John MacArthur answers questions about Strange Fire

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------------------

We have yet to see a persuasive case made for the cessationist perspective. John MacArthur is a prominent Bible teacher, and a rather good one at times. He is also cessationist, so we are hopeful that he can adequately justify this position scripturally. 

Dr. MacArthur seems curiously reluctant to actually quote Scripture. In fact, nowhere in this article does he actually do so. He makes reference to Scripture, takes a bit of a phrase and extrapolates, but nowhere does he actually give us the verse itself. It is left to us to actually quote them, which we are happy to do. 
-----------------------------

(...)

Q: You noted that you see this issue clearly resolved in Scripture. Can you explain, briefly, the biblical case (emphasis added) for cessationism? 

A: The full answer to this question would require a lengthy response; and I spend several chapters in the book making the case. But since you asked me to be brief, I’ll do my best to stay concise. I find it helpful to shape the case (Um, the "biblical case," please.)

for cessationism around three questions: What?, When?, and Why?.

First, what were the miraculous and revelatory gifts (like apostleship, prophecy, tongues, and healing) according to the Word of God? Scripture gives us a clear description. But when we compare that biblical description with the modern charismatic movement, we find that the latter falls far short. Though charismatics use biblical terminology to describe their contemporary experiences, nothing about the modern charismatic gifts matches the biblical reality. (He diverts the issue. The problem to be addressed is not if charismatics are properly expressing the biblical gifts, but rather, what does the Bible have to say about the "supernatural" gifts? Dr. MacArthur cannot not refute the spiritual gifts by pointing to the failures of those whom he opposes. 

Remember, we are looking for the biblical case.)

For example, God’s Word explicitly says that true prophets must adhere to a standard of 100% accuracy (Deut. 18:20–22) and nothing in the New Testament exempts them from that standard. (We discuss that idea at some length here. The case for 100% accuracy is not persuasive at all.)

The book of Acts depicts the gift of tongues as producing real human languages (Acts 2:9–11), (We discuss Tongues here.)

and nothing in 1 Corinthians redefines tongues as irrational babble. (Of course not. Note the pejorative language employed, "irrational babble." MacArthur dismisses tongues by applying a negative characterization, and this he represents as the charismatic view. This is intellectually dishonest. Tongues are not represented by charismatics as either irrational or babble. 

And we yet await the biblical case.) 

And the New Testament further describes the miraculous healings of Jesus and the Apostles (including the healing of organic diseases like paralysis, blindness, and leprosy) as being immediate, complete, and undeniable (cf. Mark 1:42; 10:52; etc.). (This is incorrect. In the story of the blind man in Mk 8:22, the healing was not immediate.) 

These, and many other Scripture passages, demonstrate the truly extraordinary quality of the biblical gifts. (Granting Dr. MacArthur's premise for a moment, no one denies the expression of the gifts in the Bible were extraordinary. This is irrelevant. It does not preclude the continuation of the gifts.)

But here is the point. The modern gifts of the charismatic movement simply do not match up to their biblical counterparts. (What is the biblical support for this requirement? And what does contemporary expressions have to do with the biblical case?) 

Modern prophecy is fallible and full of errors. Modern tongues consists of unintelligible speech that does not conform to any human language. Modern healings do not compare to the miracles performed by Jesus and the Apostles. (Note once again Dr. MacArthur appeals to the current practice of charismatics for his refutation, not Scripture.)

Amazingly, leading continuationists readily acknowledge this fact. Wayne Grudem, for example, agrees that apostleship has ceased. He further argues for a modern version of prophecy that is fallible and frequently characterized by mistakes. Sam Storms has a whole article attempting to justify the idea that modern tongues do not have to be real human languages. And in a recent interview, John Piper acknowledges that there was something unique and unrepeatable about the healing miracles of Christ.

Based on those admissions, I would challenge them to consider in what sense they should even be called ‘continuationists,’ because they essentially acknowledge that the biblical gifts have not continued. (Once again Dr. MacArthur appeals to certain people and their practices. May we ask again, does he have a Scriptural case to make?) 

And if these aren’t the biblical gifts we’re talking about, what are they, and what Scriptural evidence is there for their operation in the church? (Implying that there is none. It seems increasingly clear that Dr. MacArthur tens to lean towards rhetorical tactics employed by political leftists. 

It is interesting he demands the Scriptural evidence from his opposition, yet seems reluctant to bolster his own case similarly.)

So, I don’t deny that charismatics have lots of experiences. But I do deny the notion that those experiences match what the Bible describes as the miraculous and revelatory gifts of the New Testament. (*Sigh* Once again he appeals to the activities of his doctrinal adversaries. However, the fact these people don't measure up is irrelevant to the biblical case.) 

The modern experiences don’t even come close. There is nothing extraordinary about fallible prophecy, irrational tongues, or failed healings. (Again, using the rhetorical tactics of the political Left, he requires an "extraordinary" level of the expression of the gifts, where no such thing is required in Scripture. He implies that all expressions are failed or irrational. This is an unseemly way to attempt to refute one's opponents.) 

While I recognize that sometimes God providentially chooses to heal people through answered prayer, those occurrences are not at all the same thing as the New Testament gift of healing. (Unsupported assertion. Where is the biblical case, sir?

Did John not pray for healing [3 Jn 2]? What about when Jesus prayed, like Mk 7:34 and Jn 11:41? Was that somehow different than the prayer of someone today? In what way? Mr. MacArthur does not seem to want to explain anything.

And by Dr. MacArthur's criteria, it seems that God can providentially choose to give a prophecy.) 

Second, when did the gifts cease? One important passage that helps answer that question is Ephesians 2:20, which explains that apostles and New Testament prophets were the “foundation” upon which the church was being built. (Let's quote the passage in context, since Dr. MacArthur doesn't bother: 

Ep. 2:18-22: For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow-citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. 

Here we find Paul telling us that we belong to God as parts of his body which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

We discuss this passage and others here.) 

Before the canon of Scripture was complete, that foundation was still being laid through the apostles and prophets, and through the miraculous and revelatory gifts that accompanied and authenticated their ministries. (This does not follow from Paul's description. The "miraculous and revelatory gifts" are NOT the foundation, the apostles and prophets are. 

In addition, this passage is not talking about the Scripture, prophecy, the canon, or the gifts at all.

And authentication is not the only purpose of the gifts, they also are to edify, among other things. 1Co. 14:12: So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church. 

We discuss authentication here.)  

But once the foundation was laid, those offices and gifts passed away. (Unsupported assertion. Dr. MacArthur offers no basis for this. In fact, he summarily dismisses the very thing for which he said he was going to make the biblical case against.) 

To follow Paul’s metaphor, the foundation is not something that is rebuilt at every phase of construction. It is laid only once. (Of course, but we notice again that the gifts are not under discussion in the passage in question. And we have just pointed out that this is not the only reason for the gifts.)

Many reformed continuationists (including Wayne Grudem) readily acknowledge that apostleship has ceased. So even they admit that one of the most significant elements listed in both 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4 has passed away. So, at that level at least, they are cessationists. (Again Dr. MacArthur appeals to people and their beliefs and practices. Once again we assert that this establishes nothing. We long for the author to make his case from Scripture.

And Dr. MacArthur is making an argument based on the "one less god" argument atheists make. This is rhetorical nonsense.)

Finally, we must look to the purpose of the gifts—why they were given. The New Testament explains that they functioned to authenticate God’s messengers, (Where does the NT explain this? Please, cite the reference. Quote the Scripture? Why is that so hard, Dr. MacArthur?

We discuss authentication here.)

while the canon of Scripture—and thus the fullness of God’s revelation—was still incomplete. Jesus Himself was “attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs” (Acts 2:22). (We discuss this passage and others here.)

Paul referred to “the signs of a true apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12). (*Sigh* Let's quote the passage:

2Co. 12:11-12 I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the “super-apostles”, even though I am nothing. 12 The things that mark an apostle — signs, wonders and miracles — were done among you with great perseverance.

Paul is not creating a category for apostles, nor is he listing apostolic qualifications. He's not even restricting signs and wonders to to the apostles. What Paul is doing is defending is his own apostleship.)

 

The author of Hebrews spoke of the Gospel being attested by God “both with signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will” (Heb. 2:4). (We discuss this passage and others here.

Let's quote the passage. He. 2:3-4:

...This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

Not under discussion here is the apostles, the scriptures, or the canon. The topic is "this salvation." "This salvation" was 

• first spoken of by Jesus
• heard by first hand witnesses 
• confirmed to the writer of Hebrews though those witnesses, and in addition
• attested to by miraculous things, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit

The word "testify" is 

sunepimartureó, to attest together with; to join in bearing witness, to unite in adding testimony

The writer of Hebrews is making his case for the surety of the salvation message by pointing out the "chain of evidence," leading up to the operation of the gifts. That is, the gifts of the Spirit they had were part of the proof of the message of salvation.

Further, a brief review of Scripture demonstrates that the gift of prophecy, for example, was not restricted to authentication of the Apostles' ministry: 

Ac. 11:27-28: During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world.

Ac. 13:1: In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul.

Ac. 15:32: Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers.

Unless the author is prepared to agree that men like Silas, Agabus, and Lucius were apostles, and their operation in the gifts for them was to authenticate their ministry, the author must acknowledge a broader purpose for the operation of the prophetic in the first century church.) 

After the apostolic age passed, with the foundation of the church laid and the canon of Scripture closed, such attestation was no longer required. (Unsupported assertion.)

The sufficiency of Scripture and the fullness of God’s completed revelation in His written Word is so glorious that it no longer needs miraculous confirmation. (Unsupported assertion.) 

As Peter explains, the prophetic word is even more sure than the most extraordinary of eye-witness experiences (2 Pet 1:16–21). (Hmm. The "prophetic word" is what Dr. MacArthur is trying to dispense with.

But even at that Dr. MacArthur misleads us. Let's quote the passage. 2Pe. 1:16-19:

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Let's again follow the "chain of evidence:"

• We didn't just make up a story
• We were actual eye-witnesses
• We were at the mount of transfiguration and heard God's voice
• Because of this we believe the word of the prophets even more
• So you had better take more careful note of the the word of the prophets yourselves

Peter did not tell his readers that the "prophetic word is more sure than eyewitness experiences." He said the eyewitness accounts confirm to him the word of the prophets!)

In the all-sufficient Scriptures, God’s truth is self-attesting and self-evident through the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 4:12). (Curious that he appeals to the revelatory power of the Holy Spirit, yet simultaneously rejects charismatic gifts. 

This is another Scripture we examine here.)

Now, I realize there are disputes over some of those passages. But that is the very discussion I want to spark in the evangelical community. Let’s dig into the Scriptures and deal with the biblical and theological issues. (Yes, yes. Let us dig into the Scriptures. You first, sir.)

I should add that we address these and other passages in much greater depth in the Strange Fire book. Not that anyone would want to count, but the Scripture index includes nearly 450 biblical references. (Would any of those references supply us with attestation of Dr. MacArthur's assertions?)

(...)

Q: You have been clear that charismatic theology damages Christ’s name and the gospel. Excluding the obviously and patently unbiblical, extreme charismatics such as Benny Hinn, what is the damage that may be done as a result of reformed, continuationist preaching and practice?

A: This is a question we directly address in chapter 12 of the book—identifying eight dangerous ramifications of holding to a continuationist position. (We're going to suppose that Dr. MacArthur will conflate the excesses of those who errantly practice the gifts with the entirety of the charismatic position, and quote little or no Scripture as he makes his case.) 

I can’t go into detail on all eight of those concerns here, but perhaps I can briefly highlight two of them.

First, I am concerned that reformed continuationists provide theological cover for the broader movement—including those who are not nearly as careful as they are. Once you legitimize fallible prophecy, irrational tongues, (There's that word "irrational" again.) 

and failed healings (as if those are true expressions of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit), you open Pandora’s Box to all sorts of theological error and disaster. In using biblical terminology to describe something other than the biblical phenomena, continuationists unwittingly provide cover for charlatans and deceivers who use their arguments to propagate falsehood and justify abuses. (Dr. MacArthur has not established that the existence of gifts today is unbiblical. And the excesses of those who believe in the gifts does not speak to the legitimacy of the gifts themselves.)

Let me give one quick example of that. I remember meeting with a charismatic prophet in my office several years ago—a man who has since been publicly discredited as a drunken, immoral fraud. But at the time, he was considered one of the foremost of the Kansas City Prophets. And he had come, along with another continuationist leader, in order to convince me that he was a true prophet. It was a strange meeting. His behavior was extremely bizarre. But the other leader defended him, insisting that this was how he acted when he was under the power of the Spirit.

So we asked this other continuationist leader why he believed this man to be a true prophet when he acted so strangely, and when so many of his so-called revelations were wrong and full of errors. I’ll never forget his response. He simply appealed to Wayne Grudem’s work on prophecy as his defense. (*Sigh again* Does not Dr. MacArthur understand that there is a difference between those who practice the gifts and the gifts themselves? Should we not allow preaching because some preachers preach falsehoods? Should we outlaw music in the church since some singers sing flat? Should we discontinue church because it is filled with unbelievers and miscreants of all kinds?

Again we remind the reader what Dr. MacArthur was supposed to do: Can you explain, briefly, the biblical case...)

Examples like that illustrate the problem. Albeit unintentionally, reformed continuationists are providing a defense for people far less-noble or ethical than they are. In that sense, they are holding the gates open for the Trojan horse of aberrant theology and spiritual abuse that runs rampant in the broader charismatic world. (Using the same logic, then cessationist apologists like Dr. MacArthur are holding open the gates for cessationists to engage in all sorts of egregious, unbiblical acts, like [fill in the blank].)

Second, on a related note, I am deeply concerned with the notion of ongoing revelation in the church today. Though my continuationist friends would never intentionally attack the sufficiency of Scripture, I believe their acceptance of modern prophecy actually undermines the sufficiency of Scripture in profoundly destructive ways. (Dr. MacArthur's view on sufficiency is flawed. We explain here.)

As I write in Strange Fire, “The continuationist view actually defaults on the sole sufficiency of Scripture at the most practical levels—because it teaches believers to look for additional revelation from God outside the Bible. (As we have previously observed, this is no different than the cessationist listening to a sermon by a pastor. Anything the pastor says that isn't a Scripture quote is extra biblical revelation as well. Does Dr. MacArthur object to sermons also?) 

As a result, people are conditioned to expect impressions and words from God beyond what is recorded on the pages of Scripture. (And people are conditioned to expect impressions and words from God from sermons as well.) 

By using terms like prophecy, revelation, or a word from the Lord, the continuationist position has the real potential to harm people by binding their consciences to an erroneous message or manipulating them to make unwise decisions (because they think God is directing them to do so). (As does a pastor imparting his "wisdom" from the pulpit.)

Though continuationists insist that congregational prophecy is not authoritative (at least, not at the corporate level), it is not difficult to imagine countless ways it might be abused by unscrupulous church leaders” (pp. 242–3). (Just like sermons. Hmm.)

By definition, then, and contrary to 2 Timothy 3:16–17, Scripture alone cannot be said to make the man of God complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (We shall quote the Scripture, since Dr. MacArthur never seems to want to.

Unfortunately for him, the quotation reveals that Dr. MacArthur's explanations do not line up with Scripture. Here is 2Ti. 3:16: 

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 

So does this verse say "Scripture alone?" No. It tells of the wondrous usefulness of Scripture, but says nothing about it being the only source. Indeed, if it did say such a thing, we must ask once again about sermons, which are extrabiblical revelations. We also my wonder about the body of Christ and its value for the believer, for it is a source of extrabiblical revelation [encouragement, exhortation, fellowship, etc.]. You see, Dr. MacArthur's assertions are themselves downright unbiblical if we hold his extrabiblical writing to the same standard.) 

Some other extrabiblical revelation or experience is made necessary. That kind of theology is downright dangerous.

(We had hoped to discover the scriptural basis for cessationism, but ended up disappointed. Instead, Dr. MacArthur seemed content to simply point out the flaws of Charismatics without actually addressing the doctrines of the Bible. That is either lazy, or it is deliberately misleading.)