Inform Your 'Faith'

Sola Scriptura!!! A hallmark of the Protestant Reformation.
  Strange Fire also asserts that continuationists "tacitly" deny the reformed principle of Sola Scriptura. This reformed tenet fundamentally means that scripture is the sole authority in determining what Christians hold to be true because scripture is God's revealed truth/s for us to live by. And because the bible is a closed canon, fait a compli, (i.e. collection of God's revealed Word) there will be no additions to nor subtractions from it (Rev.22:18-19). More could be said in terms of a more trenchant working definition of course. But that is beyond the scope of this evaluation.

  First of all, I applaud the uncompromising stance to doggedly defend the authority of Scripture as every Christian should. This certainly is a Christian virtue well espoused by the Strange Fire Conference. The church should ceaselessly strive to be a "Bibliocracy," to borrow a word from the Reformer Huldrych Zwingli. To view Scripture as inadequate, in terms of its revelatory content as as sufficient truth, IS condemnable. To knowingly and deliberately substitute the sufficiency of Scripture as the sole source of verifiable and authentic revealed truth IS the work of the "spirit of error" or the "spirit of the antichrist," (I John 4:1-6).  We should all heartily be in agreement with this emphasis of Strange Fire. Their intentions here are beyond cavil. Beyond this, though, they do egregiously err. Perhaps, unwittingly.

  Strange Fire asserts that continuationists tacitly deny Sola Scriptura on grounds that they advocate "extra-biblical" revelation. Revelation for them (Strange Fire), of course, being strictly defined as the infallible revealed truths of Scripture. If continuationist's were promoting the validity of ongoing revelation on par with Scripture, than Strange Fire would have a point. However, that is not what continuationists mean. (There are many Pentecostals and Charismatics that would practice that and they should be called on to repent.)   Revelation for Strange Fire, according to their argumentation, is a misnomer. They are offering a critique of something that isn't being said or practiced by sound continuationists, as well as, confusing biblical categories (see "Strange Fire" Eval.#2). Scripture does affirm a category of revelation beyond the canon though not tantamount to the canon and of course subject or subordinate to the canon (again see "Strange Fire" Eval.#2). This revelation would of course be subject to the Analogy of Faith.

  Now, it does appear that Strange Fire, in their explicit denial of the gift of prophecy and ongoing miraculous gifts et al, are actually the ones culpable of denying Sola Scriptura - not tacitly, but explicitly. I'm not suggesting this applies to all who are cessationist and working through the implications. I am applying this to Strange Fire explicitly. Their primary arguments are framed from historical tradition - or the voices of tradition - at the expense of the Vox Dei, the voice of God in Scripture. What I mean is that Strange Fire proponents read the voices of history into the texts of the bible. (This is also a violation of  Reformed hermeneutics. I will touch on this in "Strange Fire" Eval.#5).  

  Ironically, this very practice was what motivated the Reformers and Protestant Reformers to recapture and herald the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The Roman Catholic Church had abandoned the sole authority of Scripture by subordinating the bible to the authority of the Pope and the authority of Roman Catholic tradition.  Inevitably, this led to the "canonization" of the extra-biblical Apocrypha. Interestingly, the Roman Catholic Church of course claimed to have "historical tradition" on their side just as Strange Fire does by enlisting the position of Reformed ministers and early church fathers to support their case. However, they prove to misrepresent the early church fathers on this point. I will touch on this in "Strange Fire" Eval.#4.

  The principle of Sola Scriptura does involve the role of tradition and creed.. However, it does not do so in a way that locates primary authority within tradition or creed. Sacred Writ alone carries that weight.
  When the Reformers were fighting for Sola Scriptura they also realized the necessity of historical interpretations of Scripture and historical church culture as a guide of sorts for understanding Scripture, albeit, not infallible. This was heralded by the medieval humanist phrase "ad fontes" - or return to the fountain or sources. By this was meant that it was incumbent upon the church to cull from the history of the early church (particularly the Patriarchs) as a way to learn how Scripture and church culture was understood then as a guide to how understand them now.
   Nevertheless, tradition was and is to be treated as "regulae doctrinae" or the rule of doctrine while Scripture was and is to be treated as "regulae fidei" or the  rule of faith. The Reformers resoundingly subscribed to this.
   Strange Fire has elevated tradition (Even though the early church fathers do not posthumously support their position as they would postulate they do. Some certainly do of course. Again, I will touch on this in "Strange Fire" Eval.#4) over the veracity of Scripture. This is clear from the pronounced lack of biblical support for their position and their clear reliance on traditional voices above and beyond the clear truths of biblical nomenclature. Where the plain sense of Scripture is in discord with tradition reject tradition not the plain sense of Scripture (sensus literalis).
  Continuationists actually hold to Sola Scriptura more consistently than does the "Strange Fire" position. The ongoing gifts of the Spirit serve to actually promote Sola Scriptura by enlarging our understanding of Scripture or illuminating the truths of Scripture to our perpetually renewed minds (Rom.12:2; Eph.4:22-24; Col.3:9-10). Neither experience nor historical antecedents supersede the clear and plain sense of Scripture or the authority of Scripture.
    Scripture is clear (as are the early church fathers on the gifts of the Spirit...This is developed in "Strange Fire" Eval.#4) that the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and, yes, even gifts of healing and prophecy continue in perpetuity until Christ's return, as the Sovereign Spirit "apportions" (I Cor.12:4-11) regardless of what much later "tradition" maintains based upon REDACTED early church tradition, (see Charles Hodge I Corinthians, pg.30; John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, p.6-7, 4th century A.D.; and, yes, John MacArthur himself  I Corinthians, pg.18-20, 363-366; to name a few).
    If Sola Scriptura is consistently adhered to, without existential, subjective or experiential bias, then the only conclusion to come to is that the gifts of the Spirit continue to be relevant, as the Spirit sovereignly distributes, the return of Christ when the "perfect" has come (I Cor. 1:4-8,12-14( esp.13:8-12); Eph.4:11-16; I Thess.5:20; I Peter 4:7-11).

Commenting on I Corinthians 13:8-12:
  "It is no part of the apostle's purpose to unsettle our confidence in what God now communicates by his (R.C Sproul, What is Reformed Theology; Keith A. Mathison, the Shape of Sola Scriptura; Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers; Alister E. McGrath, Reformation Thourght; Heiko Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation; et al).

Inform your faith!