Chapter 6
How Champions of the Bible Profane the Word of God
How do critics of charismatic experience often make themselves hard to hear?
God says to be "diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the
bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3). One obvious duty then is to listen
carefully to those we offend in order to stop giving offense, as far as truth
allows. So Paul did, who went so far as to become like
whomever he was ministering to (1 Corinthians
MacArthur's objections to charismatic experience all clearly add up to one thing - he finds that instead of sanctifying the word of God as our final authority, we profane it by filtering it through our own experience and using it to support our own "revelations." He writes in Charismatic Chaos, "Experience, however, is not the test of biblical truth; rather, biblical truth stands in final judgment on experience. That more than any other single issue is what this book is about." [1] However, as he says himself, we are quite slow to see his point. So what's our problem?
Very simply, when he says to us, "Let me take that speck out of your eye," we see the log in his eye, so we’re afraid to accept anything he might have for us. We say, "If I let him go for that speck, I'll lose the whole eye for sure!"
Paul's testimony is reliable: "In that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things" (Romans 2:1). Champions of Biblical authority are unconvincing because they often profane the Bible themselves, especially when they teach about the place of personal experience.
MacArthur never develops a Biblical doctrine of experience at all. He relies on examples of charismatic folly to make a pragmatic argument: if you judge the Bible by your experience, look at the terrible results, and therefore understand that you have to judge your experience by the Bible.
This won't do. To demonstrate another man’s folly is easy; to show that his own answer really works is a sterner task. Since he himself cannot handle personal experience as he teaches on the subject, who can follow him?
Stating that the Bible must be the final judge of our experience, he illustrates his point with examples of nonsensical visions and other subjective experiences. [2]
On the other hand, he affirms that Hobart Freeman was wrong to assert that he was healed because the Bible promises healing - Freeman instead should have acknowledged the facts of his physical condition. Contrary to his own teaching, MacArthur finds fault with Freeman for refusing to let his experience be the judge of Biblical truth! In Hobart Freeman's case, MacArthur realizes that objective, verifiable experience is worthy to judge our understanding of Biblical truth, but he seems not to realize what he has said. [3]
We do need to distinguish between our subjective impressions and objective, verifiable events, as MacArthur does here, but his doctrine makes no provision for doing so. He just neglects to apply his doctrine in this case, where it doesn't suit his purpose.
This shortcoming is all too common in those who criticize charismatic believers for letting experience guide them in matters of doctrine. The doctrine that the Bible is always to judge experience is evidently not true enough in the minds of its proponents to direct them consistently in practice. They revere the Bible in tongue, but subject it in fact to their own non-experience.
We must begin with a Biblical view of the place of experience, relying on the whole counsel of God.
What does the Bible say about experience?
The Bible distinguishes what's really there from mere subjective perception
as follows: "Every word will be confirmed by the testimony of two or three
witnesses" (2 Corinthians 13:1, Deuteronomy 17:6,
Genuine, independent witnesses tell what they have seen and heard, and do not just express opinions, especially under the influence of others. The Bible says, "You shall not follow a multitude in doing evil" (Exodus 23:2).
Because it bore Caesar's image, everyone understood that the Roman tribute
money came from Caesar and had been produced for his purpose. How
then can we fail to understand that the image of God in man shows that man
comes from God and was made for His purpose? Since the Roman government
that struck the coin was not trying to make this point, we must admit that the
coin itself was shouting God's truth (Luke
What we mean by "objective reality" is in the Bible's terms whatever two or three independent witnesses can verify. When the Bible says "By the mouth of two witnesses, or by the mouth of three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed," it is evident that nothing lacking this corroboration deserves our trust.
For this reason, the Bible strongly condemns reliance on mere subjective experience. Paul warns against being defrauded of Christ by anyone "taking his stand on what he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the head" (Colossians 2:18-19).
In the same way the detailed description of false prophets in Jeremiah 23 shows that they go astray because they "speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord" (Jeremiah 23:16), being "prophets of the deception of their own heart" (Jeremiah 23:26). In no way can we trust in our own hearts without being deceived - "he who trusts in his own heart is a fool" (Proverbs 28:26).
On the other hand, when the Galatian believers were being persuaded by the reasonings of legalists, based on the Scriptures, Paul replied as follows (Galatians 3:2-5):
This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of law or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain - if indeed it was in vain? Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of law or by the hearing of faith?
It is vital to note that Paul here expects the Galatians to recognize by
their experience of the Christian life that the doctrine of the legalists was
wrong, even though it was grounded in the Scriptures. What these
believers experienced of God refuted the doctrine the legalists were teaching
them from the Scriptures. These experiences were persuasive and fit for Paul to
argue from because God gives the Holy Spirit in order to make His light evident
to everyone (Matthew
The way legalism ensnared the Galatians shows that the Bible can easily be used to deceive us because our understanding of it can be false. If Satan used it against Jesus in the wilderness, it will certainly be used against us, too often successfully.
Should we then conclude that we can trust our own experiences to give us
understanding? By no means! If our hearts can deceive us even with
the word of God (James
As for the message that you have spoken to us in the name of the Lord, we are not going to listen to you! But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has proceeded from our mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out libations to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings and our princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for we had plenty of food, and were well off, and saw no evil. But since we stopped burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out libations to her, we have lacked everything and have met our end by the sword and by famine.
We can easily make even our valid experiences fit into our own wrong understanding by ignoring or explaining away whatever doesn't fit, in this case the warnings they had received ahead of time that their idolatry would bring upon them these calamities.
If we can't trust in our understanding of the Bible, and we can't trust in our understanding of our experience, what then? We're stuck with what the Bible says!
The Bible does not say, "Do not trust your experience." The Bible says, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight" (Proverbs 3:5-6). In other words, “Take up your cross and follow Me,” so that as it is written, the cross is the wisdom of God.
What does exalting the Bible over experience mean in practice?
The common thread of error in all the examples given here is trust in one's own understanding, whether of experience or of the Bible itself. Many who clearly understand the danger of trusting our own subjective experience seem quite unaware of the danger of trusting our own understanding of the Bible, although the Bible records what happened to the scribes and Pharisees when they encountered Jesus. Based on his experience, a blind man whom Jesus healed knew who Jesus was, while the Pharisees, being experts in the Scriptures, did not know who Jesus was (John 9).
Is the "Bible believing," evangelical segment of the church so much better than the scribes and Pharisees that this episode has nothing to say to us? Measured against the Bible, not ourselves, do we indeed have a sound understanding of the Bible?
Consider with me six doctrines which the Bible calls foundational -so elementary that the writer doesn't even want to lay again their foundation: repentance from dead works, faith toward God, instruction about baptisms (or washings), laying on of hands, resurrection from the dead, and eternal judgment (Hebrews 6:1-2). How firm is our grasp of these?
- If we really understood repentance from dead works, then would our leaders so often resort to Madison Avenue gospel marketing campaigns, fleshly fundraising, and other fruitless endeavors, consistently choosing the way of Martha over that of Mary?
- If we understood faith toward God, would we have boundless confidence in our financial resources, in our own understanding, and in so many other things? Would we continually gad about from one fad to another? Would we be dismayed by unpleasant election results or elated by agreeable ones?
- Do we understand baptisms? Our fathers the
Reformers actually murdered their brothers in Christ over baptism in water, as
did the Roman Catholics. Have we really gained a deeper understanding of
it since their day, or have we just abandoned all hope of an authoritative
resolution before the Lord returns? How much better do we understand
other baptisms, such as baptism in the Holy Spirit, or baptism into the body of
Christ (1 Corinthians
- How often do we hear Biblical instruction concerning laying on of hands? If we do not, is this because it's so fully understood that no one needs to hear about it?
- As for the resurrection of the dead, even our teachers often suppose that it was not understood in Old Testament times, because they themselves do not understand its essential place in all faith toward God (Hebrews 11, Isaiah 22:12-13, 1 Corinthians 15:32). How many can teach this elementary doctrine - the most fundamental of the Christian faith (1 Corinthians 15) - from the Law of Moses, as Jesus and the apostles did?
- If we understood eternal judgment, would we be in continual agitation over the secular judgments of one another and the world? John MacArthur speaks of "a powerful intimidation factor" working against those who disagree with charismatic doctrine. [4] If eternal judgment were real to us, who would be intimidated in this way by man's judgment? If our leaders had any grasp of eternal judgment, would they routinely betray the truth in order to polish their image - to such an extent that no one expects better?
If the best of us are this clueless, don't we need to reckon seriously with the chasm lying between what the Bible teaches and what we understand of it? When people affirm that the Bible must be the final judge of experience, the practical effect is this: their understanding of the Bible is to be unaccountable to any contrary experience, making their illusions incurable by any therapeutic experiences God might send their way.
The blind man stood on his experience against the Pharisees who were more
skilled in the Scriptures than he - "Whether He is a sinner, I do not
know; one thing I do know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see" (John
Peter's vision - how God delivered him from the prison of his own understanding (Acts 10, 11)
Although the evangelical church is clearly a blind prisoner of its own understandings, we need not lose heart - it has happened to better men before us. We do not need to pretend it isn't so, and when we're ready to fully face this truth, we need not be too impatient with ourselves or one another. Even the apostles had this problem, and God had a remedy.
The Scripture plainly stated that God would pour out His Spirit on all
flesh. Peter had preached this himself (Acts
While he was praying, he grew hungry. He seems to have gone
downstairs and asked for something to eat, because the vision came upon him
while they were making preparations (Acts 10:10). In this way, God
arranged independent corroboration that something was going on, because it was
probably rather unusual for Peter to interrupt his prayer time to ask for
something to eat. When the vision had been repeated three times, and
Peter was wondering about it, those downstairs heard three Gentiles at the gate
asking for Peter. They saw Peter invite them in to eat and to spend the
night - very unexpected in Peter, who would never have
done this before.
Peter then went with the men to
When they went up to
That it was acceptable to eat with Gentiles, and that God could give them eternal life, was certainly nothing new. Esther not only ate with the Persian king and his officials but even had sexual relations with him. Were any of Peter's critics in the circumcision party ready to find fault with Esther for this?
The little girl that the Aramaeans captured
certainly ate with Naaman the leper and his
family. Far from finding fault with her, God used her to lead Naaman to Elisha so that he could
get his leprosy healed and come to faith in the God of Israel (2 Kings 5). That
the Gentiles could receive eternal life with the Jewish people was evident in
many other places, for instance in Psalm 117 and in the stories of Ruth and Rahab the harlot (Joshua
The revelation God gave to Peter added nothing new to the revelation of God in Scripture. Instead, it eventually drew the attention of the church to what the Scriptures already taught. It freed the believers from their false understanding so that they could put into practice what was already written.
Denying the reality of revelation today - the unintended consequences
How do people usually add to the Bible or take away from it in order to distort its meaning? Those who deny that God is still speaking are trying to defend the Bible against those that explicitly set other things equal to it. Certainly that happens, but is that the principal danger?
Whenever God promises a punishment for disobedience, somebody always comes
along and collects that punishment. When Joshua pronounces a curse against
the man who would rebuild
This being the case, consider one of the best known warnings in Scripture
against tampering with it, the warning against adding to or subtracting
anything from the Revelation (Revelation
Rarely if ever has anyone tried to add to or subtract words from the text of the Revelation - the Greek text is well established and its variations are minor. But we may easily add to or take away from the words of the prophecy without changing a single word in the text. Jesus charged the Pharisees with doing that very thing to the Law of Moses (Matthew 15:3-9).
It is a peculiar property of the Revelation even more than other parts of the Bible that men do add to it and take away from it. How so? Consciously or not, they read into it their own understanding.
The ravings of lunatics like Charles Manson spring to mind, but more reasonable people have often done the same. Martin Luther added to it the notion that the Pope was the Antichrist. In the 1920's others added that Mussolini was the Antichrist and that the Pope was the False Prophet. At their root, all such errors proceed from interpreting the Scriptures by our view of the world around us, so that our final authority is not really the Scriptures but our own thoughts. In this way, men who assert that God doesn't speak today edit God's words all over the Bible – more or less unconsciously, they just read into the text their own interpretations. The world is led to wonder whether the Bible really says anything, apart from what men want it to say.
Those who deny that God still speaks generally assert that there is no way to preserve the distinctiveness of the Bible if God is inspiring new revelation. But against the self-deception described here, denying that God is speaking today totally fails to accomplish its intended purpose, to preserve the distinctive authority of the Bible. Among Christians of all persuasions the principal way that the Bible is profaned is not by explicitly setting something else equal to it, but by polluting it with human reasonings, reading these into the text.
In any case, if continuing revelation makes it impossible to preserve the
distinctiveness of the Bible, how was this distinctiveness preserved at times
when new revelation indisputably was being given? Certainly not because
there were no false prophets - indeed, the false prophets were held in honor
(Luke
Confusion arises from the notion that divine revelation is progressive in the sense that God unfolds new truth that renders obsolete old truth, or which at any rate is not rooted in old truth. Such doctrine, however prevalent, is nonsense. MacArthur puts it well:
In the Greek text the definite article preceding "faith" points
to the one and only faith: "the faith." There is no
other. Such passages as Galatians
MacArthur accurately states here that the faith is
"the one and only faith" at two different times while the New
Testament was being written: when Paul was still unknown by sight to the
churches of
God was giving Biblical revelation all along, but as MacArthur correctly states, the faith was unchanged. The writers were contending for that unchanged faith; they were learning and teaching more about what they already had in the same way that Joshua contended for the land that God had already given before Israel captured Jericho (Joshua 2:9, 24).
Believing that God still speaks creates no real problems. The commands
of Scripture presuppose either that He does or that nothing but Scripture is to
pass our lips (1 Peter
Honestly understood, the Bible nowhere teaches that God is no longer speaking. If it did, this would be easy to prove convincingly, without mishandling the Scriptures. Why not emphasize what is easy to show, that the Bible does consistently teach us not to rely on our own understanding, and accordingly, no longer to speak our own word?
Our real problem is that we would indeed rather speak our own word than to submit to God's word, even though it is written, "Let God be found true, though every man a liar" (Romans 3:4, Isaiah 58:13). We want to say and do whatever we like and then to have our wandering desires honored as the truth of God.
Estranged by our willfulness from God's authority and life, one will assert, "God told me," while another will make the Bible teach his particular slant on things.
If you expect to make anything right by denying that God still speaks, you're expecting to solve, without radical repentance, a problem rooted in radical sin. This doctrine fails to emphasize that we need nothing less than humility based on a revelation of our own desperate helplessness and inability to understand - what else is meant by putting "no confidence in the flesh" (Philippians 3:3)?
Believing that the Bible is God's complete revelation and that God is not speaking any more, we are to study the Bible carefully as any diligent unbeliever may do. We're then supposed to ask God to illumine it for us - but without speaking, since He no longer speaks! - although from Genesis 1:3 up, God has never illumined anything without speaking.
If God no longer speaks we have no real way to avoid leaning on our own
understanding. Beyond measures to make our understanding more trustworthy,
what can we do? [6] We need to become mature in
our thinking (1 Corinthians
To the extent that we do lean on our own understanding, we make the Bible
indistinguishable from the opinions of men, just like the religion which
Jeroboam made for
How then can we correctly understand and interpret the word of God, instead of polluting it with our own biases? We now turn to that question.
Notes
1. MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, 19.
2. Ibid., 23-31.
3. Ibid., 194-195.
4. Ibid., 13.
5. Ibid., 61 (italics in original). Henry Alford quoted from Alford's Greek Testament, vol. IV (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 530.
6. Ibid., 91-96.