Gifts from God, tongues, and recent claims made by 'prophets' and 'miracle workers'

[MoreCoffee]

This topic is well trodden in many places and by many people but it never seems to lose its attraction and it never seems to stop being controversial. But before we start I want to make a short declaration:

I am not a cessation advocate. I do not support John Macarthur's theology. I both accept and affirm as true the teaching of the Catholic Church and willingly submit to the teaching and admonitions of her pastors.​

Never the less John Macarthur brings forward many passages of scripture and offers explanations of them that he thinks are sound. So what I intend in this thread is to examine some of his teaching and let those who support continuation offer their refutations or correction then we can see which is sound and which is not - Mr Macarthur's teaching or the teaching of Charismatic and Pentecostal people.

I will start with one passage taken from this source http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-409/an-appeal-to-charismatic-pretenders-john-macarthur

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.’ ”

There could not be a conference talking about the charismatic movement without addressing this passage. It is obvious to any reader that the claims of these false believers to prophesy, to cast out demons, and to perform miracles are an exact parallel to the charismatic movement. So here we have Jesus giving us the last word, as it should be.

There’s an old spiritual that says, “Everybody talking about heaven ain’t going there.” That’s been true from the very days of the New Testament. In Proverbs 30:12 we read, “There is a kind - ” or there is a generation “ - who is pure in his own eyes, yet is not washed from his filthiness.” In Romans 10:2, it says of Israel, “They have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.”

External Christianity, professing Christianity possesses millions of people who feel like Christians, who have been induced into thinking they are Christians, who live with the hope of entering heaven and escaping hell, but will find at the end that they were wrong. There are millions of people who claim to believe in Jesus, who use His name who call Him “Lord,” who say they believe in Him, expecting heaven, only to receive hell.

Our Lord saw this at the beginning of His ministry. In John 2:23, “When He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing.” Drawn by the miracles, they believed in His name. “But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men.” He didn’t need anyone to testify concerning man, He Himself knew what was in man. He knew it was a superficial faith. It was a faith attached to experience, to miracles. It was external. The fact is clearly stated here by our Lord that many will say, “Lord, Lord,” who will not enter the kingdom.

For a fuller exposition of John Macarthur's teaching I offer a video clip that contains the sermon he preached and from which the above quote is taken.

 

[tango]

This topic is well trodden in many places and by many people but it never seems to lose its attraction and it never seems to stop being controversial. But before we start I want to make a short declaration:

I am not a cessation advocate. I do not support John Macarthur's theology. I both accept and affirm as true the teaching of the Catholic Church and willingly submit to the teaching and admonitions of her pastors.​

Never the less John Macarthur brings forward many passages of scripture and offers explanations of them that he thinks are sound. So what I intend in this thread is to examine some of his teaching and let those who support continuation offer their refutations or correction then we can see which is sound and which is not - Mr Macarthur's teaching or the teaching of Charismatic and Pentecostal people.

I will start with one passage taken from this source http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-409/an-appeal-to-charismatic-pretenders-john-macarthur


For a fuller exposition of John Macarthur's teaching I offer a video clip that contains the sermon he preached and from which the above quote is taken.
(video cut for brevity)

I've bolded the part of your original premise that I believe to represent a fundamental problem in the question you are asking.

When you talk of "the teaching of Charismatic and Pentecostal people" you talk of a huge range of beliefs. Charismatic could refer to the belief that the gifts are for today, or it could refer to the far-out silliness promoted by the likes of Bill Johnson. I would consider myself charismatic, yet consider Bill Johnson's teachings to be hugely dangerous.

I often think of sound teaching as being like a bowling alley. We need to keep the ball on the alley - too far one way and we go in the gutter, too far the other way and we go in the gutter. Personally I consider John MacArthur to be in one gutter and Bill Johnson to be in the other. Although to be honest if I had to pick one I'd go with MacArthur, as I fear Johnson's teachings are dangerous whereas MacArthur's are merely misguided.

 

[TurtleHare]

Is Macarthur trying to say that charismatics/pentecostals are not going to heaven cuz that's trash.

I don't agree with a lot of the charismatic teachings but I do know there are many believers amongst them and I'm not going to follow some guy who is going to say a group of people aren't believers. He can't see faith and doesn't know the heart, only God does.

 

[tango]

Claiming that whole swathes of Christians aren't really Christians is a step too far, IMO.

That said the warning Jesus gave that "not everybody who says 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom" shouldn't be taken lightly. When some groups butcher the context of Scripture to make it mean what they want it to mean it's easy to see how "if you love me, obey my commandments" gets lost along the way (and, just to be clear, it's not just the hypercharismatics that butcher context).

 

[Alithis]

the op states he believes i the teaching of the catholic church (being rome) this in itself cancels out anything he has to say on the topic. because the teachings of rome are in huge swathes utterly opposed to the bible in so many respects .it to has been thrashed out on many levels . and this is not a theology it is differing voiced opinions .

 

[Josiah]

Some thoughts....

1. The divine gift of faith in Christ as savior gets us to heaven. Not being an official registered member of a parish owned and operated by a specific, singular denomination (thus, I disagree with the opening poster) OR articulating cognative understandings in specific words (theology doesn't save, Jesus does).

2. The "problem" with EXPERIENCE is that it's nearly impossible to objectively evaluate. Yes, I am certain that some FEEL that they are "speaking in TONGUES" but sincerity is not the issue, the experience is made such. Are they? Well, first of all, one would have to document that what they do is - specifically and particularly - "speaking in TONGUES." Since neither the Bible or Tradition tells us what "speaking in TONGUES" was, there is simply NO WAY to know if what that one does is AT ALL what the Bible means by it. They FEEL they are doing it..... others may FEEL they aren't.... but so we are stuck since there is no way whatsoever to determine if what they claim to be doing IS "speaking in tongues."

3. Frankly, I don't know why it matters.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Lamb]

It's true that there are people who claim to be Christian yet do not believe in the Savior to have salvation. I'm not sure where their faith lies though but God does. I don't think that bashing an entire group of peoples is the right thing to do. Even in the Old Testament we can see that there might be a faithful believer amongst the non (Rahab). Anyone who claims he knows who is going to hell just might be yet another one of those false teachers Beware.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I ask, as politely as I can, that every post keep to the topic and avoid reflecting on the character and/or alleged beliefs of other people posting in this thread.

the op states he believes i the teaching of the catholic church (being rome) this in itself cancels out anything he has to say on the topic. because the teachings of rome are in huge swathes utterly opposed to the bible in so many respects .it to has been thrashed out on many levels . and this is not a theology it is differing voiced opinions .

 

[Alithis]

ahh so don't point out the errors of my group while i'm busy pointing out the errors of some one elses . fine.
i do not agree with many evangelical or charismatic practices . there are always falsehood and counterfeits and pretenders for the sake of power fame profit
its a clear case of remove the log of idolatry before you pick at the sticks of covetousness though isn't it . because they make people "feel like they are Christian when they may not actual be Christian .
ouhh but so does another certain large powerful organisation .

 

[tango]

Some thoughts....

1. The divine gift of faith in Christ as savior gets us to heaven. Not being an official registered member of a parish owned and operated by a specific, singular denomination (thus, I disagree with the opening poster) OR articulating cognative understandings in specific words (theology doesn't save, Jesus does).

2. The "problem" with EXPERIENCE is that it's nearly impossible to objectively evaluate. Yes, I am certain that some FEEL that they are "speaking in TONGUES" but sincerity is not the issue, the experience is made such. Are they? Well, first of all, one would have to document that what they do is - specifically and particularly - "speaking in TONGUES." Since neither the Bible or Tradition tells us what "speaking in TONGUES" was, there is simply NO WAY to know if what that one does is AT ALL what the Bible means by it. They FEEL they are doing it..... others may FEEL they aren't.... but so we are stuck since there is no way whatsoever to determine if what they claim to be doing IS "speaking in tongues."

3. Frankly, I don't know why it matters.

1 - you're right that the way to heaven is through Jesus Christ rather than the rituals some would suggest are required.

2. Experience is so subjective it's a really bad way to gauge whether something is true or not. I've seen people in leadership positions take a teaching that flies in the face of Scripture and when presented with objections say little more than "I have no checks in my spirit" and on that basis alone assume something is sound. Yes, that was a hypercharismatic church. I left the church on the basis I honestly don't recognise the god that some of their preferred teachers describe, so can only conclude that at least some of their teachers are following another god. Comparing them to another (relatively conservative) church it's interesting to see some differences. The hypercharismatic church always knew "God was at work" because of some trivial "sign" or the way they felt that morning - some of the people there would claim that God was smiling on them because they saw a rainbow that morning (presumably people with diametrically opposing viewpoints were also correct if they also saw the same rainbow). The more conservative church talked of the ways they could see God blessing a project - they don't talk about such things anywhere near as often but when they do it's always something real, tangible, and objectively measurable - something anybody can see for themselves rather than something one person feels.

3. It matters because if people think they are following God when in fact they are following their own whims and the whims of false teachers they may end up as the ones who are told "I never knew you" when it matters. I can't say that's something I want to experience, and would rather make a fuss now than have people I care about get that somewhat unpleasant surprise when it counts.

 

[Lamb]

3. It matters because if people think they are following God when in fact they are following their own whims and the whims of false teachers they may end up as the ones who are told "I never knew you" when it matters. I can't say that's something I want to experience, and would rather make a fuss now than have people I care about get that somewhat unpleasant surprise when it counts.

I think what bothers me though is that Macarthur is lumping people together based on one section of their beliefs. He doesn't admit that they do proclaim Jesus as their Savior. He lets their other theological stances take precedence and then calls the entire group unChristian. He is trying to weed out the goats instead of seeing the sheep in there as well. It's wrong.

 

[MoreCoffee]

John Macarthur's conclusions about Charismatic people are not really very relevant to me but the passages he preaches from and uses as the basis for his reasoning is significant to me. I posted links in the original post to both the video and a transcript of his sermon. In the transcript the passages he uses are clearly visible. What are your thoughts on those passages and what they mean. Is he handling them fairly?

I think what bothers me though is that Macarthur is lumping people together based on one section of their beliefs. He doesn't admit that they do proclaim Jesus as their Savior. He lets their other theological stances take precedence and then calls the entire group unChristian. He is trying to weed out the goats instead of seeing the sheep in there as well. It's wrong.

 

[Lamb]

John Macarthur's conclusions about Charismatic people are not really very relevant to me but the passages he preaches from and uses as the basis for his reasoning is significant to me. I posted links in the original post to both the video and a transcript of his sermon. In the transcript the passages he uses are clearly visible. What are your thoughts on those passages and what they mean. Is he handling them fairly?

Concerning this quote

Our Lord saw this at the beginning of His ministry. In John 2:23, “When He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing.” Drawn by the miracles, they believed in His name. “But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men.” He didn’t need anyone to testify concerning man, He Himself knew what was in man. He knew it was a superficial faith. It was a faith attached to experience, to miracles. It was external. The fact is clearly stated here by our Lord that many will say, “Lord, Lord,” who will not enter the kingdom.

There seem to be some of his own conclusions placed into that paragraph. What version of the Bible does he use?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Concerning this quote


There seem to be some of his own conclusions placed into that paragraph. What version of the Bible does he use?

NKJV

 

[Lamb]

But he's added some of his own opinion in there. I don't particularly care for that when people are quoting scripture and put their own thoughts mingled in. They should be added after lest people think their opinions are part of God's Word.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But he's added some of his own opinion in there. I don't particularly care for that when people are quoting scripture and put their own thoughts mingled in. They should be added after lest people think their opinions are part of God's Word.

The quote marks tell you when he is quoting and when he is commenting.

 

[tango]

John Macarthur's conclusions about Charismatic people are not really very relevant to me but the passages he preaches from and uses as the basis for his reasoning is significant to me. I posted links in the original post to both the video and a transcript of his sermon. In the transcript the passages he uses are clearly visible. What are your thoughts on those passages and what they mean. Is he handling them fairly?

I think he's mapping selected verses of Scripture onto his desired target without demonstrating why or how they are related.

From the OP (referencing the part attributed to John MacArthur):

There’s an old spiritual that says, “Everybody talking about heaven ain’t going there.” That’s been true from the very days of the New Testament. In Proverbs 30:12 we read, “There is a kind - ” or there is a generation “ - who is pure in his own eyes, yet is not washed from his filthiness.” In Romans 10:2, it says of Israel, “They have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.”

There may well be a kind who is pure in their own eyes but with nothing more than that we'd need to know why that "kind" refers to the charismatic sections of the church as opposed to, say, the cessationist sections of the church. In this regard Dr MacArthur seems just as bad as the hypercharismatic teachers who pick and choose verses to mean what they want without demonstrating why they are relevant. Without looking at his quotes in more detail it's hard to see if he's doing the level of Bible botching associated with groups like IHOP but on the face of it he seems to be making two unrelated observations while claiming they are related.

ETA: Meant to reply to MoreCoffee's post, letme see if I can fix the quotes.
ETA: Fixed the quotes...

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think he's mapping selected verses of Scripture onto his desired target without demonstrating why or how they are related.

From the OP (referencing the part attributed to John MacArthur):

There’s an old spiritual that says, “Everybody talking about heaven ain’t going there.” That’s been true from the very days of the New Testament. In Proverbs 30:12 we read, “There is a kind - ” or there is a generation “ - who is pure in his own eyes, yet is not washed from his filthiness.” In Romans 10:2, it says of Israel, “They have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.”

There may well be a kind who is pure in their own eyes but with nothing more than that we'd need to know why that "kind" refers to the charismatic sections of the church as opposed to, say, the cessationist sections of the church. In this regard Dr MacArthur seems just as bad as the hypercharismatic teachers who pick and choose verses to mean what they want without demonstrating why they are relevant. Without looking at his quotes in more detail it's hard to see if he's doing the level of Bible botching associated with groups like IHOP but on the face of it he seems to be making two unrelated observations while claiming they are related.

ETA: Meant to reply to MoreCoffee's post, letme see if I can fix the quotes.
ETA: Fixed the quotes...

Well, your reply is informative but it still is mainly about how you see John Macarthur's views rather than being about how you see the passages he has used.

 

[tango]

Well, your reply is informative but it still is mainly about how you see John Macarthur's views rather than being about how you see the passages he has used.

I think the verse he quotes from Proverbs indicates that people believe they are righteous when in fact they are not, and the verse from Romans appears to talk of how Israel strives for her own righteousness rather than falling back on the righteousness of Christ.

The latter verse seems to have nothing at all to do with the charismatic church (or indeed any other part of the church today, other than for comparison purposes); the former verse seems to be a generic observation that some people are evil. To use the Romans verse to describe any particular section within the church seems like a comparison rather than a direct application, in which case the person doing the comparison needs to demonstrate why the comparison is sound. Likewise the Proverbs verse is a generic observation that requires reasoning before it can be applied to anyone.

It's perfectly true to say "some men watch baseball" but to simply present that observation as evidence that you personally watch baseball is unfounded. If I want to claim that you as an individual watch baseball I need more than a generic "some men watch baseball" to back it.

(I use watching baseball as an example because it's safe and I figure few people will be offended at the implication that they may, or may not, watch baseball)

 

[Brighten04]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZbQBajYnEc