Inform Your 'Faith'

  Two other complaints made during the closing remarks of the 'Strange Fire' Conference was that continuationists jettison Sola Scriptura and that tradition is on their side.  Now, my last blog interacted with the complaint that continuationists jettison Sola Scriptura so I will not do so here. I will only touch on Sola Scriptura as a stepping stool to address the role of tradition in this discussion.

   To start, Sola Scriptura as a theological category came into vogue during the medieval period of the church through the efforts of the Protestant Reformers particularly. Now, as a general truth it is clearly established in Scripture itself and it is inarguably found in the writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers such as Ignatius, Clement and the like. Sola Scriptura as a theological category simply defined and embodied what the Scripture advances and what the early church assumed as a given.

   Sola Scriptura of course has never meant Solo Scriptura. That is, Sola Scriptura was well understood to place sole authority within the framework of Scripture but that Scripture's interpretive tradition or history also lends authority to how we interpret Scripture today, albeit a subordinate authority. Solo Scriptura makes interpretation an individualistic enterprise and cuts a person off from how holy writ has traditionally been understood throughout the panorama of church history or tradition.

   Strange Fire is to be commended for appealing to the role and place of historical interpretation.  However, it certainly seems, as irony would have it, that they have succumbed to the same pitfall as the Roman Catholic Church that actually precipitated the clarion call for a return to Sola Scriptura. - although without the egregious motives as the RCC. Tradition has been elevated to a place of authority over and against the veracity and sole authority of Scripture in determining truth.

    Now, I absolutely concede that tradition dating back to the early church does ostensibly give testimony to the position that the gifts of grace have ceded. Germane to the early church, though, there is no consistent agreement among churchmen fait a compli.Agreement only becomes more pronounced much later in history.    Actually, there is far more evidence that supports the continuum of grace gifts within the first three centuries than granted by Strange Fire. Evidence Strange Fire  conspicuously overlooks or for whatever reason has failed to properly study. As noted church historian Jaroslav Pelikan has posited, "Most ORTHODOX writers in the second and even in the third century maintained that such inspiration by the Holy Spirit (he was referring to prophecy) was not only possible BUT PRESENT AND ACTIVE IN THE CHURCH."

   Clement, who was under the tutelage of Peter and Paul and succeeded them, describes the operation of the gift of the 'utterance of knowledge' (I Cor.12:8) and writes in the same letter, " let every one be subject to his neighbor, according to the special gift bestowed upon him..He who made us and fashioned us, having prepared His bountiful gifts for us before we were born" (The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians). This was in the context of the 'whole body', i.e. the church, serving one another and meeting one another's needs. What he was writing was an extrapolation of I Corinthians 12.

    Ignatius, an understudy of the apostle John who succeeded him through the early second century, describes an instance where he received revelation as the 'Spirit made an announcement to me.' (Epistle To The Philadelphians). Ignatius also wrote about a vision that Polycarp had - who was also an understudy of John. Ignatius recorded, "And while he (Polycarp) was praying, a vision presented itself to him three days before he was taken; and, behold, the pillow under his head seemed to be on fire." (The Martyrdom of Polycarp). He also makes reference to the 'gift of discernment' in his epistle to the Ephesians.

  Moving into the second century we find affirmations of a number of gifts of the Spirit -dreams, visions, prophecy, wisdom, discernment, revelation and more. Moreover, half way into the second century we find Justin Martyr using a record of Marcus Aurelius describing a supernatural miracle executed by the God of the Christians. The Christians serving in Aurelius' army prayed that God would deliver the army from thirst and famine. Aurelius records, "And simultaneously with their casting themselves on the ground, and praying to God, water poured from heaven, upon us most refreshingly cool, but upon the enemies of Rome a withering hail," (The First Apology of Justin). Justin also argued for the case of Christianity against Judaism on grounds that, "among us until now there are prophetic charismata." (Dialogue with Trypho)

   Later into the second century and early into the third Irenaeus affrims the NECESSITY of the gifts mentioned in I Corinthians 12 by quoting I Cor. 12:4-6 & 12:28-29 in order to support their ongoing validity (Irenaeus Against Heresies). In his fifth book of the same work Irenaeus records, "In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages (tongues), and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God." This commentary was in a chapter with the following statement as the heading, "God will bestow salvation upon the whole nature of man, consisting of body and soul in close union, since the word took it upon him, and adorned it (our soul) with gifts of the Holy Spirit..." 

   Celsus, in the second century, acknowledged the presence and activity of 'prophets' in Palestine and Phoenicia. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage well into the third century, argued against the hyper charismatic Montanists of his day by contending that, "the church had a greater share of visions, revelations, and dreams than did they." (Epistles). Church historian, Eusebius of the third and fourth century documents, "the apostle declares that the prophetic charisma should continue to be in the entire church until the last parousia" (Ecclesiastical History). This is all curiously and notably absent from Stranger Fire's assertion that they have early church tradition on their side. Strange Fire is historically inaccurate when they claim the support of early church tradition. Historical facts alone disprove their denunciation of the continuationist position. The charismata were commonplace amongst the first four centuries of the church to such an extent that it boasted more charismata than the hyper charismatic Montanists of their day and age. 

   Strange Fire and cessationists postulate that the gifts, particularly the miraculous gifts, ceded after the apostolic era. History, AND EARLY TRADITION as it were, resoundingly shows otherwise as I have shown above. Tradition shows it was well adjudged that the gifts were understood to be an operative grace until Christ returned. 

   The question we are well served to ask is 'At what juncture in early church history did the gifts begin to accrue disapproval?' So much so that they were more or less purged from church culture. The trend to look unfavorably upon the gifts of the Spirit essentially began with the emergence of the Montanist heresy near the end of the second century. It boasted receiving Spirit inspired prophecy that was was equally reliable and authoritative as Scripture. Cyril of Jerusalem, Hippolytus among others entered into the fray and repudiated this so called "New Prophecy" as they should have. This, along with the emerging formation of an increasingly rigid polity (church governance) led to the purgation of the gifts from the culture and teaching of the church. As the church realized that Christ's return may not be as soon as they anticipated they began adapting by taking measures to organize in order to insure a their perseverance. These two dynamics coalesced. The heretical abuses of the Montanist's and the formation of the church's polity in the form of a monarchical episcopate led to the institutional rejection of the gifts of the Spirit. This is where the roots of cessationism can be traced. Cessationism was not early biblical tradition. It was an institutional tradition that emerged due to abuses. This 'tradition' ultimately has usurped Scripture and apostolic tradition relative to Strange Fire.

   Even John Calvin who was a cessationist conceded, ", “It is possible, no doubt, that the world may have been deprived of this honour (the gifts of the Spirit) through the guilt of its own ingratitude.

   Strange Fire ultimately mishandles historical/traditional evidence to support their position. Tradition well beyond the golden age of the Apostolic era attests to the continuation of the gifts.

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!

    2 other concluding thoughts or judgments offered at the end of the "Strange Fire" Conference  in regard to continuationists that need evaluation are:

    A.) Continuationists distract from the Holy Spirit's true ministry by enticing people to buy into a false ministry. A hazardous distinction to make by the way (Matt.12:22-32). According to this reasoning, advocating the ongoing activity of the Spirit by way of the perpetuity of charisms/gifts somehow suggests a view of the Spirit's insufficiency. Consequently, it is false. This is maintained on the grounds that the Spirit's work/s of regeneration, sanctification, conviction, filling, and sealing are the primary works of the Spirit. Well to those specifics of the Spirit's ministry continuationists would say an unabashed amen. However, we would actually propound a more robust activity of the Spirit that brings those about. Strange Fire's characterization of the gifts as false evinces a fundamental misapprehension of the nature of the gifts as biblically delineated. See below.

    B.)  Continuationists wrongly or erroneously advance the gift of Prophecy and special revelation. The two of course are interrelated. This objection relates to the above A.). For "Strange Fire" Prophecy and revelation must be on par with O.T. Prophecy. They treat the two as if they have to be understood in terms of being "inspired" in the sense of the Bible being "inspired" and "infallible." Again, this misunderstands and confuses the biblical categories. See below.

   Continuationsists actually advocate a biblical sufficiency of the work of the Spirit and a robust, biblically grounded pneumotology (doctrine of the Holy Spirit) that cessationists degrade. Now, "Strange Fire" is correct to denounce much of the hyper-Charismatic and Word of Faith doctrines and practices as degrading the ministry of the Spirit. Although, to generalize as they did is just dishonest. In the end, after honest biblical interpretation, it is possible that they are actually pointing the proverbial finger at themselves with concern. A.). A concern that is more or less existential or experiential in nature than biblical or theological. And this existential or experiential dilemma is the base of THEIR objection/s allayed against charismatics...while lumping continuationists into the mix. While Scripture undoubtedly affirms the work of the Spirit they acknowledge, Scripture also undoubtedly affirms the work of the Spirit continuationsts acknowledge. Actually, continuationists maintain that the ongoing activity of the gifts that are commonplace within the N.T. community and regularly promoted (Rom.12:3-8; I Cor.12:1-30; Eph. 4:8-16; I Peter 4:7-11) serve to promote regeneration, sanctification, conviction, filling and sealing that the "Strange Fire" cessationists primarily affirm. "Strange Fire," in denouncing the gifts/charisms, shortchanges the Spirit's work though. 

    The above indictment (A.) at the closing of the conference either indicates that they are:
1) unfamiliar with continuationist doctrine (and meaning), 2) ignoring what they do know and are familiar with and arguing a "straw man" anyway (a logical fallacy where another's position is misrepresented) or 3) unfamiliar with how Scripture represents the gifts/charism's of the Spirit and thus the role and activity of the Spirit. I cannot say without being in immediate dialogue with them. Speculative conclusions and inferences can only be teased out from their literature.

    Instead of offering a rational critique on grounds of logic (or experience) I would rather turn to Scripture to define the role of the Spirit; which is a biblical logic. Something the concluding thoughts from the "Strange Fire Conference" sorely lacked. The conference by and large was inadequate in providing a comprehensive biblical warrant.

   Let's begin with a record of Christ's description of the economy (activity or ministry) of the Spirit. Here are quotes from the Johannine gospel: John 14:16, "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, to be with you FOREVER, even the Spirit of Truth...You know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you." - Christ is here promising "another Helper" (advocate, counselor) that will indwell the disciples and His flock, by extension. The other Helper was Christ. This Helper, while a distinct person of the Godhead as the Holy Spirit, isn't altogether different in economy or function -  John 14:26, "the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you," (cf.16:12-13). - The Spirit is identified here as He who will imbue the disciples with remembrance of Christ's teaching (this teaching is in the context of the Last Supper John 13 where the disciples were with Christ). This, the Holy Spirit did, as I am quoting from a fulfillment of that verse. The Holy Spirit did accomplish this as the remembrance produced in John is confirmed by this record of it in inspired Scripture. The New Testament was canonized by writers who were inspired and taught by the Holy Spirit just as Christ promised (II Tim. 3:16; II Peter 1:19-21). Interestingly, John, who quoted Christ as teaching the above, (John 14:26) applied this to the Christians at Ephesus near the end of his life. - I John 2:26-27, "But the anointing (i.e. the Holy Spirit that all born again Christians have been given and not some secondary experience) that you received from Him (Christ) abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you...." - John is maintaining that what was true for them (the Apostles/disciples in John 14:26) is true for all who have been born of God. 
   Now, there is a distinction that needs to be made. The Holy Spirit taught/reminded the Apostles of the teachings of Christ...the same teachings the apostles like John promulgated to the nascent church. For the Christians at Ephesus, to whom John is writing in I John, the oral tradition (primarily - although some letters were written by then) John and others had taught them, as the Spirit was bringing the teachings of Christ to their remembrance (John 14:26) was the same teaching the "anointing" or Spirit would confirm within every born again believer. The point is that the same Spirit in the Apostles, who taught and reminded them (the apostles) of the teachings of Christ is the same Spirit at work in all believers now, who teaches us and reminds us of the teachings of Christ as recorded in Scripture or, in other-words, as taught by the Apostles (I John 4:6).
       The aforementioned establishes that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, guides Christians into all truth. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit will reveal NEW propositional truths not previously revealed in Scripture. Nor is that what John means in I John 2:26-27. The canon of Scripture is closed. There will be no additions nor subtractions. The Bible is the ONLY infallible and propositionaly authoritative revelation of God.
    That is not the end of the matter though as "Strange Fire" would like the church to believe. The "true" ministry of the Spirit WILL enable us to recognize and believe the revealed truths of Scripture. The continuationist ethos and praxis of the Spirit's ongoing activity serves to promote the "true" ministry as defined by cessationists.
    The gifts of grace that the Spirit sovereignly, "apportions to each one individually as He wills," (I Cor. 12:11) serves to insure the perpetuity of the Spirit inspired truths of biblical nomenclature. The gifts of "the utterance of wisdom," "the utterance of knowledge," "teaching," "exhortation" and "prophecy," are given to promote an understanding of that which has been revealed in Scripture by the same Spirit of Truth that endows Christians with these gifts, (I Cor. 12:4-11, 14:26,29-32; Rom.12:6-8; I Peter 4:11).
     These Gifts of the Spirit exist to illuminate the truths of Scripture that have already been revealed through Christ, His Gospel and the "remembrance" that the Spirit enabled the Apostles and other inspired N.T. writers to have...now recorded in the 66 books of the Bible. These CONTINUING gifts serve to "reveal" a fuller understanding of Scripture that was otherwise not apprehended or understood by Christians. These gifts provide further "revelation" in relation to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His teaching relayed to all Christians, by way of the writers of the N.T. as they were moved by the Spirit of Truth, throughout time until Christ returns.
    Prophecy and revelation are not to be understood as new revelations beyond Scripture or fresh propositional truths revealed beyond the revealed truths recorded in the Bible as the "Strange Fire" proponents inaccurately and falsely allege.
     This is in accord with the Pauline understanding of the continuation of prophecy and revelation. The continuing activity of prophecy and revelation, as the Spirit continues to sovereignly distribute, serves to enlarge the Christian's clarity or understanding of what has been revealed through Christ and His teaching. Teaching that was preserved by the apostolic community as the Spirit brought to their remembrance the things of Christ. (We should agree, though, that many in the Pentecostal/Charismatic camps do promote a Montanist "new prophecy" doctrine whereby prophecy reveals new truths beyond the truths of Scripture in terms of propositional truths.)
    "Strange Fire" makes many exegetical, categorical and contextual missteps when evaluating the continuationist position and the biblical evidence provided germane to prophecy and revelation. (See D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit, pp. 119-121, 132-133,163 for instance). Space will not permit a more trenchant treatment and I am already pushing the envelope in terms of a blog so the following will have to suffice.
    Paul relates "revelation" to "prophecy" in I Cor. 14:29-33. He also places limitations on both thus affirming that they are not infallible expressions of grace. "Strange Fire" suggests this is impossible by relating N.T. prophecy/revelation to O.T. prophecy and inspired revelation. Paul clearly does not reason the way they do. If prophecy/revelation is tantamount to infallible prophecy and revelation on par with Scripture (as "Strange Fire" maintains it should be understood) Paul is a blasphemer...denying the infallible word of God from being pronounced as he would be doing in I Cor.14:29-33. This is an absurdity.
   The ongoing gifts/charisms of prophecy and revelation that continue to be operative within the Church serve to reveal a fuller understanding of those truths revealed in Scripture. In other words, a prophecy or revelation is a gift given by the Spirit (I Cor.12:11) in order to enlarge the Church's comprehension of the teachings of Christ, recorded in Scripture, as the Spirit inspired its writers, so that the Church can continue to mature in making application in our present life until Christ returns. Paul prayed this much (Col.1:9-12 for instance).
  Moreover, Paul taught the Philippians that he trusted that God would "reveal" a teaching of his to them when they at the time might not have understood or received it (Phil. 3:12-15). Elsewhere Paul prayed, "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened...," (Eph.1:16-18a). As D.A. Carson notes, "Apparently, at least some of this revelation came through a quiet divine disclosure, part of the Christian's growing grasp of spiritual realities - a growing grasp that can come only by revelation, which is to say it comes by grace."
  These are congruous with the Spirit's gifts of the "utternace of wisdom" (I Cor.12:8) and "prophecy/revelation" (I Cor.12:10;14:29-30).  These supernatural gifts of grace continue in perpetuity until Christ returns (I Cor.1:7-8;13:8-12) for the building of Christ's church...aka regeneration, sanctification, conviction et al.

    "Stange Fire" fails to be convincing from a biblical and exegetical/hermenuetical standpoint. "Strange Fire" is simply redefining the sufficiency and ministry of the Spirit as outlined in Scripture. By and large they appear to be working with an "axe to grind" interpretive template more than a biblical template. At least John Calvin, while taking the cessationist position, was honest about it in saying, “It is possible, no doubt, that the world may have been deprived of this honour (the continuation of the gifts) through the guilt of its own ingratitude.”

+Inform your faith



       
       

 

  

   

 

   The recent "Strange Fire" conference set the viral world abuzz or "ablaze" to some extent due to the nature, mode, and content of what was being emphasized. Not so much due to the substantiated validity of its message but in the handling of the message/s. Ordinarily, I don't make it a point to evaluate conferences by way of blog, however, I have become aware of conversations being had in our local community about the conference. Not so much folk being persuaded, but conversation nonetheless. As a result I am throwing my 2 cents, if not 1 cent in.

   My objective here is not to confront any particular individual speaker from the conference. This format is not conducive for that nor an effective way of challenging an individual. Besides, such an approach doesn't entirely comport with scripture. The purpose of the next few blogs is to evaluate the commentary on its own head. This will include affirming the positives and deconstructing the errors in order to serve the local church I pastor as well as our environs in Lagrange, GA.

   This first blog is an evaluation of an appeal made to continuationists at the tail end of the conference. The appeal consists of 8 points, allegations or better judgments against continuationists. (I will interact with them in multiple posts.) In this blog I am interacting with two. The following two judgments (A & B) were amongst the 8:

~A. Continuationists give legitimacy to the contemporary charismatic movement. 
       The reasoning is that theologically conservative ministers/men give credibility to "outlandish"

       charismatics and then become succeptible to their influence and culture.

~B. Continuationists severely limit how people can be responsive to charismatic confusion.

       How can continuationists speak against extremes of Charismania? The implied answer is they

       cannot.

Evaluation:

    These simply aren't  plausible, logical or biblical reasons to not advocate the continuation of the Gifts of the Spirit or the emphasis thereof. After all Paul, Peter and Christ give credibility to the ongoing relevance of the Gifts of the Spirit (this will be explored in much more detail in ensuing blogs). 

    Additionally, the concern articulated above (A & B) is the same scenario present at Corinth. The church at Corinth was all out of sorts. They excelled in every spiritual gift/charism, (I Cor. 1:7...btw - Paul acknowledged that these gifts operated until the "revealing of Jesus Christ, who will sustain these Christians until the end," vv.7-8. A point I will belabor in another blog.) yet were riddled with division, immaturity, super-spiritual elitism based upon speaking in tongues (Yes, this is a known language although, not known to the speaker, not gibberish or ecstatic speech), and more (I Cor.1:11,3:1-4, 14). A highly dysfunctional congregation that Paul addresses as "saints" by the way. The "Strange Fire" critique of that sort of worship, culture, and behavior is well founded and necessary. Paul proceeds in his letter to rebuke them.

   Now, Paul, a self-professed continuationist (14:18), doesn't merely denounce the gifts (either supernatural or so called ordinary) or describe those recognizing the gifts as unbelievers or under demonic influence as many from the "Strange Fire" conference do, be they speakers or followers of the conference. (Where its not explicit it is implicit.)   

   Paul does denounce the abuse or misuse of the gifts. He doesn't respond with a campaign to publically cede the gifts. Instead, he criticizes the "abuse" amid "misuse."  Therefore, it cannot be said that Paul was giving "credibility" to the pseudo-spiritual expressions while he himself identified himself as a continuationist. Scripture alone repudiates the above challenges (A & B). Instead, He corrected and rebuked the misuse yet, advocated for their continued practice. The very thing the "Strange Fire" conference asserts a continuationist cannot or at the least should not do. This is an unbiblical rationale and must be rejected. 

   This point touches upon challenge B and a related article I have come across  titled, "Where There's Smoke, There's Strange Fire." In the article the writer says, "I would think they'd (continuationists) be grateful for credible, equipped rescue workers showing up to do what they can't. A Charismatic who doesn't espouse "barking in the Spirit" simply isn't able to rebuke one who does...."  Of course Strange Fire's concluding challenge to continuationists asserts the same (See above B).

  This simply has no biblical warrant according to Paul's own example above. This also, by way of logical consequence would preclude any Christian's ability to rebuke any sin/s of other Christians because they have lost the high ground of righteousness by still having indwelling sin themselves.

   I suppose the only thing commendable in these two judgments (A & B) is the underlying point that "outlandish" pseudo-spirituality or anti-spirituality is sinful and needs to be rebuked and curtailed within the local church just as Paul did in the Corinthian quandary...although the overall consensus of the conference would maintain by their reasoning above that even Paul couldn't. The rebuke would need to come by a cessationist or anti-Paul super apostle perhaps (II Cor. 11).  However, just as it was possible for them - then - to sin in relation to the gifts/charisms it is possible for those in the local church to do so now, albeit not without rebuke. This does not render them unbelievers or idiots as the speakers and supporters of this conference indicate. It may render Christians spiritually "immature" as Paul describes them....but not necessarily of the spirit of the anti-Christ. Though I would agree that many in the Charismatic world are propagating a Gnostic like pseudo-spirituality that must be repented of.

Moreover, Paul didn't resort to banishing the gifts out of concern that the Corinthian church would continue to be "succeptible" or "vulnerable" to misuse (I Cor.14:26-40). To do so, would in fact, be unbiblical (I Cor. 14:39-40; cf. I Thess. 5:20).

We are well served to find how to reason with situations from scripture not from animus based upon experience or the misuse or sin of others, alone. If the misuse or abuse of things Scripture speaks positively of - and Scripture speaks positively of the gifts/charisms of the Spirit while nowhere describing their cessation, until Christ's return - is grounds to dismiss we will have to discard pastors, church membership, Scripture, authority, so on and so forth. The Reformation should have discarded the organized local church on such grounds.

More evaluation to come. Inform Your Faith

Prince George Alexander Louis!! The masses burst into a jubilant praise. Not only was the princes birth of obsessive interest to multitudes - the announcement of his name was met with euphoric exultation. I get it, the birth signifies a very real stability for the constitutional monarchy and consequently brings a sense of national pride. And I agree a child being born is worthy of note and celebration.

Those concessions being made, though, such celebratory  praise also signifies something much more. At the very least it signifies a warped gradation of the valuation life. With the prevalence of abortion, infanticide, infrantricide representing a basic and abominable devaluing or degradation of life-and it indubitably does- the grandiose celebration of a prince being born betokens a selectivity of valuing life. The disproportionate attention given to such a birth in relation to other births - magnified by the disregard of the countless unborn - evinces this selectively along with the great pains taken to acknowledge that life by multitudes. {The economic boost by hundreds of millions of dollars(monies by the way that could go toward adoption), businesses closing, trans-global media coverage (more concentrated coverage of this birth has been given in comparison to, say, the violence done to children in countries like Democratic Republic of Congo & Chad where guerrilla soldiers abduct and use them for evil ends or the children in many countries who are sold into slavery or prostitution. Not to forget about the children used in the drug wars throughout the streets of the U.S)}   Moreover, the inordinate attention given to the birth of celebrity children, by and large, underscores this.
 
Admittedly, there are many other factors that contribute to such amplified coverage and interest such as the aforementioned media concentration, et al, yet, such disproportionate interest does intimate an underlying systemic problem related to the valuation of life and worth.

This should not be! Or better, this  celebratory posture should be extended to all births! Indeed, Prince George has arrived...so have many others.  All life carries the same intrinsic worth. A child born in the ghettos of Los Angeles is no less worthy of celebration than a prince being born across the pond. A child being born in communist China is no less valuable than a child being born in a tribal province of the middle east. You get the picture.  All life is worthy to be celebrated- and should be. This is true in two senses.  

First of all, Scripture and nature reveal that all of life is vested with a particular and inherent worth. Naturally, the 'pain/s' of death and suffering evince that the cessation or lessening of the quality of life is negative on all accounts. Scripturally, we learn that all human life is made 'in the image and after the likeness of God',(Gen.1:26-27, James 3:9) the Creator of life. This being true all life possesses an inborn value and intrinsic worth due to the fingerprints it bears and the image it portrays; though that image is marred due to sin. Every child born is a creature of the Creator. This creatureliness carries a universal worth/value. This value extends to all human life. To this end and in this sense the local church I help pastor celebrates the birth of all children equally. They are gifts of Father God and worth celebrating. So at Sovereign Grace Church of Lagrange we celebrate the lives of all children who have been born and will be born! We delight in the lives of all our little ones. There isn't a single one we celebrate more than another. There is no sliding scale of value that merits more attention.

Secondly, no child is worthy of royal aggrandizement outside of Christ (Matt.2:2;Luke 1:32). (although within certain governmental constructs a child may be born into 'royalty') And every child of God in Christ is considered a 'king and priest' (Rev.1:6; I Peter 2:9; cf. Ex.19:6,) and thereby should be celebrated in a royal manner! The only lives that  receive royal prestige are those who live for Christ and that, solely because of His royalty being conferred upon us by the Father.  Royal worth extends only to those who are adopted by Father God, as His children in Jesus Christ, by grace through faith.!!(Rom.8:14-17; I Peter 2:9) This royal status as children carries a particular value. This value extends to those born again and re-created, as it were.

  John, the disciple of Christ, wrote, 'let what you heard from the beginning abide(remain) in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides(remains) in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father."

(I John 2:24).

    John was writing to a cluster of churches in Asia minor; present day Turkey. The recipient was arguably the church at Ephesus. John was compelled to write due to a noxious heresy that was being propagated.

   This false teaching was conceivably being peddled by some who were apart of the Ephesian church, who had formerly heard the message of the gospel that was delivered at the beginning, but had since then abandoned the truths of the gospel; (cf.1:1-3,5,2:19) even denying the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. The doctrine that Christ, the second person of the God-head, assumed a human nature while remaining fully God.

    However many false teachers there were is unknown. Regardless of their number these aptly called 'anti-christs' and 'false prophets'(1:18,4:1,3) were not satisfied with the bare knuckled gospel message. They 'cut and carved' the message as it suited their insatiable pallets. They weren't content nor satisfied with the profundity of truth/s that the gospel message comprised!

   The fact that John chooses to employ the word 'abide' -which means to remain - in relation to the gospel message underscores the fact they these gospel detractors failed to do so themselves. Moreover, John describes these gainsayers as 'trying to deceive' those abiding in the gospel message.(2:26) The word 'deceive'(= roam or stray in the Greek) means that they were attempting to cause others to 'roam' or 'stray' from the gospel they 'roamed' and 'strayed' from.

    It is additionally clear from how John identifies and counteracts their teaching/s (1:1-10, 2:22 et al) that their was an early proto-gnostic nuance to their heresy. One that separated mind from matter and spirituality from physicality. It boasted a 'secretive wisdom' that involved special 'oil anointing' ceremonies as a right of passage, so to speak.The gospel message simply was inadequate and insufficient for them! Wow. Really?

   John's recourse was to contend with these anti-gospel heralds and to counteract what they had promulgated in and around the church at Ephesus.

   He does so throughout 1,2,3 John by developing the gospel reality of 'abide'. Remaining in the gospel of Jesus Christ is paramount. There is no justifiable grounds, nor will there ever be such grounds, for abandoning the gospel message that has been posthumously delivered by Christ and then by his commissioned apostolic heralds fait a compli! The dye has been cast.

   We Christians are to vigilantly remain in the gospel message! There is no substitute...no new enlightened version...no fantastical experience that will ever displace what was originally delivered. In our day and age new vistas of experience are sought to transform our lives instead of turning to Christ. In our day and age entertainment value within the local church has diminished how one personally values the gospel in and of itself. In our day and age materialism in the guise of a 'prosperity gospel' has located hope in wealth and success beyond the actual promises of the gospel.

  The GOSPEL of JESUS CHRIST is glorious! It is the mystery of the ages now revealed! It is the good news established in eternity past that will carry us into that eternity where Jesus Christ is in glory!  

   For John it is THE ONLY MESSAGE worth dwelling on...contemplating...rejoicing in...boasting in...living in...remaining in. Which is why at the end of his life, as he writes this epistle, he is still glorying in the same gospel he had received 'from the beginning',(1:1-4) some 50-60 years later!

   The gospel is ageless. Its value and veracity does not change from age to age. It remains the same! We are to revel in its truthfulness and immutability(changeless-ness). Our appreciation and understanding of the gospel may increase as WE age but the gospel itself does not change as WE age.