Bolz Isn’t Enough: The Deeper Rot Inside the Charismatic Movement - by David Morrill

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

Piggy-backing off of our recent post where Don Pirozok writes about corruption in the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation), we shall revisit the topic today with an excerpt from David Morrill's article on the same topic. 

We have examined Mr. Morrill's writing several times in our blog, mostly having to do with his "critiques" of worship songs. Invariably his writing is governed by undocumented statements, lack of biblical references, and guilt by association.

If the reader contrasts the tone and documentation between the two articles he will notice a profound and stark difference. Mr. Pirozok's article dispassionately explained the Bible and listed Bible references, while Mr. Morrill's article blasts away but contains no Bible explanation and no Bible references at all.  

Mr. Pirozok's article identifies specific issues and addresses them directly. Mr. Morrill's article is a generalized scorched earth indictment of an entire group of Christians, as if 65 million Pentecostal and charismatic Christians in the US (23% of protestant churches are charismatic) are all NAR-linked apostates. 

Mr. Morrill will continually conflate charismatics with NAR. We suspect this is purposeful.

Because Mr. Morrill's article makes no mention of the Bible, we must consider this to be bad Bible teaching. 

---------------------------
(...)

The Missing Guardrails

Charismatic theology rests on the foundational assumption that God continues to deliver authoritative revelation today apart from Scripture (This is categorically false. No charismatic believes that contemporary prophecy is "authoritative."

Mr. Morrill is actually using a cessationist code word "authoritative," which he tries to put in charismatics' mouths. He as a cessationist uses this terminology because he wants us to believe that everything God speaks is "authoritative," i.e. on the level of Scripture.

This is a semi-clever "gotcha" situation. Here's how it goes:

• Everything God speaks is authoritative
• True prophecy must be authoritative
• Authoritative prophecy must be included in the canon
• Contemporary prophecy must be authoritative 
• The canon is closed 
• Therefore, contemporary prophecy is false

However, there is no Bible verse that articulates this standard or this train of logic. Cessationists are just making it up. How do we know? Because the simple fact of the matter is the Bible is not a record of everything God ever said, it is only what God purposed to be written down. 

For example, some of the great exploits of King Solomon were not deemed worthy of inclusion in the Holy Writ. Readers are directed to the "annals of Solomon," something we do not have today:

1Kg. 11:41 As for the other events of Solomon’s reign — all he did and the wisdom he displayed — are they not written in the book of the annals of Solomon?

King Saul prophesied to the extent that the people wondered if he was included among the prophets. However, we don't have any of his prophecies, or the prophecies of these other prophets:

1Sa. 10:10-11 When they arrived at Gibeah, a procession of prophets met him; the Spirit of God came upon him in power, and he joined in their prophesying. 11 When all those who had formerly known him saw him prophesying with the prophets, they asked each other, “What is this that has happened to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?

Agabus was a N.T. prophet worthy of special note in the Church. It is interesting that only one of his prophecies was actually included in the Bible (and a summary of another), while any other prophecies he might have spoken were omitted.

There are a number of other prophets identified by name in the NT, yet we don't have any prophecies from them. Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen:

Ac. 13:1-2 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. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

Notice there came forth a prophecy, but the narrative doesn't mention who spoke it. And we don't have any of their other prophecies.

We also do not have any prophecies from Judas or Silas, even though they said much:

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

And these twelve men prophesied, but we don't have a record of their prophecies:

Ac. 19:6-7 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

Philip's daughters prophesied, but that all we know:

Ac. 21:8-9 Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. 9 He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.

Even Jesus, as critically important are His words and deeds, was subject to editing by the Holy Spirit:

Jn. 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

We do not wish to belabor the point. Why would contemporary prophecy have the requirement imposed on it that it must be authoritative and included as Scripture, when so much of the prophetic mentioned in the Bible was not? 

Conclusion: It's an unbiblical claim.)

 — revelation that cannot be objectively tested, verified, or falsified by the congregation. (We are still on Mr. Morrill's first sentence of this excerpt and have already encountered his second error. The Bible itself once again contradicts him, for the tests of prophecy are right in the Bible. 

• The Bible itself (2Ti. 3:16)
• The Holy Spirit (Ro. 8:5-9)
• The discernment of the Saints (2Co. 13:1, 1Co. 14:29)
• The fruit (Ja. 3:17 )

If Mr. Morrill believes contemporary prophecy cannot be tested, he's biblically ignorant.)

Once that assumption is accepted, it’s only a matter of time before:

• experience outranks exposition
• impressions outrank interpretation
• anointing outranks accountability
• “God told me” outranks “the Bible says”

(The first century church believed that God was delivering revelation in their day, but they already had the Law and the Prophets. Why then did they accept revelation that could not be objectively tested, verified, or falsified? Why did they accept Paul and Peter? They already had the Scriptures. And they did not face the supposedly inevitable problems Mr. Morrill mentions.

And what about the Prophets? Israel already had the Law. Why did the Jews accept Joel or Isaiah when they already had the Scriptures? Why didn't they devolve into the experiential?

In actual fact, prophetic revelation does not require any of the fallout Mr. Morrill thinks must occur. And, we are thankful indeed that the biblical writers and the early church did not have Mr. Morrill's opinion.)

The moment revelation becomes subjective, discernment becomes optional. And when discernment disappears, predators thrive. This is not incidental. It is structural. (Waaait a minute there, bub. "Discernment?" Isn't that the idea that prophecy can be tested and weighed? If that's the case, Mr. Morrill contradicts himself in the space of two sentences. If there is discernment, then prophetic revelation can indeed be discerned and is therefore not subjective or unverifiable.)

(...)