- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostSeminar 1 - Phil Johnson - Is The Reformation Over?
- Next Post »Second General Session - John MacArthur
Seminar 2 - Nathan Busenitz - Evangelical Charismatics
- 03/01/06
- 40
It is interesting to look around and see how many people travel alone, and how many travel in groups. There are a great number of people, it seems, who travel to this conference on their own. These people tend to sit quietly on their own, sneaking into the auditoriums before they are supposed to be open to the public and sitting quietly with their books or laptops. There are also plenty who have come with friends and co-workers. These people travel in laughing, shouting packs. They go to the same seminars together and insist on sitting beside each other in long rows.
I tend towards the former. I am starting to understand myself as something of a loner - a conviction that grows with each conference I attend. It is not that I dislike meeting people and talking with them: it’s that I am not the type to strike up a conversation with a stranger. I guess that is why I enjoy blogging. It allows me to stay comfortably isolated. I wonder who meets more people during the course of the conference: those who tend to seek isolation or those who find community in the group they travel with. Either way it seems that a person is likely limiting his contact with others.
I am now in the basement of one of the various buildings that comprise the campus of Grace Community Church. Nathan Busenitz, John MacArthur’s personal assistant, will be giving a presentation entitled “Now that’s the Spirit,” which will assess and address Evangelical Charismatics. Over my shoulder I hear people discussing C.J. Mahaney and saying, “he’s Charismatic, you know.”
Busenitz began with a prayer for humility as we discuss a topic of great controversy and with the potential to hurt brothers and sisters in Christ. He then opened with a note of praise and admiration for Charismatic men who have impacted his walk with Christ: John Piper, C.J. Mahaney and Wayne Grudem.
There are three goals for this seminary: to provide an accurate representation of the continuationist position; a summary and response of the Cessationist position; and then provide the reason that Grace Church has chosen to partner with those with whom they disagree.
First, several important terms:
- Continuationist: - refers to those who believe that the miraculous gifts are still operational in the church today and therefore should be sought by Christians. There are three waves: Pentecostal, Charismatic and Third Wave.
- Cessationist: - refers to those who believe that the miraculous gifts ceased after the Apostolic era.
- Open but cautious: - refers to those who believe the gifts have continued but are skeptical of contemporary Charismatic practice of those gifts.
Question 1: both sides agree that the New Testament indicates that the gifts will cease at some point. The question is, then, does the New Testament tell us when? Continuationists believe that the gifts will cease with the return of Christ. They point to Acts 2 and the fulfillment of Joel 2 in this chapter which seems to say that the gifts continue throughout the last days. They also point to Ephesians 4 and the idea that the church will not be fully mature until Christ returns. The gifts remain until then. They would also look to the list of gifts and say cessationists should not draw a line between miraculous gifts and non-miraculous. Their arguments are ecclesiological, pneumatological, bibliogical, hermeneutical and practical.
Busenitz provided a cessationist response to each of these five points. With the speed he went through them I was not able to type fast enough to note them all. He relied fairly heavily on lengthy quotes from commentaries and this made it difficult to easily translate large ideas to a few small words. My apologies for this. But to summarize, the New Testament evidence, both textually and theologically, points to charismatic phenomena that were tied to the foundation stage of the New Covenant and the writing of Scripture. When this era ended, so did the gifts. His argument seemed very consistent with that made by Sam Waldron in his book To Be Continued?.
Question 2: both sides agree that the New Testament indicates that the miraculous gifts were active during the Apostolic age. Were the gifts, then, the same as are practiced in Charismatic circles today?
The continuationist argument:
- prophecy: continuationists define this as the “human report of divine revelation.” It is occasionally fallible because of the human agency involved. Humans may not properly transmit and apply the message, often pointing to Agabus in Acts 21, saying that he got the gist right but the details wrong. While prophecy is non-authoritative, it is edifying to the church and is an important component of church life. They also say that accuracy and frequency vary in proportion with the prophet’s faith and that it falls under the ecclesiastical authority of the elders.
- healing: “gifts of healing” suggests that Paul was speaking about different gifts or powers of healing. It is an error to assume that is a person could heal at one time, he can heal at all times. Thus the gift is under the control of the will of God and not the healer and healings are occasional and tied to God’s will. The gift is tied to the gift of faith and the prayer of faith (James 5). Since the apostles were the most gifted people in the church, we should not expect to have the gift in the same strength or frequency.
- tongues: Tongues is a form of prayer - a prayer language - that is under the control of the speaker who can stop and start at will. It is intended to edify the speaker. Tongues are edifying even if the speaker does not understand what he is saying. The primary purpose is not evangelistic but for glorifying God. It is a form of spiritual warfare and was a regular part of Paul’s spiritual or devotional life. Devotional tongues are for every believer and are not necessarily human languages but are spiritual or angelic. This gift results in a deeper prayer life.
The cessationist response:
- prophecy: The New Testament never distinguishes between New and Old Testament prophets. If Old Testament prophecy was held to a standard of perfection, the same is true of the New Testament. Because a prophecy had to be subject to Scripture does not show that it was fallible. The claim that Agabus erred in his prophecy is unwarranted and gives undue woodenness to his words. Neither Luke, nor Paul, nor anyone else in Scripture takes issue with Agabus’ prophecy. The distinctions continuationists believe in between New and Old Testament, are foreign to Scripture. Were prophets to exist today, we would have to see their revelation as infallible and authoritative.
- healing: the phrase “gifts of healings” appears only in 1 Corinthians 12 and is not explained. We have to look elsewhere to determine what it means. The continuationist understanding does not explain the decline in quality or quantity in the healings of the modern church versus the New Testament church (which in turn matches the quality and quantity of healings in the Old Testament). The continuationist understanding does not explain why the New Testament epistles do not give further instruction regarding this gift of healing (note: cessationists see James 5 as unconnected with 1 Corinthians 12). The modern practice does not measure up in quantity or quality. Cessationists affirm that God can and does do miracles, especially in response to the prayer of the saints, but this does not necessitate the ongoing gift of healing.
- tongues: The gift of tongues is closely associated with evangelism. It authenticates the message of the evangelist (Mark 16, Acts 2, Hebrews 2, etc). It consisted of authentic foreign languages previously unknown to the speaker. 1 Corinthians 12 makes it clear that not everyone is given this gift and it cannot be shown from this passage that Paul is speaking of two different gifts of tongues. The “tongues of angels” is probably hyperbole in keeping with the context, yet even if taken literally this would be the exception and not the rule. Additionally, every time that angels spoke in the Bible, they spoke in a real language. Paul makes it clear that tongues was never meant to be the hallmark of the church or the most prestigious gift. The fact that languages were rational proves that the languages were rational and thus a real language. The intended use was for the edification of others, not of self. The additional evidence of the early Church Fathers supports a cessationist understanding of the definition and purpose of the gift of tongues.
Final Question: In light of these important doctrinal disagreements with continuationist leaders, how is it that Grace Community Church can partner with certain continuationist leaders in standing together for the gospel?
The Grace staff affirms that these are important questions with a great array of implications. However, for those who agree on the essentials of the gospel, there are times to unite on first-level doctrines despite differences in second-level doctrines. This debate is not about the heart of the gospel and thus is a secondary doctrine. To partner with these continuationists is not to change or lessen the church’s stance on these issues. In an increasingly anti-Christian world, it is increasingly important to stand together on the gospel, even with those with whom we have disagreements on secondary doctrines.
Following the example of Albert Mohler, Busenitz provided three levels of doctrine:
- Level 1: Doctrines necessary to recognize someone as a Christian, and in particular doctrines regarding the gospel and the person and nature of Christ. We cannot have unity with anyone who does not share these beliefs.
- Level 2: Doctrines important for the formation and operation of a church or seminary. There are issues which must be confirmed to be on staff or to be member in a church. These would include, for example, infant or adult baptism, the charismatic gifts, etc. These do not forbid us from having a person teaching or preaching on occasion.
- Level 3: Doctrines that we can disagree on but still have unity within a particular church. This could include dispensationalism eschatology, and so on. These are not issues that are unimportant, but are issues that do not mean a person cannot join a particular staff or church.
And so, Grace stands together with other believers for and upon the gospel.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (40)
Great stuff, Tim. For the benefit of those of that are here at GCC, why don’t you tell us beforehand which seminars you’re attending, and we can all attend another one. You’re reporting is so superb and in depth, who needs to go to the seminars? Keep it up!
I’m with you on the social end of things - more of a loner. I would say that loner’s may end up meeting more people. At lunch today, I met a lot of people and ended up answering questions about Canada - ice, snow, the Arctic and Quebec. And then I was asked why cars in Canada have their lights on during the day? I have to admit I didn’t know that was a “Canadian thing.”
Challies,I think I liked your initial observations the best. Your reflections on “group people” and “loners” were insightful. I’ve experienced both and I have to say, I don’t think everyone is cut out to be a loner. I can do either, but I have to say taking in more of the environment is one of the advantages to being a loner. You don’t have to opportunity to meet other people in a group because you are too busy catering to the people who would be paralized if they thought they had to talk to someone they didn’t know.
Your reporting is superb. Keep it up.
Okay… Could there be another category. I am not sure I am any of the 3 mentioned when defining the either “dead” or “heretically-out-of-control-alive” gifts… I think I am far more cessationist because I can see the view as to why they are no longer necessary… Perhaps I am “cautiously cessationist”. Possibly because I am ignorant and could use more reading material recommendations. And am in fear of putting God in a box. And therefore questioning the possibility that maybe they are still alive… but just horridly abused which therefore taints or skews my opinion.Confused? Possibly.
I never thought I’d hear John Piper, C.J. Mahaney and Wayne Grudem being called “charismatics.” That they believe that some “gift of the Spirit” may be in operation today, in some form, perhaps. But charismatics, as that term is generally defined in the church? I just don’t know. These are all well-grounded, Biblical defenders of the Gospel, all reformed in their teachings and beliefs. I don’t know why it would even be a question of whether or not to work cooperatively with these men. Benny Hinn, Freddy Price - yes, every reason to question such a partnership. But Piper, Mahaney and Grudem? My prayer is that the church be careful, very careful, when it takes the sword and turns it, in any way, on a brother in Christ. Not saying that this is what’s happening here, but just be cautious.
TomDoctrine Matters
So what did you think of Dr. MacArthur’s PowerPoint?
Tom, it seems to me that Busenitz used the term correctly. The term, as it is “generally defined in the church” is defined incorrectly. Whether that is due to the co-opting of the term by radical continuatists like Hinn, or ignorance on the part of the body, or both is unclear, but probably not relevant.
I’m not attributing this thought to you, but it is true of many. To believe that all Charismatics swing from chandeliers isn’t any different than thinking that all Calvinists are crabby and only interested in defending Calvin, or that all Christians are like Fred “got hates fags” Phelps.
Actually, at the risk of calling Phelps’ salvation into question, I’ll rescind the latter analogy.
As a charismatic, I’m not satisfied with Busenitz’s responses, but not for the reasons one might think.
He uses Mohler’s three-part division toward the end, but I’ve always found this to be a cop-out. We’re always hearing about “another gospel,” and I think that if the people who regularly talk about someone preaching another gospel were honest with their application of that standard, then they’d have to apply it to anyone who wavers from the one absolute Biblical truth.
Intellectual honesty on this issue means they must call charismatics into question as heretics. The question here is larger than one of whether someone eats meat or just vegetables. Charismatics insist that the Holy Spirit still operates through the charismata. If Busenitz claims this is not the case and can prove it biblically, then by what spirit are charismatics doing the things they do?
The only conclusion he must draw is that it is a not the spirit of God by which they do the things they do. They are listening and operating out of seducing spirits—that’s the only conclusion that can be reached. This is more than just a tiny difference of opinion on what the Scriptures say, but must force the question of whether charismatics are even Christians at all. What Christian would be led by and operate through a seducing spirit? What place has Christ with Belial? None at all.
If someone like Mahaney speaks in tongues or claims to get words of knowledge, but the Holy Spirit no longer works that way, then he’s either speaking in tongues and getting words of knowledge out of his flesh or by another spirit. That’s the gist of what Busenitz is saying. There’s no way then for him to come back and use Mohler’s chart to justify supporting someone as a Christian brother who does such a thing.
Obviously, I don’t believe Mahaney or all other charismatics are operating out of the flesh or by another spirit. However, for Busenitz to claim all that he does, then to cop-out at the end by pulling out Mohler’s “we agree to disagree” chart is disingenuous, undermining everything he just taught. From a logical outgrowth of what his teaching was, there’s no other conclusion that is intellectually honest than the one that I just fleshed out based on his comments.
DLE,
I see your point, but I don’t think it’s as simple as that. I do believe that many charismatics are under the influence of seducing spirits, but I think there are at least a couple of other categories, as well. I think you might even agree.
There are those who are consciously faking it, immitating what they see around them because it’s expected. There are also those who become so overcome with emotion and are hypnotically moved to utter gibberish. It is the same psychological effect that makes people fall down when Benny Hinn touches them. These people are completely sincere, and are not under any demonic influence. They are simply highly suggestable. I believe I have witnessed both of these things.
I would believe this even if I wasn’t a cessationist. It’s just not as simple as Holy Spirit vs. Satanic.
David,
Manifesting a phony charismata out of the flesh and ascribing it to the Holy Spirit is demeaning the Holy Spirit, pure and simple. Would a real Christian call someone who does that a true brother in Christ? Would that be acceptable to Busenitz under Mohler’s three distinctions?
Hardly.
If flesh-based faux charismata aren’t inspired by Satan, then where’s the source? It’s still rooted in sin. Do we tolerate Christians now who refuse to repent of their sin? What would Busenitz say?
In other words, which of these categories does a Biblical, reformed Charismatic fall under if he prays in an unknown tongue: seducing spirits, consciously faking it, or overcome with emotion?
I think it’s misleading to use the label charismatic with guys like Piper and Mahaney. What charismatic practices are they known to observe? Speaking in tongues? Gift of prophecy? It is a fallacy to make absolute cessasionism the standard and everything else charismatic - particularly in the modern church context where most people associate charismatic with Vineyard - Benny Hinn type beliefs.
Busenitz wasn’t labeling people without warrant. Read Sovereign Grace literature, and you’ll see that they willingly accept identification with traditional Charismatic/Pentecostal nomenclature. SGM people habitually refer to themselves as “Reformed Charismatics.”
DLE,Maybe I wasn’t clear enough.
Let’s leave the intentional fakers out of it, and let’s assume I am not cessationist, because I wouldn’t have to be to make this observation.
I think there are those who are not faking it, are not under the influence of seducing spirits, yet are not practicing the real gift of tongues. They are manifesting a psychological reaction to stimuli. These people do exist, and they are not being dishonest.
Jeri,As a cessationist, yes, that is the question I ask, although “overcome with emotion” is probably far too simplistic.
David,
It doesn’t matter how people are manifesting “charismata.” Psychological, demonic, whatever—if they ascribe it to the Holy Spirit, you can’t let that slide. That would be demeaning to the Holy Spirit to ascribe to Him acts that aren’t rooted in Him. It’s slander.
Doesn’t matter how honest they are or not, doesn’t matter if they’re Benny Hinn or C.J. Mahaney. If they attribute tongues to the Holy Spirit when it’s not the Holy Spirit (according to Busenitz) then they are sinning by doing so.
There’s no way out of the trap that Busenitz sets. He can’t have it both ways. There’s no way to say that it’s okay to get along with people who manifest charismata (regardless of source) if the Holy Spirit does NOT work that way anymore. They have to be condemned for a practice that is a sham and ungodly to boot, otherwise he falls into the trap of supporting “another gospel” and ascribing thing to the Holy Spirit that He has nothing to do with (which is blasphemy the last time I checked.)
As a member of a SGM church who would have been more in the cessationalist camp at one point not too long ago, and one who has never spoken in tongues, I must say that I’m concerned by those who attribute things that they’ve never experienced to deception, overwhelming emotional responses to stimuli, or the work of demons (let’s not mince words — that’s precisely what is meant by ‘seducing spirits’). It is without question that the Bible must guide how we interpret experiences. But the cessationalist position, while defendable, is not nearly as clear from Scripture as its defenders would have us believe. The position is defendable, but it’s not airtight. In my opinion, humility should keep us from making judgments about why CJ speaks in tongues sometimes during his times of prayer. None of you here have any ability to discern such a thing (unless you have been given a word of knowledge? lol), and in playing the guessing game as to why he does, you are in real danger of making sinful judgments against a godly man who is clearly a brother.
Why not invite Busenitz to respond on the blog? He would be the one to defend his position. Though the attitude at Grace can be (at times) that some make mistakes and that will further teaching on the matter would change things. That one should be patient with all men.
sorryshould be with further teaching
Dan,
I will have to concede your point that it seems contradictory to partner in ministry when this disagreement exists. I do have reservations about it.
How, then, do you think charismatics who are not of the Hinn variety and cessationists should relate to each other? For example, I have read your blog enough to consider you a true brother in Christ, in spite of our disagreement. Do I have to write you off as a heretic over this? I hope not. What degree of unity can we share?
Can Somebody tell me why John Piper would be considered a charismatic in anyone’s view? I have read at least 15 of his books - heard him speak at the Bethlehem conference and i never once got that impression - have certainly never heard him refer to tongues, etc.
David,
My biggest concern when we get into these kinds of issues is consistency and coherency.
One thing I have been noticing lately, especially in the Godblogosphere, is a tendency to pick and choose our heretics. I’ve been seeing a lot of sites calling for discernment and a repudiation of certain ministries and ministers, but all the while those heretic hunters are quoting from their own “sanctified” pools of folks who often share the same views as the heretics that are being hunted.
I don’t understand this. Pick a doctrine and go with it, but don’t get all wishy-washy because some guy you’re willing to give a pass to is on the other side of the argument and you wouldn’t want to be deemed a scold.
What is the point to teach a class like Busenitz did if he’s going to get all weak-kneed at the end of it? He just proved that no charismata exist today; don’t leave the barn door open, shut it! The word of God is either absolutely true or its not. If he believes that, then he can’t retrace his steps and say, “Never mind.”
Recently, I posted about the hammering that folks who endorse the Christian mystics are getting. Meanwhile, their critics are quoting the beloved A.W. Tozer to prove their points. The problem is that Tozer supported the mystics. He read their books, quoted them, and recommended that modern evangelicals read them. If we’re going to be consistent, we have to attack Tozer, too. But those folks won’t do it. He’s “off-limits.”
We talk with such big words and such conviction, yet we are making exceptions randomly. Either lose the fortress of certain convictions or lose the willy-nilly randomness. Because if we don’t get our message straight we only confuse people and make the Gospel look like a set of contradictions.
Like I said, I’m a charismatic. I would much rather have Busenitz prove his case, take a firm stand on it, and not make exceptions than to see him make his case and then cop-out at the end. The latter may win him some unity points, but it makes his convictions wishy-washy.
“My biggest concern when we get into these kinds of issues is consistency and coherency.”
Where was Busenitz either of these things?
“Like I said, I’m a charismatic. I would much rather have Busenitz prove his case, take a firm stand on it, and not make exceptions than to see him make his case and then cop-out at the end. The latter may win him some unity points, but it makes his convictions wishy-washy.”
Well wouldn’t this mean that he would have to consider anyone who differed in any spiritual belief than his a heretic? No one’s theology is 100% correct. If it had to be in order to be saved we would all be well on our way to hell by now.
“If they attribute tongues to the Holy Spirit when it’s not the Holy Spirit (according to Busenitz) then they are sinning by doing so.”
We would have to apply this same test to all of our beliefs, and no one would be saved by our own standards.
I know this can be a hot button issue, but Busenitz does not diserve this harsh criticism for what Tim posted here.
While reading your comments it struck me - I love the thoughtful discussions of brother and sisters in Christ, and the fact that we don’t bomb each other’s churches (as some folks are doing) or declare civil war on our own. Christ is our center, our life, our joy, and He created us to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever! Amazing Grace!
TomDoctrine Matters
“What is the point to teach a class like Busenitz did if he’s going to get all weak-kneed at the end of it? He just proved that no charismata exist today; don’t leave the barn door open, shut it! The word of God is either absolutely true or its not.”—-DLE
DLE,I think that you are presuming to much on the purpose of the seminar. As the summary notes above, the goal of the seminar was to shed light on the issues at hand, not tell you which of the three positions are Biblical or not Biblical. As Busenitz points out, there are arguements for all three. From your posts above, it is obvious how you feel and if I can go as far to say that you were expecting/hoping Busenitz would mimic your strong position on this issue proving “the other-side” as unBiblical and sinful. To call Busenitz “weak-kneed” I feel is a strong assumption when the title of the seminar was not “The Sinful Act of Charismata.” On a doctrinal issue that is not as cut and dry as Lordship Salvation, leaving the “barn door open” provokes a healthy discussion and forces all who attended/read this blog to dig deeper and think. In my humble opinion, just from the discussion here on this blog, Busenitz can look at his Seminar as a huge success.
I was a member of Mahaney’s home church for nearly 20 years (up to 2000), and attended the teaching meeting that preceded Covenant Life Church’s establishment for 3 years. When the ministry was started in the mid-70s, it was certainly charismatic, with regular times of people receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit, receiving prayer for healing or for deliverance. Covenant Life Church was born (as Gathering of Believers) because the “new wine” of the Spirit — and new teachings on cell groups, victorious Christian living (not premill pessimism), etc., couldn’t be contained in the old wineskins of established congregations in the Washington, DC area. The problem at the time, for those of us in the ministry but coming from established congregations, was whether to “stay in (the established church)” or “come out (into the new thing God was doing).”
Throughout the 80s, CLC and its church plants in Cleveland and other cities were in practice charismatic, but did not really associate with other ministries that one could label charismatic, with the exception of Terry Virgo’s Newfrontiers International in the UK. Establishing “sound doctrine” was very important, and such doctrine was usually found among evangelical teachers (e.g., Jerry Bridges, R.C. Sproul) rather than charismatic/pentecostal ones.
In 1994, Covenant Life Church and SGM (then called PDI) was “hit by” and gladly participated in a spiritual renewal whose effects were identical with The Toronto Blessing. There was renewal-style ministry (with falling down and shaking) being done in CLC and other SGM churches from 1994-96. CJ Mahaney spoke publicly in favor of the renewal, quoting extensively from the works of Jonathan Edwards and other Great Awakening authors who described effects and results in that revival that were identical with what we were experiencing.
(I gladly participated in the renewal, and had my spiritual life totally transformed (for the better) through receiving fresh fillings of the Spirit that occurred when I received prayer, during corporate worship, and during my own private devotional times. After having been totally “dry” spiritually for years, this blessing from the Lord was an amazing gift of grace. Anyone who mocks Toronto, Brownsville or other places that experienced renewal simply don’t know what God does to people through the Spirit’s ministry, in terms of rekindling love, healing hurts and fears, revealing the Father’s heart, and providing fresh zeal for the Word and evangelism.)
However, after John Wimber disfellowshipped the Toronto Viineyard in December 1995, SGM appeared to begin distancing itself from the renewal. The timing may have been coincidental, but I doubt it.
There was a powerful men’s retreat in Baltimore, MD in early 1997, at which the presence of the Holy Spirit was quite powerful and pronounced. However, SGM leaders such as Dave Harvey and Brent Detwiler were publicly distancing SGM from excesses identifiable with those from the renewal, and the teaching/theology focus by 1998 had turned quite consciously to “The Cross Alone.” The time of renewal began to be remembered only as “a time of refreshing.”
Today, the only people calling Mahaney and SGM “charismatic” are non-charismatics and the self-described “reformed charismatics.” In my last few years in CLC, I never heard anyone describing the church or the movement as “charismatic,” except in relation to the exuberant worship and the unusually powerful ministry of prophetic songs through worship leaders like Bob Kauflin. The doctrinal heroes had become Sproul, Spurgeon and Puritans like Edwards and Owen. Wayne Grudem’s theological writings were appreciated for their balance of welcoming the Holy Spirit, but in a very systematic-theology way. An issue of the SGM magazine in the early 2000s had as its theme “And Every One [SGM member] a Theologian” — *not* “And Every One Speaking In Tongues” or anything remotely associated with the charismatic/pentecostal wing of Christianity.
Aside from worship mentioned above, the most “charismatic” practices within CLC around 2000 occurred in the evangelistic Alpha classes, whose 6-week sessions ended with a retreat during which new believers could ask for the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Apparently SGM’s Jeff Purswell wrote a paper in the last couple of years defining SGM’s current position on the Holy Spirit. While I haven’t read it, I doubt it would be accepted as-is by the enthusiastic, Spirit-filled young men who started Gathering of Believers, in 1978 in Larry Tomczak’s basement.
Don,Thank you so much for the first-hand insight re: C.J. and PDI/SGM. The Lord continue to bless you and keep you, making His face to shine upon you and giving you of His amazing grace!
TomDoctrine Matters
Don - thanks for the history of SGM. I appreciate the information.
Thanks for the blessing, Tom.
I thought giving this background would be useful for those who may think that SGM represents a mainstream charismatic ministry. Though the ministry was birthed in the charismatic renewal of the mid-70s, SGM has devoted a lot of energy to distancing itself, over the years, from a number of charismatic/pentecostal teachings, such as the word-faith teaching, or a focus on spiritual warfare. In this it found common ground with non-charismatic evangelicals and, over the years, found more common ground and greater acceptance.
What’s interesting is that SGM doesn’t claim to be part of the Third Wave, either. They have no contact, to my knowledge, with Peter Wagner and related prophetic groups (like Mike Bickle’s Friends of the Bridegroom, Cindy Jacobs’ Generals International, or Rick Joyner’s Morningstar) that speak into both charismatic and Third-Wave churches/ministries.
One of the unusual strengths of SGM has been a growing revelation of putting God and His glory at the top of every list. In the everyday workings of many churches or ministries, it may be difficult to distinguish their procedures from those of a secular business — everything ultimately has a horizontal, man-focused methodology, to which a divine purpose has been bolted on.
In SGM, however, excellence and efficiency are pursued not because they make good business sense or because of a desire for “good stewardship.” Instead, there is a conscious desire to *honor God* in every activity, and a scriptural revelation that serving others with integrity and excellence 1) brings more glory to Him (which He so richly deserves from every human being), and 2) results in His giving more grace to the individuals pursuing Him this way — to know Him better and pursue their activities with even greater wisdom and excellence. The second point is the “selfish” aspect which happens to be divinely approved (e.g., “it is more blessed to give than to receive”).
This attitude, which is taught in SGM churches, results from a ever-growing spiritual revelation within SGM of God’s goodness and mercy toward Man, which should result in total gratitude and abandonment toward Him. These beliefs are modeled from the top down.
This may read like a “duh!” thing. However, I’ve seen other churches and ministries pursue excellence with less success, and I think it’s because they didn’t have that God-first-we-really-mean-it! commitment woven into the organization’s vision and spiritual culture. SGM’s success here may indeed be a heritage of their charismatic roots.
It is of interest to me that the seminar broke no new ground. As a former cessationist and now pastor in SGM my conclusions came after years of wrestling with the text. I simply changed my understanding of prophecy and tongues and such based on exegetical study. If I held the definitions Nathan gives I would think those gifts were gone as well, but I do not and I do not think Scripture is all that clear on some of these issues. It leaves the door open.
I think what is new is the respect being shown for folks in SGM especially CJ. What divided us in the past was the wrongful emphasis on gifts and the “baptism” present in pentecostal churches — and the response of those outside to this dividing influence. I am grateful for the relationships that are forming.
Yes, Mark, it “leaves the door open.” But there’s much more to it than this. I think the burden of proof, in 2006, is overwhelmingly on the cessationists, to prove the negative, as it were. There are simply too many ongoing instances of supernatural events, such as healings, occurring around the world every day, to be ignored by anyone with an honest mind.
One specific, recent and investigatible example is the dramatic healing in October 2005 of missionary Heidi Baker, of a potentially fatal MRSA infection that had kept her bedridden for a month. (Read about it in the blog at Iris Ministries’ website, www.irismin.org)
Charles H. Kraft, in his book, Confronting Powerless Christianity: Evangelicals and the Missing Dimension, takes on all the arguments *against* the reality of the power of the Holy Spirit today. He points not only to Scripture, but to Church history and his own present-day ministry. Kraft’s evidence is particularly compelling, as he was an African missionary who couldn’t explain why his God couldn’t deliver the African people from witch doctors’ curses. He returned to the USA determined to find out why God would do such things 2000 years ago, but somehow lose in the intervening years the supernatural proofs of the Gospel to which both Jesus and Paul explicitly pointed. He discovered — as did Mark — that the Bible is indeed true — today! Once he jettisoned the unbelief he’d been taught, Kraft found that the Holy Spirit was eager to perform healings and deliverances “to destroy the works of the devil.”
On the other hand, when a ministry such as SGM wants to champion both a Reformed theology and “a significant charismatic dimension” (as the PDI doctrinal statement read in the 90s), I think the burden of presenting the *advantages* of said “significant dimension” rests at the feet of SGM itself. If the Holy Spirit *is* working miraculously today in SGM church ministries — giving these congregations some extra dimension beyond what a church like John MacArthur’s practices and experiences — then it’s certainly time to begin writing books to explain this.
The current SGM FAQs include this statement, rather than my quote above: “…we are ‘charismatic’ in that we believe in the present-day work of the Holy Spirit in the many ways that the Spirit’s work is described and manifested in Scripture. However, we are careful to emphasize the broad work of the Spirit. We never want to be preoccupied with the more ‘spectacular’ aspects of the Spirit’s work to the neglect of the countless ways in which the Spirit is at work in our lives. Most importantly, nothing could be more spectacular, miraculous, or powerful than God’s work of regeneration in a person’s heart.”
This is a commendable statement. I submit, however, that to “believe [*actively*!] in the present-day work of the Holy Spirit” essentially demands that the very gifts that Jesus, Peter and Paul used to prove the validity of Jesus’ Godhood and resurrection: the “more ‘spectacular’ aspects of the Spirit’s work” such as healings, deliverances and other signs; must be sought, taught and *actively modeled* by the leadership of the SGM “apostolic team” and its local churches.
Throughout the Gospels and Acts, two evangelistic activities functioned as faces of the same coin: 1) the preaching of the Good News of salvation, through faith in Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection (they weren’t just “Cross-centered” in those days!) for remission of sins and entry into the Kingdom of God, and 2) healings, deliverances and other miraculous signs that demonstrated the truth of the message about Jesus, and the power of Jesus over competing deities. If one truly *believes* (has living faith in, as Jesus means in John’s gospel) the SGM doctrinal statements quoted above, then one must *actively* believe that the Holy Spirit is just as willing today to exercise dramatic evidences as a normal presentation of the Gospel message. One must also *actively* ask Him to increase — not neglect or minimize — such dramatic signs when preaching to “intelligent” people such as Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:12): “When the proconsul saw what had happened [sudden blindness upon Elymas at Paul’s command], he believed, for he was amazed at the teaching about the Lord.”
Let’s think about it: what was the *proof* in first-century Judea, Cyprus, etc., that teachings about a crucified (criminal!) teacher had any validity, given the many other religions and lifestyles to pursue? For some, the Spirit moved solely through the spoken word. For others, however — including Cornelius and his entire household! — dramatic signs were supplied by the Spirit of Jesus, with no reluctance or apology!
Given their own doctrinal statement, SGM leadership and local churches should strive to be examples not only in areas for which the movement has rightfully earned such respect, but also in modeling ways to make reliance on the Holy Spirit for such experiences as described above an everyday part of the life of the local-church leader and member. I believe more people will stop “dating the church” if they experience *more* of the manifest presence of God in their daily lives. And, what else will bring some predestined unbelievers (even “intelligent” ones like Sergius Paulus!) into the Kingdom today? Are people that different than those of 2,000 years ago, that an encounter with the power and presence of the Living God can be easily dismissed — or in some cases be *necessary* to conversion?
Plus, looking again to the example of Scripture, what could be greater proof of the approval given by God of the correctness of SGM’s Cross-centered, Reformed doctrinal positions, than to see the increase of healings and other signs — especially in the United States? If the student is not above the teacher, then how should believers in charismatic gifts respond to this statement of Jesus (John 14:11, see also Jn 10:25,38): “Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.”
Thanks for ypur thoughtful response Don … I should correct my statement or at least continue the story. I found no exegetical basis for the cessation of any gifts — thus the door being open forced me to consider my position in new ways.
I wrote that for the cessationists — not for the continuationists.
Don and Matt - I appreciate your insights on this issue. I respect the desire of anyone to see all the gifts operating in the church. I personally think God can do anything He wants whenever He wants. His power is unlimited.
My issue and I believe of many cessationists is with the authenticity of present forms of charismata. In my early days I witnessed people being slain in the spirit. I attended a miracle healing service - I had someone try to teach me how to speak in tongues. Granted - some of the disciplers may have been a little bit inept - but I couldn’t help but feel the whole thing was psychological or emotionally driven. I saw no evidence that made me think this was the power of God. An example - and this is typical of some of the type of things that occur all over. The faith healer says, ‘The Lord is telling me someone here struggles with alcohol - they need to come forward for healing. Someone here struggles with lust, etc.’ You are going to find those kinds of people in any group. There is nothing miraculous about it. I don’t think there has to be a black and white line drawn where some practices are either demonic or from God. I think some of it is just merely psychological.
I personally feel that if God wanted to give me a gift I didn’t already have - I would welcome the gift. But I know that He distributes the gifts according to His will. It’s not my choice what gifts I have. I have too much respect to call something a supernatural gift - when it seems to fall short of the biblical examples. Especially given the fact that the Bible does support the idea that some gifts had a foundational nature to the church or would cease [Eph. 2:20, Heb. 2:3,4; I Cor. 13:8]
This issue has a recent history beginning with Pentecostalism - that modern day charismatics cannot ignore. Anyone wanting to advocate the use of sign gifts today has a credibility hurdle to overcome. I think that is why many are reluctant to stick their neck out for the movement - because they know people associate it with questionable practices. The binding of Satan and preoccupation with demons being one such practice.
I appreciate the fact that there are thoughtful people out there advocating these views. In the past - that has not always been so. I have to confess I have been out of the loop as far as what has taken place with SGM and C.J. Mahaney. I heard Mahaney speak at a conference at John Piper’s church and was extremely blessed from his word to pastors. I appreciate all your insights
Lord bless you both in your service
Mark and Jerry,
Thanks for your comments.
Mark, I understood how you intended your remark on opening the door — I was deliberately trying to kick it open a lot further.
Jerry, I truly appreciate your concern for the authentic. I’m right there with you! I want nothing but the real thing from God — no tricks, no manipulation. But shouldn’t we be focusing on finding and following the authentic, instead of focusing solely on the inauthentic and denying, on that basis, that there can be an authentic demonstration of the charismatic gifts. If even one ministry in the world can demonstrate authentic use of these gifts, then there can be no argument made against their existence — only attempts to end their abuse and increase their proper use.
As someone who had a baptism/infilling (pick your word) from the Holy Spirit in 1978, I can testify to what happened in me, while at the same time sympathize with you over charismatic silliness — both are real. My own experience — which I did not even ask for, thinking it wasn’t “for me” — occurred when I was in “intercessory” prayer for friends. Suddenly during prayer, I was weeping and groans were escaping from my throat, out my mouth. I was perplexed and frightened — then Romans 8:26 came, unbidden, to my mind, and I realized the Holy Spirit had joined me in my prayer, with His own groanings! This lasted for over an hour, and was accompanied by a powerful tingling in my head and hands, which has only occurred one other time in my life. I have never groaned since, but can’t deny what happened that afternoon in at my parents’ kitchen table.
I could’ve written it off as a one-time event, but for what happened afterward. I found I was filled with joy inexpressible, found love in my heart for believer and unbeliever alike, and had a ravenous appetite for the Word — which began speaking to me as never before. God suddenly accelerated my process of growing up in Christ, in many ways. I suddenly understood how people could worship God with joy and meaning, instead of just mouthing the words of songs.
So, while I can’t force anyone to have my experience, I can’t deny an experience of the filling with the Holy Spirit *after* regeneration. My experience only *confirmed* the scriptural account in Acts 8 of people receiving the Spirit *following* conversion:
“When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.”
Apparently the Lord wanted me to have “more of Him” than I had previously, even though I didn’t think to ask for it! Yet I submit that we can and should ask, seek, knock for Jesus to send His Spirit per Luke 11:13:
“If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
That said and strongly believed, however, I have been in meetings where people tried to “gin up” the experience of receiving the Holy Spirit, or somehow “force” speaking in tongues, and been disappointed when others were disappointed by nothing happening. I’ve also seen instances of supposed glossalia that were obviously manufactured. That’s sad and grieves the Lord. What’s interesting, though, is that today God is not really bent out of shape about glossalia as a necessary evidence of the filling of the Spirit — it’s people who are. God is fillling people around the world today without necessarily having tongues accompany the experience.
I have seen and personally experienced enough of the activity of the Holy Spirit to know that the gifts themselves have not ceased. I have seen people’s bodies healed in front of me, and taken part in prayer ministry through which demonic spirits have been forced - at the name of Jesus - to take their “claws” out of believers in Christ, setting these friends of God free to worship and serve Jesus in joy and boldness they didn’t have before. Just psychological? No indeed.
In the end, the credibility issue Jerry cites is not overcome by pointing at problems or abuse of the gifts — but by pointing to evidence of the proper use of the gifts! The ministry of Heidi and Rolland Baker in Mozambique is just one clear example of the undeniable continuance of the gifts today. While much of their ministry consists of caring for thousands of orphaned children, the cutting edge of their ministry involves going into Muslim or animistic villages, preaching the Gospel of Jesus, and asking for the sick, crippled and blind to come forward. As many, many people receive instantaneous healings, entire villages are converted on the spot, based on the Word supported by the miracles of Jesus’ love blessing people they know and love. Entire villages give up Islam and convert to Christianity. As a result, Iris Ministries now has planted over 3,000 local churches throughout Mozambique. They always welcome volunteers, so a curious Christian ready for some physical hardship, and a life-changing experience with Jesus, can go to Mozambique and find out for themselves.
Or join a short-term mission trip to India, Brazil or another country with Randy Clark’s Global Awakening ministry (globalawakening.com). Last year, one of their youth teams walked into the emergency room of a Brazilian hospital, laid hands in prayer on people waiting to be seen, and saw healings occur in front of their eyes. In India last year, the GA crusades registered over 200,000 conversions to Christ — and over 100,000 healings. We don’t doubt the work of the Spirit for conversion. But if even ONE of these healings was real, then where is the case for cessation of gifts? These things are not being “done in a corner.” (Acts 26:26)
It’s real-live, real-life examples such as Iris Ministries (irismin.org) to which I can point, that allow me to say that the burden is on cessationists to explain away healings, raisings-from-the-dead, and other miraculous signs occuring *right now* around the world. Why base a doctrine on a few arguable Scripture verses, when you can look with your own eyes at what the Holy Spirit is doing today, just as He did in Acts?
I say this with love, Jerry, and with an eager desire for you to ask God for more revelation from Scripture and “the word of their testimony” (Rev 12:11). Visit Bill Johnson’s Bethel Church (ibethel.org) in California, to see how a local church in the USA is successfully calling on the Spirit of Jesus to back up the Word with signs and wonders. It’s really happening! Try these testimonies:
http://www.ibethel.org/local/testimonies/index.php?f=testimonies.php&d=150
He does indeed distribute His gifts according to His will, as you say. But my experience has been — and you can see it in the writings of and about Paul — that given gifts can be activated at different times — perhaps years after they were first given by God at conversion. What we need to do is be bold and aggressive as trusting children, and ask Abba for more “activation” of what He’s planned for us to have.
For years, my unbelief in the desire of God to use me in certain ways served as a practical block to God using me in those ways. It was not until my mind was renewed (Rom 12:2) by believing Scripture testifying to God’s love and Jesus’ desire to heal and bless (“I am willing — be thou cleansed.” “Let it be done to you, according to your faith.”), that I realized I could ask God to use me in such ways, and see some fruit.
The saddest thing, to me, about cessationism is that God’s desire to reveal Jesus and show His abounding love is greatly hindered by unbelief. Cessationism forces God to work only in ways acceptable to minds trained by anti-Christian Enlightenment thinking: rationalism and skepticism. Cessationism is *really* based note on Scripture, but on a *perceived* lack of trustworthy evidence for the gifts continuing. It’s like being a liberal in Massachusetts — they’re surprised there are conservatives, because they don’t know any, and none of their friends do, either. If I don’t see any evidences around me of charismatic gifts, and none of my friends do either, it’s easy to conclude they don’t exist and to look to Scripture to support that belief. Yet, there may be a church congregation right down the street, in which bona fide healings and deliverances are occurring. The question is, am I willing to search till I find the real, or will I find the imitation, stop there and say I’ve found all the evidence I need to prove cessationism?
I submit that God’s heart has not changed from ancient times. Moses wished all his people would prophesy. Paul wished all the Corinithians would prophesy. God today still wishes all Christians would prophesy. Why? To release His loving wisdom and edify the beloved Body of Christ, which so desperately needs both. It’s all about releasing more of the power-filled *love* of God into this world. The death of Jesus on Calvary was the single best expression of God’s love — but He is so loving and so giving, He has many, many more expressions of His love that He wants to release, to glorify Jesus before living people today. The charismatic gifts are excellent, God-designed vehicles to release that love, particularly in combination with the properly preached and taught Word of God.
Don - if you are out there - I appreciate your thoughts on this issue. I had not read your lengthy post until today. I think the topic fell off the home page of Tim’s and I never came back to it. I appreciate your heart and desire for the authentic. We can stand in agreement there. I have to say I find myself sympathetic at times with the ‘open but cautious’ camp. Mostly due to Martyn Lloyd-Jones. There is a book that analyzes his preaching philosophy, called, ‘The Sacred Anointing’ - in which his approach to the Spirit was explored in the context of preaching. I want all the Spirit is willing to give - but I don’t want to cheapen the gifts either.
I’d think an incorrect - or lack of - eschatology can be just as dangerous to the church as anything else false in one’s doctrine. This is something problematic about Sovereign Grace, specifically its leadership, as on one hand it claims to not have an eschatology (however that could be possible) and yet on another claims it does not accept pre-tribulation, pre-millenial, and/or dispensational doctrines. Aside from that being two different stories when asking two different people (ie, are they hiding something?), where does that place them then?
It could be on very dangerous ground, as being unaware of the deceptions coming into the church and already within, and the result of it being a complete lack of preaching/teaching any warning to the congregation on these topics, is an immense danger and disservice to the church body. It leaves them ill prepared and ignorant of what is to come. Preaching only ever positive “Grace and Love” messages is not only not the full gospel, it is also not preparing the church for the times into which she is headed, and in many ways is already in.
FYI - for anyone questioning if CJ Mahaney / Wayne Grudem / Sovereign Grace are Charismatic - they most certainly are, though they more specifically identify themselves as Third Wave.
“prophetic” words spoken at a mic during Sunday service.running the Alpha course, with its “holy spirit” weekend.pastors and their wives talking about speaking in “tongues” (not the Biblical speaking in an actual language never learned by the speaker but confirmed by someone else present, but the typical charismatic error of gibberish and/or (imo demonic) vocalisations).
All of these are explicitly Charismatic/Pentecostal - very much non-Cessationist. Not sure what else you’d call it… aside from perhaps “error”, lol.
Oh they also had their ‘experiences’ with Holy Laughter and whatnot back in the late 90s, from what members have said in private.
There’s no need for signs & wonders, don. The Bible even warns against those who seek them, as well as how they will become prominent in the deceptions of the end times. Christians need to be aware, be cautious, and be Bereans.
Intellectual honesty on this issue means they must call charismatics into question as heretics. The question here is larger than one of whether someone eats meat or just vegetables. Charismatics insist that the Holy Spirit still operates through the charismata. If Busenitz claims this is not the case and can prove it biblically, then by what spirit are charismatics doing the things they do?
The only conclusion he must draw is that it is a not the spirit of God by which they do the things they do. They are listening and operating out of seducing spirits—that’s the only conclusion that can be reached. This is more than just a tiny difference of opinion on what the Scriptures say, but must force the question of whether charismatics are even Christians at all. What Christian would be led by and operate through a seducing spirit? What place has Christ with Belial? None at all.
If someone like Mahaney speaks in tongues or claims to get words of knowledge, but the Holy Spirit no longer works that way, then he’s either speaking in tongues and getting words of knowledge out of his flesh or by another spirit. That’s the gist of what Busenitz is saying.
Yup, and that’s exactly why I still can’t fathom why MacArthur is involving himself with these folks. As if the Charismatic issue wasn’t big enough, there is also the lack of eschatology mentioned a few posts earlier, and the watered down gospel that talks little if at all about a holy God’s righteous wrath and man’s sin.
The interesting thing is how each of these errors can be traced back to failing to take the Bible in a consistent contextual-literal interpretation - something MacArthur espouses vigorously.
Something still doesn’t add up about their union. Either MacArthur is being swayed or CJ is not being straightforward about ALL of their beliefs at Sovereign Grace. The latter would not be surprising considering how well “hidden” these things are from the average churchgoer there. You often have to dig to find out about what is really believed there.
Sorry the first three paragraphs in that previous post should be italicized as a quote, not just the first one.