Strange Fire

On more reflection, and with the continuing tweets of Steve Lawson's "bulldogmatic" remark about sola scriptura, as if Lawson actually said something of note, I thought it might be helpful to run Lawson's remark through the same filter as Strange Fire ran the Scripture through: the filter of John Calvin.

Time & again at the Strange Fire meetings we heard and read the Reformed refrain of sola scriptura. The accusation was that if any Christian did not follow the Calvinist interpretation of Scripture that "gifts of the Spirit" had ceased with the death of the apostles then such a person is not a true Christian and is a heretic. And, not only are true Christians dogmatic in this view, we are to be "bulldogmatic" about it, at least according to Steve Lawson. By that, they say they intend not meanness but to guard the truth and attack opponents of truth. Yet, their intent as to sola scriptura is belied by their own method of interpretation, and their bulldogmatism about it lacks authority, thus making their bites less about truth than about a reason to howl.

Here is what I mean. Sola scriptura means, if it means anything at all, that Scripture is its own interpreter and that creeds and patristic thoughts, while helpful, are not actual authority. Counting Calvin as an authority is, then, a threshold violation of the "dogma", and that is no bull. But, let us not blame Calvin. Instead, let us follow his example, and a worthy one it is.

In Calvin's quasi Scriptural authority from God (at least in the estimation of Strange Fire, never mind that Calvin never claimed it for himself, to his credit), he stated in his "Institutes of the Christian Religion", "if any discussion arises over doctrine, then the best and surest remedy is for a synod of true bishops to be convened where the doctrine at issue may be examined."

Strange Fire was not a remedy for the ailment it bewailed. It was not a synod under the most liberal applications of the word; to argue that it was certainly narrows the scope of the authority of this handful of speakers who were preselected for their agreement with MacArthur. In other words, it may have been a synod for MacArthur's congregation and perhaps extended to the congregations served directly by the speakers, but that is as far as their authority could be argued to extend, if you take Calvin seriously. And, we do, here. The forum was certainly not one from which its form and substance should be expected to state anything bulldogmatically. To the extent that such a statement was made--and Lawson certainly made it--then Calvin would conclude that this was not a synod qualified to make doctrine or pronounce dogma and that Lawson is not a true bishop. Whatever else he is or isn't is for someone else to adjudge, but Calvin has spoken at least.

There was no examination of any doctrinal issue at Strange Fire. This was a preplanned assault on continuationism as outside of the faith once delivered to the saints. It convened as an attack on the patent falsehoods of charismania, but in guerrilla fashion, it aimed its real rhetoric at continuationism. This was a cabal, not a synod. No en masse prayerful seeking of God for understanding. No civil and genuine, humble and respectful place for different understanding expressed by substantive study and examination was even considered.

MacArthur said at one point, laughably (I know I laughed), that Pentecostals were actually Cessationists because the tongues which we practice are not the New Testament gift of tongues, so that by our view and practice, we affirm that the NT tongues ceased. I almost can't even type that for laughing out loud. Let us take MacArthur's expressed view and apply it to Strange Fire. In fact, let's run it through Calvin.

Calvin said that Rome (the Catholics) abandoned the authority of the Word when it appealed to the early fathers and councils and traditions as authority with that of Scripture. He said, in Book IV, chap. 9 of Institutes,

"But the Romanists aim at another goal when they teach that the power of interpreting Scripture belongs to councils, and without appeal. For, in calling everything ordained in councils "interpretation of Scripture," they misue this as pretext. Not one syllable of purgatory, or intercession of saints, of auricular confession, and the like will be found in Scripture."

When Strange Fire pronounced that cessationism is the bulldogmatic truth of sola scriptura, it interposed itself as a council with the power to interpret scripture. Without appeal. That is what comments like Lawson's "bulldogmatic" phrase intends: don't cross the bulldog. But, it is a pretext. Not one syllable of the cessation of gifts, not one mention of the canon of Scripture being the "perfect" of 1 Corinthians 13:9, 10, not one mention that God will cease working miraculously, prophetically and wondrously in the world as the church of Jesus Christ obeys His commands and commission in the last days, and the like will be found in Scripture. This is manifestly obvious when you consider Tom Pennington's seven arguments from Scripture that the gifts ceased with the apostles; all of the arguments are based solely on inference, implication and interpretation and none on exegetical exposition or examination of the chapters and verses without reference to carefully selected extrabiblical authority. Judging Strange Fire by MacArthur's own standard set when he judged the Pentecostals, this whole Strange Fire kerfluffle was anti-Calvinism and the speakers were Romanists in Genevan clothing.

There are appeals to take MacArthur seriously. Many of my Cessationists brothers were too eager in their flesh to rush to MacArthur's defense last week. Shame on you. Shame on you for deigning to assert this meeting as anything worthy of attention, let alone any sort of authoritative assembly of true shepherds. Shame on you for proudly looking down your noses and keyboards at continuationists and Pentecostals who are as educated, devoted to Biblical orthodoxy and at least a serious about the true faith as you say you are.

Strange Fire has opened gaping wounds. I do not know if they can be healed. I do know that without a repentance as public as their condemnations last week, none of these men nor their enthusiastic bloggers and tweeters can hope to be used in such healing.

Well said. Here here!

Yes, thanks for your post dolfan. I had read John McArthur's response here: http://www.christianpost.com/news/john-macarthur-responds-to-critics-who-believe-his-strange-fire-conference-is-divisive-unloving-107051/
and was going to post about it here. However your report based on attending is much better than I could have expressed.

I was saddened by some of the things being said by McArthur. I'm not of the reformed camp, but I appreciate and respect much of the teaching of McArthur, Lawson, etc. I normally can just put the things I differ on with them to one side and hear what they saying. In fact I'm in the middle of reading one of McArthur's book now.

I do wonder how this will be taken by some of the reformed brethren such as Tim Conway, Paul Washer & John Piper. As you said I can only see it causing much division.

McArthur makes such sweeping statements and it would seem deliberately uses extreme examples to discredit any one who believes the gifts are still for today.

I found the following statement laughable:
"According to MacArthur, the Charismatic movement is an "alien movement" whose roots can be traced back to 1966 when the hippies of San Francisco moved to Orange County and joined Calvary Chapel and the "barefoot, drug-induced young people told the church how the church should act." he said. "Hymns and suits went out. For the first time in the history of the church, the conduct of the church was conformed to a sub-culture that was born of LSD and marijuana."

So according to McArthur Calvary Chapel (and therefore Chuck Smith) are responsible for bringing in the charismatic error through drug induced hippies! Well they sure WERE drug induced hippies...but such WERE some of us, but they (and us) were washed, sanctified by the Spirit of God. What a terrible condemnation from a man of God!
BTW, when did suits and hymns make a 'real' Christian???

Dr. Michael Brown on the issue of cessionism. Dr. Brown holds academic credentials on a par with MacArthur and Lawson. But Dr. Brown is also a Spirit filled Christian who does not hold to cessionism. It is hard to blow off Michael Brown as a ranting charismaniac when he speaks with a degree of intelligence that rival that of any Reformed theologian.

It should be noted that I had the distinct pleasure of listening to a 2-3 hour long lecture at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary where Dr Brown was serving as a guest lecturer one day in regard to the Old Testatment prophetical literature in a masters level class. Having studied the Old Testament in an academic environment before, I must say, one would be hard pressed to find somebody who was so insightful and obviously very well studied.

While I haven't always agreed with Dr. Brown on everything (who does with anybody?), he is somebody that John MacArthur should seriously engage at an academic and theological level if his perspective should carry with it any real weight. Instead, MacArthur and his bunch essentially attacked the Benny Hinn and Todd Bentley's of the charismatic movement.

And while there is definitely a place to go after some of those guys and their abhorant teaching, who have significantly more influence than they should, what MacArthur did was like comparing apples and oranges. He offered the formal theological view points of his movement without truly looking at the formal theological arguments of those who identify themselves as Pentecostals and Charismatics. Such is simply not fair. He should have compared liked with like. Gordon Fee, for example, in his 1000+ page commentary on 1 Corinthians has totally destroyed, in my mind and most, any of the arguments cessationist make regarding 1 Cor 13. He does so at a very in depth level. Fee's commentary is THE leading commentary of today on that book, and no matter if you are liberal or conservative, it will be a commentary you will be required to use in seminary at some point if you study Corinthians. Nobody will produce something to replace Fee's work for probably another 50 years.

Yet in spite of this, MacArthur brought out the same old tired arguments espoused by men who do nothing but parrot one another, and used that to attack view points that most studied Pentecostal and Charismatic ministers and scholars simply do not hold too. Unfortunately, those who run in the circles of Todd Bentley might adhere to them. But, as I would maintain, such view points are the extreme, which MacArthur has falsley maintained is mainstream.

*edited*

Yeah. I'm aware Dr Brown has pleaded with MacArthur for dialogue. It' unfortunate that MacArthur will not do so.

You probably won't find many cessationist on SI. Such is probably why your thread had little response to it. :-)

*edited for typo*

I just went back and corrected my previous post. I mean MacArthur won't dialogue with Brown. And yes, there are reformed on SI. But some are charismatic. Besides, the site by nature is mostly charismatic/pentecostal.

I wonder if they consider Martyn Lloyd Jones to be a heretic.

This is a good sermon by John Piper on the life of Martyn Lioyd Jones and what he believed regarding the gifts.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/a-passion-for-christ-exalting-power

Martyn Lloyd Jones is one of the people held up at the Strange Fire conference as a modern day hero of the faith, and wrongly, as a complete cessationist.

KingJimmy, did they really hold up Martin Lloyd Jones as a cessationist at the recent conference?

If so, they really are ignorant of their hero. MLJ wrote a large book (Joy unspeakable) about the baptism of the Spirit and made it very clear he believed the gifts were still for today, however not as the extreme charismatics operate today.

Sadly, this camp of Christendom believe that the end justifies the means, and they would go to great length to cover truth. Martyn Lioyd Jones was the founder of "Banner of Truth" and they would not even publish his work.
As Piper says, do not read books about MLJ but read MLJ himself to get the facts for yourself.

HeyDave,

As I recall, and I stand to be corrected, in the final segment where MacArthur addresses his "contiunationist friends" and holds up who the reformed considers a champion of the faith, he held up MLJ as being part of their historic stream, in contrast to a long line of Jimmy Swaggarts in Pentecostal camps.

Hi, Heydave

Just to make myself clear, I did not attend Strange Fire. I monitored it online. I read, read, read the live blogs of sessions after they were done. I also reviewed the discussions of attenders. But, I didn't go. I am in Alabama, far away from CA.

Someone commented here that it "seemed" that MacArthur was sweeping all continuationists into the same group as the Word Faith types (forgive me, I know that is not an exact quote). It not only seems like that. Mac
Arthur explicitly said continuationists are the problem that gave rise to charismatics.

Let me clarify something else, as I see it. There is a kingdom of difference between Pentecostal and Charismatic. I am a traditional, Wesleyan-Holiness Pentecostal, to put a label on myself. I am a member of the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) and I hold to that history quite closely. In my view, what we see in so-called charismatic churches has no real connection with Pentecostal-holiness Christianity. There may be some common heritage but it stops where the heritage is not the cause for aberrant faith and practice. So, when MacArthur criticizes us, it stings since I see far more kinship between my heritage and view of Scriptures than I see with the likes of, oh, anyone on TBN and all of the Word-Faith folks, the Bentleys/Joyners/Jesus Culture/Bethel Redding types. The Pentecostal Holiness movement retains a view of Scripture as high and of the same kind, I submit, as MacArthur. Yet, he essentially anathema times us.

At the same time. MacArthur is not stupid. He was careful to carve away from his most damning remarks John Piper and Wayne Grudem, continuationists both. He did not mention his former protege, student and once upon a time poster child, Francis Chan, who has in the past year explicitly described his Continuationist practices as he prays for street people in SF and reports seeing them healed in the spot. Go watch his video at Passion 2013 and you will see what I mean there. Anyway, MacArthur shrewdly avoided filleting those men for a reason. He knows their walk, he knows they are every bit his equal in knowledge, and he knows that if he loses all of the students who watch those men carefully, he loses a sizable portion of his own target audience. Which brings me to this point, that MacArthur is mainly interested here in selling a book than in protecting the faith. He commits a cowardly act, I think, when he said on Day 1 or 2 last week that the burden of proof is on continuationists to prove our position from Scripture. Dr. Michael Brown begged him to discuss it, and he would not do it there. Why? He had his program and his message nailed down and truth was not on the agenda.

I am not one who is currently of any mind to give MacArthur any benefit of any doubt. I am, to him, an infidel. So be it. Infidel or not in his eyes, two things are true. 1. None of us owe proof to MacArthur for anything, he has zero authority over anyone except whatever sycophants he wins to carry his water for him. 2. I know whom I have believed! and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I've committed unto aim against that Day.

Let me add this, please.

There is an article that has floated around online for a few years now, quoting (and at least one site posting a photocopy) from an article appearing in a 1975 edition of the Gordon-Conwell student paper. The article states that its author was given access to what was then the Rare Book room at the a Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, MA. In that room was a paper by Theodore Beza, Calvin's friend and biographer. Beza wrote a well known, widely published biography, "Life of Calvin".

The article claims that in this "vault" at the EDS was another, shorter biography of Calvin by Beza. In this biography, Beza's is said to have described a point in Calvin's life where Calvin confided to Beza' that during a time of intense prayer, Calvin had started speaking a language unknown to him, that he described as Hebraic, and that he was afraid that he had spoken some sort of evil unintentionally.

The entry, says the article, was short and without elaboration.

I emailed the EDS library, and was very kindly and quickly responded to. The person there said that the Rare Book room was no longer, that most of the collection had been auctioned off years ago, and that he or she (a foreign name I never heard so I do not know whether the person was male or female) was sure that such a paper was not auctioned. He or she said that he would look for it and get back with me. I will report whatever I am told. My guess is that the article itself was intended as a joke and that the document does not exist. It would be hard to believe such a document existed and is unknown to modern scholars.