The Weak Preachers of an Intolerant Culture

Robert Gagnon on Tim Keller

The link above contains some very sober remarks from Robert Gagnon about Pastor Tim Keller at Christ Redeemer in New York City. Gone are the days when these men could be counted on to simply stand up and speak the truth. I applaud Robert Gagnon for being courageous enough to honor his profession and more importantly, His God, Christ, the Church, and to love the rest of us, especially Keller, by sharing the truth. Gagnon's type are becoming rare these days. There are a few remaining that we can count on to stand up for Christ and not wilt at the slightest pressure from this culture.

What on earth do we think is going to happen when real persecution shows up in this country and all we have, for the most part, are these men in our pulpits who are so concerned with being credible, respectable, and honored by a culture that has turned its nose up to Christ while claiming to love Him? These men are hyper-sensitive about every controversial issue in our culture.

NEWFLASH: The gospel of Jesus Christ is the most controversial issue we could ever talk about when it is talked about correctly, as revealed in Scripture.

Ben Corey, John MacArthur, and A Gay Thing

In my last post I wrote about Ben Corey’s issue with John MacArthur’s perspective on how Christians should deal with the professing Christians that also claim to be gay. I wanted to return to this issue briefly to point out a couple of things that I did not mention in my most recent post.

Returning to 1 Corinthians 5 where we have the case of what I think is a man that has married his former stepmother. The Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures prohibit such an act in the strongest of language. Paul uses a word that I think is vital to this discussion. It is translated immoral in the English translations of our Bible but in the Greek the word is pronounced PORNEIA. This is very broad Greek word that means any kind of illicit sex whatsoever. In other words, in sex outside of the context of marriage as defined by God would be classified as PORNEIA. Adultery, fornication, pedophilia, bestiality, homosexuality, and so forth would all be included in this definition.

Now, the interesting thing is that this word is used to describe an illegitimate marriage. It was immoral in Jewish culture as well as Greco-Roman culture for this sort of arrangement to occur. The sin was no less serious than if the two were carrying on an affair. However, an affair is highly unlikely because of the public nature of this incident. What man would allow his son to humiliate him by having sexual relations with his wife? It is much more plausible to think that these two were in a relationship and that the father had either died or was no longer in the picture. Paul called the arrangement immoral and ordered that the man be removed from the community immediately and without hesitation.

Now, I want to draw your attention to this word PORNEIA as another biblical author uses it. Jude 7 uses a form of PORNEIA, specifically, EKPORNEUW, which means debauchery. THE NAS translates it “gross immorality.” What does Jude mean by gross immorality? How can we get a glimpse into some of the behavior that is classed as gross immorality? It is really quite simple; Jude references Sodom and Gomorrah as his example. Our next step then is to understand the sin of these two cities so that we can understand Jude’s characterization of this behavior he is referencing.

We get a glimpse of God’s attitude toward Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen. 18:20, And the Lord said, “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.” For those who wish to take a casual approach to this issue, I suggest you read the story in Genesis 18-19 very carefully. So far we have recognized that Jude was inspired by God to classify the behavior of Sodom and Gomorrah as immoral. Second, God has said to Abraham that their sin is exceedingly grave.

As the messengers of the Lord arrive in the city, Lot recognizes their uniqueness and compels them to spend the night in his home with his family. The men of Sodom, all of them, surround Lot’s home and demand that Lot send the men out to them so that they may have sexual intercourse with them. Now, some modern scholars have attempted to recast this story in an attempt to defend homosexual behavior. Perhaps the most developed is Morschauser’s contention that when the men say they want to “know” the visitors, they are expressing distrust in Lot’s ability to protect the city from spies and they want to “interrogate” the men.^[1] The problem with this view is that the Hebrew word “to know” always connotes sexual relations when used with a personal direct object. In fact, when Lot offers his daughters, Morchauser argues that he offered them as hostages just in case the men were spying out the city. The problem again is that Lot uses the same word “to know” in the context of his virgin daughters. They have never known a man! Hence, such an interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah, while creative, has nothing to commend it and should be dismissed as modern liberal bias.

Lot referred to the act of homosexual sex as he pleaded with the men of Sodom not to do this “wicked thing.” But the men would have none of Lot’s pleading and began to force their way into his house. It was at this time that the angels smote these men with blindness and rescued Lot and his family from the wrath of God that was to be poured out on those cities.

Jude refers to the men of Sodom and Gomorrah as behaving immorally when they went after strange flesh. This is a reference to homosexual behavior. Jude actually uses the idiom ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, which means to engage in unnatural sexual intercourse (BDAG). There can be little doubt about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah when it is read without bias in its historical context and allowed to stand on its own two feet. Paul spoke about homosexual sex and stated plained that it was unnatural. In Rom. 1:27 Paul refers to same sex relations as indecent and shameful acts that are disgraceful and a violation of the natural function of the human body.

Wolves have existed from the very inception of the Church. In fact, wolves were here long before the Church was born. We have always had to contend with them. They have had a history of being more sneaky, more stealthy than what we are witnessing today. Today, they show up with their new ideas of what Christianity is supposed to be about, plant seeds of doubt about established doctrine, play on the dissapointments of thousands, and use their counter-Christian thinking to gain acceptance. They begin with the end in mind. Ben Corey, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren and several others have twisted, bent, rehaped, and contorted nearly every ounce of histroric Christian orthodoxy in an attempt to hi-jack Jesus and His gospel. They are not the only problem in my opinion. What is just as much a problem are the silent pastors, teachers, professors, and Christians who refuse, for whatever reason, to call these false teachers and heretics out publicly. We have a duty to honor God by standing for truth, defending the truth, proclaiming the truth living the truth, and teachers others the truth. Its about time we got on with it and stop worrying so much about how unpopular and marginalized we will become. Persecution is a way of Christian life. We need to let that settle in and get used to it.

---

^[1] John H Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 93.

John MacArthur, Gay Christians, and the Hypocrisy of the New Christianity

Recently, John MacArthur was asked a question about how a Christian parent should respond to learning that their child is gay. John gave two basic courses of action based on two very different scenarios. First of all, if your child is a not a professing Christian, you essentially do nothing other than love and continue to give them the gospel. However, it is the second scenario that has Ben Corey over a Patheos seeing red these days. According to MacArthur, if a Christian parent has a child that is professing to know Christ while at the same time embracing the gay lifestyle, that is a very different animal.

In the case of gay children who profess Christ, we must take a very difficult path. Confessing that Christ reigns in your heart is the single most serious and solemn confession any human could ever make. It is not to be done lightly. Those who are aware of the presence of sin must confront any Christian that professes Christ and that has sin in their life. Our children are not excluded from this treatment simply on the ground that they are our children. MacArthur follows the text faithfully even if it is painful. And for that, he should be respected and applauded. Our spiritual family takes precedence over our temporal family. Our love for God trumps our love for our children. These false professions must be dealt with seriously, up to and including excommunication if they refuse to repent of their sin or admit that they do not know Christ. There can be no middle ground.

Well, according to Ben Corey, John MacArthur has it all wrong. On his blog Corey writes,

What troubles me about MacArthur’s advice, and so many who think like him, is the horrible inconsistency that often is used when it comes to shunning. One of the key passages folks use to support shunning comes from 1 Corinthians 5– the unfortunate truth, however, is that Paul lists several sins he thought were shun-worthy. Folks like MacArthur have lifted sexual immorality out of that passage while completely ignoring the rest of what Paul taught.

First of all, at best Corey demonstrates that he does not know John MacArthur or Grace Community Church very well. People are not removed from the community only for sexual immorality and to imply that is ridiculous. I mean, how would Corey know? And if he doesn’t know, is such a statement slanderous of John MacArthur. Surely it is. Second, are we really to believe that Corey believes in the practice of Church discipline for all these sins? I have communicated with Corey personally and I can tell you that he does everything he can to give homosexual sex a pass. I could not even get him to admit that homosexuals should have to abstain from sex until marriage even if such a thing were truly possible. No, there is more to Corey’s objection here than meets the eye and the hypocrisy only comes into more focus as he continues with his objection.

Corey then wonders if MacArthur would excommunicate someone making $200,000 as an annual salary if they did not tithe or give to charity. Clearly, this demonstrates that not only does Corey not know MacArthur’s views on these subjects he doesn’t seem to understand what Scripture teaches about them either. Tithing was a Jewish practice never carried into the Church and it never involved money. In addition, the amount of money Christians contribute to the Church giving is a matter of individual conscience and if between that person and God. The Church is not to police a person’s giving. It is something that each person should do as their own heart directs and as they have ability. This is Paul’s teaching to the Corinthians in 2 Cor. 8-9.

The more pressing issue is twofold: excommunicating family members and Jesus teaching on family relationships within the context of the kingdom. In Matthew 18:15-18 Christians are commanded by Christ to go to any brother they see committing a sin. There is no caveat. Jesus did not give us permission to treat blood relatives differently. In the kingdom, we are all family. If that brother does not repent of his sin, we are to take witnesses. If that brother does not repent after hearing the witnesses, we are to take it to the church. If they do not repent after hearing it from the church, they are to be excommunicated and treated like unbelievers because of their obstinate disposition. Corey attempts to bring in a variant reading in the text to personalize the sin but the variant has little to commend it.

Paul dealt with this in real life but in a more urgent way in 1 Cor. 5. First, Paul acknowledged that there was immorality among the Corinthians and that the immorality was of a very serious nature. Apparently a man had taken his stepmother as his wife. This was forbidden not only in the Jewish religion but in Roman culture as well. The punishment was severe. It does not matter if the son was having an unfair (unlikely) as Corey thinks this might make the situation worse, or that he had married his father’s wife. Moreover, it does not matter even if the man’s father had died. The act was still considered reprehensible. Paul’s action was swift and decisive, “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” 1 Cor. 5:13. Not only this, Paul told the Corinthians that in such cases, “But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” (1 Cor. 5:11) Not only were Christians not to allow people in this community that were living immoral lives, but they were not to eat with immoral people if they were also professing to be Christians. According to Paul, we may eat with immoral people so long as they do not profess to be Christian.

Paul gave the very same instructions to the church at Thessalonica: If anyone does not obey our instruction ^ain this letter, take special note of that person ^band do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. (2 Thess. 3:14) John said the same thing in 2 John 10-11, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.”

I now want to turn your attention to Jesus to see what Jesus actually said about Him impact on families as opposed to what men like Ben Corey claim Jesus said His impact would be on families. Jesus said in Matt. 10:35-37, “For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. Jesus knew that devotion to Him, to His life, to His teachings would cost even intimate families their intimacy and their loyalty and even their bond.

Jesus also said that brothers and sisters and fathers and mothers would hate their Christian blood relatives so much that in some cases they would have them killed: “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. This is a far cry from the one-sided picture that Ben Corey paints of the Jesus we have all heard about but apparently not all of us accept Him for who He is. And He is precisely Who Scripture reveals Him to be.

The problem with Ben Corey, the emergent church, and the young know-it-alls who are out to redefine everything that has already been defined is that they have an idea already in mind. They already know, before reading a single text about Jesus, about God, about Christianity what they want them and it to be. They want a very specific kind of Jesus, God, and Christianity. And nothing is going to get in their way of having it; not even divine truth.

You do not love people by allowing them to remain ignorant and lost in their sin. It used to be that these people thought that we could win them with our love and acceptance. They thought that if we just lived a certain way around unbelievers that unbelievers would be attracted to our Christianity and give up their wicked behavior and join the group. Now they don’t even care if the wicked give up their behavior. In fact, they argue that the wicked should be able to continue in their wicked behavior. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. These people are not fellow believers within the Christian community with minor differences from historic orthodox Christianity. They are wolves seeking to subvert the truth of the gospel top to bottom.

I mentioned hypocrites in my title. While Ben Corey and the emergent like to refer to conservatives like MacArthur and reformed Christianity as modern day Pharisees because of our ethic, what they fail to see is that they are the ones that resemble the Pharisees. You see, the Pharisees ignored God’s word and set up their own standards and then judged everyone, not based on God revealed truth, but based on their own traditions and rules that had gone far beyond anything Scripture taught. When one of these former fundies criticizes a pastor because he drives a car of a certain value or a Christian because they earn a certain income, they are guilty of doing exactly what the Pharisees did. They have established an ethic of their own and imposed it on others. Moreover, that ethic is the result of twisting the Scripture. In fact, I have even had conversations with professing Christians at Patheos who were SHOCKED that heterosexual sex outside of marriage was a sin as well. Now, unless this person was a brand new Christian, they were entirely ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. How can someone claim to love Jesus and be so disinterested in His teachings, His ethics, and His values?

When Ben Corey says the Church must accept homosexuals as they are and challenges the view that homosexual sex is a sin, and demand that we receive them as regenerated believers, he is setting up his own standard and judging everyone else according to it. You see, the Pharisees were not wrong because they were conservative. They were not wrong because they had a particular ethic. They were wrong because their views subverted God’s word. They were not wrong because they were not accepting of others. They were wrong because they rejected what God accepted. It is not ipso facto wrong to reject someone. There is a place for that. It is wrong to reject what God accepts and to accept what God rejects. Ben Corey and the emerging church is guilty of resembling the Pharisees because they are accepting homosexual sex when God rejects it. I am reminded of the prophet that said woe to them that call evil good, and good evil.  

John MacArthur Answers Critics in Tim Challies Interview

Click here to read interview

Excellent response from John MacArthur. Enjoy!

Responding to Steve Hays' Well-Poisoning Arguments Once More

SOUL MATES

Ed DingessYou will reply that you personally don't know of any faith healers to whom we can turn for healing. Have you ever witnessed an indisputable, certified genuine miracle? One for which there were no natural explanations?
LessingMiracles, which I see with my own eyes, and which I have the opportunity to verify for myself, are one thing; miracles, of which I know only from history that others say they have seen them and verified them, are another. I live in the eighteenth century, in which miracles no longer happen. The problem is that reports of fulfilled prophecies are not fulfilled prophecies;that reports of miracles are not miracles. 

The purpose of this blog is to provide a very simple and short response to Steve Hays' argument regarding whether or not we cessationists are justified in demanding proof that miracles workers exist before believing the claim that they actually do exist. Perhaps Hays has really misunderstood this assertion. My argument, while it makes the same conclusion as my cessationists friends, takes a somewhat different path. I reject the claim that miracle-workers are continuing to operate in the Church on the ground that no one has offered proof to the contrary. Hays thinks this debate can be confined to exegesis. In truth, so do many cessationists. I respectfully disagree. I think the best argument moves from empirical observation to exegesis and back again. The bottom line really is quite simple. If Steve Hays wants us to believe that there are still miracles workers in the Church, all he needs to do is provide some proof, some sort of evidence. That evidence has to be credible. I have heard and read many charismatics report that miracles are happening but in every case where those reports were actually investigated, the evidence simply did not support the claims in the reports.

I have had my own family members visit these men: men like R.W. Schambach, Ernest Angsley, and R.W. West. They have been prayed for and proclaimed healed at the conference. But the healings never happened. My grandmother passed away with sugar. Another family member passed away before she was 40 with breast cancer after having been proclaimed healed. Fred Price broke his foot and hobbled around for months in a cast just like the rest of us.

So here it is in a nutshell. Reports of miracles contained in Scripture, in fact, any event in Scripture comes to us with impeccable testimony that is irrefutable. We do not test nor question it because it is the witness and testimony of God Himself. Therefore, I accept the testimony of miracles from Scripture. I dare not put God’s word to the test. I think Gotthold might take a fundamentally different approach. So much for being soul mates. Steve’s Christian kindness precedes him. He is such a respectful debater.

Scripture is not merely a historical record of what happened at that time. It is much more than that. Those events are part of God’s revelation for a reason. Our personal experiences are not! The nature of extra-biblical history is fundamentally different from biblical history. If Steve Hays does understand this, then that is would explain his inability to understand our argument.

I want to be clear that I am not arguing that God does not or cannot perform miracles or heal the sick should He will to do so. I am not even arguing that God is not doing this today. If Hays thinks I am, then he sorely misunderstands my position. I am contending that I have no good evidence to believe the Pentecostal Charismatic idea that miracle workers and healers are active in the body of Christ today. That is my argument. My argument is based on empirical and exegetical proofs even though I emphasize the lack of empirical evidence as the greater obstacle for accepting the claims.

Now, let’s follow Steve’s argument to its logical end. If we are under obligation to believe there are miracle workers, where does Steve draw the line? Do we have to believe everyone who claims to be a miracle worker or claims to have the gift of healing? When some guy claims to have raised the dead, over there, far away, are we really supposed to just be amazed and take him at his word? If the answer is yes, then we just surrendered the biblical mandate to test those who claim to be God’s messengers but are not. If the answer is no, then the next question is by what standard can we determine the genuine from the false. Why is it a bad practice for Christians to demand that miracle-workers be tested and verified? After all, they are in the public spotlight professing to represent all that is Christianity. It seems to me that we should want to ensure that their claims are legitimate if for no other reason than the credibility of the Christian community is at stake.

At the end of the day it is really easy to verify legitimate and credible reports of miracles. If I were Pentecostal and I had been diagnosed with an illness or I had been blind and now I was cured, you better believe that I would be providing verifiable documentation of it to anyone who asked without flinching. I would not be offended if someone asked for the evidence. I would be all too happy to prove to them what Christ had done for me. After all, this would be a great opportunity to give them the gospel. But for some reason, Steve Hays and others seem to think we should just naively accept these accounts without question. Hays even places them on par with Scripture. Moreover, they are offended and we are criticized because we think it prudent to examine such incredible claims just to be sure the integrity of the Christian community remains intact. Hays’ position that accepting the miracle claims of Scripture logically means that we cannot question modern miracle claims is just plain silly. There is simply no other way to say it. Why Hays thinks it is a bad practice for us to demand verification for these claims so that the Church may be protected, as far as I am concerned, remains a mystery.

Judging by Behavior: A Response to Steve Hays’ Judging by Appearances

Steve Hays is at it again. One of the tactics employed at John MacArthur’s Strange Fire Conference was the use of several You Tube clips from Pentecostal-Charismatic (PC) worship services. These clips were used to illustrate the bizarre behavior that goes on in the PC churches and events. Steve Hays has taken exception to the clips and titled his response “Judging by Appearances.” Now, first of all, Hays employs his standard debate technique. This technique seeks, from the start, to poison the well. We all know that we are not to judge by appearances and it is easy to understand that such behavior must be avoided. But when Hays describes Strange Fire leadership as Judging by Appearances, he immediately sets a very negative and unfair tone. These tactics are not only unethical, they represent some of the most fallacious arguments on the Web. The shocking thing is that Hays claims to be a conservative reformed kind of guy. Over the last year or so, I am not so sure what kind of guy Hays is. I know that his arguments seem to lack pastor concern, genuine love, and humility, and are quite totally lacking in gentleness and respect for others. I have prompted Hays several times to change his tone to no avail.

Hays Point One

i) One problem is the fallacious extrapolation from examples like that to charismatics in general, much less charismatic theology in general. When MacArthurites use these YouTube clips to discredit charismatic theology in principle, they are encouraging others to draw a blatantly fallacious inference. They need to demonstrate that this behavior is representative of charismatics. They also need to demonstrate that this behavior is a logical outcome of charismatic theology. 

Response

First of all, Hays assumes that these behaviors are not fair representatives of the PC movement in general. I spent years in the movement and was a licensed minister in the Church of God, the movement’s oldest Pentecostal denomination. I can say that while not everyone in the PC movement behaves in this manner during worship, a high percentage do, and, that percentage has grown over the years, and the ones that do not are afraid to criticize it because they are afraid of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The fact is there are very, very few in the PC movement who actually see these behaviors as a problem.

Secondly, if you are open to dreams, visions, and open revelation in general, by what standard could you ever criticize this behavior? If your entire theological system is built off a radically subjective view of open revelation and you believe that you can feel God and the Holy Spirit, how can you criticize the behavior? Have you ever had someone use the argument that we can’t put God in a box? Take a guess who made that foolish argument so incredibly popular today: that is correct, it was the PC movement telling us that God can do whatever He wants because we can’t put God in a box. If Hays cannot understand how PC theology leads logically to this kind of behavior: it is not the fault of poor argumentation on the part of cessationism.

Hays Point Two

ii) It's spiritually hazardous to treat these YouTube clips as an implicit standard of comparison. I'm reminded of obese people who complain that they are one of the few remaining groups it's socially acceptable to make fun of. 

Response

This is one of the silliest analogies I have seen from Hays. It is a perfect exemplar for non-sequiturs if ever there was one. Hays’ tactic is easy to spot even if he thinks it is not. He takes one behavior that is obviously in poor taste and then says the other behavior is the same. The purpose of the PC video clips was not to make fun of anyone. The purpose was to let others see what is really going on in PC worship services and events. Most people who are not PC have no idea that this is the kind of stuff going on in the movement. Moreover, the objective was to show that these behaviors are not out there on the fringe. They are in the mainstream of the movement. Ken Hagin, Ken Copeland and other prominent leaders have led the way. Michael Brown was a tenacious defender of the laughing revival which is still going on. To my knowledge, he has never recanted.

Hays then uses another analogy as if it clarifies his point, but it only serves to introduce more confusion. Hays says, “For instance, I never attended a Mormon service, but I imagine that Mormon services are very staid and respectable. Nothing sensational or embarrassing usually happens. Everyone behaves themselves.” Does Hays really think that PC worship run amok is a mere appearance? If Steve Hays does not understand that these behaviors do not occur in a vacuum, he really should excuse himself from the discussion.

Why do PC people engage in and tolerate these behaviors on the You Tube clips? The answer is very simple: they believe God moves in his church and in His people in precisely this way. They think that their duty as Christians is to focus on God and “enter into His presence, or enter into His Spirit” in order to have the premium worship experience they are supposed to have. They are taught that when they open up and let go and just enter God’s presence that God does things in them that He does not do at other times. They think He heals their marriages, gives them what they need to grow spiritually, and that it will even result in career advancement and material success. This “entering into God’s presence” is common among all those in the PC movement. The enemy of PC worship is often portrayed as rational thought. PC adherents are constantly encouraged not to try and understand God’s moving with your mind. Do not think about what is happening, they are told. Just let go and jump in. Do you feel that urge or tingle? That’s the presence of God. That is the Holy Spirit trying to work on you! Let Him in. Do not quench the Spirit!

Michael Brown states it this way, “What is revival? It is God “stepping down from heaven” and baring His holy arm. He comes and acts and speaks. There is a holy presence and a word on fire. God is in the midst of His people. The Lord is shaking the world. That is revival! It is a time of visitation.” Leaders in the PC movement would say that these clips are people “responding” to the presence of God as He “moves” among His people. If Hays cannot see the theology behind it, that is no fault of the Strange Fire Conference. It is the fault of his own unwillingness to give the conversation the kind of respect and appreciation it deserves. After all, we are talking about the very character and reputation of the Christian religion and even more than that, we are talking about the God of all that is and how He is being represented to an unbelieving world. Finally, we are talking about millions of people who think this is Christianity when it clearly is not!

Hays concludes his criticism saying, “Don't be so quick to judge by appearances. Jesus reminds us that some of the worst sins are sins of the heart.” Thinking he has made his point, he issues a final indictment. The Strange Fire conference is guilty of judging by appearances. Does Hays really think that men of the caliber of Phil Johnson, Steve Lawson, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur would not set out to understand both the theology and practices of the PC movement before putting on a conference like this? Does Hays not realize that John MacArthur is a pastor in the middle of where this movement actually started just over 100 years ago? Is Hays oblivious to the fact that Pastor MacArthur is likely to have encountered more PC people than he himself ever will and that these encounters have resulted in a depth of experience with the movement and its people that uniquely qualifies him to address the errors? Apparently all these facts seem to be missed by Hays as he puts on display his morbid interest in abstract, perpetual debates about one subject after another without the slightest display of genuine concern for the Church or for those who are being harmed by a movement whose theology ranges from small error to heresy to overt blasphemy.

Having spent years in the movement and having served as a licensed minister and pastor in the PC movement, I can speak with authority and credibility on the Strange Fire conference. The conference is exactly correct in its assessments. My journey out of the PC movement was due to my willingness to consider that I was wrong about tongues, about “feeling God,” about how God moves, about open revelation, about prosperity and success being tied to faith in Christ. I admit that I rejected certain aspects earlier on, but my shift out of the movement took several years. I can honestly say that from my perspective, Hays’ comments come from what appears to be a serious lack of experience with the movement and a significant lack of interaction with PC theology at any degree of depth. I hope Hays will reconsider his apparent propensity for intellectual pugilism and his desire for what appears to be a life defined by one debate after another. I am all for standing for truth. But there is a difference between seeking to allow the Word of God to perform its work in us and seeking to win an argument. When we become so obsessed with winning the argument that we forget about the edification of the people involved, and we forget that we must seek to represent our Father well before a dark world, then we become the very darkness against which we fight, blinded by our own insatiable lust for intellectual dominance instead of humbled by the life-transforming truths that we proclaim and defend.

Modern Tongues Versus Ancient Tongues – Avoiding Anachronism

It is difficult to miss the current debate surrounding the Pentecostal-Charismatic practice of speaking in tongues. In the interest of transparency, the reader should know that I was regenerated and converted to Christ in 1979 in a Church of God. In case you didn’t know, the Church of God is the oldest Pentecostal denomination in the world. In addition, I was a licensed minister in that denomination. I say this so that no one can accuse me of being inexperienced or uninformed. I am very experienced and informed when it comes to the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement.

In order to understand the New Testament phenomenon of tongues, it is desirable that we do our best to remove our modern experience with the phenomenon. We have to dismiss every single thing that has been written about the experience from modern writers attempting to explain to us exactly what it is. We have to erase the blackboard, if you will. What we have to do is travel back in time to the ancient Mediterranean world, open the Greek New Testament, and do our best to glean our information on the phenomenon of “tongue-speaking” beginning with the Scripture. In order to evaluate the claim of modern Pentecostals that their practice is the very same practice that took place in the early church, we also have to examine the modern practice. But we will save that for last. First we have to examine all the information we have on the ancient practice of speaking in tongues.

The very first mention of tongues in the New Testament is located in Acts 2:3-4. The “other tongues” that these new believers experienced on Pentecost signified the birth of the Church and the ushering in of the end times. Moreover, this event was the coming of the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ to His disciples. The Holy Spirit is promised to all who believe into Christ Jesus, placing their faith and truth entirely in Him. The tongues mentioned here by Luke were actual languages. We know this because the crowd was amazed and astonished to hear these Galileans speaking in foreign languages. Indeed, a miracle was taking place before their eyes. In fact, so amazing was this event that the people were utterly perplexed according to Luke. Whatever this ability is, it can only be accounted for by attributing it as a miraculous gift from God.

The next incident of tongues is recorded in Acts 10:46. Peter travelled Caesarea to preach to the centurion, Cornelius. Cornelius was converted to Christ and he spoke in tongues. Peter associated this event with God’s acceptance of the Gentiles. Later, this event proved to be instrumental in demonstrating that God was indeed pouring His Spirit out on all flesh just as Joel had prophesied. The next account of tongues is mentioned in Acts 19 when the disciples of John were converted to Christ and consequently spoke in tongues and prophesied. These are the only three records from history that we have in Scripture of men speaking in tongues. It is likely that the Samaritans also spoke in tongues although we cannot prove it. This phenomenon is indelibly associated with the New Covenant and the birth of the Church of Jesus Christ. In every case, it served as a sign pointing to Jesus Christ as the Messiah, to the fact that God was initiating a new work. But it is clear that Luke’s tongues were real languages. Any attempt to argue otherwise is anachronistic. Since Acts 2 is our first record of tongues and since Luke clearly informs us that foreigners understood them, it is only reasonable that we take his description of tongues and apply it elsewhere to mean the very same thing. It would be exegetically illegitimate not to do so. It would be serious error to redefine tongues based on personal experience.

All remaining references to tongues are located in Paul’s correspondence to the Corinthians. Paul lists kinds of tongues as a gift that God placed in the Church in 1 Cor. 12:10, 28. Note that Paul uses the word genos, which means kind. The word is used to describe different kinds of fishes, races, languages, etc. Tongues are kinds of languages that are apparently understood by men. So far, as we read the Greek Text of Scripture, we have no reason to think otherwise. When we see the word glossa appearing in the text, we immediately recall the experience at Pentecost. That is the grid through which we look in order to understand the meaning of this word in the NT context. The reformation principle that Scripture interprets Scripture is essential to understanding the meaning of tongues. So far then, we have no reason to view tongues as anything other than a gift from God by which men are miraculously enabled to speak in languages they were never taught.

Paul then implies, quite emphatically, that not everyone has the gift of tongues. Apparently, the gift is given according to the will of the Spirit who is viewed as sovereign over the administration of these gifts. The next mention of tongues is found in 1 Cor. 13:1 where Paul says that even if he has the tongues of men and of angels and does not have love, he is nothing. Paul is concerned that the Corinthian Christians exhibit love in their Christian walk above all else.

Now, we come to an interesting text in Corinthians. Paul tells the Corinthians that the one who speaks in tongues does not speak to men but to God for no one understands him. Now, before we rush to anachronistic eisgesis, we must remember what I said from the start. We must understand “tongues” in light of Luke’s description in Acts chapter 2. There is no reason for us to take it any other way. Moreover, the difficulty of the passage should not intimidate us into resorting to a lazy man’s way of handling the text. First, this tongue is a language that some men understand and that some men do not understand. The men that Paul refers to are not all men without exception, but the men in the local Church in general. These men do not understand the language that the individual is speaking in, even though God does. While he speaks mysterious revealed by the Spirit, only God understands what he is saying, in the context of the local Church. God understands all languages. Again, the reason we conclude this is because we know from Acts 2 that some men do understand tongues. Therefore, Paul cannot mean that no men understand him. The reason he is not speaking to man is because these men do not understand him. The “for” is epexegetical. The reason the tongue speaker only speaks to God in such circumstances is because his audience does not understand him. In other words, he only speaks to God because only God understands him. But is this how it should be. Based on the remaining exhortations from Paul in this chapter, it seems obvious that it is not as it should be.

The predominant theme in 1 Cor.14 is the edification of the body. Paul is extremely concerned with speech and service that have, as their central concern, the edification of the body of Christ. In fact, if you go back to chapter 12, we see the whole purpose of the gifts was for the edification of the body, not the individual. Paul then tells the Corinthians that prophesy is a superior gift because it immediately edifies the body while tongues does not because it is a foreign language that the body does not understand, unless of course the speaker interprets the language so that the body can understand what was said. Paul then makes the point that it would be useless for someone to come to the Church speaking in a foreign language unless he were to reveal or make known what he was saying. In other words, tongues are useless to the hearer unless they are interpreted. Paul then uses the analogy of a bugle that makes a sound no one recognizes. He makes the point that no one will respond to it because they do not recognize the “charge” sound for example. It is utterly useless, a meaningless noise.

We now come to verses 9-10 and these represent a real problem for the Pentecostal theory regarding tongues. Paul informs the Corinthian believers that unless they speak in a language that is understandable, they are speaking into the air. The phrase “speech that is clear” literally means “readily intelligible.” Verse 2 must be understood in light of verse 11. Paul tells the Church that there are many kinds of languages in the world but none without meaning. However, even though they have meaning, they are useless when employed around someone that does not understand them.

Paul then commands that the Corinthians must seek to edify the Church, something the speaking in tongues does not do unless it is interpreted or unless the person understands the language of course. Paul then says that the person speaking in tongues should pray that he will be able to interpret it. Paul says that praying without understand what you are praying is unfruitful. Paul then says that when he prays in tongues, he will pray also with the interpretation and when he sings in tongues, he will sing with the interpretation also. The point is that he will know what he is saying even when he is speaking in this language. In this way, tongues, at a minimum can edify the speaker. However, to contend that unfruitful understanding is still edifying seems to me to be extremely mystical.

In verse 16 Paul once again reminds the Corinthians that the goal is always the edification of others. Therefore, if we bless in tongues, in this foreign language, how can the one present say amen? You may very well be giving thanks just fine, but the other person is not edified. Paul then says he speaks in tongues more than all of the Corinthians. However, in the Church, where there is one known language, he would rather speak five words with his mind than ten-thousand in a tongue. The reason is clear: so that the Church would be edified. This raises the question as to where Paul might be speaking these foreign languages. It would seem to me that he must have been speaking in foreign languages outside the Church in his evangelistic efforts to spread the gospel.

In 1 Cor. 14:22, Paul gives us the purpose for tongues: it is a sign for unbelievers. The only way we can see how this makes sense is if we go back to Acts 2 where Luke records that these foreigners were utterly amazed and astonished. The sign is that the followers of Christ were supernaturally endowed to speak in foreign languages. Rightfully so, the foreigners were utterly amazed at this miracle. Now, Paul says that if outsiders come in and everyone speaks in these languages, the outsiders will think the Church is insane. Notice that this is the same experience that happened at Pentecost, but with a distinctly differently outcome. How could this be? The answer is easy: the audience is different. At Pentecost, the hearers understood the languages, but here, Paul’s assumption is that they do not.

Paul then forbids the members from speaking in tongues in the Church service unless there is an interpreter present. This word for interpret literally means to translate. There is no reason for us to suppose that this interpreter was supernaturally endowed with this gift. This could be the case but it could just as easily be the case that the speakers were expected to know in advance if there was someone present who could interpret their language naturally or otherwise. If not, they were to keep silent. The point is that translators must be present so that the Church can be edified.

The overarching theme of 1 Corinthians 14 is not the proper use of tongues. Rather, it is the proper edification of the body of Christ. All behavior must be directed toward that goal. Seemingly, there were some in the Corinthian Church that were quite puffed up with themselves due to their gifts. In fact, Paul said that they were not lacking in this department. But he also called the same people carnal because of their ungodly attitudes. The Corinthian Church had a very carnal attitude toward the spiritual gifts and were prone to spiritual pride. It is obvious they viewed tongues in an unhealthy way.

Paul ends his exhortation by instructing the Corinthians to desire prophecy, but he does not encourage the Corinthians to take the same disposition toward this ability to speak in foreign languages. Instead, he merely tells them not to inhibit people from the tongues gift. The central point was that all things should be done for the edification of the body.

This is all the information we have on the subject of tongues in the NT. This information is 2,000 years old. Some things we can say are clear about tongues. Other things are admittedly somewhat obscure. We acknowledge and confess that we do not know all there is to know about the ancient phenomenon of tongues. I admit that my understanding of Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians on the subject of tongues is imperfect and clouded by nearly 2,000 years of history, not to mention a significant cultural divide. I leave open the possibility that my explanation in some places could be inaccurate. Indeed, it would be quite arrogant of me to put forth my views with dogmatic certainty under these conditions. However, at a minimum I do think I have been able to point out that we do know some things about the ancient New Testament phenomenon known as tongues. And these things we can know with dogmatic certainty.

·         New Testament tongues were actual languages according to the only detailed description we have of them. Luke described them as such in Acts 2.

·         The gift of tongues was given by the Holy Spirit according to His will and it was the supernatural ability to speak in foreign languages.

·         The gift of tongues was not given to every Christian.

·         Untranslated tongues were strictly forbidden in the presence of other Christians, be it worship, or prayer.

·         Untranslated tongues were not edifying to hearers.

·         New Testament tongues were given as a miraculous sign, hence, the only way this could be true was if they were actual languages.

        From what we can say dogmatically about New Testament tongues, it follows that we can also say, dogmatically, that the modern phenomenon witnessed in Pentecostal-Charismatic churches is not the same phenomenon recorded in the historical writings of Luke or Paul. The nature of modern tongues is fundamentally different from the nature of ancient tongues practiced in the early Church.

For an excellent article on this subject, see Nathan Busenitz in TMSJ HERE.

Steve Hays on Miracles: Exploding The Tactics and Underpinnings Of A Most Fallacious Argument

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe. (1 Thess. 2:13)

Before I comment further, I want to point out the different arguments, accusations, and tactics that Steve Hays has used to defend the theoretical idea that miracle workers are still among us working miracles as God directs them. First, Hays has accused those of us in the “MacArthur” camp of using the very same skepticism employed by David Hume. I have pointed out that there is a world of difference between the biblical command to test the spirits, to pay careful attention to yourselves, to our teaching, and the skepticism of David Hume. Hays’ argument is more than a little silly. It is confusing why he would draw such a silly comparison. Few people would deny that John MacArthur has done tremendous good for the kingdom and the Church. His loyalty to Scripture has been steadfast. His credibility and character should garner only the highest respect even when we disagree with him. Hays doesn’t seem to operate with those kind of values. More about that latter.

Hays’ second argument was to accuse MacArthur folks of being guilty of circular reasoning. We believe in the Bible because of miracles and we believe in miracles because they are in Scripture, or so goes Hays’ portrayal of our approach. Perhaps this is wishful thinking on Hays’ part. Framed this way, it is not difficult to see the problem with the argument. But Hays is wrong in how he frames our argument, and I think he should have known better. Most MacArthur folks are presuppositional in their approach. No one came along, told us the Bible is the Word of God, and then performed miracles to authenticate their statement. Moreover, I don’t know of anyone who reads the Bible, sees its miraculous claims, and concludes, well then, it must be true because it claims to have miracles in it. Again, this is an absolutely absurd and ridiculous argument and it is a little less than charitable for Hays to paint us in this light. Then again, is there any indication that Steve Hays cares, really, truly cares about the people he disagrees with? If we are to go on his actions, how he deliberately misrepresents their positions to make his argument look superior and that he does this with the highest degree of consistently, one would have no choice but to doubt that he really does care about the person behind the opposing argument.

Hays continues by accusing me of using the same methods an atheist uses to argue against God. What Hays refuses to acknowledge, even though he knows it is true, is that my presuppositions are fundamentally different from the atheist and therefore, my conclusions are radically different. The truth is that human reasoning will use similar methods along the way. Those of us who are presuppositional in our thinking know this. But we also know that the fundamental different is in the fundamentals. That is to say, our real disagreement rests in our radically opposing presuppositions, our basic commitments about reality, knowledge, and ethics. Hays know this as well.

What Hays has repeatedly attempted to do is poison the well. He began by attempting to associate us with Hume. Then he attempted to frame up our argument in the most absurd manner, accusing us of circular reasoning. He then placed us in the Evidentialist camp. Finally, he claims that we employ atheistic tactics. All of this kind of argumentation is not really offering counter points to the claims that we make for our position. It is a tactic to smear, to discredit, even to slander, and to distract others from the real problem of his own argument. What is that problem, you ask? The real problem for Hays’ argument is that he can offer no tangible evidence that miracle-workers exist today. Therefore, he keeps the argument theoretical. He desperately needs to reject the empirical argument that asserts that we lack any good and credible evidence showing that miracle-workers actually are active today. He would prefer that we be forced to prove there are no miracle-workers. That is a fallacious approach even if it is a clever tactic. We cannot prove there are no unicorns in the universe. We could spend lots of energy attempting to prove it, but such an endeavor would be fruitless. We could travel to country A, and examine everyone there and find no miracle-worker. We could then move to country B and find the same, only to have Hays retort that the miracle-worker was in B when you examined A, and A when you examined B. If Hays is going to argue that miracle-workers are present today, then he needs to produce one. If he cannot produce one and no one else can produce one, why should we believe him? What evidence can he offer, other than empirical evidence, to prove his point?

Hays will retort that he can offer Scripture as sufficient evidence or the historical method. No he cannot! There is nothing in Scripture that affirms that miracle-workers will be present in the Church until the return of Christ. But, he may say, there is nothing in Scripture that says they will not be present either. However, that does not qualify as proof that they are present. It only gets him to the state of possibility. Is that what Hays is really arguing? Is Hays spending all this intellectual energy to argue that it is possible that miracle-workers exist today. Okay, I will play Hays’ game. I do think it is possible that miracle-workers could exist today. But I also think, based on that same methodology that it is possible the universe could contain unicorns. But I also think that possibility is infinitesimally small. And the only reason I think it is possible is not because of the claims of these charlatans. It is because I think it is possible that I could be wrong in my view about the purpose for miracles in the NT era. The construction of my theological system is by inference from one exegetical examination to another and then to historical phenomena. I think my position is exceptionally strong. But because I am finite, fallible, and sinful, my knowledge is imperfect. Revelation is not as clear on the subject as it is on other subjects, like the resurrection for example. Therefore, I have to leave open the possibility that I could be mistaken.

The final argument Hays makes is that MacArthur accuses the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement of being purveyors of a false gospel. Hays then says that MacArthur himself might have been guilty of this very thing…20 years ago. This is an utterly ridiculous objection and seems to be more of an attempt out of desperation, and a desire to smear and slander John than it is to get at genuine truth. MacArthur was corrected in his error; he recognized it by the gracious working of the Holy Spirit and repented, uh, 20 years ago. Yet Hays thinks it is relevant to the discussion. Does Hays care that a brother was caught up in a sin 20 years ago, was confronted, repented, and as a result has grown in Christ since that time? Who among us can claim that we were born again with a perfect and mature understanding of the gospel? Apparently, Hays does not care that MacArthur is a human being, a sinner saved by grace! What Hays seems to be more interested in than anything is winning this argument. And that is Hays’ signature. It is his burning passion. He must win, at all costs. I have experienced it personally with him. MacArthur has experienced it. James White has experienced it. Fred Butler has experienced it. Dan Phillips and Frank Turk have experienced it. Others on the internet have experienced it. It seems to me that Hays has no regard for the biblical mandate NOT to slander others. He plows ahead thinking that slander is permitted when it is committed against people with whom he disagrees. This is a very bad reflection on Christianity, on Christian unity, on love. But it seems to be common practice over at Triablogue. What’s more, any attempt to point it out this ungodly practice is only met with additional slander. Moreover, it is one of the topics that Hays absolutely refuses to debate. Apparently, Hays thinks himself above such nonsense. Any discussion at all about godly behavior is met with derision and anyone attempting to raise the issue is attacked as a self-righteous hypocrite just for bringing it up.

The reason I point this out is because I believe it has everything to do with Hays’ participation in this particular discussion. Some guys just like the argument. They love the debate. They really aren’t interested in the word of God working in hearts to sanctify people by the truth it imparts. They just like the rush of winning an argument. Not so long ago, Chris Pinto was caught up in a well-known controversy. He engaged in what many called slanderous behavior. I compared several blogs with Triablogue on the subject because I was curious about my suspicions. Every other blogger was concerned about the sinful behavior involved and spoke to the need for repentance, for obedience, for proper treatment among brothers and for reconciliation. This was not the case with Triablogue. They were more interested in the poor form of Pinto’s argument. That is where they spent their time. What is more important? The form of one’s argument, or the fact that they are in sin? When we care about one another, we are more interested in their sanctification than we are in the fact that their argumentation is a little off.

The reason we care about this topic has nothing to do with winning the argument or carrying the day. We do not live in the world of ideas and possibilities, which is where it seems to me, Hays loves to spend his time. We see the real effects of the theology behind the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement. We hear people claiming to speak for God. We see people claiming to be faith-healers and miracle-workers. We observe what they do with Scripture and how that impacts their followers. We see the confusion these charlatans bring into the body of Christ simply because they are so visible in our culture. We recognize the harm they do to the gospel, to the character of our Lord, to the reputation of the Church, to their followers and we raise our voice in hopes that we can reach some who will benefit from what we have to say. We stand for the truth of Scripture because we care. We care about our Lord, about the Church, about the gospel, about those who are being duped by these wolves. We acre about the kind of message the world hears from the visible Church.

There are less than 100 incidents of miracles recorded in the Old Testament. For 400 years there was none. And then all of the sudden, Christ appeared via a miracle. And during a very short window of time, there were miracles once again. In the NT we have less than 50 incidents. Now an incident could include numerous miracles at that time. There has never been a time in history when miracles were as commonplace as most in the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement claim. Think about this, we have less than 100 miracles recorded over a 4,000 year period. That is less than one miracle every 40 years. In the NT we cover a period of around 40 years. In this case we see incidents of miracles dramatically increase to more than one per year. Now, keep in mind that many of these miracles in the Old and New Testament were squeezed together in blocks. The plagues, the wanderings of the Israelites, Elijah, Elisha, etc. In addition, most of the NT incidents were performed by Christ Himself over a 3 ½ year span. One needs to examine the significance of these blocks of miracles to see what else was going on in redemptive history in order to understand and appreciate the miracles.

Today, the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement makes claims that miracles and healings occur like they have never occurred at any other time in history to include redemptive history. If we multiply the number of claimers by the number of crusades, we end up with claims of tens, no hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of miracles every year. That is staggering. One would think that in our age, with our technology, if these miracles were legitimate, and if there were authentic miracle-workers active today, not only would we know it and be able to prove it, I submit that no one would be to hide it even if they wanted to. But for some bizarre and strange reason, these miracle workers who can heal the worst of human diseases with their great power from God remain unable to provide solid proof that they can do these things. They have the power to heal the sick and raise the dead, just not the power to be able to prove they can do these things. How strangely fascinating is that?