Life after "Strange Fire"

I've made no secret of my struggle to maintain interest or passion in theological/spiritual matters this past year or two.  I still believe in God (not so sure about the church thanks to past experience).  But this is a work in progress - certainly not an unfinished story.  A few issues sparked my interest - for example, John Macarthur's "Strange Fire" conference of a few months ago.

A brief history with Macarthur:  As I was growing up in Dunstable and discovering an experiential relationship with God, my church and senior pastor were going in polar opposite directions.  And Macarthur's "Charismatic Chaos" was the instruction manual flogged around Dunstable for that.  I have always fervently believed my pastor Stanley Jebb's motto that; "the unexamined opinion is hardly worth holding".  So I read "Charismatic Chaos" and found it thoroughly interesting.  It didn't persuade me in the slightest of anything - apart from human beings are human beings and make mistakes.  Oh - it also persuaded me that John Macarthur was a throughly negative, unpleasant individual who was having a nasty effect on the pastor and my church - and it was something and someone I didn't want to be like in the slightest!

So the mention of "John Macarthur" usually makes me roll my eyes.  That's why when C J Mahaney started preaching for Macarthur - some reformed/charismatics were thrilled and thought it meant Macarthur was "softening" in his anti-charismatic views and maybe the bald-headed one was impressing him with his sense.  Rubbish.  All "Strange Fire" proved was that in fact Mahaney is taking the same path my pastor in Dunstable took, and is taking all possible steps to reject charismatic life in his church (apart from apostolic authority - in all but name).  A quick glance at Mahaney's "church programme" proves that - no room for the Holy Spirit there!

So I was interested today to find a You-Tube video of Macarthur speaking about the follow-up from the "Strange Fire" conference.  He has taken a lot of stick (quite rightly) for his harsh and intolerant suggestions that charismatics are not Christians.  This is his answer - and essentially he sticks by his views.  Another book is promised to answer his critics (around 26 minutes).  But what particularly interested me was Macarthur's taking on of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Piper in particular (38:12) - namely that pastors and preachers have NO business seeking an anointing or unction from on high to preach!

Astounding.

Here it is;

Dr R T Kendall on "Why I endorse the Toronto Blessing"

I am grateful that Dr R T Kendall chose this moment around "Strange Fire" controversies - to share this video via his ministry link.

A bit of context: as I was growing up into life of the Spirit and the charismatic movement, I always tended to see R T Kendall as the "negative/reverse" to our then senior pastor Dr Stanley Jebb.  Both were amazing and outstanding teachers of the Word of God.  And both had the potential to hold the wonderful tension between "Word and Spirit" or reformed doctrine and charismatic experience well.  Dr Jebb sadly was put off by excess he saw and was revolted by.  R T Kendall on the other hand was at the same time opening up to the Holy Spirit and the variety of His work.  It was wonderful to travel down quite regularly to Westminster Chapel to hear R T Kendall's ministry during the dark days of cessationism in Dunstable.

So I am glad to hear again a message I am familiar with (having read it in Dr Kendall's books);

The "Dangers" of Charismatic Worship!

I've still been thinking and lurking-reading the continuing "Strange Fire" and John Macarthur controversy.  I do look forward to reading the book when it becomes available in this country at some point.  But the issue Macarthur has with "charismatic" worship does deserve careful thought.  Do the songs we sing and love potentially deceive and lead us astray?  Or in fact do they bring us close to the Throne of Grace and a living encounter with the Risen Son of God?

There are two scenarios I can think of in my church experience.  The more reformed/functional cessationist settings were my home church in Dunstable when Stanley Jebb had taken it out of the charismatic movement and essentially banned all choruses.  We sang hymns and raising of hands was not approved (and tongues were most certainly forbidden!).  The other reformed/functional cessationist situation was when I lived in Bristol and attended the SGM church for 2 years - and most of their SGM songs were "cross-centered".

The other scenario of course has been the charismatic churches I have attended, and the glorious conferences that seek to teach the whole gospel - Cross through to ascension and glorification and outpoured Holy Spirit.  Now cessationists would shudder I am sure at the examples I present - but if you can ignore the raised arms and upturned faces to heaven - hear the words!



I love particularly;

"You have overcome the grave, Your glory fills the highest place - what can seperate me now?  You tore the veil, You made a way when You said that it is done!!".



And this amazing one; "Worthy is the Lamb! Seated on the Throne!  I crown You now with many crowns - You reign victorious!  High and lifted up - Jesus Son of God! The Darling of Heaven crucified - worthy is the Lamb".

How much more Gospel-filled can you get?!  Because the fact is - the Son of God isn't hanging on a cross broken and dying.  So what is the point of "kneeling at the old rugged cross"?  Of course we will be forever grateful for His sacrifice, but like Pilgrim in John Bunyan's classic - that is where our burdens roll away!  We are then free to stand and march on towards the Celestial City knowing that one day we will see Him face to face!

I would just add a final video which I think strikes powerfully at the heart of this "charismatic/cessationist" controversy.  It is by Noel Tredinnick - the Music Director at All Souls Church Langham Place (neither person nor church could be called charismatic in any way!).  But Tredinnick was speaking about worship in particular - the wonderful "Prom Praise" concerts held yearly at the Royal Albert Hall in London.  And he said this (the video is below);

"Now worship is two-way.  Our hearts are being lifted through the music to Christ.  We are adoring Him - we are singing our praise to the living Saviour.  That is one way - the arrow is going up.  But at the same time there is that moment, where God comes down if you like.  The veil of His robe fills the temple - His Presence.  There is a sense of His holiness where God is coming down into our midst - and that is a very exciting moment to behold".


I would suggest that is the issue.  Cessationists want to (as it seems) put God in heaven and leave Him there.  And to suggest that He is not only willing but eager to come down and reside among His people seems to shock and horrify them.  That's nothing new - it was apparent throughout revivals through the centuries.  There have ALWAYS been the rigid prayer meetings continuing to meet weekly to pray for revival, even though outside and around them God is saving souls by the thousands.  It is that eagerness to see God come - I think - which perhaps leads some charismatics to embrace experience that is of the flesh.

But that is no excuse to change one's theology and limit God to what He can and cannot do - as Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones said quite rightly - the greatest sin of the evangelical church and all that is wrong with "Strange Fire".  As this post was touching on worship - it seems appropriate to end with another version of "The Power of the Cross" sung by Chris Bowater at the (also charismatic) Bible Week - "Grapevine".

A Word of Balance!

I am concious that John Macarthur and his "Strange Fire" conference has provoked me back into blogging thoughts but that I may have become guilty of becoming a "charismatic Macarthur" - i.e. I hate his absolute, judgemental and unloving language (and always have done since the days I read "Charismatic Chaos" in Dunstable).

I was determined therefore thanks to yet another sleepless night to expose myself to Macarthur's broader ministry and thoughts - of which I know not a great deal.  I found this video during a conference where Phil Johnson interviews Macarthur on a few points:



Points of agreement:

1.  The New International Version (in relation to Macarthur being invited to write an NIV Study Bible)

PJ:  It is (NIV) not your favourite translation?

Macarthur:  It is NOT my favourite translation.  The question is ... does anyone reading the NIV actually care what it (the text) means?!

I wince at (again) Macarthur's broad suggestion that all NIV readers are ... less than theological (although I confess to laughing).  I too dislike the NIV and prefer (and always have) the KJV or the NASB!

2.  Mark Driscoll and his comments/book on marriage and sex.

I've never made any secret of being less than a fan of Mark Driscoll.  I have no doubt his unique ministry is spreading the gospel and reaching the lost in his way.  I just hate his macho-school-bullish-rude attitude and behaviour.  His recent publicity stunt at appearing at the "Strange Fire" conference less than impressed me either.  I thought it hilarious that security (he claimed) confiscated his books, but was again shocked he distorted the truth seemingly.  But also his views on the Song of Solomon and marriage - disturb me.

PJ:  You didn't make any recent comment about Mark Driscoll's recent book "Real Marriage" - do you want to?

Macarthur:  Commercialism.  There is such a beautiful dignity to the way the Scripture speaks of marriage, such a precious veiled way in which even the intimacies of marriage are alluded to in Scripture.  That maintains it's intimacy and personal nature and beauty without painting it in commonly used pornographic laungage.  I think these are things that shouldn't be said, don't need to be said and pander to interests in the part of people.  The last thing you would ever want for the people who gather before you to hear the Word of God is to have their minds filled with your sort of uncouth, unclean speech and images that go with it.

There I COMPLETELY agree!  That is the way I was brought up under Dr Stanley Jebb.  That's the way I was raised to view marriage as beautifully portrayed by my parents.

Another fascinating Q and A session I found from the Shepherds Conference focuses around John Macarthur, Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan's preference for using a pen to prepare a sermon rather than a computer!  As a geek - I stand convicted (not that I prepare sermons!).

"This Movement (Charismatic) has Diminished Music" - John Macarthur

One of the aspects of the "Strange Fire" conference that slightly staggered me and infuriated me was the utter lack of logic and consistency reported by men who proudly call themselves "men of the Word" - and indeed near the end of Macarthur's final session seems to proudly liken himself to Timothy "guarding divine revelation".  What do I mean by that?  Macarthur made many blunt and straightforward statements that many of his "spin doctor" fans sought to water down.  To be fair to Macarthur (and I respect him for it, as much as I find his sheer arrogance dislikable) - he didn't seek to do so.

And he stated rather proudly he doesn't care about offending people.  So I feel little shame in joining the right and proper robust responses against him.

He stated charismatics are, in his eyes, unsaved - and he stuck by it.  But even he seemed to flounder a little when confronting issues such as the fact that equally credible and respected theologians such as John Piper or Wayne Grudem would not agree with his hyper-cessationist, anti-charismatic views.  Adrian Warnock reported from the Q and A session in the conference that he seemed to bluster;

"With John Piper, that is a complete anomaly. That is just so off everything else about him ... Even Wayne Grudem. I look at this as an anomaly [in his theology]. I don’t know and don’t need to know where this impulse comes from".

The thrust of Macarthur's argument too about worship seems highly inconsistent.  His spin-doctor fans on Twitter seem to claim "of course he is not throwing the entire baby out with the bathwater" - apparently Macarthur likes Stuart Townend's "The Power of the Cross".  Whether he does or doesn't, or maybe doesn't realise Townend comes from Newfrontiers flagship church "Church of Christ the King" in Brighton - he is clear on his views of charismatic worship offering to the church universal.  Challies reports;

"MacArthur disagrees with this opinion. He is convinced that the contemporary style of music in the charismatic movement is the entry point of false doctrine into our churches. A church rooted in historical doctrine and hymns will be reluctant to embrace this music. This movement has diminished music by taking it out of the area of the mind and reduces it to feelings of the flesh".

There are thousands of songs from charismatic songwriters I could quote but as "the Power of the Cross" was cited - let's focus on that;



I love this song because it particularly highlights and preaches the power of the complete gospel.  And if Macarthur maybe would claim that this song from Townend is an "anomoly" like he sees Piper and Grudem's more charismatic pneumatology - I would rather counter that I think (I don't know - I haven't heard a testimony of how he wrote it) but actually Stuart Townend's charismatic experience and encounters with God indeed aided and inspired him to see the glorious gospel in it's entirety!

A key example of this is - to me - the baptism of the Holy Spirit (and for clarity's sake - I remain Lloyd-Jonesian in my understanding of this).  Macarthur presumably would class this among other "demonic" doctrines.  But I loved the way that Terry Virgo at Stoneleigh Bible Week 2000 drew the vital paralell between the ascension of Jesus the risen Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.  For those with no time to hear the clip - here's what Terry said;

"Every person filled with the Holy Spirit is a proof and demonstration that Jesus Christ is not a corpse in some hidden cave in the Middle East.  Every Christian filled with the Holy Spirit is proof that He ascended on high ... only resurrected, ascended Messiah's can give the Holy Spirit.  Dead corpses aren't very good at it.  It is a demonstration He is alive!  It is His coronation gift!".



I would counter Macarthur's vitriol that the charismatic movement has spread in such entirety because it is "offering the world what it wants" - rather I think the charismatic movement is reminded the church what real life in the New Covenant is.  Of course I would not claim, as some charismatics do, that reformed evangelicals are "dry, dead and dusty" (although some are).  Neither would I claim that ALL charismatic churches are "alive, exciting and in right relationship with the risen Christ".

I actually believe that many charismatic movements and streams have become dry, flabby and complacent.  Back in the 1970s and 80s there was much talk of "building a house for God".  House churches thrived and there was a passion to relive New Covenant life.  There are many charismatic (so-called) churches I visit and one can almost predict what "gift" will be manifested.  And this complacency has no-doubt fuelled Macarthur and other anti-charismatic views.

Suddenly (thanks to people like Mark Driscoll - well-intended as he is) the focus has become "mission" - and the endless buzz word is "mission".  If your church is not "missional" then you should be ashamed of yourself - we are led to believe.  Many charismatic churches have seemed to have forgotten that true life in the Spirit and an enjoyment of the Presence of God naturally leads to a passion for the lost.

As John Piper said;

"Mission exists because worship doesn't".

Oh that many of us could remember the words of Terry Virgo at Stoneleigh Bible Week 1998 - we are a "dwelling place for God in the Spirit".  Oh for churches springing up (or being revived truly) across the UK.  Less of the silly counterfeit and more of reality!!

An Endless Optimistic/Oft Disappointed Charismatic is Grateful for Strange Fire!

I've been reflecting on and following some of the Twitter feed discussing John Macarthur's "Strange Fire" conference and I am actually becoming increasingly grateful both personally and as a church observer for what it has done.  I think initially I was furious and thought "Here we go again" - re-living his influence on my beloved home church in Dunstable and the anti-charismatic spirit it brought.

But what it has done has made me reflect and remember why I AM an unashamed charismatic and STILL believe and hope and look for the encounters and interventions of God by His Spirit that the Word of God promises.  I do bitterly regret the last few years of being "prone to wander" from God and His church but my hope and longing for Him has remained unchanged.  I am aware that many of John Macarthur's spirit would immediately discount anything I have to say - "Well he's a backslider - and therefore probably unsaved anyway!".  But the benefit to being on the outside of accepted church circles is that you can say what you like and not fear the consequences of being "excommunicated"! (I'm not sure if the double jeopardy legal principle applies to excommunication - I hope so).

A Small Testimony:
As I said in my previous post on "Strange Fire" I have been charismatic in theology and experience since I was baptised in the Holy Spirit back in 1999.  But if I am honest I would say that while my theology and belief hasn't changed (if anything increased in longing) my experience hasn't been that much measured up to what many charismatics claim, believe or experience today.  My beliefs and theology were built upon by much reading of many books after the senior pastor Dr Stanley Jebb changed his theology and thus the church's.

It wasn't long into my reading that a biographical sermon of John Piper's on Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones led me primarily to his glorious book "Joy Unspeakable" and then more broadly into the whole published works of the Doctor and his remarkable ministry (still take pride of place in my library!).  I should add I still find it remarkable that my pastor Dr Jebb actually sat under Dr Lloyd-Jones for some time as part of his fatherly ministry to younger pastors - and I didn't seize on the link or pick up interest in Dr Lloyd-Jones over 18 years of being under Dr Jebb's ministry.

I heard balanced reformed/charismatics like Dr Ern Baxter (who rapidly became my number one hero!) and taught that a "tension" MUST be held between Word and Spirit.  I think this explains my initial excitement when I first encountered C J Mahaney and PDI (now SGM) as well as of course my ongoing love and appreciation for Terry Virgo and Newfrontiers ("Fundamentally we are a Word and Spirit movement" - Terry Virgo, Brighton 2009).  To go to Stoneleigh Bible Week in 1999 and 2000 and finally in 2001 was a taste of heaven itself almost!  Heavenly worship and singing, the spiritual gifts in evidence and awesome preaching - a demonstration if you will of Ern Baxter's fervent belief that it WAS possible to experience God in all His fullness as the Word of God lays out!

Seeking More:
Throughout my life I have sought to look for and hunger for more, and have had the opportunity to go to many conferences or hear great or renowned men and women of God.  For example I went with my dear friend Pete Day to the Word, Spirit and Power Conference at Westminster Chapel in London in 2001.  We heard and saw Dr R T Kendall (a man I already hugely respected) but also Paul Cain - a famous (now infamous) prophet who had links back to the Kansas City Prophet movement.  I had heard his prophecies were acutely accurate and so I was fascinated, open and hungry to see him.

Was I impressed?  If I'm honest - not particularly.  I couldn't say in integrity any of his prophecies were as I had heard.  Did that make me discount the gift of prophecy?  No.  Of course now it is well known that Paul Cain has fallen into sin - and for many that discounts him and his gift.  Does it mean any of his prophecies were not true?  No.  It just means that Paul Cain was and is a human being and "prone to wander".

Through that conference we heard that Rodney Howard-Browne (of Toronto Blessing fame) was coming to speak at Westminster Chapel at R T Kendall's invitation.  So me and my dad went down.  Our church "missed" the Toronto Blessing due to Stanley Jebb's views on it - and I was eager to see if there was anything in it!

Was I impressed?  Again not particularly.  I wasn't "slain in the Spirit".  At one point Rodney got us all to join hands and sing some sort of "silly" song and people at the end of our pew did fall - hence I "almost" did!  It didn't bother or impress me, but neither did it make me discount the present moving of the Holy Spirit and the fact that some have been touched powerfully by God through Rodney's ministry.

Probably the most powerful visit I did make was a few years back, when I travelled alone to Hong Kong and to the very FIRST (and as yet only!) "Glory and Grace Conference" hosted by the incredible Rob Rufus and City Church International.  I did encounter God powerfully, became over-awed by the true glory of the gospel and the power of the Cross and His resurrection and what that meant for me personally (far more in that one week than I had attending a Sovereign Grace ministries "cross-obsessed" church for 2 years!)

Strange Fire?:
These initial experiences made me hunger to know more of God, alongside reading the Bible about promises such as from 1 Corinthians 14:24 and 25;

"But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you".

To me this is one of the clearest Scriptural indicators of the potential power of the prophetic gift.  I admit I have not seen unbelievers convicted by much of modern prophecy today.  But just because I have not seen or experienced it, does NOT take away from the Word of God!  And one of my greatest frustrations with the cessationist viewpoint outlined by what seems like the WHOLE of the "Strange Fire" conference is exactly this;

Demonstration of excess and spurious means the genuine is not present or real.

RUBBISH!  How can these men who so-called claim they honour and value the Word of God really discount entire portions of Scripture just by the presence of excess?  I look forward to hearing the DVD strreams of "Strange Fire" but I am supremely unimpressed by Tim Challies summaries of the complete lack of exposition - particularly by alleged-"excellent" Bible teacher John Macarthur himself.

It seems appropriate to end this reflection by re-quoting Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones;

"The greatest sin of the evangelical church is to put God into a box and tell Him what He can and cannot do".

That is the only "Strange Fire" I see - but I remain grateful to Macarthur et al for re-stirring a passion within me to seek God through His Holy Spirit.  I have sorely missed Him these past two years!


Reformed and Charismatic from Terry Virgo on Vimeo.

Jesse Phillips on Experiencing God

I wonder if any readers remember Jesse Phillips - one of the wonderful pastors at Metro Life Church in Florida. It's a church on my hit list to definitely visit one day when money permits not least to finally meet Jesse and Janelle! But Jesse used to run a brilliant blog I loved called; "Prophetically Speaking". Due to demands on his time he had to sadly discontinue it. But I was sorting out my computer files today and found a Word file I am so glad I kept. When I knew that he was going to stop the blog, I saved all his blog posts for just such an occasion.

I was refreshed by reading this again and re-challenged!

Here's some of what he wrote. We need sensible charismatics who can argue from Scripture when you have cessationists such as Phil Johnson attacking charismatic doctrine (and not arguing from Scripture but experience I might add);

Cessationists can be driven by experience

What if I told you, "We need to go start a revival"? Or, "We need to experience more of God's power and have some amazing encounters with the Holy Ghost"? Or, "What the church really needs is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts"?

How would you respond? You'd probably be concerned that I was turning into some kind of wild revivalist. You would think back to your own experience of how people abused the gifts and would be concerned that I was headed in the same direction.

You may say something like, "I know where that goes and we don't want to go there again." There is certainly much wisdom to be gained from experience. It does not make sense to keep repeating the same mistakes again and again.

There is, however, a universal human tendency to overreact to abuse and misdiagnose the problem. Whenever someone is shot and killed on the street, all of us face the temptation to ask how the criminal came into possession of a gun before asking why hatred filled his heart. Guns can be misused, but they are not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is in the person doing the abusing not the thing that is abused.

As good as wisdom from experience is, it also has limitations. It can lead to these misdiagnoses of problems.

And so, if you were to tell me, "I know where that goes" I would venture to ask, "Even though that's where it led last time, is it possible that it might not lead to the same place this time?" What if we were able to pursue the same things, yet learning from the abuses, be able to enjoy them in a way that is proper this time around?

There is a fine line between gaining wisdom from experience and investing authority in experience.

One of the reasons why people warn against things like revivalism and hot pursuit of the spiritual gifts is because some revivalists are emotionalists, placing authority in experience rather than scripture.

But here's my argument: it's just as easy for people who have had bad experiences to be driven by those experiences, rather than scripture. People who move away from the 'experiential' can, ironically, be just as driven by experience, either their own or others that they want at all costs to avoid. This is simply a different form of experientialism.

Many cessationists and others who have seen the abuses of the spiritual gifts would rather 'not go there' because of bad experiences. They invest authority in percieved bad experiencs and this motivates them toward avoidance, allowing their experiences to unduly influence their opinions on what is true and right.

Is there really a difference between being driven by bad experiences and idolizing good ones? Aren't both things different sides of the coin of experientialism?

I think that cessationists can be experientialists in as much as they think, "This can't be God's will, look at all this abuse." It's one thing to defend your view from scripture (which many cessationists, to their credit, try to do), and quite another to base it on your experience, good or bad.

I think that many cessationists and 'functional cessationists' are somewhat experiential, perhaps a bit more influenced by bad experiences, or the potential of, or the report of, than they they might be aware.

The person who has had a bad experience, and doesn't want any more bad experiences is just as driven by experience as the person who strongly wants a positive experience. The only differences that one is driven positively and the other driven negatively.

We must recognize the differences between abusing the gifts and the gifts themselves. We must also recognize the limitations of the wisdom that comes through experience. Finally, all of us, cessationists, charismatics and everyone in between, must learn to pursue experiences without investing them with authority.

There's one thing we can all be certain of: we'll never fully experience anything that we pursue only cautiously, God or his gifts.

John MacArthur asks "Have we forgotten the Holy Spirit?"

I was very challenged by a recent tweet of John Macarthur - where he asked; "Have we forgotten the Holy Spirit"? He went on to make the point that a decade or more ago all we ever heard about was talk of the Holy Spirit - even though much was debate and discussion. And now? Now he suggested that once again the Holy Spirit has sadly become the "forgotten member of the Trinity".

I was profoundly challenged by this. As we grew up in Dunstable and observed the church steadily making it's way from it's reformed/charismatic balance to staunchly cessationist - John Macarthur and his book; "Charismatic Chaos" was a book often quoted (and one I profoundly resented). It's only recently I have come to appreciate MacArthur's wider ministry! But my impression growing up was that Macarthur was most definitely not a man "pro" the Holy Spirit in action! So for him to say this - what's going on? I think he is right in many ways:

1. Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The traditional charismatic debates such as the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit have all but quietened. Many reformed/charismatics have striven to "not speak about this" for the sake of unity. Interestingly enough even men who strongly defend the Biblical position of the baptism of the Spirit as a distinct, definite experience such as Terry Virgo are not permitted back into the "evangelical camp"! Movements such as Newfrontiers that traditionally accept this position seem to rarely teach on it (apart from the occasional seminar at a conference) because it is seen perhaps as an established truth. I would guess that Alpha courses would be the place where this is still taught.

2. Charismatic Gifts: Most evangelicals tend to hold the "open but cautious" position that they accept the gifts of the Holy Spirit have not ceased - as cessationists such as Macarthur strongly teach. But such evangelicals would not actively seek and pursue such gifts for use and enjoyment in the church setting. For example I recently attended Grace Church in Bristol - part of the SGM group of churches. Their leader C J Mahaney has progressively taken a similar route to my former pastor Stanley Jebb - quietening on teaching on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, emphasizing indwelling sin and the Cross more than the Presence of the Holy Spirit and most recently the removal of the term "apostolic". I was a member of Grace Church in Bristol for 2 years and rarely saw use of the charismatic gifts (occasionally prophecy and never tongues or the word of knowledge). However I was really encouraged to hear the senior pastor preach strongly and encourage seeing these gifts still!

Again what seems to me as an observer is that both positions have polarized somewhat. The cessationists are consistent and never see what they don't believe or expect. The "continuationists" (or the "open but cautious") group would teach now and then that the gifts are expected but without active hope and faith may not see regular manifestations of the Spirit (other than the occasional "spontaneous" Scripture reading!). And the charismatic groups may not teach regularly because it has become the "norm".

3. Revival: - when people such as Mark Heath and I were growing up in Dunstable, it was regular practice to pray passionately for revival. My greatest teacher in prayer was our pastor Dr Stanley Jebb - he was an awesome example of intercession. I will never forget him exhorting us to pray "as though oxygen was limited". Even though the Charismatic Movement was perhaps declining in freshness - there was enough expectation of the Presence of the Spirit to go on longing for more. Then when the Toronto Blessing arrived in the 1990's, Brownsville and later Lakeland and now the Bay of the Holy Spirit Revival - all these "times of refreshing" have led to a refreshing of hope for a greater outpouring of the Spirit.

Or have they? Terry Virgo spoke often of how prayer and expectation for revival was key in his growing up. Has hope declined somewhat? Are we not so sure that God is preparing to move? Hence our prayer and intercession has also waned?

So what are we to make of John Macarthur's challenge? Good it may be that debates/disagreements have quietened down. Good it may be that men such as Rob Rufus, John Piper and Mark Driscoll are bringing discussion of the gospel back to the fore - but surely any true gospel should automatically see an increased manifest Presence of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit really is "forgotten" as Macarthur suggests - then that gospel surely is missing a vital Person.

Stanley Jebb was speaking at the "Life in the Spirit" conference in 1987 on "Reformed Doctrine and Charismatic Experience". It was an outstanding talk and in my opinion a template that could have saved many churches from charismatic excess and error and, if applied, could have saved other more cautious churches from throwing out charismatic life. But in particular he said this;

"It is my conviction that sound biblical doctrine plus the life and power of the Holy Spirit could be well nigh unstoppable. In a sense reformed doctrine is the fuel - and the Holy Spirit is the fire and we need to have the doctrine and see it set on fire by the power of the Holy Spirit".

We need so much more. I always think the Word of God lays down the standard of Spirit-life we should be seeing in churches. For example; can any church claim they see this?

An unbeliever entering a church and hearing all prophesying - is convicted and repents, worshipping God? - (1 Corinthians 14:24-25).

A prophet interrupting another prophet because he has a word to bring, the first sitting down and deferring to him? - (1 Corinthians 14:30).

At the end of a church prayer meeting, the whole place was shaken (physically) and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit? - (Acts 4:31).

Farewell Apostles!

I remember a group of us young man talking to Terry Virgo at Stoneleigh Bible Week 1999 about the changes in doctrine regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit. One of us asked "just how important" the baptism of the Holy Spirit was. Terry made a profound comment that I've never forgotten. He said that in his experience once the change is made on the baptism of the Holy Spirit - many other doctrines and church practices tend to follow suit. He quoted; "Worship, Ephesians 4 Ministries, spiritual gifts and spiritual warfare".

What was interesting was that we saw exactly this happen in my home church in Dunstable. The worship changed from being Spirit-led, sensitive use of hymns and choruses to a "hymn-prayer sandwich". The ministries of apostles and prophets were actively preached as ceasing with the New Testament canon (I still have the sermon notes). The gift of tongues was banned in public use and prophecies "may" be accepted but had to be written for viewing by the elders.

When Jeff Purswell published his "amendment" to the doctrines of faith for Sovereign Grace Ministries in 2003, I was intrigued. The paper was called; "Empowered by the Spirit: Room for Differing Views". I heard the accompanying tape - C J Mahaney launched the paper at a Leadership Conference to great applause and explained what it effectively meant - that cessationist churches who did not believe in a distinct experience of the Holy Spirit could happily and safely join Sovereign Grace.

I commented on the paper on my blog and wondered whether Terry Virgo's comment would come true of Sovereign Grace as it did my home church. And in watching from afar with interest (my family are still in SGM) - I've seen similar paths.

Until today this blog post was published; "What happened to the apostolic team?". Someone in the SGM family asked the question and then answer was given in this blog post. Essentially this is why SGM will no longer be using the phrase "apostle" (although I suggest they haven't properly used the ministry of an apostle for years).

"But over time, we discovered the name confused more people than it helped, so now we’re considering alternatives. We’ve also gained a better understanding of the term "apostolic," which makes us even more careful in how we apply it".

So if I understand this properly SGM have abandoned the use of the phrase and ministry because it "confuses" people. And then secondly (and I think this is the real reason) because they are travelling the same road my home church walked decades ago - and simply do not see it theologically anymore.

Interesting that a group so allegedly committed to "reformed doctrine" are more comfortable with the label; "Regional leadership team" that does not appear in the New Testament, than the label/ministry; "apostle" which most certainly does - and indeed is given as a gift from the ascended Christ.

Disobeying Commands?

Something occured to me yesterday. Traditionally in the charismatic/cessationist debate, we charismatics are always accused of being "frothy" and "experience-obsessed" while cessationists pride themselves on honouring and being committed to "the Word". And in the debate is often based around; "I experienced this" and the response; "It doesn't matter - your experience is irrelevant - they've ceased".

However there ARE a number of Scriptures that cessationists have never answered. If these Scriptures are to be read as they appear then many so-called "men and women of the Book" are being disobedient to the very Word of God that they claim to honour and revere. Here's two that spring to my mind;

1. 1 Thessalonians 5:20; "Do not despise prophetic utterances".

So does not Stanley Jebb's statement; "Calling silly remarks prophecy" come dangerously close to despising what actually may be prophetic utterances? That does not mean of course that "silly remarks" never happen - of course they do. But I would not like to put myself in the position of being guilty of despising this gift of the Holy Spirit and thus quenching Him.

2. 1 Timothy 1:18; "This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight".

Again to cite Stanley Jebb (only because he is the cessationist I probably most know and most read) - he writes; "So, since the final word has been spoken, such signs are neither necessary nor possible". Necessary? Possible? So how does this take into account this clear instruction from Paul the apostle (and writer of most of the New Testament) that there is a degree to which the gift of prophecy is ESSENTIAL for fighting a good Christian fight? Is this not a clear reason as to why the Word of God tells us not to despise prophecy?

And finally - a verse that a former friend of mine and former blogger - Jesse Phillips - used to base a lot of his writing on;

3. 1 Corinthians 14:1: "Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy".

Of course love is our primary calling (lest cessationists accuse me of ignoring the context of 1 Corinthians 13) but what of this command - clear command - of Scripture to "desire earnestly" spirituals but ESPECIALLY that we may prophecy? When did you or I last hear from the pulpit a sermon exhorting us to eagerly desire the bestowing of spiritual gifts but especially prophecy?

Just a few Christmas thoughts of mine. For me personally I want to ensure that 2010 is a year of heeding these commands of Scripture - that I honour prophecy and use them as a God-given grace gift to fight a good fight and thereby eagerly desiring especially prophecy.

Dr Lloyd-Jones on the Baptism of the Spirit and Tongues

A quick quote from Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I'm reading his chapter on the gift of tongues and he has a rather persuasive argument (everything Dr Lloyd-Jones says is rather persuasive) that I'm not used to in my charismatic experience. He is arguing that Christians cannot speak in tongues at will. At first when I read it I didn't agree but I'm increasingly beginning to see the logic. Hopefully will post some more quotes and thoughts soon.

For now - here's his opening statement in the sermon;

"Let me say again that one of my main objects in this whole series of sermons is to safeguard the doctrine of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. There is a tendency on the part of some, because they dislike the gifts and the manifestations and the excesses to throw out the doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit with it. Let me underline this important fact - you must differentiate between the two. It is possible for a man to be baptized with the Holy Spirit without ever speaking in tongues".

I wish this critically important statement could have been taken to heart in my church history. It would have saved a lot of pain and heartache and upset. For this is definately my observation - that doctrine has been changed BECAUSE of dislike of excess and manifestations. And I just cannot fathom why that should happen. Paul the apostle never once commanded the Corinthians to STOP using the gifts of the Spirit and they were most guilty of excess. He commanded right use - and that surely should be our practice too.

Prophecy is NOT an Optional Extra!!

I am still very much thinking through the activity of the Holy Spirit - His baptism, His gifts and His awesome manifest Presence in our day to day lives. This of course was prompted by Stanley Jebb's recent two posts promoting the cessationist position. It is very easy to take an "anti" stance and criticise and miss teaching and discussing the genuine and the right. When I was growing up in New Covenant Church in Dunstable, one of the things I despised and hated the most as the church progressively became cessationist was the extremely negative pastor/teachers who were talked about - as they were also anti-charismatic. John MacArthur, Peter Masters and Alan Morrison (three teachers who are agressively anti-charismatic) were the main offenders. I have learned with time that not everything is bad about those men - and have actually enjoyed some email contact with Alan Morrison.

However I do not want to become the "charismatic" version of MacArthur, Masters or Morrison and angrily attack any cessationist who questions whether the Person and gifts of the Holy Spirit should be expected and enjoyed in church today! So over the last 24 hours I have been thinking about Stanley Jebb's statement;

"... expecting prophecy and elevating it above the Word of God and calling silly remarks 'prophecy'".

I couldn't agree more that there is an abundance of "silly" prophecies. I agree that some Christians and churches have been guilty of taking the prophetic more seriously than the Word of God. I have heard a multitude of examples of this in my charismatic experience. But does the existance of the counterfeit mean that the Holy Spirit is not giving genuine prophecies to the church via His prophets? Because of all these thoughts I am spending a lot of time reading Dr Martyn Ll0yd-Jones. Of course I have a multitude of charismatic teachers and books that I could draw on (such as Terry Virgo, Ern Baxter and so on) - but Dr Ll0yd-Jones could never be accused of being anything but "orthodox" and excessively careful in his teaching.

In his monumental series on Romans - Dr Ll0yd-Jones came to Romans 12:6 ("if prophecy let us prophesy") and spent some considerable time actually preaching on the gift of prophecy. His teaching is probably the most useful and sound teaching I have read on the charismatic gifts - so here are some sections.

Dr Ll0yd-Jones was concerned that the charismatic gifts NEVER became seperated from the baptism of the Holy Spirit (something that the Third Wave teaching - particularly Jeff Purswell and John Wimber - have done wrongly I feel). So the Doctor commenced his series on prophecy by saying;

"I am one of those who believes that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is something distinct and seperate from regeneration, and I am deeply concerned lest that great doctrine should get into disrepute because of muddled, unscriptural teaching with regard to speaking in tongues ... I say again that my position is that I believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a seperate, distinct unique experience. It may be accompanied by remarkable gifts; it may simply manifest the "regular" gifts in a heightened degree. It is NOT for us to say that none of these things can happen. Anything is possible in the sovereignity of the Spirit".

I think Dr Ll0yd-Jones concern was right and prophetic. From what I have seen of those former charismatics who have turned to functional cessationism - they have done so because of their distaste for excess and fanaticism not because of a doctrinal conviction. So Lloyd-Jones begins with the baptism of the Holy Spirit and then goes on to address the gifts themselves with a note to cessationists;

"I find it is almost laughable that people should say they do not see any evidence of the gifts today ... One of the greatest danagers it always seems to me is to interpret the Scriptures in the light of our experience instead of testing our experience by the teaching of Scripture".

Our argument cannot be the bad or the counterfeit! Any even basic knowledge of church history will show that the counterfeit will always appear around the genuine! It doesn't mean the genuine isn't around or wrong. It just means the devil is trying to muddy the waters and confuse and put off Christians from the genuine! So then Dr Ll0yd-Jones moved on to define prophecy;

"What is this gift of prophecy? ... Well I would define it as a direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit. What for? It's purpose is to give a word from God or the word of God to the church ... prophecy is the inspired delivery of warning, exhortation, instruction, judging and making manifest the secrets of the heart".

One tactic that cessationists sometimes adopt is to call prophecy "preaching". I suspect they do this because any honest cessationist struggles to find Scriptures that clearly show that the gifts of the Spirit have stopped. Therefore to call prophecy "preaching" somewhat solves the issue - it is however dishonest to the Word of God. Dr Ll0yd-Jones comments on this distinction;

"What is the difference between prophecy on the one hand and preaching and teaching on the other? Because there is a difference. I would say the difference can be put into one word - immediacy. This means that a word is given to people and comes to them".

Immediacy! Anyone who has experienced the Holy Spirit impart a prophecy knows that it comes "suddenly from heaven". You can be sitting in church and not even particularly feeling "spiritual" or "close to God". But then SUDDENLY a word begins burning in your heart. Some experienced and wise prophets in the church today such as Terry Virgo or Greg Haslam or John Groves will say that they do not even know the entire word when they step up to give it - the Holy Spirit imparts it as they in faith open their mouths.

Whereas of course preaching and teaching are not and should not be immediate. Dr Lloyd-Jones says;

"A preacher and a teacher is a man who takes time to study; he takes time to think, to prepare, he arranges his material and gives it order and system. A preacher and a teacher should not enter into a pulpit without any preparation, and trust to the inspiration of the moment. That is not preaching and teaching, but that is prophecy".

I know some of my preacher/teacher friends such as Pete Day have said that sometimes they have felt led to give "immediate" and inspired sermons with little or no preparation - does Dr Ll0yd-Jones allow for and see this?

"Now a difficulty arises in this way; a preacher and teacher may also be a prophet. I have no doubt at all about all this. I say it again to the glory of God, I think I know just a little about this. I think I know something of what it is to be preaching or teaching and suddenly find myself prophesying".

So it is this word "immediacy" that is key to the whole element of the gift of prophecy. This is (I think) what "cautious" reformed evangelicals don't like about the whole matter. Immediacy means that there may be mistakes. Immediacy means that there cannot be any preparation or proof-reading - whereas sermons can be prepared, proof-read and checked. Immediacy means an element of risk! But if the Holy Spirit is truly in control of His church then what actually IS the risk?!

I love Dr Ll0yd-Jones conclusion. He sees a New Testament church as it should be;

"So I would sum it up like this. The picture we have of the early church is of a body of people who believed the gospel, who were filled with the Holy Spirit and who received the gifts. They were an active body and they actively manifested the gifts. There was order certainly and control, but the great thing was the life that was in all the parts. It had to be controlled because of excesses but the control did not mean that the members were silent, and that only one man or a number of men were doing things. No, no it was a pneumatic church, a pneumatic body with the life of the Spirit showing itself in varying ways in each member so that everyone took part in the life of the church".

My early memories of life in my home church was certainly of having godly leadership - but life was there. You never knew who of the members may speak up and contribute and take part. My later memories before I left the church was of a silent church with only the elders speaking at all during the Sunday service. Control there may have been - but life? I'm not so sure.

As my title of this blog states - prophecy is NOT an optional extra! I have yet to see the promise of 1 Corinthians 14 fulfilled - that unbelievers will come into the gathered congregation and hear "prophesying" and will fall down and confess Christ as Lord. I have now taken two of my then non-Christian friends to the "Together on a Mission" Newfrontiers conference in Brighton deliberately to test this Scripture out. There both heard prophesying, tongues and manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Far from being "freaked out" they were both intrigued and one now is a Christian himself. This is the birthright of the lost! To hear the life of the Spirit in the church!

Cessationism = Careful or Quenching?

Any who step across the portals of this blog will know I do not have a high opinion of the cessationist position. I have no shame in stating I passionately believe that all gifts of the Holy Spirit are given and distributed "as He will" today and are for the building up and edifying of the risen Lord's church. It was useful to be reminded by Stanley Jebb's recent blog post however that some cessationists don't like the claim that they are skeptical and guilty of quenching the Spirit;

"Christians who hold to a cessationist position are not skeptics nor unbelievers but are generally concerned conservative or reformed evangelical Christians who hold certain views about miracles, signs and wonders".

Traditionally the expectation has been on charismatic Christians to explain why they believe gifts should and do happen today. I think the environment has now changed - thanks to theologians such as D A Carson and Wayne Grudem and my favourite - Gordon Fee - along with others who have argued rationally and intellectually that there is NO Biblical statement that suggests the gifts of the Holy Spirit have passed away or ceased. Therefore I believe that that it is now upto cessationists to prove themselves.

If Stanley Jebb is correct in stating that cessationists are neither skeptics nor unbelievers but simply "concerned" Christians who hold to the supremacy of the Word of God then they need to argue consistently from Scripture - and not resort to scaremongering or citing examples of excess such as the "tortilla lady" that so upset John MacArthur. Cessationists claim to stand for orthodoxy. Stanley Jebb calls cessationists; "Concerned conservative or reformed evangelical Christians" - so the question we are left with is; "Is orthodoxy enough?".

Dr Martyn Ll0yd-Jones would think not;

"It is becoming clear to everybody - at least it should be - that the Christian church today is failing and failing lamentably. It is not enough even to be orthodox ... people want a word of authority ... We need authority and we need authentication. It is not enough merely that we state these things and demonstrate them and put them logically. Is it not clear that we are living in an age when we need some special authentication - in other words we need revival".

During the sermon Dr Lloyd-Jones then goes on to speak about cessationism. He begins by working carefully through the New Testament passages that demonstrate the gifts of the Spirit never ceased and summarises;

"It is perfectly clear in the New Testament times, the gospel was authenticated in this way by signs, wonders and miracles of various characters and descriptions. And you cannot begin to understand the New Testament, the epistles as well as the book of Acts without holding that fact in your mind".

One of the things that really irks me about cessationism is that they have divorced signs and wonders and gifts of the Spirit from the gospel - the spreading flame. The New Testament shows clearly that unbelievers are to come into the midst of believers "standing and prophesying" and the result is that they will be convicted, will fall down and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Spiritual gifts should impress and attract the world!

To distort the Word of God to claim these have ceased has stunted and robbed unbelievers of a means by which God intended to reveal Himself to them.

Let us be clear! 1 Corinthians 14:24 does NOT state (in this instance) that unbelievers come in and hear the "preaching". It speaks of them coming in and hearing the "prophesying" - the inspired, instant, Spirit-inspired utterances of the gathered church! Orthodoxy? What is "cautious" orthodoxy doing to save the lost masses in London, Birmingham, Bombay, Calcutta and of course China? Caution? Dr Lloyd-Jones summarises this cessationist argument as;

"We have got the truth so you do not need anything miraculous or supernatural".

His answer?

"The Scriptures never anywhere say that these things were only temporary - never! There is no such statement anywhere! "

This post is not the place for a careful work through of the Scriptures cessationists like to use to claim the charismatic gifts have ceased (such as 1 Corinthians 13). My question is - are cessationists justified in claiming they are not trying to quench the Spirit but are rather "cautious" orthodox evangelicals. We must state the obvious - I don't believe ANY Christian would deliberately (at least I hope not) quench the Holy Spirit. Sadly they do. But I think the jury must remain out. All I see still of cessationist arguments are a people who are gripped by a spirit of self-control. They do not like being subject to the Holy Spirit and His designs and plans for advancing His church.

My personal experience and childhood is vastly different. I remember a glorious childhood growing up in a charismatic (yet never out of control) church. I remember what seemed like hours of heavenly worship standing with my parents watching and learning as they seemed "lost in wonder, love and praise". Sometimes someone would speak out in a strange tongue - and it didn't seem odd. It seemed fascinating. I remember even some of the elders bringing carefully weighed prophecies (rarely "silly remarks" that I remember as Stanley Jebb claims) that lifted even our hearts as children to God.

Then I remember the environment changing very definately. People eager to share prophecies would go up to the platform and speak with the elders and be sent down to their seats without being allowed to share (we would call it the "walk of shame"). Choruses and love songs were sung less and less and painfully tuneless hymns were sung more and more. Non-Christian friends of the family who would visit with us would ask; "Why have you lot become so miserable?".

Caution is okay - but it is a fine balance to walk before caution becomes quenching of the Holy Spirit. Let Dr Lloyd-Jones have the last word;

"This to me is one of the most urgent matters at this hour. With the church as she is and the world as it is, the greatest need today is the power of God through His Spirit in the church that we may testify not only to the power of the Spirit but to the glory and praise of the one and only Saviour - Jesus Christ our Lord".

A Charismatic Baby in a Bath of Excess

I consider myself fortunate to have been in a rather unique position in my church experience. Many grow up in one denomination or another and know little else. My experience (and that of some of my blogging friends) is slightly different.

1. I grew up in a reformed charismatic church called "New Covenant Church".

2. I then watched it change into a cessationist reformed church called "West Street Baptist Church".

3. I went to back into charismatic circles in the "Newfrontiers" family (again reformed and charismatic).

4. I spent 2 years in reformed evangelicalism in "Sovereign Grace Ministries".

5. I am now happily back in charismatic circles particularly enjoying fellowship with Rob and Glenda Rufus's church in Hong Kong called "City Church International" that has taught me about the grace of God for the first time.

So why is this so fortunate? I have experienced both charismatic and cessationist life. My former senior pastor Dr Stanley Jebb wrote a post yesterday called; "Why I Left the Charismatic Movement". The reasons were no secret but this is the first time he has really written them down. Let me say that Dr Jebb is a man I hold in the absolute highest esteem. I possess several hundred audio tapes of his ministry (both pre and post charismatic) and love listening to them still. I love his insight into the Word of God and his relationship with God. My respect for him is unchanged over his decision. It doesn't mean I agree with it.

So there's a reason why I see no need to leave the charismatic movement.

Dr Jebb's main reason is this;

"One of which is the number of charismatic leaders that have fallen morally. Yes I know that Reformed and Evangelical leaders have fallen also. But there is this difference: charismatics claim to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Furthermore they claim to manifest spiritual gifts such as prophecy which can reveal what is in a person's heart".

This premise would work only if reformed and evangelical leaders do NOT claim to be filled with the Holy Spirit (and they do - only they argue they get it "all" at conversion). Secondly this premise would only work if it could be proved that being filled with the Holy Spirit eradicated sin - such as the Holiness movement used to teach. And it doesn't. Being filled with the Holy Spirit is the most glorious and wonderful encounter with God - if anything it exposes brings an added degree of spiritual warfare and temptation.

Was the charismatic movement perfect? No - far from it. There was excess and moral falls. But any church historian worth their salt knows that this is always the case when God by His Spirit is at work. The devil doesn't want the church alive or full of life. Dr Jebb tried to bring a word of balance by saying;

"Many churches and ministers who are sound in doctrine, orthodox in theology also give the appearance of being lifeless if not dead".

With that I do agree. I suggest the devil is not particularly bothered by lifeless and dead-looking churches because they are unnoticable to the community around them. Such churches fill every stereotype the world expects - dull and dreary hymns in dusty pews with long monotonous preaching. But when the Holy Spirit brings life to His church then things happen! The world notices! For example I remember as a child at church;

1. Doing a "March For Jesus" through our home town along crowded streets.

2. Holding a prayer meeting for rain up the hills around our town during a drought - with the result that rain did come.

3. Praying for the closure of a night club in our town that caused increased crime - with the result (I believe) that it closed.

4. Praying for the capture of a serial rapist around our town (known as "The Fox") - with the result that he was captured and arrested by a policeman who attended our church (among others).

And those are just the examples of life I remember! I am not trying to say that the moral fall of charismatic leaders is not and was not serious. It is always heart-breaking and I am sure particularly for Dr Jebb who knew many of them personally. But I do not and will not agree that the counterfeit actions and temptations of the devil is worth throwing the life and power of God out.

There is much more I could have said about Dr Jebb's dismission of spiritual gifts but I think that is unncecessary. Most will know my attitude towards spiritual gifts - that yes there may be a degree of "pretended" revelations. But my life has been changed by prophecies that "exposed the secrets of my heart" (not to condemn and reveal 'sin' as Dr Jebb suggests) but to "exhort, edify and encourage" (as 1 Corinthians suggests). I am eternally grateful for the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit and suggest that instead of seeking;

" ... earnest, fervent, believing-prayer ... (instead of) ... pseudo-gifts, carnal excitement and pretended revelations"

We should see earnest, fervent, believing prayer AND the genuine powerful spiritual gifts, the excitement and thrill of the Presence of God and genuine, real revelations from the Word of God. Why have to choose one or the other when both is freely available?

Seeking the Manifestor not the Manifestations?

It's become quite cliche particularly in cautious charismatic circles to come out with a rather pious phrase. "I don't seek manifestations - I seek Jesus". Or one that was quite popular when I was in Dunstable was; "I seek the Giver NOT the gifts!" - there was even a song that went along with that phrase. It always bothered me and I never quite knew why. I think it conjoured up an image of Christmas when my gorgeous mum gave me a present that she had thought about and spent money on and I ignored it with the wrappings and said; "I don't seek your gift - I just seek you". That would hurt her! And I would never ever do it.

So I was really glad when Rob Rufus addressed this issue in his sermon from Sunday 29th March; "Increasing in the Anointing". And as usual his logic made wonderful and perfect sense;

"I will never understand why people doubt and want to be suspicious about manifestations of God. God dwells in the invisible realm and we live in the visible world. If God doesn't manifest into the visible world then you can't know God.

Romans 1 says we can know Him by the invisible qualities seen in creation and Romans 1 is very clear. But it is talking about those who know God by seeing Him in the invisible realm - still don't worship Him but worship the creation.

You can know there is a God by what He has created and you can know something about His invisible nature by what He has created but if He doesn't manifest who He is in a tangible way that you can experience and encounter God then you will never know God and walk God and you will never see miracles like this.

People are leaving the Church by the millions across the Western world because they are tired of going to a building on a Sunday morning and God is not there. "Ah but He is present everywhere!". Yes that's true - but He is not manifest there.

I feel literally nauseous when I hear Christians say; "I don't seek manifestations - if they come then I celebrate them but I don't see them". Why would you not seek something that heals and replaces hips? Why would you not seek something that can move over a whole city and cause millions to be aware of the goodness of God and the glory of God and the Presence of God? Why wouldn't you seek that?

What have you got to eagerly desire? MANIFESTATIONS! The Greek word for desire is "with intense, strong yearnings and cravings and burning longings - DESIRE manifestations of Almighty God!".

I hear leaders get up and say; "Well I don't see manifestations". When they say it there is a level of aloofness and pride - "I am over that childish thing of people who experience manifestations. I am now into good theology". They are NOT into good theology! Good theology says "Eagerly DESIRE!". What they are into is a mixture of reformed theology that didn't just keep on reforming and has got a built-in "anti" the supernatural, a subtle, manipulative content to it. We need to seek manifestations because really it is a manifestation of God!",

That has sealed the deal for me! Any in-bred guilt I had left over from my two former churches about feeling guilty about loving and hungering for the manifestations of God is gone, gone, gone! It makes such utter sense! God is an invisible God and heaven is an invisible realm. When He and it touch earth - there is GOING to be results!

Jonathan Edwards on the Reality of the Spirit

Another quote from the great Jonathan Edwards and his "Notes on Scripture". Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones - while professing a great respect for the Puritans of the 17th century said that he preferred Jonathan Edwards because he felt that Edwards was more "experimental" in his theology than John Owen, Thomas Goodwin and so on. Reading a quote like this makes it clear why Dr Lloyd-Jones felt so.

Edwards was commenting on Hebrews 6:4-6.

"Tis not probable that they should have the Holy Ghost dwelling in them with respect to His miraculous influences and not feel anything of the power of it in their souls.

When the Holy Ghost was given them, they felt His Presence not only outwardly but inwardly, not only in their understanding but also affections.

They experienced the powers of the age to come, that is of the invisible world, felt the powers of the invisible agents of that world upon their minds. Tis certain none exercised miraculous gifts without extrordinary influence of the Spirit of God to convince their judgement".

Now ... it's been a while since I have mentioned the whole issue of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. For those who have been following this blog for a while - you will know that my church history brought about a personal and wider interest in this whole issue. Briefly - my home church was traditionally charismatic - but maintained a healthy balance between Word and Spirit (although I realise now that there was a dangerous mix also of law and grace). We were involved deeply with the Dales Bible Weeks and went to the Downs Bible Weeks before setting up our own Bible Week.

Church was an EXCITING place to be! Even I remember that as a child. I still remember when it was a communion service the pastor and elders would simply sit down and wait for the Holy Spirit to move throughout the congregation and inspire prophetic words or tongues. I found it almost nerve-wracking wondering what would happen. There was frequently times of testimony after the church had been away to the Bible Weeks where Ern Baxter was often the main speaker - and it was guaranteed that you would hear people testifying to how they had been baptised in the Holy Spirit.

Then everything changed. And not for the better. The key moment seemed to be when the senior pastor brought out a booklet announcing that he had decided to change his mind on the baptism of the Spirit. He had taught that it was a distinct experience that Jesus Christ poured out on believers. Now he was teaching that it was something that happened automatically and non-experientially at conversion. The trouble was that this happened in 1997. Just before he brought out that booklet I had gone to university and heard a sermon asking "Had I received when I believed?".

I became a Christian 10 years before in 1987 at a church crusade in Dunstable called; "Life with Purpose". An evangelist called Don Summers had preached a message and I was convicted and knew I had not come to a personal encounter with Jesus Christ Himself. However I never received "anyone" in experience and in power. It was a cerebral decision and there was no accompanying experience other than fear - because I had to go up the front to respond! So hearing this sermon at university convinced me and I went up the front again and had hands laid on me and received the baptism of the Spirit in power. About a week later I started speaking with tongues in the shower - of all places!

So when I read this booklet I was incredibly disturbed and upset. I was being told by a pastor I had the most respect for that what happened to me was not real. I knew from my experience that it most certainly WAS real! But I went to the Scripture and began looking through books to try and find out what was going on. I have John Piper to thank for putting me onto Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I read his message to the Bethlehem Conference for Pastors: "A Passion for Christ-Exalting Power" and learned it wasn't just mad charismatics who believed in this! Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones had preached a series of sermons on John 1 which was later put into an outstanding book called "Joy Unspeakable".

Dr Lloyd-Jones persuaded me - and no one has ever even come close to "un-persuading" me. One of the key issues for me is this - the original Jonathan Edwards quote.

"Tis not probable that they should have the Holy Ghost dwelling in them with respect to His miraculous influences and not feel anything of the power of it in their souls".

How can it be? The Bible describes the baptism of the Holy Spirit in such glorious terms. I wouldn't be quite as definitive as many Pentecostals in insisting that the baptism of the Spirit ALWAYS has to be accompanied by the gift of tongues - but I certainly do think that the book of Acts suggests that something outward will happen at this event - whether it be tongues, prophesying, a word of knowledge, visions. I realise that many of those teachers (such as my former pastor) who deny this insist and take pride in the fact that they are "men of the Word". But it just simply doesn't tie up for me.

HOW can this EVER be an event that is NON-experiential?!

I will close with one of my favourite Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones quotes where he addresses such men who teach this;

"There is nothing, I am convinced, that so ‘quenches’ the Spirit as the teaching which identifies the baptism of the Holy Ghost with regeneration. But it is a very commonly held teaching today, indeed it has been the popular view for many years. It is said that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is ‘nonexperimental’, that it happens to every one at regeneration.

So we say, ‘Ah well, I am already baptized with the Spirit; it happened when I was born again, at my conversion; there is nothing for me to seek, I have got it all’. Got it all? Well, if you have ‘got it all’, I simply ask in the Name of God, why are you as you are? If you have ‘got it all’, why are you so unlike the Apostles, why are you so unlike the New Testament Christians?".

Ern Baxter with William Branham

Just couldn't resist a final quick post and a link to a site I discovered set up I think by supporters of the late William Branham. It's called: "Believe the Sign" and there is a seperate page devoted to Ern Baxter and his involvement with William Branham. They very kindly link to the website that is hopefully being still developed with Pete Day - "Ern Baxter dot com" and make reference to an interview with Ern that I published about Branham.

The photo that they published was also of great interest to me - it is Ern Baxter standing deep in thought in front of a ministry car for William Branham. The website very honestly makes note of the fact that in his later years Ern Baxter seperated himself from Branham's doctrines yet never, ever (a point I had to argue and battle with some of the elders at my home church in Dunstable who were trying to claim that Ern Baxter didn't support Branham) argued with the verifiable and authentic miracles that he witnessed while travelling with Branham.

Here's a video that I published some time ago - of an interview with Ern where he was discussing William Branham:



Why do I make mention of this? I mentioned yesterday that Rob Rufus provokes me by his relationship and continual encounters with the manifest Presence of God and the resulting signs and wonders that follow the message of grace that marks his ministry. I have found a video on You-Tube of testimonies from Kings Church in Eastbourne following Rob's visit that we were able to be at (Pete, Scott and myself along with Nick and Malcolm):



The difference to me - the unfolding revelation that is clear to me marking us out as different from the days of William Branham and the other healers of the 1950's is that in those days people flocked to those men and women seeking a miracle from them. And God blessed them graciously! But what I feel passionately now is that Rob Rufus among many others have opened up the truths of the Scripture to us to show that we ALL are responsible for seeing signs, wonders and miracles following OUR ministry and OUR witness.

The question is - will we accept that we are the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ and as such are equipped by God the Holy Spirit to go out and make His Name famous among the nations!?

John MacArthur Believes in Prophecy ... !!

Yes really. I will explain that in a bit.

Both Ern Baxter and Stanley Jebb were of the opinion that it is important to not simply limit your diet of theological books but also to read books that are contrary to your views. However I have been deliberately limiting my diet of books to those I know will feed my soul and fire my passion for God. In recent days I have decided to extend that rule for two reasons. Firstly I have plenty more reading time on my hands due to my working night shifts in the community and secondly CLC in Birmingham were selling John MacArthur's Commentaries on the New Testament for extremely cheap prices - £25 down to £9.95!

I brought 3 volumes to begin with. Two volumes on the Book of Romans and one volume on the Book of 1 Corinthians and began reading 1 Corinthians yesterday. I want to present a number of quotes and concepts that MacArthur deals with because I have found it a useful exercise reading his commentary. Firstly let me make it perfectly clear that I don't disagree with MacArthur lightly. It is clearly evident from his books that he is a righteous man who has spent his considerable lifetime studying the Word and desiring to present orthodox truth as he sees it. He is trained theologically and I am not. He has a number of degrees and I don't (in theology). But some things he says don't see to match up logically and further more MacArthur himself actually allows assessment of what he says (p304);

"No preacher or teacher of the gospel should resent having what he says judged against Scripture".

Points of Agreement.

I didn't think I would find myself including this category but I read a number of comments in the commentary on 1 Corinthians that I agreed with - although not maybe in the way that John MacArthur would have hoped his readers would! He said this concerning the spiritual gifts (p278);

"Every member of Christ's church has been given supernatural endowments, gifts of God's Holy Spirit, which through the Spirit are God's divine means of ministering His Word and power among His people and to the world".

MacArthur then went on to present a useful method of "testing all things" (p278) - a comment that may have been useful with Mark's concerns over Rob Rufus.

"God's gifts build up; Satan's counterfeits tear down".

And again;

"People do not counterfeit what is not valuable. Satan counterfeits the Spirit's gifts because he knows they are so valuable in God's plan".

John MacArthur on Apostles.

In beginning his commentary on 1 Corinthians, MacArthur obviously comes to Paul's opening comments in chapter 1; "called as an apostle". Unsurprisingly MacArthur deals with the contemporary issue as to whether apostles exist still today. He writes (p4);

"Apostles were chosen by God to work in the founding and forming of the church, after which time apostles ceased. When all the apostles had died, the office of apostle no longer existed. They were selected, sent and empowered by God for that period in the history of the church which was over when their lives were over".

This argument puzzles and intrigues me. MacArthur doesn't take the traditional argument that apostles are not required due to the completed canon of Scripture. He argues that apostles have ceased because those appointed as apostles have died out. Surely this argument suggests that the apostles were somehow special within themselves rather than the Biblical argument in Ephesians 4 that the ministry of apostles are gifts from the ascended Christ to the Church for it's bringing to maturity.

John MacArthur on Spiritual Gifts.

MacArthur defines spiritual gifts thus so;

"Spiritual gifts are divine enablements for ministry, characteristics of Jesus Christ that are to be manifested through the body corporate just as they were manifested through the body incarnate".

Once again I would agree with this but maybe not in the way that he wants or desires! But then moving into his commentary on chapters 12 to 14 MacArthur does something that is odd. I am familiar with the argument but I still have yet to understand where Scriptures indicates that this is so. He writes (p297);

"A thorough examination will yield the truth that spiritual gifts fill two major purposes; the permament gifts edify the church and the temporary gifts are signs to confirm the Word of God".

What then are the gifts designated as permament and what are those designated as temporary? Well he argues that the permament gifts include speaking or verbal gifts - prophecy, knowledge, wisdom, teaching and exhortation and also nonverbal gifts - leadership, helps, giving, mercy, faith and discernment. Temporary gifts were (apparantly) to authenticate the Word of God;

" ... until the time the Scriptures were completed and became self-authenticating".

So much for a general outline. I would ask again - where is the division shown in Scripture? Or more directly (as this is the text he is commenting on and apparantly exegeting) where is the division shown in 1 Corinthians 12?

John MacArthur on Healing.

As we can expect MacArthur makes the traditional evangelical "get-out-clause" that God is indeed sovereign and "can heal if He wishes". The implication that one gets from reading the entire commentary is that God is clearly not expected to wish to heal. By contrast MacArthur speaks approvingly of medical work as a preferred alternative. He writes (p301);

"As did all the others with the gift of healing, Paul used it sparingly and only for it's intended purpose. It was never used solely for the purpose of bringing physical health".

How would this compare with verses in the New Testament that speak of the Lord Jesus Christ like this;

"When evening came they brought to Him many who were demon possessed and He cast out the spirits with a word and healed ALL who were ill" - (Matthew 8:16 - NASB).

"Jesus was going through all the cities and the villages teaching ... and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. Seeing the people He felt compassion for them" - (Matthew 9:35 - NASB).

Healing never solely for the purpose of bringing spiritual health? What of the ten lepers He healed, one of whom only returned and responded to His Lordship that we know of?

John MacArthur on the Gift of Miracles.

MacArthur attributes this gift also to being a temporary sign gift. He defines a miracles as being a supernatural intrusion into the natural world and it's natural laws, explainable only by divine intervention. Thus far - no problem. However MacArthur makes a statement about Jesus Christ that causes me some difficulty. He said;

"Scripture indicates that Jesus lived a quiet, normal life as a child and as a young man exercising absolutely no supernatural powers until the wedding at Cana".

This may be the first indication of the Lord's miracle power but this statement seems to me to do injustice to the baptism of the Spirit that came upon Him in the River Jordan. Futher more if the Lord's preserved His supernatural power until the wedding at Cana then why did the devil tempt Him to turn stones into bread or to throw Himself off the temple? If the devil knew like the Lord that MacArthur's hypothesis was correct and Jesus was only to perform miracles to prove something then why would Jesus perform miracles with the devil as the sole witness?

John MacArthur on the Gift of Prophecy.

This is where I got interested. Rather than arguing with traditional cessationism as I had assumed, MacArthur wrote (p303);

"We will assume here that prophecy is a permament edifying gift".

However all is made clear when MacArthur goes on to define the gift of prophecy as such (p303);

"A prophet of God, therefore, is simply one who speaks forth God's Word and prophecy is the proclaiming of that Word. The gift of prophecy is the Spirit-given and Spirit-empowered ability to proclaim the Word effectively".

Clearly what he is arguing is that prophecy is preaching and a prophet is a preacher. But what then of the clear argument in 1 Corinthians 14:1 that we should earnestly desire spiritual gifts especially prophecy? MacArthur writes (p303);

"The apostle is not suggesting that every Christian should seek personally to have a gift of proclamation but that all Christians collectively should want that gift to be ministered among them".

So suddenly prophecy is no longer a gift of the Spirit that should and can be ministered by any member of the Church for the common good but it has become a gift purely and solely for the preacher/teacher (for clearly no other Ephesians 4 Ministry exists). There is no call clearly for anyone but the teaching elders to have anything to say in the corporate Body of believers.

John MacArthur on the Gift of Discernment.

Rather than being a special spiritual gift that may be bestowed again on any member of the body of Christ, MacArthur makes some interesting comments that clearly but his book "Charismatic Chaos" in contrast. Without stating it clearly - we are left in no doubt that he sees himself as having the gift of discernment. Consider these comments (p305);

"It is the ministry of those with the gift of discernment to help seperate the wheat from the chaff ... God still empowers some of His people to unmask false prophets and carnal hypocrites. He gives them insight to expose imitations and deceptions that most Christians would take as genuine".

The implication is strange. On the one hand MacArthur seems to be fighting for the supremacy of the Word of God and it's total sufficiency however on the other hand he is suggesting here that "most Christians" are liable to deception by false prophets (presumably false preachers?) were it not for those few who have the gift of discernment to unmask these wolves in sheeps clothing.

John MacArthur on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Jesse Phillips makes it clear that 1 Corinthians 12:13 is used by most of those who would claim that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is synonymous with conversion and is mostly non-experimental. MacArthur does not disappoint such an expectation and writes this but it is somewhat confusing;

"It is not the Holy Spirit's baptism but Christ's baptism with the Holy Spirit that gives us life and places us into the Body when we trust in Christ ... the Son is the Baptizer and the Holy Spirit is the agent of baptism".

But that is not what 1 Corinthians 12:13 says! The verse makes it clear that on the other hand it is the Holy Spirit who is the baptizer ("By one Spirit") and the body of Christ who is the agent of baptism ("into one body"). Surely the real root of the problem with the concept of a baptism in the Spirit that is one of power and brings assurance of sonship is this comment;

"Many erring teachers today have used a wrong interpretation of the baptism with the Spirit to divide off from the Body an imagined spiritual elite who have what the rest do not".

This of course is the time-old traditional argument against the baptism of the Spirit and one that you will only hear from those who deny the presence and power of such a grace gift from the risen and ascended Christ.

What of MacArthur?

There is much talk around of being "Together for the Gospel" and I must confess to wondering just how important an issue this is. Should we keep quiet about these things for the sake of unity? It is important and it should be discussed because what is at stake is the supremacy of the Word of God. Both bible-honouring charismatics and John MacArthur cannot be correct. If John MacArthur is correct then all bible-honouring charismatics are at worst practicing spiritual gifts and are demonically inspired and at best are wasting time manifesting gifts in the flesh.

My over-riding feeling from reading the commentary on "1 Corinthians" is that there is a downgrading on the emphasis of every member ministry. One of the wonders of the Charismatic Renewal is that suddenly church wasn't about one pastor doing everything but every member had the capability of bringing something of God to the corporate gatherings. John MacArthur deals with the verse that speaks of everyone "hath a tongue, hath an interpretation" as being solely and purely for the Corinthians. If that is so then why is it included in Scripture and why are we told that "all Scripture is profitable"? In John MacArthur's commentary we are left with the impression that there is nothing for us "laity" to do but come to church and hear the preacher preach the Word of God.

There is much more that could be said and I may post again when I have finished the three volumes but I confess to being disappointed with what I have read so far. John MacArthur is clearly a faithful and devoted servant of Jesus Christ and a lover of His Church. He says he is devoted to truth and defending it and indeed the motto of his preaching is "Unleashing God's truth one verse at a time". I focused on the more controversial topics that he deals with - there is much in the commentary that is excellent and I do agree with.

But I don't understand why a man who so devotedly believes in the Word of God needs to read into Scripture so much of his presupposed views. I hope that the volumes on Romans get better but I am glad that I brought them for the bargain price they were.

One final question. Most of MacArthur's "illustrations" of 1 Corinthians 12-14 come from the Charismatic Movement. How would his commentary have shaped up if he had written it prior to Azusa Street? I wonder if his comments and his concerns would have been the same.