious group in the world is not Islam; it is Pentecostalism. But I still have to ask myself what is the truth here. And I am commanded "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1). So, I can't just let it go.

I am troubled by the clear and obvious excesses and abuses of some on the side of the pentecostal/charismatics. Even those within the movement admit that such things can and do occur. I am concerned about the apparent decline in the abilities of the Holy Spirit in His gifting as well. You know, when He gave the gift of tongues at Pentecost, they spoke in languages that could be understood (Acts 2:1-8) and when Paul required that "only two or at most three" speak in tongues and only if there was an interpreter there (1 Cor 14:27-28), it appeared as if the Spirit was providing a useful sign. Now it's "heavenly languages" that no one can understand. When the New Testament disciples healed, it was full and complete, never partial or unsuccessful. Now it's "iffy" at best. When biblical prophets, Old and New Testament, spoke, it was without error. Now it's more of a divine suggestion that could be (maybe likely is?) wrong. What happened to the Gifter? I am troubled by the silence of the lambs, so to speak. I'm troubled that those who defend pentecostal/charismatic views, which is fine if that is your understanding of Scripture, do not speak out against the obvious error within their camp. When a prophet is wrong a large part of the time, why is no one saying, "You know, that goes against Scripture"? When a pentecostal/charismatic leader exhibits immoral behavior, why is no one saying, "You know, that goes against Scripture"? Why the serious silence? And, to be completely fair, I am troubled by the lack of any clear Scripture that tells me that the Holy Spirit ceased giving these gifts. I see the abuses and decry them. I see the errors and evict them. I admit a complete absence of any experience that would support the continuation of these gifts. But all of this is an argument from silence, and that troubles me as well.

Maybe you can see, once again, that I'm on uncertain ground here. I've examined the question and come away lacking. Lacking definite proof. Lacking sure Scripture. Lacking foundational support. I think the questions need to be asked. I think the errors need to be addressed. But, unwilling to base my final conclusion on experience or "the past", I appear to be stuck in the middle here. This is just one of those areas that I can't completely and totally end up "here" or "there" yet because, unlike so many things in Scripture, I just can't see this one clearly. I guess that makes me human, eh?