Mark Driscoll and John MacArthur’s Strange Fire Conference

My favorite pastor, whose church I am not a member of, John MacArthur, is hold a conference in October on a subject that deals with Pentecostal theology. (My favorite pastor is my pastor, Rob Tartaglia) The name of the conference is rightly called, “Strange Fire.” I wish my I could be there to hear all the wonderful teaching that will take place. Alas, I must wait for the Shepherd’s Conference in March. At any rate, it seems this conference may have, and I underline may have, provoked a sermon or two by Mark Driscoll, the young and restless, new Calvinist (so-called) pastor over in Seattle.

In this sermon, Driscoll intends to answer three very direct questions about the “gift of tongues.”

"Can every Christian have the gift of tongues? Does Mars Hill Church believe that the gift of tongues is for today? And what happens when the private use of tongues goes public?"
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/cessationists-are-wrong-about-speaking-in-tongues-says-pastor-mark-driscoll-95341/#qsKkwRf0x2EsECzT.99 

Driscoll then does the right thing: he sets the criterion by which we can know if we are right or wrong on the subject. This is always important and often neglected in conversations like this. The Christian Post reports,

Before diving into his responses, Driscoll insisted that the only way to know who may be "right" or "wrong" about speaking in tongues was by studying the Scriptures — and "not by taking our experience and making it normative."
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/cessationists-are-wrong-about-speaking-in-tongues-says-pastor-mark-driscoll-95341/#qsKkwRf0x2EsECzT.99 

The very first question concerns the criterion itself. Is this argument like other theological arguments where truth is actually confined to the realm of the abstract? I have dealt with many charismatics who would love to keep this argument in just that location. But this question is not limited to abstract theological points of view. This argument necessarily involves human experience. It involves claims that may be tested empirically as well as theologically and that seems to be one of the components that is always missing from the discussion and it seems to be absent in Driscoll’s argument as well.

Driscoll argues that 1 Cor. 13:8-10 refers to the second coming of Christ, and not the completion of the canon. Now, whether the traditional cessationist argument holds here, is, in my opinion completely irrelevant to the discussion. The reasoning is faulty and inconsistent. The first point Paul is making is that godly love, not spiritual gifts, is the sine qua non of the Christian experience. Secondly, the gifts have a temporal purpose and are subordinate to the Christian ethic. The Corinthian focus was misplaced and it was Paul’s goal to help them regain a godly perspective and to mature and grow in the faith. Presumably, a godly focus is not one that emphasizes spiritual gifts, but rather, godly living, godly fruit!

The gifts of the Spirit mentioned in Corinthians should not be viewed as a package deal. This is the first error that non-cessationists make. The assumption is that all these spiritual gifts will end “en toto” at some point in time. I believe that argument is fallaciously based on the assumption that the gifts should be viewed as a complete package. There is no reason to draw such an inference or make such a conclusion exegetically speaking. The gifts could theoretically pass off the scene at different points in time, even some future time in relation to Paul and the Corinthian believers.

Secondly, Paul is not suggesting that these gifts will exist when Christ returns, even if that interpretation holds to begin with. He is merely saying that if these gifts exist at the arrival of the perfect, they will be done away with. The point is not about how long the gifts will operate in the Church. If that is what one thinks 1 Cor. 13 is about, they have sorely missed Paul’s point. The Greek εἴτε is a conditional. This is not insignificant, but I rarely see commentators take it seriously.

Notice verse 8 deals with the hypothetical conditional that if there is prophecy, and if there are languages, and if there is knowledge, they will all be done away with. Then in verse 9 he makes a very clear statement: our prophecy is imperfect and our knowledge is imperfect, but soon enough that will not be the case. It seems that Paul’s point is that we should emphasize those things that are eternal that will last, as opposed to those things that will not, things that are clearly temporal. When the perfect comes, the partial will cease to exist. And if prophecy exists when the perfect comes, because it is partial, it will cease as well. But that statement does not infer that prophecy will exist when the partial arrives. That is an unnecessary assumption that has no exegetical or even logical support as far as it goes.

A quick illustration that serves to support my argument is the ministry gifts placed within the church. Pentecostals argue that apostles are still active in the Church as well as prophets. This specious argument is based on Eph. 4:11. As it goes, God put apostles and prophets in the church and the church is still here, so then it follows that so too must these offices be. But many non-Pentecostal continuationists would strongly disagree with this reasoning. However, they fall into the exact same line of reasoning in their argument for the continuation of the gifts. There is no single biblical passage that says that the office of the apostle is no longer operating. That does not mean that we must conclude that it is. If it is reasonable to argue that apostles and prophets no longer operate within the church even though Scripture has not explicitly stated they do not, then why must we accept that sort of argument in order to reject the continuation of certain gifts? I fail to see why the one and not the other. Clearly, this way of arguing is logically inconsistent.

The better response for those who argue for the continuation of the first-second century spiritual gifts is located in a right understanding of those gifts from the beginning. From there, we move to ask the question, the empirical question that asks, is what we see today the same thing they experienced then. I do not argue from a solely exegetical perspective. I combine clear exegesis with empirical proof that no one seems to be really speaking in biblical tongues or on a genuine healing campaign or routinely working miracles as part of their ministry. What we see today is not the tongues of Scripture. What we see in these healing, and miracle crusades are not at all what they claim to be and we have proven it repeatedly. This is not a debate that is confined to abstract theological concepts. This is one where we can join theology and experience together and test the truth of the claims from what we see in Scripture with what we see in modern this phenomena.

Modern tongues, made popular beginning in the Methodist revivals of the Appalachian Mountains in the late 19^th century and exploding at Asuza Street in Los Angeles in 1906 are not the miraculous languages witnessed in the ancient church. I was converted in a Church of God in those very same Appalachian Mountains that are my home even though I left years ago. I speak not purely from the standpoint of someone trained in theology, but from an abiding intimate experience as well. The tongues spoken in these circles are not languages. They are unbroken syllables thrown together rapidly in belief that the person is being moved by the Spirit. The entire experience has no miraculous elements whatever. It is based on some mystical experience that serves to prove nothing and only serves to reinforce the self-deception nature of the human mind.

The same is true with regard to healings and miracles. I do not debate Pentecostals on this subject. I simply require they get in my car, we go to the hospital, and they can do their debating there, healing the sick, opening blind eyes, and yes, raising the dead. It is an interesting phenomenon that over the course of the years, even though I have had several conversations with men and even women who argue this way, and have extended this offer, not one of them has actually taken me up on it. In fact, I can’t remember any occasion where my opponent did not become extremely frustrated and angry that I insisted we settle this the old-fashioned way, on the streets, where the rubber meets the road. If their understanding the Scripture is right, and they are being honest in their argument, then they should be able to demonstrate healing and miracles powers as well as real genuine miraculous tongues that are actually languages. If they cannot do so, my unapologetic response is put up or shut up. They are, after all, the ones making all these boasts about the power of God operating in their lives, their churches, their ministries. The response is simple: show me!