Are claims of supernatural experience really that harmful? (in 500 words) - by Clint Archer

Found here. My comments in bold.
-------------------

Previously I answered the question “Are there Prophets today?” and concluded no. Today I answer a good follow-up question:

“If the claimed revelation/vision is not taken as authoritative or infallible, but just meant for encouragement, then what harm is there in that?”

While it is true that most cautious continuationists (e.g. Wayne Grudem) would agree that the claims of prophecy today are not authoritative or infallible in the way biblical revelation is, there is still harm in having this type of practice in churches.

Here’s why in 500 words:

A claim of supernatural revelation always… ("Always?" This is a claim to global knowledge. The author manipulates us into a position of a false binary choice. We either agree with him or we are selfish, discouraging, denigrating the value of Scripture, or engaging in one upmanship. This is dishonest and anti-intellectual.

And none of these reasons are biblical reasons. In fact, we are quite glad that the writers of the NT did not have the author's doctrine.)

1. Elevates the self.

Even Paul, who had seen heaven(!) was given a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass him. Why? To prevent him from elevating self (see 2 Corinthians 12:7). Not even Paul was immune to the infection of conceit and needed antibiotics of humility prescribed by God and administered by Satan. Humility is conspicuously absent from many claimants. (But... Did Paul stop telling of what God was doing through him? No. Did he stop explaining the way the supernatural ought to work in the church? No. Did he inform the Corinthians or anyone else that they should not make claims to supernatural experience? No.)

2. Discourages those who lack these experiences.

When questioning the purpose of revelation that is neither authoritative nor accessible to the universal church, the answer is usually that the message was a customized encouragement for a particular person or church.

Well, all New Testament letters are revelations to particular people or churches but are still included in the canon for universal edification.

But also, these messages become discouraging in the long term (We don't know this.)

because they generate a sense of inadequacy about not getting the revelation oneself. (On what evidence does the author make this claim? Does he have any Scripture to back it up?)

One may legitimately ask, ("Legitimately?" On what basis does the author give legitimacy to someone's feelings? Is this how we make doctrine now?)

Why does Jesus appear to other people instead of me? Why didn’t God give me the encouraging vision or “word” directly? (The author's ignorance on display. If a prophetic word is delivered, by its very nature it is received by one and told to another for their edification. The very function of one speaking to another means one is delivering and one is receiving.

If someone asks such things, they need teaching. They don't need to be protected from encouraging words.

And why doesn't the author share a similar concern for those who are pastors, or for someone with a wonderful singing voice? Wouldn't those things also "generate a sense of inadequacy?")

What else am I lacking that this other person clearly possesses? (This is not an argument about what Scripture teaches, it is an argument based on peoples' feelings.) 

See 2 Timothy 3:16 where Paul affirms the Scripture as sufficient to make a Christian “complete, equipped for every good work.” Your Bible supplies everything required to please Christ. (Let's actually quote the verse, since the author quotes no Scripture himself:

2Ti. 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Perhaps the author is reading a different version of the Bible, where it apparently says that "Only Scripture is God-breathed..., " or "Only Scripture is useful..." Of course, the text he references says no such thing.)

3. Shifts faith from Scripture to a person.

(If this "always" happens, why did Paul teach that these things "must be done" [1 Co. 14:26]? If this "always" happens, why do we allow preachers to preach? It must "always" shift the focus to the man, correct? Why do we allow musicians to play in church? It "always" focuses on the performer, right? 

This is a nonsense argument.)

When a person claims an experience—especially if they want me to act on it—they expect me to trust them, their honesty, their infallibility. (Yes, yes, and no. Why does the author demand infallibility in this one area? And we ask again, why doesn't the author's criticisms apply towards preachers or musicians?

Love always trusts [1Co. 13:7]. And we have an obligation to honor noble things.

Ph. 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things.)

This is an unreasonable expectation, (The author creates an unreasonable situation, a strawman, then complains it is unreasonable.)

which demands authentication. (On what basis? There is no Scripture that requires a test like this. In actual fact, prophecy is weighed, not authenticated [1Co. 14:29].)

That’s why Jesus enabled his apostles to do miracles; their supernatural power provided credibility when they made claims of supernatural authority. (Scripture reference?)

I believe every jot and tittle of Scripture, but I am not required to believe a sprig nor sprout of any supernatural claim any person makes at any time. And it is unfair of them to expect that of me. (Who does this?)

See 2 Peter 1:19, where Peter says the word of God we all have access to is “more sure” (NASB) or “more fully confirmed” (ESV) than his own experience of hearing God’s audible voice and witnessing the transfiguration of Christ with his own eyeballs. (Again we quote the reference:

2Pe. 1:16 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.

The author is lying to us now. 

1. He said the verse tells us we have the word of God. But the Scripture actually says we have the word of the prophets. 
2. He said that Peter is telling us the word of God is better than Peter's experience. But the Scripture says Peter is attesting to his own supernatural experience which confirms the prophetic word.

Peter is actually telling us that he was an eyewitness, and that the prophecies were confirmed by this. He is saying all of this to tell his audience to pay attention to the prophecies. We don't know that Peter was talking about OT prophecies, or the contemporary prophets speaking in that day, or even present-day prophetic words. 

But the command is to pay attention, because Peter had a supernatural experience that confirmed the prophecies.)

4. Creates a culture of one-upmanship.

In churches where these claims are celebrated, eventually more people jump on the bandwagon. (The author just complained that people are supposedly feeling inadequate because they aren't having the same experiences. Now he's complaining that more and more people are doing the same thing. Which is it?

And how, exactly, are contemporary experiences relevant to the biblical case?)

Experiences become a badge of spiritual maturity. (False. To the contrary, most charismatic denominations clearly teach the opposite.

But more to the point, the way people react is not a measure of truth or how we determine doctrine.)

Inevitably this begets increasingly incredible claims. But because of precedent, and the prior acceptance that there must be a baby in the bathwater, there is no practical way to reject the objectionable claims without undermining the validity of prior claims. (Again we are led to question the author's ability to understand the clear teaching of the Scriptures. Apparently the author doesn't know about the verses that tell us to weigh these things or discern the spirit.)

With no way to filter what is true and what isn’t, the bathwater turns murky and eventually toxic. (There is a way to filter, and that's what mature Christians do in every area of the faith, not just prophecy. Is the author unaware of this? We deal with the many ways to test prophecy here.)

In practice, leaders give arbitrary verdicts on what they consider acceptable, as Israel did when she rejected Jeremiah’s jeremiads and embraced the popularity of “Peace, peace” platitudes (Jeremiah 8:11).

Rather, for all things pertaining to life and godliness rely on the inerrant, infallible, sufficient Scriptures. (Again the author lies to us. The verse he doesn't bother to quote is:

2Pe. 1:3 His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.

It is His divine power referenced here, not the Scriptures.)

Hope that helps! (Nope, not in the least.)