John MacArthur’s Strange Fire conference has come and gone and the book will be shipping next week. Whatever you felt about the conference, there is little doubt that a lot of work and a lot of discussion remain as we, the church, consider the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. In the aftermath of the event, and with the book on its way, I think we all have questions we’d like to ask Dr. MacArthur. A week ago I asked for your questions and sent them through to him. Here are his answers to the first batch of questions. I anticipate adding a second part to this interview within the week.
What was the purpose of such a controversial conference like Strange Fire? Why did you choose not to invite one of the best of the reformed continuationists to speak at your event and to defend his position? Wouldn’t that have strengthened the cessationist arguments while also showing an earnest desire for unity?
Let me begin by thanking you, Tim, for the opportunity to respond to these important questions about the Strange Fire conference and book. I would also like to thank your readers for their willingness to post these questions.
Sometimes you need to take a strong stand in order to get people’s attention.
The goal of the Strange Fire Conference was to sound a trumpet blast in the midst of an evangelical world that has largely grown ambivalent about this vital issue. Sometimes you need to take a strong stand in order to get people’s attention and we wanted the conference to make that kind of definitive statement. Because the honor of the Holy Spirit is at stake, we were convinced that we could not remain silent. Our decision not to host a debate at the Strange Fire Conference was intentional. Debates are rarely effective in truly helping people think carefully through the issues, since they can easily be reduced to sound bites and talking points. By contrast, a clear understanding of biblical truth comes from a faithful study of the Scriptures. Our hope is that the conference sparked a renewed desire for that kind diligent study on this important issue.
I also expect continuationists to respond in writing to the things I have written in the book. I welcome that kind of interchange. It allows people to think carefully, over a prolonged period of time, about the arguments on both sides of the issue. It has always been through the written word that theological disputes like this have been grappled with in church history. That requires the kind of devotion and effort that brings serious discussion to the fore. I have taken those pains in Strange Fire, and would hope that others would interact on that same level.
There are some matters the Bible makes absolutely clear (e.g. You must trust in Christ alone for your salvation) and some things that continue to perplex us so that even genuine, Bible-loving Christians can disagree on them (e.g. baptism and the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit). Why does God allow questions like these to remain unclear to us? Why are you taking such a strong stand on what is really just a secondary issue?
These questions remind me of an article Thabiti Anyabwile wrote during the Strange Fire Conference, in which he explained why this issue is so important. He wrote, “First, we have to admit that there’s a correct and an incorrect position on this issue. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong… . Second, we have to admit that how we view this issue substantially impacts the nature of the Christian life. It matters. It’s not an inconsequential idea. Someone worships God appropriately, someone doesn’t… . Third, we have to admit that this issue practically impacts Christian worship and fellowship. It’s not only a private matter, but a corporate one as well.”
I agree with all of that. This is an issue of critical importance because it affects our view of God as well as our understanding of how to live out the Christian life, both individually and corporately.
I don’t think, however, that this issue is unclear in Scripture. The fact that Christians disagree on what the Bible teaches does not mean that there is a lack of clarity in Scripture, but rather in Christians. The Word of God is our authoritative rule for faith and practice—meaning that it is perfectly sufficient for teaching sound doctrine and governing right living. Certainly, an orthodox pneumatology fits under that umbrella.
On the one hand, I would agree that this is a second-level doctrinal issue—meaning that someone can be either a continuationist or a cessationist and still be a genuine follower of Jesus Christ. I have always maintained that position, and I reiterated that point several times during the conference. I have good friends who consider themselves continuationists, and I am confident that these men are fellow brothers in Christ. But that doesn’t excuse the seriousness of the error. In fact, I would appeal to my continuationist brethren to reconsider their views in light of what Scripture teaches. On the other hand, I am firmly convinced that this secondary issue has the very real potential to taint a person’s understanding of the gospel itself. In such cases, it becomes a primary issue. For example, charismatic theology does corrupt the gospel when it expresses itself in the form of the prosperity gospel. Moreover, the global charismatic movement happily shelters other heretical movements—such as Catholic Charismatics and Oneness Pentecostals. Taken together, the number of charismatics who hold to a false form of the gospel (whether it is a gospel of health and wealth or a gospel of works righteousness) number in the hundreds of millions, which means they actually represent the majority of the global charismatic movement. That is why we took such a strong stand both at the conference and in the book.
You noted that you see this issue clearly resolved in Scripture. Can you explain, briefly, the biblical case for cessationism?
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 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.
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. The book of Acts depicts the gift of tongues as producing real human languages (Acts 2:9–11), and nothing in 1 Corinthians redefines tongues as irrational babble. 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.). These, and many other Scripture passages, demonstrate the truly extraordinary quality of the biblical gifts.
But here is the point. The modern gifts of the charismatic movement simply do not match up to their biblical counterparts. 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.
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. 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?
There is nothing extraordinary about fallible prophecy, irrational tongues, or failed healings.
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. The modern experiences don’t even come close. There is nothing extraordinary about fallible prophecy, irrational tongues, or failed healings. 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.
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. 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. But once the foundation was laid, those offices and gifts passed away. To follow Paul’s metaphor, the foundation is not something that is rebuilt at every phase of construction. It is laid only once.
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.
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, 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). Paul referred to “the signs of a true apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12). 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).
After the apostolic age passed, with the foundation of the church laid and the canon of Scripture closed, such attestation was no longer required. 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. As Peter explains, the prophetic word is even more sure than the most extraordinary of eye-witness experiences (2 Pet 1:16–21). 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).
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. 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.
You acknowledge, of course, that many godly, respected theologians are continuationists. How would you explain the continuationist theology of faithful men like John Piper, D.A. Carson, and Wayne Grudem if the cessationist position is so clearly taught in the Bible?
First, let me reiterate how much I do appreciate those men. As I explain in the book, I am truly grateful for the extensive contributions they have made to the truth and life of the church. I have personally benefited from my interactions with each of them, and from the many helpful books they have authored. I love these men as coworkers in the ministry of the gospel, and I thank the Lord for giving them as gifts to the church in this generation.
As I noted at the conference, I believe their openness to modern charismatic gifts is an anomaly. Obviously, I cannot read minds nor do I desire to judge motives. But I do wonder if perhaps their positions are evidence of either the influence of personal relationships with charismatic friends and family members, or the pervasive impact charismatic theology has had on the wider culture.
Wayne Grudem, as I mentioned earlier, openly acknowledges that there are no apostles in the church today. John Piper says that he does not speak in tongues. And I’m fairly confident that D. A. Carson does not personally practice any of the charismatic gifts. In that sense, then, I think they may be more cessationist (in terms of their personal practice) than their published positions would suggest.
My major concern is that their openness to the issue unwittingly gives the whole movement an aura of theological credibility that it does not deserve. That is why I titled the last chapter of Strange Fire, “An Open Letter to My Continuationist Friends.” I want to appeal to them, on the basis of their theological acumen and exegetical expertise, to reexamine the issue. At the very least, I hope they will join with us in drawing a clear line in the sand and condemning the aberrations and excesses of the broader charismatic movement.
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?
This is a question we directly address in chapter 12 of the book—identifying eight dangerous ramifications of holding to a continuationist position. I can’t go into detail on all eight of those concerns here, but perhaps I can briefly highlight two of them.
I am concerned that reformed continuationists provide theological cover for the broader movement.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 a result, people are conditioned to expect impressions and words from God beyond what is recorded on the pages of Scripture. 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). 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).
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. Some other extrabiblical revelation or experience is made necessary. That kind of theology is downright dangerous.
In his review of your book, Thomas Schreiner says that you painted with too broad a brush and failed to acknowledge some of the good qualities of the reformed continuationist movement. He says, “The clarion call of warning should be modified with clearer and more forthright admissions that many charismatics adhere to the gospel and are faithful to God’s Word.” How would you respond?
First, I’d like to thank Tom for his willingness to review the book. I have great respect for his work as a careful exegete and biblical commentator. Second, I was encouraged to see where he has landed on the issue. I hope more will follow his example—being willing to rethink their continuationist leanings and come to a cessationist conclusion in light of the biblical evidence.
Regarding his concerns about the broad brush, I would respectfully disagree. Certainly, I would affirm that there are charismatics who adhere to the true gospel, and I acknowledge that point in the book. Here are a couple examples:
Page 81 – “I do believe there are sincere people within the Charismatic Movement who, in spite of the systemic corruption and confusion, have come to understand the necessary truths of the gospel. They embrace substitutionary atonement, the true nature of Christ, the Trinitarian nature of God, biblical repentance, and the unique authority of the Bible. They recognize that salvation is not about health and wealth, and they genuinely desire to be rescued from sin, spiritual death, and everlasting hell.”
Page 231 – “I want to emphasize, from the outset, that I regard as brothers in Christ and friends in the ministry all who are faithful fellow workmen in the Word and the gospel, even if they give a place of legitimacy to the charismatic experience. I have good friends among them who label themselves as ‘reformed charismatics’ or ‘evangelical continuationists.’”
Error is still error, even if there are true believers who embrace and espouse it.
So of course I would agree that there are true believers within the charismatic movement. But that does not negate the seriousness of the corruption. The charismatic quest for extrabiblical revelation, subjective impressions, ecstatic experiences, and so on, represents a massive danger to the church. Error is still error, even if there are true believers who embrace and espouse it. And when the error threatens the church in such significant ways, it needs to be called out and directly confronted.
After the conference, there were some who accused me of saying that nothing good has ever come from those who are part of the charismatic movement. But that is not what I said, nor is it what I believe. Regarding those who are genuine believers, I would readily acknowledge the positive contributions that various charismatic pastors, authors, and laypeople have made within the larger church. However, I’m convinced that those contributions have been made in spite of their heterodox pneumatology, not because of it.
Finally, I think those who accuse me of using too broad of a brush are being naïve about the actual composition of the global charismatic movement. We briefly mentioned this earlier, but it is worth reiterating. The fact of the matter is that the majority of charismatics around the world (including both classic Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals) embrace the prosperity gospel. John T. Allen, in his book The Future Church (Doubleday 2009) explains how pervasive the prosperity gospel really is:
“Perhaps the most controversial element of the Pentecostal outlook is the so-called ‘prosperity gospel,’ meaning the belief that God will reward those with sufficient faith with both material prosperity and physical health. Some analysts distinguish between ‘neo-Pentecostal,’ which they see as focused on the prosperity gospel, and classic Pentecostalism, oriented toward the gifts of the Spirit such as healings and tongues. Yet the Pew Forum data suggests that the prosperity gospel is actually a defining feature of all Pentecostalism; majorities of Pentecostals exceeding 90 percent in most countries hold to these beliefs” (pp. 382–83).
That is a frightening statement, and it reveals just how pervasive the false gospel of health and wealth is within the global charismatic movement. But the data from surveys and studies back up those numbers.
Now that may be shocking to many, especially in North America (and also in the UK). People have responded to the conference by saying that I need to turn off TBN and get out more. They say that they personally know many charismatics who affirm sola fide and the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, and who deny the excesses and heresies of prosperity theology. In point of fact, I know those kinds of people too. Some of them are my dear friends. But the makeup of the movement is not determined by any single individual’s personal experience—unless he or she has personal knowledge of more than a half billion people. In the book, the argument is made by documenting the relevant statistical data. And the numbers paint a very different picture than that imagined by most American evangelicals.
On a global level, the majority of charismatics are being seduced by the false gospel of prosperity theology.
On a global level, the majority of charismatics are being seduced by the false gospel of prosperity theology. Add to that the fact that the charismatic movement includes 120 million Catholic Charismatics and another 24 million Oneness Pentecostals, and you begin to realize just how widespread the problem is.
I’m deeply concerned that most American evangelicals are blissfully ignorant of what is actually happening across the globe. The reality is that the gospel being proclaimed and believed by the majority of charismatics around the world is not the biblical gospel. That was why I wanted Conrad Mbewe to speak at the Strange Fire Conference—because he sees what the charismatic movement is actually doing in places like the African church.
So, coming back to your question, I understand that some reviewers will find my tone too harsh and my brush too broad. But I think the problem is a whole lot bigger than anyone realizes. And it breaks my heart to think that hundreds of millions of souls are being caught up into a movement where they are being seduced by false forms of the gospel.
That is why I wanted to sound such a strong warning. And I’m willing to be accused of broad-brushing in order to get that message out.
Pentecostalism Minus discernment equals to Zombie Christian: 'Snake Salvation' Exclusive: Pastor Says Serpent-Handling Movement Could Be as Mainstream as Southern Baptists
Also see,
When Pentecostals put the lord their God on test: Serpent-handling pastor profiled earlier in Washington Post dies from rattlesnake bite
Pastor Andrew Hamblin pointing with snake in his hand.
Editors' Note: The Christian Post recently spoke with Pastors Jamie Coots and Andrew Hamblin, stars of the new National Geographic reality show "Snake Salvation" to learn more about their controversial practice of worshipping God with snakes. The extensive interviews with both men, which include questions directly from CP's readers, are featured in four parts.
***
"Snake Salvation" debuted in early September on the National Geographic Channel and viewers, including readers of The Christian Post, have expressed fascination, repulsion and confusion over the sect of Pentecostal Christians who say they are led by the Holy Spirit to handle poisonous snakes while worshipping God. "Snake Salvation" focuses on the lives and ministries of Pastor Andrew Hamblin of Tabernacle Church of God in LaFollette, Tenn., and Pastor Jamie Coots of Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name church of Middlesboro, Ky. Coots, in his 40s, serves as a mentor of sorts for Hamblin and was the inspiration behind the 23-year-old starting his own snake-handling congregation.
Calling them foolish, crazy, ignorant, or sinful for tempting or testing God (read the remarks here), viewers wonder why Pastors Hamblin and Coots persist in carrying on the 100-year-old practice (read about its history here) that claimed the life of one of their pastor friends last year who refused, until it was too late, to get medical attention after being bit his yellow timber rattlesnake. It is common among serpent-handling Christians to avoid a doctor's care for a snake bite inflicted during worship, but it is not uncommon to seek medical attention for other ailments.
The men and those who practice their faith in like fashion, many of them living in the Appalachian states, say they are compelled by Scripture, particularly Mark 16:17-18 in the King James Version, to pick up serpents. In this Gospel account, Jesus commands his disciples to go to all the world and preach the gospel: " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
Despite the deaths and injuries resulting from snake-handling and speculation among scholars that the verses foundation to their faith were not included in the original Gospel of Mark manuscript, Pastors Coots and Hamblin say something greater compels them to keep worshipping God this way.
Below is part one of CP's "Snake Salvation" exclusive interview, in which Pastor Hamblin shares how the Lord "moved on him" in his first-ever snake-handling church service.
CP: Please share a little about your faith journey, like how you came to be a Christian and then a pastor, and so forth?
Hamblin: I grew up in a Free Will Baptist church which I still go back at and preach. My grandpa is a pastor there. My grandparents raised me in church. I still go back and preach there, and my grandpa has been to my church and preached.
I got saved I guess you could say when I was about 15, but I didn't live a (Christian) lifestyle. … I've known about the Lord all my life. When I was about 17 I decided, hey, I'm going to live full time for God and about that time is when I heard about serpent-handling churches. Growing up at our church, we spoke in tongues — even at a Free Will Baptist church — we spoke in tongues, we shouted, danced, believed in baptism of the Holy Ghost, just like a Church of God or Pentecostal church would. So I seen these people handling these snakes, speaking in tongues, receiving baptism of the Holy Ghost, shouting and dancing. I thought, hey, they ain't much different that we are and I want to know if this is real or not.
Well, the first weekend of August was Pastor Jamie Coots's homecoming. I found out about the church and I said, 'Hey, somebody take me over.' Like I said I was 17 and we all got together some of us and they took me. I seen Jamie go and pull two rattlers out of a box during a service, and something just clicked right then. It showed me there has to be something more to this. In May of…(Elizabeth) and I got married, we'd been together since we were 15 year olds and we're soon to be 23 now. We got married and I told her I wanted to begin to go, I wanted to go full time to that church, to Brother Jamie's church.
I joined up over there. I played the guitar, and sang, preached, shouted, but I never would mess with no snakes. They'd handle them elbow to elbow with me, and I'd say, 'Hey, I don't know about this.' I would pray, and a year to the day later that I saw it for the first time in real life, the Lord began to deal with me. The Lord dealt with me with going into a box myself and I was 18 then, of course. I begin to just feel the anointing of God begin to move stronger than I've ever felt it before. I was thinking, 'Lord, I know this is you moving...' I prayed and put a fleece before God, so to speak. I said, 'Lord, if this is you moving...' There was a box of three monster copperheads, I'm talking about 44-, 45-inch-long snakes, and I said, 'Lord if this is you moving...' — that's what I felt like to get out, the biggest one is in the back in a box — I said, 'You will let Brother Jamie go to this box...' that had two black, fresh rattlers that have never been handled, they had just been caught. I said, 'You'll let him go and get both of them out and I'll know that it's You moving on me to do this.' I hadn't much more than prayed that than here he went. He pulled both of them out. And when he did, I just went numb. The anointing got so strong that I went in the box and I pulled it out myself and handled it what seemed like a lifetime, was only 15, 20, 30 seconds (before I) put it back in the box. I've been going strong ever since.
CP: Why did you agree to participate in "Snake Salvation"?
Hamblin: The only reason that I agreed to participate in "Snake Salvation" was to maybe see someone not be converted to snake handling, that wasn't my goal. If people do get converted — well I won't say converted — I'll say maybe believe in it, begin to believe it, that's wonderful, that's good and so forth. My only reason for participating in "Snake Salvation" was to spread the gospel to the whole country, to the world if you will, to tell somebody that they can be saved. They don't have to believe like me, they don't have to dress like me, they don't have to handle snakes like me. But to let them know that the blood of Christ still saves and he is still real.
It just came to my mind — you have all these TV evangelists and TV pastors and they preach, they preach this and that, and that's wonderful. I just wanted to say, hey, you know I'm just a little country boy, I'm nothing in the sight of man. But because of the blood, I'm something in the sight of God, and I wanted to shine a light to somebody.
My goal has been reached. I've had hundreds upon hundreds of people call me, message me different things like, 'Pastor, we might not ever believe alike, but watching this, it restored my faith in God.' I've had atheists write me and say, 'We watched this, we did not believe that there was a God. We didn't believe in no kind of a supernatural being or anything, but after watching this show there has to be a God.' Then I've had people write me and say, 'Pastor, we're Pentecostal believers and we want to learn more about this, we feel the Lord is dealing with us to do this.'
It has amazed me. I had really and honestly thought that it'd be a flop so to speak, and people would look down on us even worse. But so much good has come out of it that I've seen hardly any bad at all. I mean, I've seen bad. Of course with anything good, there's negative. But I've seen more good than I have bad. Like I said, my main goal is to see somebody get saved. I don't care if they handle snakes or … shout and dance or dress like I do or act like I do. They go join First Baptist, it don't matter to me as long as they get saved.
CP: Please tell me a little about your church, such as how many members you have, how long the church has been around, etc. Also, what's your denomination or tradition?
Hamblin: I will go as far as saying that my group...now most snake handlers are stereotyped as Pentecostal Holiness people. My church, the name of it is Tabernacle Church of God and it was built in 1994 as a Church of God. The man who built it is still the landlord and I still recognize him as a founder of the church and so forth. I still treat him good. He's never handled serpents. It was never a serpent-handling church. It was just a regular Church of God and whenever I'd come along...I've been pastor of it, this November will make it two years. He had shut the church down, he had health issues, he had got sick, different things and I took it over. He's handled them [snakes] since I've been there.
'Snake Salvation' Exclusive: Pastor Jamie Coots Defends Serpent Handling as Biblical 'Sign' (Part 2)
Presumably this means he didn't need to take up an offering
Bentley: It Rained Gold In South Africa During Our Revival
Todd Bentley just got back from leading a revival in South Africa during which an angel touched his wife, causing it to rain gold everywhere they went.
Today on the Dividing Line: Continuationism, Cessationism.
I decided to dedicate the entire program today to reviewing the first call Michael Brown took on The Line of Fire on Tuesday. It seemed to provide an excellent basis for actually addressing the most important elements of this controversy. I didn’t expect to take the whole hour, but, that’s what happened! Hopefully our listeners will find this a useful discussion. Here’s the audio of the program.
An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Brown on His Relationship with Rick Joyner
Posted on October 25, 2013
Dear Dr. Brown,
I am writing this open letter because I am concerned about your ministry and the ministries you endorse. Over recent months you have campaigned against cessationism and the recent Strange Fire conference, thus gaining yourself popularity from those who may not have otherwise known of you. I won’t be getting into those details as the reader can learn all about your participation in that discussionhere, they can find a nice summary of Strange Fire here, and see some of the aftermath here.
I have known about your ministry for a couple years now, having had the opportunity to hear you debate a few times (you even creatively debated yourself on Calvinism vs Arminianism). Before then, you graciously sat down with me and another brother in 2011 in preparation to preach the Gospel during our evangelism outreach and your “God Has a Better Way” event at the Charlotte Pridefest. Ever since then, I have always found you to be a kind and compassionate brother who loves Jesus and seeks to further His Kingdom. But as I’ve watched your ministry these last couple of years, I have grown in concern over some things I’ve observed, including your associations.
I learned last night that you would be writing a new book titled “Authentic Fire”, which is in response to Strange Fire. It will be interesting to see whether you document the “extremes” in your book. You consider New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)/Third Wave leaders Mike Bickle and Rick Joyner to be your friends, and knowing what I know about their ministries, I wonder exactly what extremes you would be addressing in your book if not the “extremes” that come out of their ministries. Perhaps I’ll discuss your relationship with Mike Bickle and other NAR leaders in another article, but for now, I’d like to stay focused on the brief conversation we had last night.
The reason I believe this to be important is that many people follow you – whether on Line of Fire radio, through yourFire School of Ministry, through your debates, books, or social media. We might even consider you “mainstream” with your popularity on Christian talk radio. But perhaps many would be surprised to know exactly who you consider to be ministry partners and friends. My concern is your endorsement of such ministries gives them a degree of legitimacy that could lead to deceiving God’s people, and further darkening the minds of the lost.
With this in mind, I’d like to talk about your relationship with Rick Joyner, founder of MorningStar Ministries in Fort Mill, SC. I first learned about your relationship with Rick Joyner when you posted the following status onfacebook November 25, 2012 regarding your appearance on his Prophetic Perspectives:
I wasn’t the only person concerned about your association with Rick Joyner. In fact, the thread exploded with comments on the dangers of Joyner, but you quickly deleted those comments on the basis of irrelevance to the original post. One of your (now deleted) replies was your affirmation of Rick Joyner to be a friend and man of God. It seems you overlooked my only comment in the thread, which happens to be the same video I shared with you last night.
I was concerned that you might delete the thread I initiated last night, so I asked a friend to capture what he could before it was deleted. Thankfully, he managed to get most of our conversation. Here was my original inquiry:
The video I requested you to view has been making the internet rounds for a few years now. If you get around to watching it, you will see Rick Joyner initiate the “worship time” with a request to God, “Lord, move among us.” You will then see what looks like Jason Hooper, stating,
Tory has something she’s got to release, and when this releases, it’s gonna be like a starting gun for the ministry time. So those of you who like ministry…youth, children, those who have been touched by the fire, prepare to minister!
Then after “Tory” begins convulsing, Jason affirms, “Yeah, he’s here.” No doubt “he” was there, but it certainly was not He the Holy Spirit. Tory then speaks into the microphone,
Two days ago, I saw jesus opening himself up and walking in our midst…
Then the tribal and occultic chaos begins. Here is the video again for your convenience:
As the reader will see, I was grateful that you would acknowledge my post, albeit it was not what I expected:
In a similar fashion demonstrated in your radio interview of Phil Johnson, you appear to try to take control of the conversation at this point, deflecting my original questions with some questions of your own. Without pointing out the fact you had time to read and engage my reply to your Jonathan Edwards article but didn’t have time to watch the 7-minute video and answer my questions, I attempted one last time to persuade you to watch the video and respond to my questions:
Unfortunately, you did not seem concerned with what I was trying to bring to your attention, but rather dismissed me with the “all clear” as if you are confident in your relationship with Rick Joyner and his ministry (so no need to humbly address my concerns, or inform me that you will look into it when you have the time):
Dr. Brown, I can fully appreciate and respect the fact you are probably overwhelmed with a ministry like, “Ask Dr. Brown“, especially due to your campaign against the Strange Fire conference. Yet, it seems you would appreciate my questions and offer to get back to me when it’s convenient for you. After all, the motto of your TV show is, “Answering Your Toughest Questions“. One would think the toughest questions would include answering questions about your public ministry and affiliations, but that does not seem to be fair game? I digress.
Having been shown the door by you, I concluded and informed you I would be in touch. As you’re figuring out by now (that is, if you’re able to take 10 minutes out of your busy schedule to read this letter), this is me getting back in touch with you:
You did not seem to share my opinion that your nonresponse was an open endorsement to Rick Joyner and his ministry. Though I couldn’t obtain a screen capture, I was able to copy the text of your response:
Folks, this is post has generated some of the post obscene and ugly posts I’ve ever seen, and if they are friends of Justin Edwards, that is very telling. Virtually every standard of decency and grace we call for has been violated, not to mention you all think I’m supposed to ignore thousands of others, drop all my writing deadlines, ignore all other commitments, and then if I don’t respond, I’m endorsing someone. This is one of the shameful displays I’ve ever seen, so feel free to copy the entire thread, which will soon be deleted.
Now, Dr. Brown. I understand how some of the comments you received put you on the defensive. What baffles me, however, is that you drew a charge that if these are my friends, that is very telling of me. One is free to draw their own conclusions about that, but if these comments are telling of my friendships, then certainly we can use the same logic to conclude your friendship and ministry relationship with Rick Joyner to be telling of your ministry and commitment to the truth?
Moreover, it is not so much your refusal to respond to my inquiries that concludes for me your open endorsement of Rick Joyner, but you have already endorsed his ministry, and your dismissal of my concerns gives further evidence of your open endorsement.
So where does this leave us, Dr. Brown? I would like to keep this simple, so I will reiterate my questions in hopes you might respond:
Do you indeed consider Rick Joyner to be a ministry friend and man of God?
Do you believe the practices in the video above to be an “authentic move of the Holy Spirit”?
If yes, can you provide Scripture that would support this woman as manifesting a work of the Holy Spirit?
If no, have you called Rick Joyner to repentance for these practices, or do you plan to discuss these as “extremes/excesses” in your upcoming book or by other means?
Ultimately, I’d like to know if you consider Rick Joyner’s ministry to be “authentic fire”, or “strange fire”?
This is important because you have embraced these kinds of men as brothers, and so we are left with you openly embracing their practices as “authentic fire”. Unless, of course, you do consider Rick Joyner and the Third Wave to be false prophets, and we got you totally wrong. I am open to that possibility, and would quickly acknowledge and affirm your rebuke of what you would call “excesses”. However, I don’t think the conversation you are seeking will be fruitful with us cessationists until we can establish exactly what you believe to be “authentic fire” versus “strange fire” (surely you can point to some specific strange fires – like the one in the video above? Hopefully?).
One last thought: out of respect for your time, I am also open to one of the members of your leadership team at Fire Church to address my concerns. Surely someone on your Apostolic Team, Pastoral Team, or one of your Elders (preferably a man, not a woman), would be able to speak on your behalf? They are free to communicate with me your relationship with Rick Joyner and your position of his ministry practices, specifically in the video included in this open letter. Any response by you or your team is appreciated.
In closing, Dr. Brown, I understand you are under no obligation to respond to my letter. However, what is at stake is the perception that you do indeed endorse these kinds of men based on your previous interactions and affirmations of them. Many are concerned that you would affirm these ministries, when practices such as the one in the video are so disturbing and offensive to the Holy Spirit. Please help us better understand your position if what has been presented in this article is not representative of your views; and, if you consider “Rick Joyner’s Circus” video to be strange fire, then please say so.
Gotta lot of cleaning up to do. How did so many loons get into this barn? Poor Grady, this is a pathetic apology, but getta' crackin,' Lad, ya've gotta lot of work ahead of you.
This is Grady at his apologetic best and it entirely fails. Have at Costals. But, go ahead and open "That Back Door" to Munsterites, Radical Anabaptists, Babblers, enthusiasts, false voices, false prophets and other Montanists.
Sing a little Jim Morrison (while you're at it), probably in a drug-crazed demonic state. Then, get to cleaning out the barn. Poor Grady at Charisma, not a ringing endorsement of his movement. Time for Reformation Christians to confront these loons.
Also, a Costalist, Adrian Warnock, tweeted the tweet below during the "Strange Fire" conference.
It’s (Past) Time for a Charismatic Reformation (AP Images/Ferd Kaufman)In honor of Reformation Day, here are some complaints I’m nailing on the Wittenberg door. Long before there was an Occupy Wall Street, Martin Luther staged the most important protest in history. He was upset because Roman Catholic officials were promising people forgiveness or early escape from purgatory in exchange for money. So on October 31, 1517, Luther nailed a long list of complaints on the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany.
Luther’s famous 95 theses were translated from Latin into German and spread abroad. Like a medieval Jeremiah, Luther dared to ask questions that had never been asked, and he challenged a pope who was supposedly infallible. Through this brave monk, the Holy Spirit sparked the Protestant Reformation and restored the doctrine of grace to a church that had become corrupt, religious, dysfunctional, political and spiritually dead.
I am no Luther, but I’ve grown increasingly aware that the so-called “Spirit-filled” church of today struggles with many of the same things the Catholic church faced in the 1500s. We don’t have “indulgences”—we have telethons. We don’t have popes—we have super-apostles. We don’t support an untouchable priesthood—we throw our money at celebrity evangelists who own fleets of private jets.
In honor of Reformation Day, I’m offering my own list of needed reforms in our movement. And since I can’t hammer these on the Wittenberg door, I’ll post them online. Feel free to nail them everywhere.
1. Let’s reform our theology. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. He is God and He is holy. He is not an “it.” He is not a blob, a force, or an innate power. We must stop manipulating Him, commanding Him and throwing Him around.
2.Let’s return to the Bible. The Word of God is the foundation for the Christian experience. Any dramatic experience, no matter how spiritual it seems, must be tested by the Word and the Holy Spirit’s discernment. Visions, dreams, prophecies and encounters with angels must be in line with Scripture. If we don’t test them we could end up spreading deception. For the rest of this bizarre effort at an apologetic (again, how did ya' get so many loons, more ants per square inch than the ants in the ant hill out back, 1000s of them enthusing? Open that "Back Door" to the loons), see: http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/32228-its-past-time-for-a-charismatic-reformation
What was the purpose of such a controversial conference like Strange Fire? Why did you choose not to invite one of the best of the reformed continuationists to speak at your event and to defend his position? Wouldn’t that have strengthened the cessationist arguments while also showing an earnest desire for unity?
Let me begin by thanking you, Tim, for the opportunity to respond to these important questions about the Strange Fire conference and book. I would also like to thank your readers for their willingness to post these questions.
(Photo: NGT)Pastor Andrew Hamblin pointing with snake in his hand.
