 
### THE FIRE OF HEAVEN

By

Rev. Robert J. Jones

SMASHWORDS EDITION

* * * * *

PUBLISHED BY:

Rev. Robert J. Jones on Smashwords

The Fire of Heaven

Copyright © 2010 by Rev. Robert J. Jones

**ISBN:** 9781301428731

Your support and respect for the property of this author is appreciated.

All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.

Smashwords Edition License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal use only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you are reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the author's work.

# Table of Contents

Preface

Chapter One - Counterfeit

Chapter Two - Dispensation

Chapter Three - Highly Critical

Chapter Four - Grace and Glory

Chapter Five - Testing the Spirits

Chapter Six - Feelings

Chapter Seven - The Price of the Kingdom

Chapter Eight - God in a Box

Chapter Nine - Quantum Christianity

Chapter 10 - The Shame Game

Chapter 11 - Revival C.S.I.

Chapter 12 - When in Rome

Chapter 13 - Call to Council

About the Author

# Preface

We live in a time when there is a great deal of Christian discussion and authorship on the subject of prophecy, miracles, signs and wonders. Beginning in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and throughout the twentieth, there were a number of outbreaks of prominent revivals. Each major revival thrust the existing church into a quandary. While they benefited by the new found piety and the swelling numbers in their pews, these new church members came with an experience of God quite personal and quite different than that of the existing church membership. In an attempt to understand and fit the new converts into their scheme of things, there followed each revival a great deal of controversy as to the meaning, authenticity, and verification of these revival experiences.

The theological writings which followed usually came out of distinguished seminaries of the day in an attempt to write down and clarify popular responses and also to calm the troubled waters of controversy and dissent. Some ministers and entire churches at times burned with these revival fires, thus thrusting denominations and church authorities into the circumstances of trying to distinguish which was of God and which was heresy. Some prominent churches were torn asunder between those experiencing the revival fervor, whether it be evangelicalism, tongues, healing, baptism in the Spirit, or whatever form it happened to take that season, and the traditionalists who believed that what had quietly sufficed for generations should continue to be the teaching and religious experience of the day.

It was into this milieu that hastily prepared responses to these movements and experiences, along with other emerging ideas and trends, formed many of the prejudices that we know today in the mainstream Protestant Church. Many writings and teachings, with the ink barely dry, were heralded as doctrinal, implying a deep and long held belief that undergirds our faith.

One of the first doctrinal councils of the early Christian church at Nicaea did not occur until after 300 years of Christian experience. From that first doctrinal gathering came many of the fundamentals of our modern faith. Much prayer and hundreds of years of thought and writing culminated in some specific statements that most Christians still hold true today. This is contrasted with our contemporary scene where writings emerge during the last century as reactions to current events and are touted as having the same validity and authority as our deepest held beliefs.

While the newly emerging revivals were creating groups of those against and those for the new experiences, as well as men and women in the middle trying to determine what was of God and what was not, sadly the voices in the middle often got drowned in the sides foaming and clashing against one another. Attempting to buttress support and refuge from the emerging storms, the two sides quickly began building walls and quasi doctrinal definitions in a hasty manner. Many walls were formed on both sides, which unfortunately have been handed down to us as pure doctrine. Charges were leveled at the new Pentecostals that they were unintelligent. They responded that seminaries and colleges were of the devil and intellectualism could not be trusted. Main line denominations fired back that these revivals were heretical sects fired up by emotionalism and the fires of hell and should be avoided at all costs because of the hypnotic nature that could fool even a saint of God.

Unfortunately, hastily drafted documents were formed to defend each side, which in some cases have been taught and handed down as pure doctrine of the church or truth. Because these newly formed doctrines have not withstood the scrutiny of time, and in many cases on both sides cannot bear up to historical reality or scriptural integrity, it is time we begin to reexamine these hastily formed ideologies which continue to shape our thinking. In many instances, these newly formed doctrines which are supposed to promote peace and unity in the church are actually failing even that simple test, and inadvertently breed divisiveness and misunderstanding. There may be some truth and reality in each of the teachings, but there is also a lot of fear and ignorance as well.

The birthday of the Christian church is marked as the day of Pentecost. The disciples had been prepared by Jesus, witnessed his crucifixion, been profoundly impacted by his resurrection, and spent some time with our Lord before he ascended into heaven. They were instructed to wait in Jerusalem until they received the "gift my Father promised", by Jesus. He explains to them in Acts 1: 5 that, "John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit". (NIV) All of the disciples had previously received the water Baptism. Since the church had not yet been organized, and there was no sacrament of baptism, this simple instruction did not seem to pose a problem and the disciples waited.

In Acts 2:1, we are told, "When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them" (NIV). Everyone agrees this is the moment of the birth of the Christian church.

Immediately following that agreement the church divides over the interpretation of the event and over the place and importance of these types of signs and wonders. There are those who say that this event was poetic, or metaphorical, or a representation of some deeper truth, but there were no mystical flames or loud sounds. There are those who think these events happened exactly as the eyewitnesses described them, but these type of events stopped suddenly, never to continue, for a variety of reasons including the main one which is they only occurred to get the church started. Then there are those in Christendom who believe these events happened exactly as eyewitnesses describe and continue to happen today, and will actually increase as our Lord prophesied until he returns.

Since that is a pretty wide gap between beliefs, which has created some rather wide rifts in the existing Christian church we really need to take a look at the doctrines or interpretations of the events and how they were formed. At the start of the 20th century, when denominations such as Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians were meeting to discuss ways of evangelizing the world, a small revival began in Wales, spread to Azusa Street and eventually became what we call today the Pentecostal movement. The American Church in its arguments over who was right and who deserved to be the one introducing Jesus to the world when we eventually arrived at the end of what was being labeled the Christian Century, were almost all universally in agreement that this new Pentecostal experience was somehow invalid. They classified many of the miracles, signs and wonders associated with this movement as counterfeit.

It is interesting to note that the dismissal of the miraculous actually divided into two camps. There were those who never believed in the miraculous and thought the whole thing simply primitive metaphorical illustrations, and another group which said that the original miracles happened but then stopped for some reason. The latter group further divided on when exactly the miracles stopped and why, with some supposing that the miracles ceased shortly after our Lord left, and those claiming they went on for three to four hundred years and then ceased. These groups argued as much between one another on why they agreed miracles no longer happen, as much as they argued against the emerging Pentecostal movement.

I use the term Pentecostal to refer to movements of believers who report having a profound direct encounter with God, sometimes accompanied by signs and wonders, and resulting in the permanent intensifying of personal and group piety. This encompasses a variety of spiritual experiences which may be organized into groups, denominations, manifestations, or simply be experiences such as revivals and retreats. The divisions over the place and importance of the miraculous has been with the church since the beginning. Augustine in his early writings seems to be against the miraculous, while much later in his career when he writes the "City of God" he now espouses them claiming that miracles occurred in over 70 of the churches under his bishopric. We see both sides of this debate raging for most of Christian history, with some changing sides during their own lifetimes.

The protestant Reformation did little to ease or clarify this debate. In their haste to move away from Roman Catholicism the reformers addressed a wide variety of topics. Sadly the charismata and the miraculous was not one widely written about. At best one might agree that they were indifferent to the whole topic. As a matter of fact, indifference was a reaction to the fire of heaven by large numbers of peoples and groups for a large part of Christian history. It is usually when the claims of the miraculous begin to arise that the issue is raised to prominence. People generally do not protest if Aunt Matilda suddenly gets a reversal of her ailment after a prayer service at church. It seems more the reactions begin when revivals or organized groups of people begin to emerge claiming divine miraculous power.

Indifference, which does mark a great deal of Christian history, as noted, should not be taken for doctrinal proof that the church or ecclesiastical institutions have stood against these phenomenon as is often mistakenly proposed. While there have been authors and proponents for the cessation of the miraculous, and we will examine those in this writing, they certainly do not make up the mainstream of thought and feeling on this topic. This work actually dispels the notion that these writings are doctrinal at all, rather representing a small often unorthodox view. It is during the twentieth century that some of these rather obscure views actually have begun to be touted as long standing doctrines of our faith. We will dispel that myth, as well as showing the rather shaky underpinnings of these writings themselves.

The purpose of this work is not to prove the current manifestation of the miraculous by decrying its opponents My goal is to show that there is no basis for a solid biblical doctrinal position for cessationism, and to open a dialogue once again about this issue for those interested. I also wish to show that the arguments for cessationism and against the miraculous are not only weak logically and doctrinally, but are often based on simple fear, prejudice, ignorance and misunderstanding. It is a minority view, and an extreme one at that. How it made it to the hallowed halls of prominent seminaries and distinguished congregations is a story.

The term counterfeit to describe Pentecostal type experiences was first coined by B.B. Warfield in 1917 in a series of lectures he gave in South Carolina at a Presbyterian Seminary. He was a respected theologian and Professor at Princeton Theological Seminary at the time. These lectures were subsequently published in a book by the title, "Counterfeit Miracles". The term stuck and the idea that the whole movement was somehow counterfeit became a quick way to dismiss this emerging part of Christianity.

The Pentecostal movement in all its forms was beginning to be labeled not of God (counterfeit) in a variety of ways by established churches, theologians, seminaries, and the culture at large, yet it continued to grow in numbers and influence. Having begun in a variety of revivals, by the 1940s the work was spreading through tent meetings and rural villages, so it was then dismissed as being emotional, simplistic, uneducated, mystical, and experiential. Some of the very ingredients which had once been part of the main stream of Christianity now were pointed out and labeled as counterfeit.

The movement broke back into the American Church in the 1960s, called the Charismatic Movement. Some American churches welcomed it, but many others harkened to the belief that we had already washed out this emotional, experiential counterfeit and did not need to reinvestigate the claims that God might be at work. We begin to see that many initial prejudices had begun to coalesce into what some were calling doctrinal without really ever going through the timely process of investigating whether these views against pentecostal type experiences were doctrines at all. However, whether true or not the anti position was being taught at most main line seminaries of the day as a doctrine even though it had been hastily constructed and was not part of our long Christian history.

During the seventies and eighties experiential forms of Christianity were springing up on the American landscape along with the growing Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. The Calvary Chapel Movement born among a group of experiential hippies in California spread the word of the impact of knowing Christ personally as Lord and Savior. The Vineyard movement under John Wimber began to spread a quiet contemplative renewal of the original Quaker message, now adding pleasing worship music and an encounter with the Holy Spirit. And the new movement seemed to discover television as a medium for spreading its gospel from the tents of rural America into the living rooms of main street America. People got to watch Oral Roberts do healing revivals right in their living room, as well as Pat Robertson teach about the charismatic experience of the Holy Spirit.

Then in the 1990's, in a little vineyard church in Toronto Canada a revival began the likes of which had not been seen before. Millions came from all branches of Christianity and left with what they claimed was a direct encounter of God. People were talking about healings, visions, and life changing experiences. The American Church responded with a more vitriolic campaign to attempt to expose this movement as the work of the devil and the exact opposite of what we were supposed to be. Real Christianity they declared is not like this; it is not emotional, experiential, healing, and transformational. Real Christianity sits in a padded pew with its hands folded listening to a lecturer. They once again stamped the revival 'counterfeit' and felt assured that what they were doing was correct and doctrinal.

Ironically, during this same period of time, some of the early groups, such as the Evangelicals, full of fire and personal testimony about a dramatic life saving conversion by accepting Jesus as their personal Lord and savior, began to actually become mainstream by their swelling ranks. Evangelists like Billy Graham and his city wide crusades added integrity to this growing movement. Later large contemporary mega churches with members numbering in the tens of thousands caused the main line church to sit up and take notice. Some old time Pentecostal churches, such as the Assemblies of God and others, also began to grow and find distinguished middle of the road citizens in the ranks. Rather than using this as an opportunity to reopen the hastily constructed doctrines, whose edges were now becoming blurred, these newly admitted institutions to the rank and file of socially accepted churches began to clean up their act, so to speak.

The Assemblies distanced themselves from newer revival movements and attempted to control what they called the wild fire. The Evangelicals, while still espousing accepting Jesus as Lord, did so in a much more liturgically accepted format of well timed altar calls at the end of a worship service which could hardly be distinguished from an Episcopalian or a Lutheran one. Gone were the mourners' benches and the weeping and wailing and repenting of one's sins. Gone were the fiery sermons of hell and damnation. Replacing these were sermons against political figures and social agendas that one could hardly distinguish them from the social gospel of the main line church they once decried.

One doctrine upon which all these groups seemed to agree was that Scripture is the only rule and test as to what is faithful and true. Following that test is the one which shows the faithful witness and testimony of those disciples who have faithfully followed these writings in application and practice. Another is the time tested and honored doctrines which all Christians agree, namely that Jesus Christ is our only Lord and savior. With these agreements it should be difficult for Christians to get so far apart on issues such as signs and wonders. Ironically, it is the doctrinal interpretation which should clarify and unify our responses, but in actuality ends up causing the divisiveness.

It is therefore imperative that we examine the doctrines with which people are examining and measuring these emerging events against scriptural and historical truths. There are those who say that scripture is literally true, and yet when it comes to miracles signs and wonders they have a doctrine which allows some events to be left neatly in the past, not for today. There are those who say scripture is true, but there are flaws in it, and if we edit out the flaws then we can have a much more perfect faith. They liken mystical occurrences to the superstitious and therefore not of reason, and therefore needs to be expunged.

Pentecostals approached scriptures with an emerging doctrine called sanctification. We will discuss this a little later on. Suffice it to say that they believed that God was doing an ongoing work of purifying and making his bride holy. Therefore the miracles signs and wonders continue today. The problem they had was that not everything in the Pentecostal movement fit so neatly into the doctrine of sanctification and there arose division among themselves on the importance of tongues, miracles, and faith healing. The emerging doctrines on both sides of the issues seem at times to cause more confusion than clarity.

The Pentecostal experience in all its varieties has now been a part of the Christian scene in America for over one hundred years, perhaps longer depending on where you mark the first experiences. If you begin with the First and Second Great Awakening, which often bear the exact marks of the 20th century versions of revival, then we have an experience much older and deeply rooted. Some argue that these types of experiences have been occurring throughout the long history of Christianity.

The emergence of the last 100 years is evidence that Pentecostalism is no flash in the pan, nor does it seem to be going away anytime soon. Adding to this evidence is the fact that it is the fastest growing branch of Christianity worldwide. Therefore, it is time we give some serious investigation into this phenomenon as well as the writings of its adversaries. The number of Pentecostals world-wide has grown into a movement which is numbered, not in the thousands, but in the hundreds of millions of believers.

Pentecostalism, described by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life as a group of charismatic movements, has grown, according to researchers, from 72 million in the 1960s to 525 million in 2000

David Puent writes "This week The New York Times published a three-part series called "House of Fire," about the rise of Pentecostalism — the world's fastest-growing branch of Christianity."

Harvey Cox writes, "Pentecostals, by far the fastest-growing wing of Christianity today, share most evangelical beliefs, but for them all theology is secondary. What is most important is an immediate encounter with the Holy Spirit in a style of worship that is exuberant and even ecstatic. Aimee Semple McPherson was the first Pentecostal preacher to achieve celebrity status in America."

Jessica Ravitz writes, "Modern Pentecostalism, now accepted as one of the world's fastest-growing Christian movements, celebrated its centennial at the end of April in Los Angeles. Experts say the Protestant fundamentalist sects that make up Pentecostalism combine thousands of denominations and independent churches – making accurate membership counts impossible. But up to 500 million global followers or more hold in common the requirement to repent of sins, to accept Jesus Christ as savior and be baptized in his name, and to honor the Holy Spirit as a means for conversion, blessings and healing.

According to the World Christian Database, there are 500 million people practicing a Pentecostal type of faith worldwide—fully one quarter of all Christians. The growth of the faith around the world, particularly in Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia, has led some researchers to suggest that we could be witnessing the most significant change in religious affiliation since the Protestant Reformation.

Pentecostalism's spread is upending Christianity's historical tendency to emanate from power centers in the more developed world—mostly in the Global North. The Pentecostal missionary drive has been much more from below: from unstable, fragile, vulnerable congregations made of working-class or lower-than-working-class people doing missionary work across the globe, and moving from south to north. Pentecostalism is spreading rapidly, currently claiming close to 10 million Latinos living in the United States and over 150 million in Latin America—nearly 30 percent of the region's total population.

From the Institute for the Studies of American Evangelicals are these findings : One of the fastest growing segments of the wider evangelical movement has been its Pentecostal branch. Pentecostalism as a movement came into being in the early 1900s in a series of separate revivals. The new movement embodied an evolving body of teachings from itinerant evangelists and Bible teachers such as Charles Parham, William Seymour, and A.J. Tomlinson on the end times, signs and wonders, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. While the early revivals associated with these individuals occurred in (respectively) Kansas and Texas, California, and the mountains of Tennessee and North Carolina, the news of a "new" outpouring of God's Spirit spread quickly in North America and almost simultaneously spread, or was reported, overseas. Most distinctive about this movement was an exuberant worship style and the experience of glossolalia–speaking in tongues–which was seen as a return to the apostolic experience of the Book of Acts and the biblical Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I do not mean to imply that sheer numbers alone give something validity. The fact however that this movement has grown over 100 years to such an extent means that we have to give it some careful examination. Having personally come through the American Church system, encountering these other movements along the way, becoming a Seminary trained theologian and pastor, and then continuing to encounter these experiences, it was important for me to develop methods for testing the spirits (1 John 4) and discerning what was of God and what was not I found that many of the so called doctrines I was raised with are neither doctrinal, nor have they ever been approved by any church council or authority in Christ. They are merely reactions that when investigated now, 100 years later, seem uneducated and unintelligent, the very accusations leveled against the Pentecostals.

We can also see that not every spiritual experience that happens in the Pentecostal fire is of the Lord, and we need more careful discernment to really weigh what is of our King, and what is not. However, using the simple minded, bumper sticker tricks or catchy slogans, either for or against Pentecostal and charismatic faith which have often passed for real inquiry, are not going to suffice as we attempt to investigate experiences and reevaluate so called doctrines now emerging on signs and wonders in the body of Christ on all sides of this important issue. Most doctrines whether they be religious articles of faith or legal precedents have been studiously formed and are well established as the essence of truth for whatever position they wish to promulgate. They are considered foundational because of a lengthy scholarly process.

Many of the newly emerging teachings in the Christian church on both sides of the issue of the fire of heaven during the twentieth century have not passed the test of time, nor are they firmly grounded beliefs when examined against scripture and history. We now have churches claiming they are basing their views and practices on doctrinal foundations, yet many of their views are well outside the vast history of Christianity, and often run contrary to scripture. We see fragments of teachings building on one another without ever testing the veracity of earlier views. The study is a fascinating one.

In Ephesians, Paul warns us, " That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph 4:14 KJV). It seems those wishing to protect the doctrines of the church from spiritual experiences that occur on a random basis, may actually be doing exactly the same thing they are trying to protect us from, that is creating truth and doctrine on the fly in their minds. We need to be able to discern real doctrine, as well as able to discern real spiritual experiences. We will find there are truths in both, and counterfeit ingredients in both.

I remain a minister in the oldest protestant denomination in the U.S. - The Reformed Church in America. What I hope to accomplish is to establish a renewed dialogue on this issue, examining some of the initial attempts at forming doctrinal positions over the last century. I also hope to bring some clarity to the doctrine and direction of the emerging Pentecostal movement which has often been accused of being wild fire even by its own proponents. However, I do not wish to quench the fire of heaven, as I have personally seen how it can effectively spread the kingdom.

I was raised in a main line Presbyterian Church in the 1950's during the time of the ending of the wave of revivals begun at Azusa Street and a new wave of revivals under preachers like Oral Roberts. I lived through the Charismatic revivals of the 1960's-70's, and the Toronto movement of the 1990's. Each of these revivals has influenced me in some way, but throughout most of it, I was an outsider. I recall cartoons in popular magazines mocking the faith healers as charlatans and snake oil salesmen, as well movies such as Elmer Gantry and Marjoe, which also promoted this deep distrust of anything Pentecostal or Evangelical.

Even though I had quietly had some experiences I could not explain, or contain by my main line tradition, I kept silent, preferring to be a closet charismatic, as I liked to call it, for fear of being labeled as 'one of those'. The term 'one of those', derogatorily referred to charismatics and Pentecostals, and on a societal scale it was akin to having some form of mental condition. My main stream American Christian experience had defined what was sane and acceptable, mostly by cultural values and prejudices, and then expected the same honor and integrity as a long held doctrine, without passing the scrutiny and testing of such a deeply held truth. Having supposedly sound doctrines, from none other than Princeton Theological seminary, and the liberal pulpits of our day, perpetuating this myth of religious instability among those who became experiential in faith allowed this snobbish intellectual bigotry to make sure that my closet door was kept tightly shut, along with millions of my contemporaries in the main line church except in rare and secret moments with God.

This work started as an article for an online publication. By the time it reached over 100 pages I realized that the conclusions to the information I was gathering had not been published before and could alter the view many have today on all sides of the emerging Pentecostal movement. I knew that this research has changed the way I look at the shape of Christianity and how it is emerging today. So I present this work for information, correction, and discussion.

My purpose in writing the original article was merely to do some exploratory research on this subject from a Reformed perspective. When I had completed the research I realized that the ability of people to dismiss the fire of heaven, the signs wonders and miracles, on the grounds that they no longer occurred, something known as cessationism, was an untenable position based on scripture and history. As I state repeatedly throughout this work, this alone is not proof for miracles, signs and wonders, but it does remove the barriers to investigating them honestly and openly. It also will hopefully remove some of the seasonal sand bag walls erected to control earlier floodwaters which now have us going miles out of our way around this subject.

Jeff Doles in his work, "Manifestations of the Holy Spirit In The History of the Church", does a rather comprehensive job of showing how the fire of heaven has been working in every age and time since the days of Jesus. There is also an exhaustive list of historical materials contained in the writings of Jon Mark Ruthvan, PhD, who also notes that the historical and systematic investigation of the existence of miracles through the ages is voluminous while similar material towards their cessation seems rather scant. I began to notice in my research that many times references are made to miraculous occurrences with author neither investigating personally or even doing any research, but merely quoting long standing presuppositions and prejudices as if they are fact. I began to notice that those arguing for the cessation of miracles were redefining terms well outside their normal dictionary, theological and Christian usage in order to make a point.

The type and form of the arguments against the fire of heaven often used circular reasoning which involves making a point and then defending a point by the point you just made. An argument could go that we all know miracles do not happen anymore and therefore I can prove that miracles no longer happen because we all know that they no longer happen. This type of mind numbing illogic presented by some as being scholarly and doctrinal caused me to dig even deeper. I also found many trying to argue that it is not Biblical to believe in miracles, and then their very writings from scripture seemed to contradict them at every point while they went miles out of their way in an argument to change the very words scripture was actually stating on the subject.

I suppose the fear could be that if we open our theological doors a bit to the fire of heaven then where do we stop? I have no idea as to the answer to that question nor does this work try to draw distinctions between various forms of miraculous outbreaks and experiences The sole conclusion I wish to arrive at is that cessationism has never been shown to be a tenable position either scripturally, doctrinally, theologically, historically, or in the simplest act of logic and common sense.

My aim is to not to prove or disprove the miraculous, the tongues, or the manifestations of Pentecostalism, but rather to give us the tools to test and examine all religious experience and claims honestly, as well as investigating material purporting to be doctrinal. This work will also give us the signs and test for counterfeit doctrines as well as counterfeit experiences. Like the teller in a bank, our job is to know true currency from the false. God even gives us an internal test for this in case our back-up systems get fooled, namely our hearts. Scripture teaches us that, "hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him."(1 John 3:19 KJV).

# Chapter 1 - Counterfeit

_"There is no worse screen to block out the Spirit than confidence in our own intelligence." - John Calvin_

_"And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Acts 2: 42_

The year was 1917, and the fires of the Azusa Street revival in the early 1900's had already begun to wane. Azusa Street was certainly not the first of the holiness or Pentecostal or experiential manifestations of divine ecstasy in Christianity. There were numerous before, but it did benefit by being close to a major metropolitan area with a newspaper. Perhaps the greatest single factor in the spread of the fire of revivalism has been the influence of more modern communication techniques. What made Azusa different was that the world heard about it and many came to experience what was there.

We are familiar with the great movements of God in America which preceded the 20th century that were formative in not only our religious landscape, but also our historical one as well. We know of the First Great Awakening in the 1730's-1740's which led to the very core and identity of the new nation. Our history books also chronicle the Second Great Awakening in the 1800's which began through the Wesleys and Methodism and then spread throughout the century leading up to the abolition of slavery through a Civil War. Revival and experiential faith has been with us through much of our nation's formative history.

As is so often prevalent in experiences of God, many reported differing experiences. While some of these experiences can be characterized into similar categories, or even nearing the same experience, there are distinct varieties. Some spoke in tongues, some experienced a deep peace and piety, some experienced heavenly fire, some a personal conversion, and each reported a unique experience. What is also common in these type of events, is that the retelling of the story seems to evoke similar feelings in others, what many have come to call testimony. These accounts all harken back to early church experiences with the apostles, and other scriptural evidence of similar experiences.

The problems often began amongst those who had the Pentecostal type experiences themselves, who disagreed over which experience was more valid and in what way. Arguments ensued over the necessity of tongues being a sign of what was called the baptism in the spirit or merely a manifestation which was secondary. Whole denominations formed over these minor technicalities. Had these little groups of infighting mystics kept to themselves in the backwoods of wherever they were from, handling snakes or whatever form their experience led them, we probably would not be discussing these issues today. But it was the spread of these experiences through some very influential people (and sometimes later rather strange lifestyle changes for the good and the bad) to areas of the Northwest and Southeast parts of the country where more traditional churches had set up shop which led to the controversies.

People in existing churches went to a meeting hearing about tongues or divine healing and came back to their Methodist, Presbyterian, or Episcopal churches and asked the pastor what these things were and why they had never been taught about them. To make matters worse, when some pastors, elders, or church leaders went to investigate, some of them got the fire and had an experience their own teachings had not prepared them for. There was an emerging movement with no teaching and no doctrine to support it. Adding to this confusion, there were many people at that time without the benefit of formal education beyond that of a primary school child today, or less.

What felt to them like an immersion in a deeper experience of the Holy Spirit they called the baptism in the Spirit, as it is written in Acts 1. It was biblical and it seemed to describe the experience of being immersed in the fire of God. To a seminary trained theologian, the use of the term Baptism sparks all kinds of problems of the kind which had divided the Christian church for thousands of years. Such important and earth shattering issues as, do we dunk them or sprinkle them, and do we give baptism to children or wait until adulthood, took the very means of grace, designed to be our unification and oneness in the faith, and became the very issue which divided us.

Such is the problem with doctrine. Our very desire to be pure often times leads us to go against the very Word of God we are trying to protect and be sanctified through. Scripture promotes unity and love above all else and we end up dividing ourselves over the amount of water to be used in Baptism. Such is the weakness of Christian doctrine. Doctrine can be a good fence to keep out what we agree is not of the Lord, but the early church managed to find unity in the midst of diversity. Something we have managed to lose over the centuries. Perhaps the fire of heaven appears from time to time to remind us who is our head, our king, and his principles of love and unity take precedent over our little frail doctrinal differences. It seemed both sides of the Pentecostal issue were sure the other side was controlled by Satan, and they used their doctrines to illustrate that point, rather than doing the proper investigation and letting the results speak for themselves. When doctrine is manipulated to come to a conclusion we desire then it becomes counterfeit.

Doctrine is our foundation, those doctrines long studied and agreed upon which keep us from going over the same errors time and again in each generation. So a movement like Pentecostalism which could have used an educated theologian to properly explain and teach it to God's people, began early on to alienate these 'book learning sons of Satan', as early Pentecostals referred to seminary trained theologians. It might also be added that there was a strong distrust of the newly emerging American education movement in the agricultural areas of America, which had become well received in the newly industrializing cities. So there was a built in distrust and dislike for book learning academics in the rural areas where this Pentecostal movement first spread.

The seeds of felt religion vs. intellectual assent were planted by the culture of the twentieth century in the emergence of two nations simultaneously. While the Civil War had prevented our nation from being torn asunder geographically, there was a new division now happening along the lines of the rural agricultural America, once predominant, and the now emerging Industrial Revolution America in the big cities and towns growing up after the Civil War. The lifestyles, needs and trends differed so greatly between these two cultures that it is hard to imagine now that we were once a primarily pastoral, agricultural nation in which the small rural pastoral church worked well for more than 200 years.

Early on during the Methodist revivals of the 1800's, Wesley had tried to explain spiritual manifestations which were occurring in his movement through the doctrine of sanctification. Sanctification refers to the fact that we are made holy at our conversion and Baptism through Christ. His basic treatise was that while we were sanctified at our salvation, there were subsequent works to further sanctify us throughout our lives. The arguments varied. How could a person who is totally sanctified at Baptism need further sanctification? If there is a second baptism, doesn't that imply the first one wasn't complete?

Wesley tried to explain these divisive issues in his emerging doctrine of sanctification as best he could. These explanations led to more divisiveness from the start, and further problems down the road, as people kept trying to fit these holiness experiences into the doctrine of sanctification, or arguing against them based on the same doctrine. Very little effort was spent investigating the experiences themselves, but much argumentation over the doctrine of sanctification ensued.

It became even more complicated in later revivals when people in the Holiness movements began describing an ongoing process of sanctification, which divided those having the experience as well as those opposed to it on the grounds of sanctification. A simple revival began in Wales in 1905 by a preacher named Evan Roberts, known to history as the Welsh Revival. It spread throughout Europe and then ended up in Pennsylvania. From there it spread all over America ending up at Azusa street in 1910, and then becoming what we know today as the spreading fire of Pentecostalism in its varied forms. All of these experiences were now trying to define themselves through Wesley's doctrine of sanctification, or holiness.

It is into the wilds of South Carolina that B.B. Warfield, Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Seminary, ventured in 1917 to address this issue which had spread to this eastern rural shore from Azusa Street, which had pretty much died down on the West Coast by this time. He gave the Thomas Smith Lectures delivered at the Columbia Theological Seminary on Oct. 4, 1917, which subsequently became the basis for his book "Counterfeit Miracles". This one book has become the foundation upon which all cessationist theory in modern times is based. Cessation refers to the argument against revivals and miracles, stating that these phenomena stopped sometime after the Apostles and thereafter ceased occurring. Therefore, it is important to look both at its author and the work itself.

In 1887 Warfield was appointed to the Charles Hodge Chair at Princeton Theological Seminary, where he succeeded Hodge's son A.A. Hodge. Warfield remained there until his death. As the last conservative successor to Hodge prior to the re-organization of Princeton Seminary, Warfield is often regarded as the last of the Princeton theologians. He died on February 16, 1921.

In 1876, while walking together in the Harz mountains, Mr. and Mrs. Warfield were caught in a violent thunderstorm. Annie Warfield suffered a severe trauma to her nervous system from which she never fully recovered. She was so severely traumatized that she would spend the rest of her life as an invalid of sorts, becoming increasingly more incapacitated as the years went by. Her husband was to spend the rest of their lives together giving her "his constant attention and care" until her death in 1915 (Allis, "Personal Impressions of Dr Warfield," 10). B. B. Warfield could not have foreseen just how constant and difficult a demand this was to become, and how, in the providence of God, this would impact his entire career.

While he was still abroad, Warfield was offered a position on the faculty in Old Testament at Western Theological Seminary, but despite his previous distaste for the study of Greek, he had made New Testament the primary focus of his studies (E. D. Warfield, "Biographical Sketch," vii). Upon the completion of his studies, he returned home and took a call to be an assistant pastor at First Presbyterian Church of Baltimore, serving for a brief period, before he accepted a call to Western Theological Seminary, this time as instructor in New Testament.

Beginning his new labor in September of 1878, he was subsequently ordained and appointed full professor. By 1880, he had received so much notice through his publications that he was awarded the Doctor of Divinity Degree by the College of New Jersey (E. D. Warfield, "Biographical Sketch," vii).

It was the unexpected death of Warfield's friend, Archibald Alexander Hodge in 1886 that prompted his return to Princeton. A. A. Hodge, the son of Charles Hodge, had himself become Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton, occupying the very chair made famous by his father, and whose place he assumed upon his father's death.

Warfield's herculean literary accomplishments over the course of his career are simply remarkable. Hugh T. Kerr describes the huge volume of material that Warfield managed to produce through the years: "Of his printed and published work, there are ten large, and I mean large, volumes of posthumously selected and edited articles known as the Oxford edition as well as two volumes of additional essays put together by John E. Meeter, plus two volumes of handwritten scrapbooks and fifteen volumes of Opuscula (1880-1918), collected and bound by Warfield himself.

He also wrote a major work on the textual criticism of the New Testament which went through nine editions, published three volumes of sermons, several commentaries, and a significant investigation of popular religious movements, Counterfeit Miracles. Yet, we are nowhere near the end of the list, for there are literally hundreds of essays, reviews and other miscellanea in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and especially in the three Princeton quarterlies over which he had editorial supervision from 1889 until the day of his death in 1921. We are talking about a theological authorship on the order of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Barth" (Kerr, "Warfield: The Person Behind the Theology," 12-13). J. Gresham Machen once noted that Warfield "has done about as much work as ten ordinary men" (Cited in Ned B. Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1978, 220).

Warfield's remarkable literary output is, no doubt, in large measure due to the frail condition of his wife and his amazing devotion to her. With the pen he was a formidable foe, but as O. T. Allis recalls, "I used to see them walking together and the gentleness of his manner was striking proof of the loving care with which he surrounded her. They had no children. During the years spent at Princeton, he rarely if ever was absent for any length of time" (Allis, "Personal Impressions of Dr Warfield," 10). Machen recalled that Mrs. Warfield was a brilliant woman and that Dr. Warfield would read to her several hours each day. Machen dimly recalled seeing Mrs. Warfield in her yard a number of years earlier during his own student days, but notes that she had been long since bed-ridden (Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen, 220).

According to most accounts, Dr. Warfield almost never ventured away from her side for more than two hours at a time. In fact, he left the confines of Princeton only one time during a ten-year period, and that for a trip designed to alleviate his wife's suffering which ultimately failed (Bamberg, "Our Image of Warfield Must Go," 229). As Colin Brown incisively notes, Warfield's lectures on the cessation of the charismata, given at Columbia Theological Seminary in South Carolina shortly after her death, are quite remarkable and demonstrate "a certain poignancy [which] attaches itself to Warfield's work in view of the debilitating illness of his wife throughout their married life" (Colin Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind, Eerdmans, 1984, 199). Although Warfield may have been known to many as a tenacious fighter, the compassion he directed toward his wife, Annie Kinkead Warfield, demonstrates a capacity for tenderness and caring that is in its own right quite remarkable. These are his works:

"Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament" (1886); "On the Revision of the Confession of Faith" (1890); "The Gospel of the Incarnation" (1893); "Two Studies in the History of Doctrine" (1893); "The Right of Systematic Theology" (1897); "The Significance of the Westminster Standards" (1898); "Acts and Pastoral Epistles" (1902); "The Power of God Unto Salvation " (1903); "The Lord of Glory"

(1907); "Calvin as a Theologian and Calvinism Today" (1909); "Hymns and Religious Verses" (1910); "The Saviour of the World" (1914);" The Plan of Salvation" (1915); "Faith and Life" (1916);" Counterfeit Miracles " (1918).

When we take a look at the writings of B.B. Warfield we see that one of his final works in 1918, "Counterfeit Miracles," perhaps the beginning of our doctrinal confusion over manifestations of God in our own day, takes a decidedly cessationist (that miracles ceased with the apostles) viewpoint and has been quoted as the modern tome on this subject. As we look over his extensive writings, this work seems a bit of a departure from his normal type of systematic writing, venturing into a very popular field of debate.

Prof. Warfield was known as a brilliant thinker and a proponent for modernist and rational thought. He was also a staunch supporter of fundamentalist views of inerrancy of scripture, and sola scriptura was his foundation in an age moving decidedly away from such views in academic circles. Most of his writings try to blend the two, which has been his greatest strength as well as his greatest weakness. While hailed and supported by fundamentalist Christians for years on his view of the role of women and authority of scripture and cessation of miracles, fundamentalists also denounce him because of his support of a God driven form of Darwin's Theory of Evolution based on reason.

He is the progenitor of the theory of cessationism, or the popular theological view that miracles no longer happened after the age of the apostles. So we see a departure away from his normal academic writings, into the field of charismatic manifestations rather late in his life. Because he had not gotten out much during his wife's long illness one might wonder if he is just awakening to this populist theological debate around him after her passing, or is his interest merely that he was invited to lecture in South Carolina where the church was actively dealing with this issue. He never addresses his reason for the choice of these lectures and subsequent book. One might also wonder whether at some point he sought through prayer a healing for his wife's condition, and as so many others, when the request was not granted in a way he desired, he decided that these all such healings and manifestations were charlatans.

Many of the proponents, both for and against revival manifestations, are really basing their belief on personal experience. Those who have an experience of God find new teachings and writings to explain this new found depth of intimacy with God. Those who do not have the experience seek to validate their ongoing comfort in the lack of such an experience. Why would God choose some and not others? Why would God do a miracle in one place/time and not another? These questions begin to create the divisiveness in this debate. This kind of thing drives people into two camps, either strongly for or strongly against manifestations.

Both sides of this debate could have used a man of Warfield's stature and knowledge in charting a path through the deep and emerging distrust on both sides of the Pentecostal experiential issue. However, he chose a rather extremist view even for an academic of his time, leading others for generations to follow his lead. It seems even more surprising that this response came from a man who has such a strong view of the inerrancy of scripture. He writes in the opening pages of "Counterfeit Miracles" the following words:

"This, then, is the theory: that, miracles having been given for the purpose of founding the church, they continued so long as they were needed for that purpose ; growing gradually fewer as they were less needed, and ceasing altogether when the church having, so to speak, been firmly put upon its feet, was able to stand on its own legs. There is much that is attractive in this theory and much that is plausible: so much that is both attractive and plausible that it has won the suffrages of these historians and scholars though it contradicts the whole drift of the evidence of the facts, and the entire weight of probability as well. For it is only simple truth to say that both the ascertained facts and the precedent presumptions array themselves in opposition to this construction of the history of the charismata in the church. The facts are not in accordance with it. The view requires us to believe that the rich manifestations of spiritual gifts present in the Apostolic Church gradually grew less through the succeeding centuries until they finally dwindled away by the end of the third century or a little later. Whereas the direct evidence for miracle-working in the church is actually of precisely the contrary tenor. There is little or no evidence at all for miracle-working during the first fifty years of the post-Apostolic church ; it is slight and unimportant for the next fifty years ; it grows more abundant during the next century (the third) ; and it becomes abundant and precise only in the fourth century, to increase still further in the fifth and beyond. Thus, if the evidence is worth anything at all, instead of a regularly progressing decrease, there was a steadily growing increase of miracle-working from the beginning on. This is doubtless the meaning of the inability of certain of the scholars whom we have quoted, after having allowed that the Apostolic miracles continued through the first three centuries, to stop there; there is a much greater abundance and precision of evidence, such as it is, for miracles in the fourth and the succeeding centuries, than for the preceding ones." (pp.9-10 "Counterfeit Miracles" B.B. Warfield 1918)

So Warfield begins by quoting the diverging opinions of his day that the miracles were only meant for a season to get the church started. Warfield shows us that the opinions as to when the cessation of miracles occurred is widely in dispute, with some suggesting it ended shortly after the apostles, and some having it go up to the fourth century when the church in Rome began her ascendancy. Not only is when the miracles ceased in constant dispute, and therefore ineligible to become a doctrine, but Warfield points out that miracles never really ceased at all, but actually became more numerous as time went on. It is interesting to note later on how he got to the position of cessationism while observing that miracles never really ceased.

One would expect miracles to increase exponentially until the end of time if one took seriously that Christ said that His kingdom had come on earth and would be growing until, as the prophet Joel stated, the latter rain would be greater than the former. We might expect an increase in Kingdom signs and miracles as the labor pains increase until his imminent return. Both scripture and history bear that out. Warfield almost seems to be proving the existence of miracles today in his earliest chapters. Other theologians and historians have shown this to be the actual case, that miracles never actually ceased at all.

Warfield argues passionately for the existence of the miracles, stating that it would be commonplace to find them in all apostolic churches. This is in direct contradiction to modern theologians who were suggesting that the entire scope of the miraculous may have simply been primitive man's ways of expressing larger truths which we can now grasp and no longer need the superstitions to aid us, relying more on scientific thought and practice. We will address this argument in another chapter which discusses the theory that the miracles never occurred and were just a metaphorical expression of a spiritual reality. As this modernist theory is emerging, Warfield must walk a very thin line between fundamentally accepting the miracles, and then trying to prove they ceased occurring.

Warfield quotes Wesley at one point who suggested it might have been the unholiness of the emerging worldly church which caused miracles to cease for a season, but Warfield quickly dismisses him as "not always consistent with declarations on the subject". We will also see that the technique of talking down to those who suggest belief in the miraculous is a common practice to diminish the validity of the subject, as if the mere mention of its name disqualifies you from intelligent discourse. This high-brow tone of intelligence vs. emotionalism continues through much of the twentieth century.

Warfield then begins his argument that miracles ceased, cessationism, on three main grounds. The first being that miracles were only necessary to get the church started until governments could be formed, and then God turned the whole thing over to governments to save us as per His plan. We will begin to see that the intelligent argument is not always so intelligent, as in the case of presuming that government is God's answer to what ails us. Isaiah said that "The government will be upon his shoulders", and in our day we need more salvation from our governments than expecting any salvation by them.

Warfield panders to the popular notion at the beginning of twentieth century America that governments will save us. In the Old Testament, we see Israel learning over and over again that they cannot look to government or rulers to save them rather than God; every time they chose poorly it led them away from God's love and guidance into peril. You would think after thousands of years of human history we would finally learn this Biblical truth - we need God to lead us, not governments; yet we still fail miserably on this doctrine. Instead of looking to our own intellectual structures to somehow be the crystal ball to provide clear answers to the future, we need to turn to a loving God who wishes to lead His sheep. We are going to see time and time again, that the intellectual side is not always intellectual or rational.

A large number of people have picked up this argument that miracles only occurred to get the church started. Kind of like the local bank handing out lollipops and balloons to attract new accounts, and once established no longer giving out the treats and prizes. The apparent distastefulness of this argument should be enough for any intelligent person to leave it alone, however it still passes today in some intellectual circles as a valid idea. Others view the miracles as a kind of big bang which exploded at the birth of the church, but gradually cooled and waned over time. Others argue that as the fading power of Jesus left after his ascension, like a heavenly battery running out of power, so too the power of the church gradually declines.

Since Christ still lives in us, and is resurrected in us, the power did not leave with him, and as he said, he would give us another to be with us forever, the Holy Spirit which is attributed to the miracles signs and wonders. These are not offered as proofs for the existence and ongoing manifestation of miracles signs and wonders, but simply to clarify that they should not be allowed as an argument for their cessation as counterfeit. Many look to the work of Christ and point out that while healings, signs and wonders did occur around his earthly ministry, that we do not see some of the manifestations like tongues etc that we see in modern revivals. Once again their scriptural research is weak because these elements were not introduced to the church until the day of Pentecost, 40 days after Jesus' ascension.

In his second argument for the cessation of miracles, Warfield goes on to state, "It may be justly asked, how it can be accounted for that so large a body of students of history can have committed themselves to a view which so clearly runs in the face of the plainest facts of the very history they are setting themselves to explain. The answer is doubtless to be found in the curious power which preconceived theory has to blind men to facts." So basically Warfield's argument is that history and historians are wrong about the continuation of the fire of heaven because he says so, and they are blind to what he wishes them to see. Therefore, according to Warfield, the miracles accounted for in history are counterfeit, not because they have been measured and tested to be outside the will of God, or because they have been found to be bogus, but rather because he says so. He merely panders to the condition he knows as a lack of the miraculous and decides that our comfortable condition must be the norm. Since he appeals to the same comfortable assurance of lack of miracles in others we begin to see the popular reason why people label the miraculous counterfeit. They are uncomfortable with it, or worse, fear it in some way.

Since so many writings decrying the miraculous seem to use such fearful and derogatory terms such as Satanic, histrionics, and witchcraft to describe them, one begins to see more fear, emotionalism, and superstition in cessationism as they are promising to protect us from in the fire of heaven. Their argument is such, that since we all feel this fear and loathing then it must be the truth. This one sentiment is the basis of all prejudice, racism and ignorance in humanity. It does not even allow a person to examine the issue clearly for themselves but waves the flag of the enemy over it and yells "run". This is certainly not intellectual and can never be defended as doctrinal.

In any event Warfield by his own admission stands against the face of Christian history and the historians, and we see a very serious departure from doctrine - the pure stream of what we believe to be true and validated by God. All doctrine is manmade, and even the best pales in light of God's revealed truth, His Word, but certainly shaky ideas formed on reactions and popular sentiment hardly can be compared to great doctrines of the faith. To be labeling another Christian's experience as counterfeit, while leaning upon ignorance, fear and superstition to make ones point is hardly the stuff of intellectual genius and not even worthy to be a brick in a doctrinal foundation.

Some of Warfield's contemporaries at Princeton and in the field of theology compare him to the greatest minds of all time. I think we can begin to see the danger when one man, elevated by contemporaries to a status of genius, which I have no doubt they saw him as, suddenly has all of his writings also elevated to the status of doctrine merely because they come from a man who is like those who helped author our doctrines. It is like voting for your favorite professor to be a genius because you really liked him or her, and then elevating their thoughts to doctrinal status because they simply are a genius. Many arguments are presented that the genius professor said that miracles ceased and the poor uneducated revivalist said they continued so the argument is won on the merit of one's academic standing rather than on the argument itself. What is even more frustrating is the academic arguments when examined, as in the case of Warfield, are thoroughly less intelligent and refined even though they came from a supposedly great mind.

My point here is not to attack Dr. Warfield's entire life and credibility. The aim is precisely the opposite. Just because someone is great, and has a great mind, does not logically conclude that every single idea out of said mind is going to be accurate or great. Many of those promoting Dr. Warfield and cessationism also discounted him in other areas of theology such as evolution in which he took a decidedly more modernist view. A doctrinal statement must stand or fail on its own merits, not merely the progenitor of the argument. Augustine in the beginning of his career most definitely espoused cessationist views and some of these writings are still quoted. However, by the time her wrote the "City of God" in Chapter 22 he recounts over seventy miracles which occurred in and around his churches, and therefore totally reverses his earlier verdict. Careful investigation can change even the most brilliant mind.

It is shocking how much of the cessationist theory is attributable to one or two men alone, and have never been accepted or verified as doctrine, but are treated and revered as such even though it flies in the face of Christian history and scripture. One wonders if these types of writings do not get elevated because of the prior merits of the individual, or because the arguments themselves pander to the very worst of our fears and superstitions and leave us feeling safe and protected because the great mind said they no longer occur. It is also interesting to note that revivalists and their experiences, even though comprising thousands, sometimes millions of souls, can be dismissed because the revivalist was uneducated, unkempt, unruly, or deficient in some way. This is often done without the least inspection of the writer or critic of the actual signs and wonders themselves. One wonders how academic research can be accomplished without ever investigating the subject. This alone seems quite unreasonable and unintelligent. One also wonders why they are never held accountable for this glaring inconsistency of lack of research and experience, but are heralded as a genius simply because they promote the status quo in a book or lecture.

We then begin to see a need to examine counterfeit doctrines. Is the very measurement we use to measure Christian life and experience a true doctrine? If not, all of our results can become tainted. If I dismiss the miraculous of God simply because I feel fearful, and someone writes a book that tells me I am correct, but they did not investigate it either, and then we agree this is doctrinal because we wish it to be, then we are following what is known as a false doctrine. This means it has not stood the test of real inquiry, scrutiny, and investigation. The fact that early writings on this subject are rife with these prejudices and never investigated should be cause enough to reopen the case.

So we see the first two of Warfield's arguments are that government is God's replacement for his power, and miracles ceased because Warfield said so, despite historical evidence to the contrary which he himself quotes. Once again, these are not intended to be proofs of the miraculous, just merely opening the doors to the fortresses which have been placed around this issue. Warfield's third and final argument gets even weaker upon inspection. He argues that since most of the history of miracles happened during the reign of the Roman Catholic church, and since we are no longer members of the Roman Catholic church, therefore we may simply dismiss all those centuries of miracles. Warfield states that miracles cannot exist because they are Roman Catholic. I am not sure what passed for a genius theologian back in the early twentieth century, but you can begin to see the need to reexamine some of these issues over time, especially if we are nominating them for doctrinal status.

We are going to find that many of the early arguments against miracles or supernatural occurrences are really thinly disguised anti-Catholic sentiment. Because Catholics believe in miracles and claim that the saints performed them, then because we do not hold to Catholic doctrine after the Reformation, we might as well be against miracles too. This sentiment was so deeply popular in Warfield's day that it slipped by unchallenged. Were it presented in academic circles today, it would quickly be screened and read for what it is, religious prejudice. Many of these early writings against the Pentecostal experience take on this elitist style of we know better, therefore we have to be right. They also tend to try and lump Pentecostal experiences in with some other unpopular thing - removing the experience from real inspection and trying to disprove them both at the same time. .

Many today simply replace the anti-Catholic sentiment by claiming the miracles are new age, while never really defining what that actually means. It appears that opponents to miracles try to always use some derogatory item with which to compare them. Early on they compared spiritual manifestations to histrionics, hysteria, and mass delusion. Early newspaper accounts likened Azusa Street to scenes from hell because "whites and coloreds worshipped together", using racism which was still popular back then as a reason to avoid the revival. Mental illness, emotionalism, Satanism, mysticism, and a whole host of derogatory ingredients are added to the revival accounts, even though it is never shown or proven they are present, even though the authors never attended or saw these for themselves. Then those added ingredients become the reason one should stay away. I was shocked as I read account after account like this. The most amazing transition then occurs when people quote these hastily constructed prejudices, instantly pronouncing them as our great doctrines of the faith. This type of circular reasoning is curious when one is trying to prove the superiority of intellect over spiritual experience, and then doing the exact opposite in one's argument.

After I read Warfield's work Counterfeit Miracles, I sat stunned that people even quote him today on this subject. I must confess I have not read many of his other works, and they may indeed be brilliant, but this one is a logical mess. The very argument presented of the superiority of logic that the theologians wished to raise over that of emotional experientialism actually shows the frailty of his logic, which is often based on popular and faulty notions disproved over the course of time. I urge modern thinkers to reexamine some of these early writings that later theologies were built upon. They are fraught with prejudice, ignorance, and simple mindedness, much worse than the spiritual experiences of Pentecostalism they purported to protect us from.

In Counterfeit Miracles, Warfield writes, "But whence can we learn this to have been the end the miracles of the Apostolic age were intended to serve? Certainly not from the New Testament. In it not one word is ever dropped to this effect." So this brilliant Princeton theologian tells us there is absolutely zero scriptural evidence that his theory is correct. Perhaps a more brilliant person would have left the issue alone right there. Warfield goes on for pages and pages in some of his tiny sub points, and one is tempted to feel overwhelmed at the amount of words. If an argument could be won on the amount of words weighed to defend it, then Warfield wins hands down. This wordiness, the sheer amount of writing, and the intricacies and technical language used, has also been a kind of smokescreen for covering a weak argument. If Warfield admits in writing that there is no scriptural evidence for his argument, adding another fifty volumes of words is not going to make it doctrinal. It fails the test.

One wonders why Warfield uses such a term as "counterfeit miracles " to call his lectures and writings on this subject. This is certainly a departure from his own scholarly titles for works, and the norm of the day for theological writings. It seems a very pejorative term to be placed in the title of a scholarly work of his day. It implies very strong feelings and conclusions from the author which was not the style of theology back in that time. If one asks God for a miracle and one does not receive said miracle, one is left with a theological nightmare. The simplest way out of trying to sort through the process fairly and intellectually is to simply put up a wall, a boundary, that God no longer does miracles, and if some claim he does, then they are counterfeit. It really is a sandbag wall, and it really does not address important issues and questions around this valuable scriptural topic.

So much has been wrongly based on this early understanding of counterfeit miracles that we really need to go back and reclaim the phrase before we can even discuss it. Counterfeit means that there is something real and there is something that is not real pretending to be the real deal. Counterfeit money is made to look like real money. The way Warfield and subsequent religious critics to spiritual experiences have used the word implies that there are no experiences; therefore all miracles must be counterfeit. This would be an incorrect use of the word counterfeit. In order for there to be a counterfeit there must be a genuine experience to hold it up against. If, as they claim, miracles have ceased, then modern day experiences would not be counterfeit by definition, they would be delusional. If I told you I regularly saw unicorns, those unicorns would not be counterfeit unicorns. They would be delusional because unicorns no longer exist. I merely here wish to get the correct usage of the term counterfeit.

If one is to argue that miracles still exist today, then we could screen those miracles for the real vs. the counterfeit. In Acts 19:11-19 we are told that Paul was doing authentic miracles, and the seven sons of Sceva, who were professional exorcists, which meant they earned their living bilking innocent people, began to copy the same style Paul was using, i.e. casting out demons in the name of Christ. We obviously see the result as the demons knew that they had no authority to be using Jesus' name in that way, and the seven sons of Sceva were therefore overcome by them. So we have a very clear scriptural example in a few verses of a real vs. a counterfeit miracle.

If we look for the reasons people may purport to do miracles in Jesus' name when he has not called or authorized them to do so, we could clearly see that fame, fortune, or spiritual validation would be good motivators to do counterfeit miracles. However, a counterfeit miracle has no reality within it, which means that no miracle really occurs. A person merely pays or contributes for the hope that a miracle could happen, which never really does. The fact that counterfeit miracles are sold, for whatever motivation, is not proof that real miracles are not occurring as well. The claims by the charlatan healer that they are about to do miracles are counterfeit because they know full well they are bilking the people. Perhaps they have planted some people in the audience who are paid to get up and pretend to have a miracle, and this would be a sign of the counterfeit. Counterfeit by definition means not real, therefore we cannot call a real healing which occurs counterfeit. I just wish to be sure we are using terms correctly so that we do not further confuse ourselves. I do not mean to imply that a claim for a real miracle is of God, just that it is not counterfeit if something supernatural really happened.

If a real healing did occur, we might wish to investigate carefully to see if it was simply spontaneous remission, which does happen sometimes in medical science, mind over matter, or wishful thinking. There is what is known as the placebo effect where a person gets well simply because they believe that a healing agent is present. Placebos are given in scientific studies on medicines during trials to see the comparison to the real medication. The people taking the placebos do not know whether they are taking the real medication or the placebo. In almost all trials, some of the placebo takers report relief from their symptoms. My goal is not to doubt, or question God's goodness and grace, but to test the spirits that a real miracle did occur.

If a real healing occurs, some people standing may claim that the devil did it therefore it is a counterfeit miracle. Is there clear medical evidence that a person had a longstanding condition, and is there medical evidence to support that this condition has been healed miraculously? If it has, then we can certainly rule out the devil, because he is not giving out help to people so they can praise God, or have a better quality of life. Jesus himself gave us that doctrine. Jesus, when he healed a blind man once by casting out a demon, said that if the devil is divided against his own kingdom, he will not stand. (Matt.12:25-26) It is logical to assume that the devil is not doing miracles to try and convince people to join the Christian church worldwide. Not only would the devil be hurting his own cause to discredit the Christian church and its power, but he would be doing something which goes against his nature of evil by healing, helping, and honoring God. So we are left with an authentic miracle which occurred, and wondering if it is of God.

This is why we need to examine the doctrines for counterfeits as well as the religious experiences themselves. So by definition so far a counterfeit miracle is one in which nothing at all happens. A counterfeit doctrine contains elements which are neither historical or scriptural and which clearly divide the church over an error, something we call a heresy. These are just clarifying theses terms into their correct dictionary defined usage. If you do not wish to believe that God still does miracles today, and yet miracles still happen, then we would need to find some other cause. We cannot as Warfield does dismiss them simply because we want to. Dismissing reality because one doesn't like it is superstitious and possibly delusional, the very elements people purporting cessation doctrine to protect us from. Perhaps we could simply declare the miraculous a mystery. Christians are entitled to believe as they see fit, however they cannot merely dismiss real events occurring as not existing simply because they do not believe that God does miracles anymore, nor can they ascribe good things to the devil as Jesus stated.

So the best one could do in the case of a proven miracle ( perhaps a sudden and dramatic reversal of a medical condition verified by the attending physician/s), should they choose to believe God no longer does such things, is to simply state it is an unidentifiable cure which they do not ascribe to God. Since this would seem a more loving and wise way to proceed, one wonders why some Christians fight so vigorously to promote the counterfeit doctrine of cessation by hammering and deriding those believing, rather than practicing the real Christ given doctrine of love. Since fruit is a test given in scripture to evaluate something, and since the fruit of some signs and wonders leads people back to Christ, while the fruit of cessationism breeds fear and divisiveness this then becomes another test for counterfeit doctrine.

Another test for any Christian experience or teaching is its motive. It clearly seems the goal of the cessationist view of counterfeit miracles is not doctrinal truth and purity as they claim, but rather a fear of opening the door to miracles, even a little bit. Is this done out of superstition, fear and bigotry? If so, then it is emotionalism and experiential fear, far worse than what it pretends to protect us from. A few false miracles and the charlatans who fake them will be disproved. We need not fear our very mortal souls because someone plunked down five dollars for a prayer cloth from a TV faith healer who turns out to be a charlatan. Far worse for our souls, is dishonoring the doctrine of love by belittling our brother and sister for simply being naive.

I think we also need to examine why people protest so much against this one Christian phenomenon. Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet Act 3 Scene2, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Do people who argue that Christians are being led away from the church, mean their church? What about the unbelievers who come to a lifelong saving knowledge of Jesus Christ after receiving a miracle, as it happened many times in scripture. How can that be evil? Where is the protest and animosity coming from really? I do not wish to assign blame, but rather discover motive and to lift the whole issue into the light. Shooting fiery darts at Pentecostals from behind stained glass windows should not pass for a Christian love feast no matter what some well meaning soul may say his words are doing to save us all.

One cannot say that a miracle did not occur because you believe it couldn't have, or because others believe it couldn't have; nor can we prove a miracle is from God simply because it happened. Each case would need careful prayer and discernment. Not believing in miracles is not a doctrinally proven position in Christianity, nor does scripture clearly state doctrinally that miracles will cease. As for 1 Cor. 13: 8, which states that "where there are tongues they shall cease", it states in the next verse that knowledge shall also "cease", and since we do not have evidence that the latter has occurred yet, it is difficult from that one verse to prove the former. Once again we need to be careful about creating doctrines out of erroneously applied scripture passages on the fly. To try and disprove the existence of miracles today merely out of our wishes, becomes counterfeit doctrine, as we have seen.

The one thing both sides can agree on, is that while there may be counterfeit miracles occurring when charlatans and fakes try and sell them, there is also by the same token counterfeit doctrine. These are doctrines devoid of scriptural power and filled with ideas and thoughts borrowed from a variety of manmade teachings and ideas blended into what is being sold to the body as Biblical Christianity, while many of its ingredients actually contradict scripture as Warfield pointed out. While there may be a touch of truth in them, and a whole bunch of cultural prejudice, while they may look like real doctrine, they are still not real doctrines. So while we are examining the speck in our brother's eye trying to discover the splinter of error in his or her experiences of faith, we might also look into our own doctrinal eye for the beam of error purporting to be the ruler, or measurement by which we are judging our brother or sister.

It would be preferable, if Christians on both sides of this issue could love one another as attested to in one of our greatest doctrines by Jesus to love one another as I have loved you, rather than hammering each other over these minor sub points in the faith. Seriously, do we think a loving merciful God who dies on a cross to forgive our sins of murder, theft, greed, pride, and arrogance, is really going to disqualify someone because they either did or did not believe in miracles today? The scope of the argument is so small in the scheme of trying to go into all the world and spread the gospel, it actually should be alarming that Christians are arguing over this issue at all. It is also apparent that those who wish to believe are going to do so, even at the risk of being scammed by some charlatan, whether someone rants about the cessation of miracles or not.

Jesus said, "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." (John 12:47 KJV) Jesus himself is not judging people over sub points in their beliefs, so how is it we choose to usurp authority and judge another? Paul tells us that different people esteem different days, or choose to eat, or not eat certain foods, but let each one follow his or her own conscience. The early church was not only full of miracles; it was also full of controversies since we had both Jews and non Jews coming under the banner of heaven through Christ. Both Christ and the scriptures by the Holy Spirit warn us today, as then, not to get bogged down arguing or judging people. It goes much harder when you stand before the King and have to answer for the fact that not only were you judging when He told you not to, but you were actually wrong. Doctrine can help clarify our beliefs, but if they become divisive, especially in an unloving way among Christians then something is wrong with them.

We have shown that there is no credibility for the cessation of miracles as Warfield originally presented them, both historically and biblically. As a matter of fact, if one does the research, one finds a growing trend in the miraculous, getting stronger in each subsequent age as prophesied in both the Old and New Testaments. As long as we do not spuriously dismiss these reports as Warfield did because we want to close our intellectual eyes, or out of anti Catholic bigotry, or because the government will save us as he proposed, then we have a large body of evidence which we need to wade through to reach any sort of conclusions. This alone does not prove the existence of a miracle, or that God is doing them today. One cannot prove something by disproving its opposite. However, we can prove that the doctrine of cessationism of miracles is completely false and has no historic and biblical credibility. What this means is that we cannot simply dismiss the report of the miraculous happening outright by stating they ceased. We cannot furthermore build upon this error by calling cessationism a doctrine any longer until it has been proven over time to be both historically and scripturally accurate.

# Chapter 2 - Dispensation

_" Although nature commences with reason and ends in experience it is necessary for us to do the opposite that is to commence with experience and from this to proceed to investigate the reason. Experience does not err. Only your judgments err by expecting from her what is not in her power."-Leonardo da Vinci_

_" There is one body and one Spirit— just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it." Eph 4:4-7 NIV._

One other major philosophy of man that is being purported as doctrinal in our day in regards to miracles, signs and wonders, is something known as dispensationalism. As with the odd doctrine of cessationism which entered the body through the non scriptural ideas of a few man, we are going to discover this erroneous rather obscure teaching now being heralded as a doctrine came mainly through two men and entered the main stream body virtually unchecked. It seems we have need for protection against false doctrine as well as we do against false miracles.

The first of these men is Rev. C.I. Scofield. Here is an excerpt from his biography as posted on Wikipedia:

According to Scofield, he was converted to evangelical Christianity through the testimony of a lawyer acquaintance. Certainly by the late fall of 1879, Scofield was assisting in the St. Louis campaign conducted by Dwight L. Moody and served as the secretary of the St. Louis YMCA. Significantly, Scofield came under the mentorship of James H. Brookes, pastor of Walnut Street Presbyterian Church, St. Louis, a prominent dispensationalist premillennialist.

In October 1883, Scofield was ordained as a Congregationalist minister—while his divorce was proceeding but not yet final—and he accepted the pastorate of small mission church founded by that denomination, which became the First Congregational Church of Dallas, Texas (now Scofield Memorial Church). The church grew from fourteen to over five hundred members before he resigned its pastorate in 1895.

In 1888 Scofield attended the Niagara Bible Conference where he met pioneer missionary to China, Hudson Taylor. The two became life-long friends, and Taylor's approach to Christian missions influenced Scofield to found the Central American Mission in 1890 (now CAM International).

Scofield also served as superintendent of the American Home Missionary Society of Texas and Louisiana; and in 1890, he helped found Lake Charles College (1890–1903) in Lake Charles, Louisiana. As the author of the pamphlet "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth" (1888), Scofield himself soon became a leader in dispensational Premillennialism, a forerunner of twentieth-century Christian fundamentalism. During the early 1890s, Scofield began styling himself Rev. C. I. Scofield, D.D.; but there are no extant records of any academic institution having granted him the honorary Doctor of Divinity degree.

In 1895, Scofield was called as pastor of Moody's church, the Trinitarian Congregational Church of East Northfield, Massachusetts, and he also attempted with limited success to take charge of Moody's Northfield Bible Training School. Although, in theory, Scofield returned to his Dallas pastorate in 1903, his projected reference Bible consumed much of his energy, and for much of the time before its publication, he was either sick or in Europe. When the Scofield Reference Bible was published in 1909, it quickly became the most influential statement of dispensational Premillennialism, and Scofield's popularity as Bible conference speaker increased as his health continued to decline. Royalties from the work were substantial, and Scofield held real estate in Dallas, Ashuelot, New Hampshire, and in Douglaston, Long Island. Scofield also joined the prestigious Lotos Club.

Scofield left the liberalizing Congregational Church to become a Southern Presbyterian and moved to the New York City area where he supervised a correspondence and lay institute, the New York Night School of the Bible. In 1914 he founded the Philadelphia School of the Bible in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (now Philadelphia Biblical University).

Scofield's second wife proved a faithful companion and editing assistant, but his relationships with his children were distant at best. Scofield died at his home on Long Island in 1921.

Scofield is known for having written the first study bible, which means that his words and ideas interpreting the scriptures were printed right alongside the bible in the margins. One can see the ease of use this might present, as we would not have to open a second book for interpretation while studying scripture. Aside from its ease of use, one might also see a danger in having one man's opinions right there alongside your daily scripture reading influencing every word you read. While I often value what other scholars and theologians have written about a passage, I like to consider and contemplate many theories, while the Holy Spirit reveals God's word as we read it.

One can begin to see the danger in having a daily dose of one man along with our scripture, and the lines being blurred between scripture and Scofield. While we are all fully acquainted with the notion of study bibles today, and many of us have one, the notion of a study bible is to have some helpful generic facts and cross references to a passage. It is not considered a study bible if one is putting a theological interpretation, especially a controversial one, right there next to your daily scripture.

It is easy to see how a generation growing up with this "bible", half being the word of God and half being the word of Scofield, might end up with some very different notions of Christianity. It is also hard to imagine that Scofield, who founded a college, would not be intellectual enough to realize he was doing this, especially when no one else would consider doing this before in human history because of the admonition in Revelation which states that adding to the words of this book (the Bible) is forbidden. Today study guides are frequent and common, but they tend to try to be helpful and neutral to theological issues, merely being sources of help, such as explanations of the geography or history of the Biblical time period. Scofield, however, had a theological viewpoint expressed in his study bible and a rather controversial one for his day.

Scofield believed in a subject known as dispensationalism. For generations prior to Scofield there was a teaching in Christianity which sought to explain why God does different things in each generation, especially if, as scripture teaches, He is the same yesterday, today and forever. This teaching stated that God reveals himself as needed to each generation in keeping with the sameness of his nature. Hence each generation had their own "dispensation". Certain theorists honed down this teaching and came up with several ages of God, or dispensations as they were called. Most noted among these was John Darby of the Brethren Movement who used dispensationalism to support his premillennialist theories of the end times. Suffice it to say these views were extreme and never widely accepted before Scofield added them to his bible and began teaching them to a new generation of college students.

Up to this point however, they were fairly benign teachings involving esoteric views of how God might end the world and when. A follower of Scofield's teachings by the name of Charles Caldwell Ryrie (born March 2 1925) took the writings and created something known today as hyper dispensationalism. He is a Christian writer and theologian who served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and as president and professor at what is now Philadelphia Biblical University. He is also noted for his advocacy of premillennial dispensationalism and as the editor of the popular Ryrie Study Bible.

You notice he too had his own Bible, learning from his professor how to influence minds in this unique way. His view was since God did miracles in the dispensation of the Apostles, then miracles ceased because God cannot do it again in another dispensation. A simple theologian could see immediately that this not only robs God of His sovereignty, i.e. He can do what He wants when He wants, but it makes God a servant to Ryrie's laws of dispensationalism. After a century of these theories going unchecked, and being printed right there alongside scriptures, young minds were more than happy to receive this unchecked point as doctrinal truth.

What was worse was that all of scripture and its interpretation now came under this doctrine which had to be adhered to since it was truth. Therefore should God choose to do a miracle in answer to your prayer about Aunt Matilda, and she got better instantly from cancer, this could not possibly be a work of God. It must either be the devil or you were in error about the healing. No amount of assurance that God hears and answers prayer in this way could convince simply because God never violates Ryrie's word. We begin to see the great danger of counterfeit doctrine coming through a few individuals who have clearly distorted God's word and divided a generation of believers.

One begins to wonder why a Christian who believes that miracles cease would bother praying at all. Since God knows all and sees all, our simply telling him the problem does not seem a motivation. If we are asking for His grace and mercy in a situation how much of His intervention do we expect? If we pray for Him to aid the doctor who is helping Aunt Martha, and God aids the doctors mind or hands, is that not supernatural intervention? Since such intervention would not have occurred if we had not prayed, would that not be considered a miracle, ie. something which has a supernatural cause? I ask these questions because a theologian who works with doctrines has to work out these difficult issues. This is why doctrines take so long to form.

So when Dr. Ryrie tells us that miracles no longer occur, does he mean only big ones? Does He allow for God to intervene in little affairs? What if Dr. Ryrie was correct and God generally does not do miracles today, but someone implored Him enough and He relented and did a miracle? What if a whole group of Christians begged for His mercy and He gave a supernatural answer to prayer? Would Dr, Ryrie discount this as well? It seems clear that he would, which then discounts God's sovereignty to act in a way He chooses, which we call His Will.

God gives us a scriptural admonition to test the spirits (1 John 4). Simply believing the word of Ryrie that such things do not occur any longer violates the sovereignty of God to do what He sees fit to do. Even if he generally does not do certain things in an age, does not preclude Him still doing them from time to time. Ryrie creates a problem with this being a major doctrinal formation that keeps us from simply investigating the claims of God doing a work of the Kingdom once again as He has through human history. Ryrie forbids us from even looking at the issue fairly. It cannot exist in this dispensation, therefore it doesn't. Once again we are back to Warfield's argument: miracles do not exist because I said so. This clearly cannot pass for reason over superstition for it contains its own prejudice and superstation which will not even allow us think and evaluate claims fairly.

However, if you still happen to wish to believe Professor Ryrie's version of reality that miracles ceased, even though there is no evidence that they did, or ascribe to the illogical notion that Satan has done all these miracles to honor God and His church just to confuse us from Ryrie's theories, then what about the prophecies that these events will occur in the latter days? Certainly we are in days that are significantly latter to Jesus' day. And certainly he said there was a countdown clock when he left and he told us to be watching and vigilant. Could not these be those latter days? Should we not investigate the claims of God's presence and revivals simply on those grounds?

Ryrie does not believe those prophecies apply either. Those were for their dispensation which already passed as well. Like Warfield before him, Ryrie has a way of rearranging scripture and history to fit his counterfeit doctrine. One has to do some serious scriptural cutting and pasting, as well as reinterpreting much of what scripture says, in order to arrive at these conclusions. Once again the scriptural test is voided in order to believe what one man says.

I do not mean to continue debating the merits of Prof. Ryrie's theories, but rather to point out two very important things - One, that much of what we call doctrine around the issue of Pentecostal experience came from a very few people, and two, that these ideas have never really been proven as doctrinal at all. We should really go back and investigate these theories and ideas and we may indeed find that some parts of them are useful in helping us to discern claims of God's intervention here on earth, as it is in heaven. We may indeed find that there have been dispensations, maybe not as broad or historical as Ryrie teaches, but nonetheless demarcations between works of God in each age. We might even discover that some of the newer dispensations actually begin with a revival or outpouring of God's wisdom, power, and saving grace for a new season. We may discover that new music/hymns emerge during such a change or new teachings and new understandings that build upon the dispensations of previous generations in the collective understanding of the revelation of Christ - his word, to the body, the church.

It would be ironic, would it not, if Ryrie's concept of dispensation actually became synonymous with revival, not the proof he determined it to be against revival. But however things get arranged in the light of a new day, and based upon closer examinations of both experience and the doctrines we use to measure that experience, they must both stand the test of all of scripture, and no longer be based on a few theological arguments.. The body of the teaching must be held up to the love and light of our savior Jesus Christ and not simply tickle our academic yearning for neat conclusions based on questionable evidence. The experiences must also stand up to the light of scripture, no matter how holy or wonderful their indwelling glory may feel. We need not fear experience any longer if we can all be assured we have the Godly means to test the spirits.

If we examine scripture carefully, we discover a pattern emerging over and over throughout human history, one which God clearly elucidates in his word, by teaching, doctrine, and example. When God's kingdom draws near to earth, and influences man and human history, there are strange manifestations. Revelation, glory, miracles, signs and wonders all attest to the fact that He is present and working among us. We can also see that the absence of His presence and the signs of His kingdom not coming are the absence of interactions of this kind. So essentially the lack of the supernatural is a withdrawal by God from mankind in response to humanity's attempt to do it on our own without God. It is usually after a season where God leaves us to our own devices until we, or Israel, are near perishing, that he reemerges once again to show His love and mercy by direct intervention.

What lesson can we take from that simple interaction over thousands of years of human history, beginning in the Garden of Eden and continuing until Revelation? Basically the message is quite clear. When we try to do it on our own, God is quite happy, like a loving parent, to let us learn the lesson one more time, that we desperately need Him. I am wondering how cessationists and dispensationalists could have arrived at the exact opposite of that very lesson. Their proposition is that God merely intervenes in order to get us ready to do it on our own. This is not a slight variation on the scripture theme of salvation, but the exact opposite. It is also quite dangerous in that it tends to be a self fulfilling prophecy. If we wish to have God leave us to our own devices, He seems quite willing to pull back and honor that request. Therefore the theory of cessation can become a reality of cessation because of a lack of faith. Jesus said, "What a man sows, he reaps". If we expect nothing, we receive nothing. Therefore reality tends to prove our teaching.

When God draws near to us, His kingdom is present and available to those who believe. Therefore, when Christ, who was raised from the dead, now resides in us, the kingdom is still here and present. Christ taught us to pray saying, "Thy kingdom come, on earth, as it is in heaven". Where does he tell us to ask for the kingdom to come? On earth. One could play some theological sleight of hand here and say that perhaps he intended us to pray for his kingdom to come eventually, like at the end of time. We really need to be careful about adding to or subtracting from what God says. He gives us His word, the bible, as a revelation to shine light on what He wishes us to know. The passage "on earth, as it is in heaven" is quite clear. Heavenly things, things of the kingdom, are quite possible here on earth, as it is in heaven. There is no dispensation to that reality. God is not a soda machine dispensing blessings, and the machine has an out of order sign on it because the dispensation ran out. When one stops and thinks about what these theories are saying, you can see these false doctrines are far more fanatical and out of order than the Pentecostal experience they are purporting to save us all from.

It has been proposed that God did miracles simply to attract attention and get the church started, as if somehow advertising was needed, but now we don't need these any longer. The super natural was intended to reveal to us a science or physics of God, His reality or kingdom, which we will touch on in a later chapter, which exceeds our own limited understanding of reality. Miracles were not intended to be parlor tricks to get people's attention and try to sell them a subscription to the local church. They occurred so that ordinary men and women could be witnesses to this greater reality. The very goal of the early Christian faith was to create more witnesses to the reality of God. Therefore to state that witnessing God's power was only for a generation and then it stopped, is to dispute the very basis of our faith and doctrine. The supernatural is one of the ingredients of our faith. If there is no supernatural, then Jesus did not rise from the grave. Our faith begins on day one with the supernatural.

If you were called to be a witness to an automobile accident, and the judge called you up on the stand and asked you what you witnessed, and you replied that you did not actually see anything, but you read about it in the paper and you had good faith that it was like it said, you would be kicked out of the courtroom as a false witness. Faith does not mean we believe God can do miracles so we do not need to witness any. That is rather backwards. That is like saying I believe food exists, but I do not need to eat any. This is not faith. Real faith is believing that what the bible says is true and then witnessing the truth of it. I am not arguing for the existence of miracles, nor am I defending them, just pointing out that the so called doctrines against their existence are counterfeit so far, based on scripture, history, reason and intellect.

We have seen so far that those arguing against the existence of the miraculous today have some odd notions of spiritual reality as well as not clearly investigating their subject matter. Miracles and the supernatural are part of the foundation of Christianity. However, a goodly portion of those not believing in miracles today, whether cessationists or dispensationalists are those who began to imagine that miracles were merely myths, or exaggerations in the Bible, and while they exemplified good truth and doctrine, we can simply cut out the miraculous, not only from modern life, but from scripture as well. In the 1970's a study was done among Protestant clergy which found that 85% did not believe in an actual physical resurrection of Jesus, that it was just a myth.

These notions began early in the 20th century at Princeton Theological Seminary, the home to Dr. Warfield, with a new field of theology called Critical Exegesis. It was a fancy phrase which meant we can start cutting things out of the scripture, which we suspect through critical thinking, do not match our scientific understanding of the universe. It began by looking at writing styles of the authors and stating that probably certain passages were not written by the author, so we can discard them from serious consideration. In its extreme form called Liberal Theology, it went on to simply eradicate the super natural from the Bible. We will take a look at this development in our next chapter.

Princeton Seminary split over these teachings and thus Fundamentalism was born. Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, and later Philadelphia Biblical University, became reactions to this editing of the scripture to fit our own understanding. Ironically, those fighting the editing, began doing the exact same thing using cessation and dispensationalism to cut out two thirds of the New testament as not being relative for our lives today except as distant reminders of what happened to the apostles. Therefore the 20th century literally cut the heart out of Christianity, took out the truth and we were left with modernist, and anti modernist reactions. Now that we have seen the error in these formulations, perhaps we can look at how we allowed this big of an error to enter our rank and file. The answer will illuminate the biggest error of all in modern Christianity.

# Chapter 3 - Highly Critical

_"All who call on God in true faith, earnestly from the heart, will certainly be heard, and will receive what they have asked and desired. "-Martin Luther_

_Praise the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens. Praise him for his acts of power; praise him for his surpassing greatness. Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet, praise him with the harp and lyre, praise him with tambourine and dancing, praise him with the strings and flute, praise him with the clash of symbols, praise him with resounding cymbals. Let everything that has breath praise the Lord. Praise the Lord Psalm 150 NKJV_

It would be hard from an outsider's point of view to understand how such diversely different congregations could all be classified under one heading, Christianity. We have groups that believe that playing of instruments in worship is a sin and those who view specific instruments such as drums or electric guitars as being forbidden in worship. There was a time when the organ was considered the devil's instrument, and much later in history, a time when it was considered the only divine instrument allowed. It seems differing groups, places and seasons have allowed for a wide range of scriptural interpretation.

From the very beginnings of the Christian movement, before we even had the scriptures in written form, Paul gives freedom to believers to do as they see fit, encouraging freedom above all else. We then see him for the rest of his letters trying to address the very freedoms that he granted and some ensuing bad results such as getting drunk at communion celebrations. The early Jewish/Christian gathering is wrestling with their dietary laws and circumcision issues as the new faith is being born around them. In order for God to address some of this, he gives Peter a vision of a sheet coming down from heaven and tells him not to call unclean that which God has made clean. So we know that even God tried to straighten out these emerging diversities. The end result was a group of differing believers finding unity in Christ, if not in their particular expressions of him.

Many Christians today claim that they put their trust in scriptures. The rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation was "sola scritpura" which meant scripture alone is our guide, but even that has been open to interpretation. There are churches which say in their name that they are "Bible" churches or churches of the "Word" and then find it in their hearts to declassify whole areas of scriptural ideology on the grounds of this or that interpretation they bring to the Bible. We have seen that exemplified in the last two chapters with the ideology of cessationism and dispensationalism allowing literally two thirds of the New Testament to be reinterpreted in a clearly different light than it was written. Bear in mind these are people who say and believe that they do everything scripture teaches. Some of them are horrified that women would be allowed in ministry because scripture says so, no matter what proof texts and interpretations are given to dispel this notion. But when it comes to the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, there is a total and complete rewriting of the New Testament on their watch, right under their noses. How can such glaring inconsistencies happen to respectable theologians and distinguished professors and teachers of the Bible?

For three hundred years of Christian history there was no written Word. The very concept of Word meant that which was God breathed, and came through oral tradition and small snippets of writings and letters circulated among the gatherings which were called 'ecclesia' from which we get our modern word 'church'. The only scripture available would have been the Old Testament Torah available at the local synagogue. They could hear and participate in the readings that week in service if they attended with the other Jews, but this certainly was not available to the new Gentile converts Paul was making all over the known world. For them it was the story of the Gospel, testimonies, and experiences of fellow believers which made up most of what they knew about Christ and his teachings. Even after the first scripture was compiled and written out by hand, it was too costly for the average gathering or individual to have one. There might be one for an entire region, or large city. This reality did not change until the invention of the printing press in the sixteenth century. Ironically, this was the exact time the reformation came about, precisely because people finally had a chance to see exactly what the Bible did have to say on the subject.

During twelve centuries of the written word, the interpretation was left to the few who had access and ability to read it. That left the power in the hands of the very few, and knowing human nature, the few who usually have power tend to like keeping it. As we get further and further away from the historical events of Jesus and his band of followers called the disciples, into lands and cultures vastly different than the one he lived and taught in, the very meaning and interpretation of the words needs to be understood in their historical context. For example, there may be people in other cultures who might not understand why the woman who was about to be stoned. Or in the story of the good Samaritan, one not familiar with first century Palestine might not understand that a Samaritan was not considered good at all, and so the story becomes very striking with that piece of historical context.

These historical contexts were kept alive through books and writings and teachings of historians. The emerging educated clergy were then taught these backgrounds in seminaries, and sent out to disburse this knowledge to the uneducated masses. It was during the eighteenth century that a new approach was begun. Scholars began using historical evidence to critically analyze the scripture itself. I do not mean to suggest that they were criticizing it in the way we understand that word today, although this was the latter result, but rather they were investigating scripture using historical evidence. This became known as historical criticism.

The Dutch scholars Desiderius Erasmus (1466? \- 1536) and Benedict Spinoza (1632–1677) are usually credited as the first to study the Bible in this way. When applied to the Bible, the historical-critical method is distinct from the traditional, devotional approach. The historical-critical method to studying the Bible is taught nearly universally in Western nations, including in most seminaries. Most lay Christians are unaware of how different the academic view of the Bible is from their own. The foundation for Protestant historical-criticism included the movement of rationalism and Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677). Rationalism held that reason is the determiner of truth, and later rationalists also rejected the authority of Scripture. Spinoza did not regard the Bible as divinely inspired - instead it was to be evaluated like any other book. A group of German biblical scholars at Tübingen University formed the Tübingen school of theology under the leadership of Ferdinand Christian Baur, with important works being produced by Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach and David Strauss. In the early 19th century, they sought independent confirmation of the events related in the Bible through Hegelian analysis of the historical records of the Middle East from Christian and Old Testament times.

What is the effect of these seemingly innocuous intellectual teachings? Wikipedia writes in answer to this question: "As an example of the influence of higher criticism on contemporary thought, consider the treatment of Noah's Ark in various editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica. In the first edition, in 1771, the story of Noah and the Ark is treated as essentially factual, and the following scientific evidence is offered, "...Buteo and Kircher have proved geometrically, that, taking the common cubit as a foot and a half, the ark was abundantly sufficient for all the animals supposed to be lodged in it..., the number of species of animals will be found much less than is generally imagined, not amounting to an hundred species of quadrupeds..." By the eighth edition, however, the encyclopedia says of the Noah story, "The insuperable difficulties connected with the belief that all other existing species of animals were provided for in the ark are obviated by adopting the suggestion of Bishop Stillingfleet, approved by Matthew Poole...and others, that the Deluge did not extend beyond the region of the earth then inhabited..." By the ninth edition, in 1875, there is no attempt to reconcile the Noah story with scientific fact, and it is presented without comment. In the 1960 edition, in the article Ark, we find the following, "Before the days of higher criticism and the rise of the modern scientific views as to the origin of the species, there was much discussion among the learned, and many ingenious and curious theories were advanced, as to the number of animals on the ark."

According to the preface of the New American Bible,

"In view of the relative certainties more recently attained by textual and higher criticism, it has become increasingly desirable that contemporary translations of the sacred books into English be prepared in which due reverence for the text and strict observance of the rules of criticism would be combined. The New American Bible has accomplished this in response to the need of the church in America today. It is the achievement of some fifty biblical scholars, the greater number of whom, though not all, are Catholics."

This is all prior to the twentieth century. In the 1900's this critical methodology, now accepted among scholars, explodes like a virus into several mutations. There is invented something called Textual Criticism, where it is promoted that the authors of the Bible are not who it says, Redaction Criticism where the arrangement of the Bible based on these sources is contested, Form Criticism where the setting of the story affects its interpretation and value, and Radical Criticism which states that Paul probably didn't write any of the letters but was just a convenient figurehead. These teachings were being taught at Princeton Seminary, which led to the Fundamentalist split as a reaction to the emergence of these teachings. Princeton still teaches these theories to its students, specifically suggesting to them not to reveal this to their congregations, especially the conservative ones.

Now keep in mind that none of this has received the slightest vote or approval that it is a doctrine of our faith and yet is being taught to every student of theology as the very basis of Christian life and thought. Biblical criticism originated with anti-Christian writers who valued reason and logic over faith and revelation. Their goal was to discredit and ridicule the Bible and Christianity. Their analytical techniques were picked up by some liberal theologians and initially used to explain away and discount Biblical accounts of prophecy and miracles. Finally, even mainstream theologians began to use biblical criticism to determine which are the most reliable and trustworthy texts of the Bible, how are various of its books related to each other, who were its authors, when were they written, which passages are of real events, which are myth, legends, or folklore. which are religious propaganda, and what is the relationship of these sources to other oral and written material of the time.

As we enter the beginning of the twentieth century, unbeknownst to most of us in the pew, the Christian Church was undergoing a radical schism splitting its very foundations. The ideas we have today regarding Liberal and Conservative Christianity are built upon the foundations of Critical thinking in approaching scripture, or the reactions against it. As the science of the twentieth century emerged, those espousing a more pietistic form of approaching scripture as a devotional book were made to look simple minded and uneducated. Therefore if you actually believed that miracles happened, when scientifically we know they are impossible, well then you are obviously uneducated, or so it was taught. It is no wonder that by the time we reached the back half of the twentieth century, most clergy did not believe there even was a real God, rather that God was all primitive man's ways of explaining things. Time Magazine declared on its cover in the 1960's that, "God is dead". The article proposed that we do not need this simplistic pietistic way of approaching life any longer; the only thing scripture has to teach us are a few good ideas packaged in superstitious non rational mumbo jumbo.

We begin to understand now the preceding chapters—how people who actually believe in scripture, could come to a conclusion that miracles no longer happen, and therefore Pentecostalism is false. They simply pick and chose what to defend from amongst those picking and choosing what they wanted left in scripture. The result is a tangled non doctrinal mish mash that is still being taught in various confused formats along with equally confused responses. A generation being born and raised in the middle of these teachings of the twentieth century were left so confused and bewildered from what was being taught in churches, and what they experienced among their scientific rationalistic friends high on pot and LSD, that millions of them just decided to chuck Christianity as a whole. If the people teaching about the God of love had no love and no understanding and could not even agree on the God of love, then it must be wrong. A generation had used higher critical methodology we had witnessed in church to disprove church all together.

It cannot be understated that these critical methods, once used for simply examining the scripture have now become what is being touted as accepted doctrine, along with some of the reactions to it which are equally driven by the critical methodology. We end up fighting among each other over which form of editing is the best. Editing the Word has become so ingrained in the American church, that I am afraid whole generations are accepting this as the way, truth, and the life, when it is in reality not even doctrinal. It has not passed any of the tests of doctrines, and what is worse, the body of Christ - His bride, the church - never got to even hear or vote on any of it. For those of you who are Christian, can you imagine your local church making a major purchase without consulting the body, yet here we have the entire movement of Christianity heading off down this road with nary a single vote. It was frightening to discover, and even more frightening to wonder how we might repent of an error this big and this engrained in our consciousness.

There are churches which say they are of the Word, yet their pastor takes a single line of scripture at a time and reinterprets it line by line. People see no difference between what the Word says, or what their Pastor thinks today. Then there are churches which think the Word is just a primitive document which has a few good ideas which they espouse. Children growing up in this environment for two generations now have a view that everyone is their own theologian and whatever they think about God is just as valid as what the next person thinks. So to them Buddha and Jesus were just incarnations of the spirit of Harry Potter and Merlin the magician. It's all good.

So while well meaning Christians are holding Pentecostal speaking in tongues up to their doctrinal rulers to see if it measures up, their very ruler they use to measure, i.e. doctrine, has been radically changed and recalibrated right under their watchful eyes into various forms that even the redactors cannot agree upon. While they are busy scouring the landscape for counterfeit miracles, they missed huge counterfeit doctrines. When you create an overarching interpretation from which you derive your scripture, then the interpretation replaces the word and then becomes the word of God. Even those fundamentalists who split over this issue and herald inerrant scripture as their main guide and practice have picked up the dreaded virus of critical interpretation choosing to edit scripture on their particular man made view of millennialism, dispensationalism, and cessationism. What is worse they see no problem, no inconsistency with saying they take the Bible literally, and then transforming two thirds of the New Testament based on these erroneous doctrines, while decrying their fellow Liberal believers for doing the same.

Therefore when you apply reason to the mysteries presented to us in scripture about God, there is going to end up a reduction of God down to our level of understanding. The only question is where will you stop applying reason and allow God to be awesome and great beyond our understanding as the psalmist writes. If we bring him down to our level, does he then become not worthy of our praise as has happened for millions in the latter half of the twentieth century? The first great problem we had with reason in Christian history occurred at Nicaea in the fourth century. People had a problem trying to reason how God could be both one and three at the same time. No amount of reason could solve this problem so a creed we call the Nicene Creed was developed to simply affirm that God is both one and three. The doctrine is called the Trinity, and while it is never mentioned once on scripture, the term means we accept God as being Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and equal in all ways.

Reason is a wonderful tool which God has given us to help us understand creation and our place in it. However, there are limitations and weaknesses to reason as well as strengths. What patterns reason looks for it usually finds, while discarding ideas and realities that do not fit. While reason ended ages of superstition after the middle ages and ushered us into the renaissance of learning and discovery, reason also invented nuclear weapons. Reason means I do not have to pray all night for the sun to come up because I know the earth revolves around the sun and it will appear tomorrow morning. However, reason can then take the next logical step, which it has, and in its own madness can predict that because I know that information, there is no creator in charge of the universe. We will see in a later chapter that reason is the cause of madness, not emotions or a spirit out of control as is often postulated by those touting reason over the fire of heaven.

God gave us his Word, as a communication of his greater reality. Jesus came in the flesh to show us this greater reality. We cannot allow our reason to carve it down to fit into our limited understanding of reality. It allows us to worship what we imagine to be reasonable and to discard the rest. There was a time when reason and science taught the world was flat. We discovered the error of this reasoning by exploring and investigating. The Bible presents us with the reality and physics of a kingdom far different than ours. The throne room scene in Revelation seems likes something out of Star Wars. About 99% of reason will start editing the Bible right there, except, it happens to be an exact eyewitness account of the actual throne room of God. We cannot pick and choose, nor let our reason decide what we want to take out of scripture. We have to read it for the way it is presented to us, a book of the communications God wants us to know about Himself and His reality that we have fallen from and to which he is desperately trying to restore us, even to the shedding of his own blood.

The bible begins with humans in a paradise, using free will wrongly, falling into sin and death, and the rest as they say, is history. His history. His work of redemption which will conclude soon. How can a fallen work of creation even begin to attempt to interpret the message of its creator, a message intended to save it from its own insanity? Our reason invented murder, war, poverty, crime, suicide, abuse, torture. How can reason which cannot save us, interpret the message of the one who can? I understand that reason got us out of an age of superstition, but it was never intended to be our God. It is a very puny micro computer with less computing power than a small laptop notebook. Am I suggesting that we abandon reason and simply become superstitious? No. I am suggesting that we have come to the end of the Age of Reason, when we can put all that reason knows in a little electronic box called a computer, and we re-approach scripture they way it was intended, with awe and reverence. Does that mean we check our brains at the door? Far from it. Reason often leads us into choices like that between very simple constructs it can understand when the answers may be much more complex and diverse.

From the time the great humanitarian Albert Schweitzer wrote his famous work, The Quest of the Historical Jesus in 1910 at the beginning of the twentieth century to the declaration that "God is Dead" towards the end of the century, the historical critical method and the other critical methodologies that mutated from this disease will one day prove to be the granddaddy of all Christian heresies. If our fear of Pentecostalism is that it will get out of control, then we now see a doctrinal counterfeit so viral that it literally takes over the hearts and minds of millions of Christians to the point they adamantly believe that there is no God. I cannot think of anything more harmful to the body, Christ's church.

Is there anything useful in this field of critical endeavor? The answer is an unequivocal and resounding no. It is a disease upon the word of God. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that we have the ability to edit a book that God has given us. The proposition implies that God is unable or unwilling to edit his own revelation. The very concept is heretical to the notion that God is divine, and it is shocking that a generation of thinkers either didn't see that fact or chose to ignore it. Scripture teaches that God reveals this stuff to children and the humble, and confounds the wise. We are to approach His Word, His revelation of Himself and His reality as children, open to receiving and learning, not editing it to find what we want or expect.

One might be tempted to think that uncovering the real authors or how the bible really came about would be useful information; about as useful as putting battery acid on your finest suit of clothes. It just eats away at the fabric of the message God wants to convey. It distorts the message, changes the message, and edits the very perceptions by which we approach the message. I am not a narrow minded fundamentalist decrying the great intellectual works of the age. I am intellectually challenging the critical method and taking off the cover and revealing it for what it is, a heresy pure and simple designed to undermine faith. There is no other need for it.

This does not mean we throw out the intellect and simply go with whatever feeling we are having at the moment. Intellect and feeling are both parts God has given us. If we approach all scriptures intellectually, as well as with our hearts and spirits open, we come away with a clearer picture which God is revealing through His written Word, as well as His revealed Word to us personally as His children. However, we have seen that criticism is not intellectual investigation; it has born the fruit and proven itself to be the exact opposite of faith and inquiry. It begins and ends with a preformatted conclusion, reason is the highest. Why else would there be a need to edit His book? The very premise and idea screams, "my reason prevails". How does one critically analyze a God? The very notion is preposterous. It is like an ant undertaking a study of human life. The very best we can do is receive what God gives us, His word.

There is a strict warning in the word for those editing and changing it, and Jesus had some pretty harsh things to say about the Pharisees who messed with the representation of God. I believe the term "brood of vipers" comes to mind. He also speaks about their fate. How can one imagine standing before God one day and telling him that we edited his book, meanwhile keeping millions from understanding it the way he intended? Are we asking people to mindlessly believe what is written? No. We are asking people to believe with all their heart, soul and mind, which is called faith, and without it, one should not be handling the word.

One might argue that knowing the truth behind the scriptures strengthens ones faith. This is the theory that poking yourself in the eye is good because when you stop the relief is wonderful. It shows and demonstrates how insanely unreasonable critical analysis has become. Reason is out of control. The issue is that we have not a shred of proof that any of the conjectures the analysts put forward is remotely accurate. They are all presuppositions based on faulty logic and reason. Why in the world would an individual approach a book of faith in order to criticize it? Should not that very act become suspect? We criticize it to make it stronger is the answer. I submit this logic is insane. It is done to weaken the fabric, pure and simple. It was created to do this, it has done this, and it has done it to a horribly out of control level with no checks and balances while being kept hidden from those in the pew.

Every one of the children of historical criticism, textual, form, redaction, source, narrative, psychological, socio-scientific, postmodernist, etc, and there are many, have spawned an ever widening influence of weakening the message of Christianity down to a level where the mind of the individual is God, and we can see therefore how to edit the Word. What this has created is the message that Christianity can be whatever any individual imagines it to be. In essence it has none of the ingredients of Christianity left in it except for a few traditions and whatever doctrine we made up this morning. The move to Evangelicalism, conservatism, and Pentecostalism are precisely because of this insane out of control logic presenting itself as an approved doctrine. The people are voting with their feet because they know better.

Does this then mean we no longer have preaching, because personal interpretation is wrong? Preaching was never intended to be the giving of one person's opinions about a scripture. The preacher was charged with expositing the scripture— that is, unpacking the fullness and meaning out of it, showing its interrelatedness to the rest of scriptures, and then offering some examples of how Christians have and might carry out the practice in real life. It is not a critique, nor an opinion, as the handlers are charged with their very lives and souls for mishandling the word, by the word itself. Under critical methodology the very act of preaching has been changed to a popular figure giving cultural interpretations which tickle people's ears. We are so far engaged in this system of operation it may even take awhile to see the problems associated with it. Scripture does not intend to be approached in a critical manner, but with faith and holiness and integrity. One does not pick up a Ming vase and ask, but can it saw wood? Its purpose is not to saw wood, and the purpose of the Bible is not to be a science text book, or an historical, or literary work. There is no need to ascertain the truth as if we could understand the truth better than the way God chooses to present it.

The bible presents a reality called the kingdom of God, with its own principles, physics, and reality. We who have fallen from this reality are invited to be saved, meaning reborn to our rightful state of being. It is not a change of thought, or lifestyle, although as Paul states these will be a natural result, but it is a totally new kingdom distinct from the world. How then could worldly science analyze that which it has no access to, and for which its understanding on the best day is dulled and distorted. It is like a person writing a fiction work about a magical kingdom in the land of Oz and while they are describing it to the readers, someone interjects and says that is not like Kansas at all. The comment and analysis is preposterous. Of course it is not like Kansas. It is the magic kingdom. To look for the historical amongst the fantastical is incredibly ridiculous. The only issue remaining is do you believe that the kingdom of God is real, or so fantastical as to need scientific analysis and reason editing it? One makes you a believer, a Christian, and the other makes you a non believer.

Obviously those even beginning to purport historical criticism are non believers by the very definition of historical criticism. Even if they think they are trying to help the cause by proving some historical things, they do incontrovertible harm to the presentation of the kingdom as God intends. God does not intend to prove his kingdom on our historical ways. If he did he would have written an historical analysis himself. He chooses to present a totally factual account of a reality almost too bizarre to be true, his reality. One either believes it is real or not. To reduce it down and then believe, is the same as changing it totally and then declaring ones allegiance. This is like someone telling their wife they would love her if she was 30 pounds thinner, had different hair, was from a different part of the country and talked differently. Basically, they are saying they do not love their wife. People who use historical criticism because it helps them believe are claiming to be non believers. God presents his kingdom in the way he chooses. The way he chose to gather, communicate, and assemble his word is not an accident of fate needing correction as criticism maintains.

The bible must stand or fail for each individual on the message God has chosen to give us of a kingdom so awesomely different than our own that it would make us willing to be witnesses or martyrs, as the translation really reads. I am not going to lay down my life for a historical figure named Jesus. I will lay down my life for my savior who laid down his life for me. The religion created by historical criticism is so vastly different than Christianity, that it should probably have its own name, its own seminaries, and it own churches. In effect that is precisely what is happening as more and more people around the world discover the shocking truth behind their pastors and their educations. The information presented is not only not doctrinal, but it is a Christian heresy and has been since the beginning of the Christian church and will be unto its end.

If God cannot control what goes into one book, His book, as even a human author or editor can do, then He is not God. The sovereignty of God demands that His Word is His revelation in its entirety, to lessen it is heretical. The fundamentalist may be applauding at this point, but the concept of inerrancy is not in the revelation, nor is cessation or dispensation. Time to be getting the beams out of one's eye before you go looking for splinters in someone else. The Bible presents itself as a revelation of God, which is so much higher than inerrancy or any other man made system for defining the Word. God is also not trying to hide or encode some truth in the Bible for only those with the secret decoder ring. That is the exact opposite of revelation. The Bible is clear and simple revelation which even a child can understand if they read with a pure heart and a clear conscience. It may be helpful to lean about the historical places and situations surrounding its writing, this may help bring out the colors of illustrations faded by differing times and cultures, but still one has to be very careful in this as they could inadvertently change the revelation.

# Chapter 4 - Grace and Glory

_"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)_

_I will strengthen the house of Judah and save the house of Joseph. I will restore them because I have compassion on them. They will be as though I had not rejected them, for I am the Lord their God and I will answer them. - Zechariah 10:6_

There is no doubt that the history of revivals in twentieth century America is entwined with extremes of all kinds. Roberts Liardon, in his book God's Generals, gives a very fair view of both the successes and failures of the revivals and the revivalists. As I studied the history, comprising over one hundred years of this movement in America and around the globe, I could begin to see some common patterns. The descriptions given by reporters, historians and those experiencing first hand these revivals seems to be very similar to an Old Testament encounter with God. From accounts about the tabernacle in the wilderness, to direct accounts of Moses and the prophets, the presence of God brings a glory which feels weighty and heavy. The Hebrew word for glory literally translated means "heavy", and when one encounters this glory, they understand why.

One can also understand that visions, heavenly encounters, strange languages, thunder, lighting, and physical impossibilities seem to happen around a direct encounter with God and His kingdom when it comes near to earth. While Christ told us that the old had passed away and the new had come, He also opened for us a more direct encounter with God the father which was only available in the Old Testament to a very few. Wouldn't logic then dictate that even the least of these in the New Testament has greater encounters with the Father than those in the Old Testament? If Jesus said that greater things would his followers do, would that not include us? Just using simple logic, and scripture, one might almost expect the events that occur in revivals rather than revile them. I do not offer this as any kind of proof, but I am pointing to logic, of which doctrine is supposed to be comprised.

However, if we are going to dismiss revivals and their experiences merely on the grounds of the faults and eccentricities of some participants and revivalists, then by logic we would have to discount the entire Bible on the same grounds. We are hard pressed to find a perfect example in the Bible other than Jesus. All of the characters are flawed, which evidences God's grace and mercy to us. In all religious denominations, in all Christian circles there are eccentricities and errors on the part of leaders, yet we have never discounted movements solely on the speck in another's eye before. We should rather investigate the description of the experience against scripture, and then prayerfully ask God to reveal to us what is of Himself and that which is not.

In 1John 4, we are told to "test the spirits", which means we have a verifiable way of validating each experience. Testing implies that we can apply rigorous tests to know the truth about something, and God clearly gives us the ability to apply this to spiritual matters. The fact that God gives us these instructions, as well as many instructions for how to handle the Kingdom he asks us to pray for in the Lord's Prayer "here on earth, as it is in heaven". The notion that Jesus took the kingdom back to heaven until he returns, and we are left here waiting, flies in the face of scriptural revelation. Jesus tells us what Father gives a stone if his son asks for bread. We might ask what Father shows us His glory in Jesus, and all He can do in heaven, tells us to ask for what is in heaven here on earth in the Lord's prayer, and then suddenly pulls back the lollipop just as we reach for it. Some modern teachings are not only illogical, but cruel.

I would expect if there is something counterfeit in Christianity it would be a doctrine that purports that God no longer intervenes. If there are no miracles why do we bother to pray? For natural causes to work better? In that case, one is admitting that God gives a little help by aiding the hand of the surgeon, or assisting the caring of the nurse in natural healing. These notions are widely accepted. So God does intervene up to a point, but who draws the measurement of His involvement? Where in scripture does it tell us that God limits His desire and willingness to aid mankind? Would this be in keeping with His loving nature? Would not His withholding His aid be an indication we did something wrong, rather than being a permanent condition of His nature? The more we test the notion that God is limited in His aiding us by only giving a little aid to the surgeon's hand, we actually go against too many scriptures to be validated.

Even if God only gives a little aid by speeding the healing or helping the surgeon when we pray, then by definition something miraculous has occurred. Something that is not one hundred percent from the natural order, is by definition influenced to some degree or percentage by the supernatural. To be influenced by the supernatural is miraculous by definition. Once again I am not trying to prove miracles by using circular reasoning, but merely defining terms. It becomes difficult to converse when one claims they believe miracles have ceased while they are praying for them all the while and fully expecting them. I simply wish to clarify that our disagreement is really then not over the existence of the miraculous, but to the degree to which it occurs or we expect. Sometimes I wonder if our real disagreement over this topic of the miraculous is not over the actual intervention by God, or the amount of it, but over the shenanigans which sometimes accompany signs and wonder in the pentecostal movement.

Much of early Pentecostalism was spread through tents and circus like settings. There was a great deal of showmanship and theatrics around this newly emerging phenomenon. Is our reaction to this outer display driving the need to prove that miracles no longer exist? Once again we see the emotion of disdain and skepticism driving our intellect, not reason and investigation.

One of the emerging teachings against the miraculous is that it is somehow wrong to expect or desire that our Father would allow His glory to once again manifest and influence human life. Why would He cease giving Himself to His children? If the same spirit who raised Christ from the dead now lives in me, as scripture intones, why has it suddenly run out of power? Did the batteries die? Theologians who propose any form of cessationism, or dispensationalism argue about when the batteries died, was it one or two or three hundred years after Christ? I guess it depends on whether you got the ones that keep going and going. This whole thing is quite silly and illogical, and the arguments against miracles seem more built on emotionalism, fear, anxiety, superstition and ignorance than the very emotionalism they purport to protect us from in Pentecostalism. We will be taking a whole look at that argument of emotionalism later on.

These notions that miracles faded from the scene after Christ and the apostles left, are not doctrinal, they are not historical, they are not logical, and they are harmful to the Christian witness. People in most parts of the world simply accept that God will do as he says, and so miracles happen. Designating them counterfeit, as we saw in the previous chapters, simply because we do not believe in them, is a faulty argument. The other argument we have exposed is the argument that miracles are from the devil. We showed similar accusations leveled against Jesus when he healed a blind man once by casting out a demon. His quote to his accusers that he had done this by Beelzebub was that if the devil is divided against his own kingdom, he will not stand. (Matt.12:25-26) It is illogical to assume that the devil is doing miracles to try and convince people to join the Christian church worldwide, that would not be fooling them, and it would be assisting them. Not only would the devil be hurting his own cause to discredit the Christian church and its power, but he would be doing something which goes against his nature of evil by healing, helping, and honoring. One of the tests we can apply to these experiences is clearly knowing the nature of our Lord and the nature of our enemy, and using some common sense which is often lacking in theology.

But since we have brought up Satan, knowing His nature from scripture to "rob, and kill, and destroy", which would be more likely for him to counterfeit, miracles or doctrines stopping them? Think for a moment, if God is willing to do more, much more than we ever hoped or imagined, and you wanted to hurt the church and Christians in the worst possible way, wouldn't convicting them that God doesn't, or can't do that help anymore be the most horrendous act you could pull on them? If you convince them of this false doctrine, they will not even seek God's help, leaving them weak and vulnerable. Wow! Now let's examine the other view - Satan does miracles healing people, but they are not really from God; they are counterfeit, but people get healed, give thanks and praise to God. Does that seem logical to anyone?

The word counterfeit is often used simply to cover over a real lack in proving the validity of one's argument and inspection of the experience. If an experience of God is exactly like scripture, promotes healing, and leads one to Christ, all tests that it might be from God, an individual can simply slap the label counterfeit on it and walk away. This is clearly not a correct biblical way of testing the spirits. If you walked into a bank and the teller told you that your entire deposit was counterfeit you would surely put the burden of proof back onto them, not merely accept their word. Before someone can use the term counterfeit one must put the event to rigorous testing, and in the presence of two or three witnesses, as the scripture states, be able to prove the claim. One cannot simply yell counterfeit at every experience.

In looking at what tactic the devil has always taken, it is one of accusing the brethren. I am not arguing here for the existence of miracles—all believers are entitled to their own view, but the burden of proof against a miracle must be on those making the accusations. We cannot be like Warfield and his theological followers who state that miracles cannot exist simply because they do not believe in them, and because they do not believe in them, therefore they cannot happen. We call this circular reasoning, and it is not a valid argument or proof. I know when we were little, mom or dad would say to us, "Because I said so", which was a sign that argument had ceased and an authority had spoken. While true pure Christian doctrine does have authority over our lives and belief, the arguments of one or two people that have never been proven, accepted, or widely held as doctrinal are merely opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but opinions are not authoritative.

We need to be careful when theologians, pastors, or teachers suddenly adopt that authoritative tone. Authority must be rigorously tested against scripture, and especially prayed about to see if is from God. A logical argument, no matter how compelling (and the ones we have seen against miracles so far certainly are not) cannot be the basis of authority. Scripture is our only authority; otherwise we have gone backwards to allowing men, women, and their thinking to lead us. Since Warfield and his contemporaries obviously believed that the thinking of man could replace God's power, and since his entire work went against scripture by his own admission, we end up with a heretical teaching, meaning that it goes against the word of God. If someone merely presents an idea, then it is not heretical; it is just an idea. However, the cessation of miracles has been presented to us with a tone of authority, a doctrinal statement, and it must be measured thus. It comes up clearly heretical by all standards of scripture, history, and common sense.

The devil may do magic tricks to get people to worship him (such as counterfeit/ not really happened miracles), but he is certainly not healing people to get them to worship Jesus. That has got to be the silliest argument of all time. We will find that those most often using the argument of counterfeit are simply assigning the superstitious notion that the devil did it, even though that notion directly contradicts scripture and Jesus' own words. They have not really done the work of fully investigating the claims and are merely looking for a shortcut to dismiss that which makes them uncomfortable, which is emotionalism. Therefore they are not really protecting or loving the church as they claim, they are merely acting out of ignorance, superstition and fear. This is not reason or doctrinal.

Each generation of believers becomes comfortable with their experience of the faith, and I use that term experience to apply now to both Pentecostal and main line churches. Because a person is not rolling in the aisles, and is sitting quietly in the pew, does not negate that they are having an experience. Even the satisfaction of a purely intellectual sermon is an experience. There is nothing that happens to a person which is not experiential. The division between experiential Christianity and intellectual Christianity is a false one in itself. The degree of the experience, or the intensity of it is what challenges people, and sends them looking for teachings to justify their favorite experience over another Christian's experience. We will discuss this later, but it is imperative that we learn to love those in the body who may like their experience a bit more intense than our tastes allow, and not try to invalidate them. Our experience is not more valid simply because we have become used to it.

A counterfeit implies that there must be a real thing. If the devil does a counterfeit miracle then it cannot be a real healing. If the healing gives testimony and glory to God, then it cannot be the devil. These are simple tests we can do in every situation to know the difference. The idea that we need to stop believing all miracles because one or two may be fake is like shutting down a hospital because some people accidentally die in them every year. The test is where is the glory given— to God or to the strength of men? In the Garden of Eden, Satan's first temptation was to get Eve to rely on her own understanding to disobey God. Are not the current doctrines of cessationism built on that same principle? We no longer need Him because we can take it from here as the teachings go. What a ridiculously dangerous notion.

This is not to imply that every spiritual event or claimed miracle is real. It must be tested. There are unscrupulous people who play on the hearts of the infirmed by claiming they can do a miracle if you send $19.95 to the PO Box on your TV screen to receive your genuine Holy Land Holy Water, or some magic prayer cloth that the Apostle Paul himself once touched. Most of us can clearly see that the people selling such wares are not really doing miracles, they are hucksters. One can clearly see that to use the word counterfeit to apply in these situations, because there is nothing happening, would be the correct use of the term. However, even in situations like this, where a person is so desperate, and God watches as they send in their last twenty dollars hoping against hope for their savior's intervention, that God might choose to love and touch them in a powerful way. Even with the hucksters some claims of real miracles must be tested if the glory is being given to God.

This is not to say that all manifestations in Pentecostalism are of God, nor is everyone who is claiming a real manifestation actually having one. I have heard people speaking in tongues that were all taught to repeat the same word over and over, clearly not tongues. I have heard people howling in a worship service, and I clearly had a sense that Satan was trying to disrupt the worship. I watched as a famous revivalist of our own day, destroy his body, the temple of God, with tattoos and markings, destroy his marriage, and destroy his ministry while overseeing a revival. But the grace and power of God was still present for the believers who attended. The presence and power of God was tested and validated by those who chose to do so and not simply dispute the whole thing because of something they saw wrong with the leader. Will God show up at a revival where the people are sinners and, as the Apostle Paul claimed about himself, their leader is the chief among sinners? That would probably be exactly the place Jesus would hang out. Remember his detractors arguing that he could not be the messiah because he was hanging out with tax collectors and sinners?

Once again we see another false doctrine of our current age, the importance of the leader, or our official church building, liturgy, chandeliers and stained glass that we have come to consider as holy and authorized things that we think mean God is present with us. Sometimes the superstitions of the main line church are just as emotional, simplistic, and wrong as some of the Pentecostal ones. Does the highly shining communion ware we use in service mean that the communion is holy? Is the organ the officially sanctioned instrument of God (when it first came out in the church it was declared the devil's tool like so many new things)? Both sides have serious flaws, yet God still works. We call that grace.

We also place too high a priority on church leaders. Satan sets them up and then knocks them down. Who is the head of His church? Who lives inside us today? Jesus. Jesus while having ascended to heaven, also lives in me. So how could the power of God be far away? If the argument for cessationism is that Jesus left this earth, then it is false, because He is still here in me, and hopefully you. And He is supposed to be our leader, not a revivalist. There may be a teacher, or prophet, or speaker, but there is only one leader, and when we learn once again to look to Him, and not church governments, boards, and leaders, we will right the ship. People assume God is present in their church. Why? Because it has stained glass? Because it has a cross over the door? Because it has a steeple pointing up? One begins to see how simple our trust is in humans and trappings of Christianity rather than simply looking to God and His scriptures.

It is good that we test the spirits and investigate seriously claims made that God is manifesting. If a claim is true, and we dismiss or quench the Spirit, we may not want to be answering to him about that later. Scripture gives us all the tools we need for a clear investigation. Serious doctrines also preclude a necessity to open age old divisions we have now closed. For example Nicaea dealt with the trinity and the nature of God. Each new generation thinks they are brilliant when they discover that God is in three persons, and therefore how can He be "One God"?. The church and respected theologians have already addressed that issue and the notion that God is both three and one became a doctrine of the church that almost all branches accept. There are of course passages where Jesus subordinates himself to the Father, and there are passages where Jesus seems to direct the Holy Spirit. Even our best doctrines do not fully reveal the complexities of God's Kingdom as the Word itself.

I have also seen people stating that their church is biblical. I have taken that to mean they think that everything which is said or done in their church comes from scripture. Upon closer examination, as we did with the false teaching of cessation, we see that everything may not be from scripture. I have seen judgementalness, bigotry, and hate come out of a Christian's mouth, followed by a rejoinder that what they said was biblical, when nothing they said or did was scriptural. Adding the tag line at the end of every utterance that it is scriptural does not make it so. Because the mishandling of God's word seems to be a serious offense to Him, perhaps Christians should actually make sure the scripture says what they are saying. A lot of us may be surprised. When I went back to study the miraculous in scripture, I was shocked to find that 90% of what I had been taught about the miraculous not existing today was not there, but were teachings of men and often in contradiction to the scripture.

We also need to be careful not to elevate a current teaching or explanation of the word, which is temporary scaffolding, into the status of doctrine. Steve Schultz, the author of a popular prophetic website called Elijah List stated recently, "The word ' Doctrine is another word for teaching." It is misnomers like that which do serious harm to the body. A teaching is a set of ideas and principles which one believes to be helpful to other believers. The teaching could be found to be all or partially wrong at some point. A teaching may also be scaffolding for a season, and then later discarded. One is reminded of teachings before the Civil War in the old South where scriptures mentioning slavery proved it was an institution from God. Kidnapping people from their own homeland and forcing them into slavery for a profit is hardly anywhere on the spectrum of Godliness, and as a matter of fact when it happened to Israel, it was a divine punishment for their extreme sin. The idea that a teaching can become a doctrine is why we ended up with a Civil War. The momentary teachings were mistaken for the real lasting doctrinal truth.

A problem we had on the other side is the elevation of an experience to a doctrinal level simply because it feels holy. The charismatics and Pentecostals are widely known for simply making up words and definitions to explain something, and then elevating them to the status of doctrine. One example of this was that during the Toronto movement there was a teaching that God gives holy laughter. There is nothing at all in scripture about holy laughter, and putting the two words together actually creates confusion. The word holy denotes something serious and reverent, and the word laughter denotes something light and frivolous. Putting the two together is like putting peanut butter on your scrambled eggs. It just looks like it's going to taste bad.

However, because their wording and description is bad, does not mean we can therefore simply dismiss the experience outright. The 'find a fault and dismiss the whole teaching' has been exposed as not being very intelligent or doctrinal. Simply finding one fault in the teaching, grammar, leader, dress, style, or punctuation of the event being tested does not qualify as a total dismissal. This would be like a child being expelled from school because she misspelled a word. We need to watch these techniques when used, and also ponder why they might be used. If someone is taking the risk of claiming that God is doing a work, and they bear the full risk before Him at judgment, then we ought to also assume the risk when we investigate and subsequently accept or deny the claim. Jesus did warn about the responsibility of making these claims over a group, and he was serious about it. I would be very concerned if someone were not taking that responsibility seriously. That would be a sign of total disrespect for God.

The subject of holy laughter was a crude attempt at saying, "I feel this laughter is a gift from God, I feel His presence in the midst of it, and I believe He has given me this." Therefore they called it holy, however inappropriate that title for that circumstance may have been, it really turned many people off before they even got to investigate the claim. Those who coined and perpetrated that phraseology will be held accountable for their spreading of the word. So our Pentecostal and charismatic friends may wish to give a bit more thought to their descriptions. Upon closer investigation, the anointing was one of joy. It was a very scriptural and clear anointing by God, which when bubbling up inside a person often produces laughter. The laughter is neither holy, nor is the laughter the gift from God; it is merely a human reaction to overwhelming joy, kind of like children laughing spontaneously out of sheer delight over some discovery they have just made. It is innocent, healing, beautiful and a true gift from God, but the term holy is about 34 degrees away from this experience on the experiential scale. Therefore, the term is confusing and untrue.

Many people involved in the movements of God have reported that after the fact, when they had time to think, they may have done things differently, but in the flow of the movement it becomes difficult. This is understandable and often happened to people in the bible. We are reminded of Peter, James and John who went up with Jesus on the mount for the transfiguration. Peter got so caught up he wanted to build a monument right there. We have seen this same reaction upon Christians in many generations that right after a move of God they go into a building program to make a monument which often becomes a glory to themselves rather than God. The event is real, but the reaction is seriously flawed. Hence we need to do careful investigations around the phenomena of the claims that God is at work. He may really be, and we could be guilty of missing, messing, or offending His Spirit.

Therefore, if we have true doctrines of the church, such as the deity of Christ, and someone comes along and claims God showed them that Jesus was only a man, not fully God, then I do not need to investigate that claim. It has already been disproven by our doctrine. However, if I have a teaching like God does things differently in a differing generation and then God turns around and does exactly what he did in a previous generation, then, I may not dismiss that claim because of my teaching. I may certainly want to be more rigorous and thorough in my investigation, but should not be rash in dismissing such a weighty claim. The rashness of dismissal should be seriously suspect as being counterfeit. No matter how much this spirit purports to be protecting the church by revealing error, rashness and untested techniques to accomplish this goal is usually a sign of something being wrong with the cure which can be worse than the purported ailment. This should actually cause us to investigate even more closely.

Teachings built on one or two passages in the Bible need to be held up to the light of the rest of scripture. We cannot simply find our proof text and then end up with a doctrine. We cannot simply piece together a rational ideology, and then add a sprinkling of scripture to make it seem plausible, when the end result of the proposed teaching contradicts the revealed nature of God in scripture. You begin to see how silly these notions are that people have developed around both sides of this subject of the fire of heaven.

The glory in the charismatic and Pentecostal movements is presented to us as a direct experience with God, whereas the glory or weight is placed on doctrine in most main line American churches. We need to be careful of both these extremes. A doctrine, no matter how weighty or accepted, is still an invention of man. Even if mighty scripture passages exist to support it, it is still a paraphrasing of the word. That is not to diminish the weightiness of our longstanding doctrines, but to recognize they are not the word of God. Nor does a direct encounter with the living God diminish all the glory from His revelation in previous generations, although it must be understood that it does feel that way to the person having the experience, being very weighty and powerful. The experience must be held up to the scriptures, the testing of spirits and the body after the event. It is the rush to simply accept every experience by the charismatics because of the immediacy of the glory, and the rush of the main line church to dismiss all experience in the light of the weightiness of doctrines, which have kept us from doing a service to both sides.

Therefore, to those who like doctrines, closer examinations of experience would be preferable logically than simply finding faults and dismissing them. To those experiencing the glory of God, it would be good to find ways of explaining and sharing what they are experiencing because God does not give such experiences merely for our personal amusement. If the doctrinal church can take more seriously its role in carefully examining each new wave of God's work, no matter how badly it is initially reported, and if each new wave of experiencing pilgrims can share the responsibility of testing and recording accurately their own experiences, we might find we have a middle ground for discourse, rather than simply hardening into positions of being either for or against.

Finally, a significant concern we have in the body today is people going on the internet nightly and proposing that whatever entered their head that day is now doctrine. We must reclaim the weighty use of that word to its rightful scriptural intention - the deepest held beliefs of our faith. A doctrine is not merely a teaching, and it is never an opinion. On the Elijah List blog, an author was listing some recent ideas in the charismatic faith and responding to them, "Open Heaven/Spiritual Portals = BAD DOCTRINE". He had numerous new ideas like that which he was expounding on. We see the problem immediately. These ideas are so new and radical, with people, myself included, not having the faintest idea what they were about. He is labeling them doctrines before they have even passed the idea stage, and then pretending to be a judge and jury on what is bad doctrine.

I do not mean to undermine his investigation into these experiences, and his conclusions may indeed prove sound. However, the item I object to is the use of the word doctrine now being used to mean an idea or thought I had today and decided to Tweet out into cyberspace for whoever wishes to read it. One of the biggest doctrines of our faith, one that Jesus himself left to us, is to love one another. This kind of public petty bickering and arguing obviously not only goes against Christ's own doctrine, but it certainly does not help us spread the good news of love and salvation in Him as we were commanded in another sound doctrine of the scripture Jesus gave us personally. Right there we have two of the most important Christian doctrines issued by Christ. When confronted with this mandate by Christ, often these bloggers and self appointed sheriffs of truth, respond by stating their job of revealing error is more important than loving. We see immediately the dismissal of Christ and His Word, and their divisiveness and destruction to our cause. This really wounds our representation of the glory of God in our own generation for all sides.

# Chapter 5 - Testing The Spirits

_"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." " I didn't fail the test, I just found 100 ways to do it wrong." -Benjamin Franklin_

_"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."-1 John 4_

Since the beginning of the 20th century and the Azusa Street revival, each new generation has seen outbreaks of manifestations claiming to be the work of the Holy Spirit. Most of these revivals have been chronicled and studied with results widely available. We in the main line churches have often remained aloof, distant and sometimes critical and hostile toward such movements. However, with the advent of longer life spans and the proliferation of media communications, more and more people have now encountered in some form or another an experience with the more mystical elements of our faith.

While we may lament the excesses and errors such movements have wrought, and they are many, millions have found a profound touch of God which cannot so easily be cast aside. Lest we be guilty of throwing the baby out with the bath water, it may be time to actually do some testing and find out where is the presence of God is in the miraculous or supernatural elements, of our faith. Since 1 John 4 actually encourages us, and suggests we do just that, it also implies that we have the wherewithal to do such a work.

I would like to propose some rudimentary tools for beginning such a task, including some familiar tools, as well as one mentioned in 1 John 4 that we have not seen previously used widely in the history of the church. We often test those who do ministry in preaching, teaching and evangelism, and put them through some proscribed course of training before allowing them to officially represent the ministry of the church. No less should be expected with the ministry of miracles. Sometimes modern mystics claim that proving their work lessens the faith, and my attempt here is not to question God, or His ability to act, but rather to be sure it is Him. He does ask us to do that in His Word.

It would be hoped that our measurement of testing is not done out of skepticism and fear as we have seen over much of the twentieth century. Testing should not imply that we look for everything wrong, try to disprove, and hope for the result that this is not a work of God. Quite the opposite. It would be our hope that people approach this with awe and reverence. Someone alive is claiming a work of our Father in heaven, hallowed be His name. We need to approach this reverently, respectfully, and in His presence. We need to use His truth, not our preconceived notions of Ryrie and Warfield who, as we have seen, have no scriptural basis for their theories. As a matter of fact, we should have appointed to this task trustworthy clear thinkers, open to and knowledgeable about this sort of thing. You would not want your gas station attendant testing your drinking water for safety. You would want someone trained and highly qualified. How in the world did we ever end up with testimony being given about miracles coming from those who have no experience in this field, who claim no experience in this field, and by their own lack of belief expect no experience in this field? This hardly qualifies as an expert witness.

Our goal is not to look for a conclusion either proving, or disproving the miraculous, rather, we are merely trying to ascertain if God is at work, and then honoring and thanking Him if He is. It might raise other questions about our theology and doctrine, which is often why God operates outside the box, because our box is too small. If we are unsure, or feel that God may not be at work, we should still handle the case reverently and with discretion in case we are wrong. We want to keep in mind, that what might seem miraculous today, may simply be tomorrow's norm. I am sure Jesus' disciples would be amazed at all the things we take for granted as God's blessing in medical science today: disease control and prevention, X-Ray machines, Ultrasound, and other diagnostic tools which let us literally peer inside the human body. These things would probably seem miraculous to a person in the first century. God is always expanding our boundaries.

One of the simplest tests of all, which 1 John is suggesting to us, is to simply ask God personally, "Is this of you"? We see that what we exposed as false doctrine earlier, many people did not even ask this question either out of fear or simply believing that miracles could not exist. Once we remove those false doctrinal obstacles, we are left with an event claiming to be some supernatural manifestation of God, and we begin by testing and asking God, "Jesus, did you do this"? If we came home from school when we were children to find our earthly father standing there with a brand new bike, and a smile on his face, our first question would be, "Is that for me"? If God is doing miracles, it would most certainly be a gift for us. That is the only reason He has ever done miracles, because he loves us. He might say, "No, this is not yours, it is for your brother." I am sure our dejected stance and eyes would speak volumes to our earthly father. Hopefully a loving father would explain that you got a new bike last week, or yours will come soon, or some other rationale.

If God is giving out gifts, we should be open to receiving what He has for us, providing it is of Him. Once again the notion enters that maybe the devil is offering good gifts to lead us away from God. And once again I have to counter with scripture that the devil does not offer good gifts. Scripture teaches that, "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. " (James 1:17-18 NIV) Satan is a liar, a murderer, and a deceiver; he most certainly does not hand out good gifts, even to lure people away. In the Garden of Eden, Satan is not offering Eve a good gift; he is tempting her to eat something which she should not. Satan is such a tricky snake. Did you catch the trick he uses? He does not simply tell Eve to disobey God. He changes her doctrinal reality by redefining God as possibly holding out on her. Once she accepts the false doctrine, she begins to desire the fruit of evil. If he can make us think God's gifts are forbidden, then he can trick us, or tempt us into walking away from our own inheritance, thinking we are protecting ourselves from him.

We really do need to understand the twisted nature of our enemy and have a test for when he is giving us false doctrine and deceiving us away from the good. People often use the exact reverse, saying that Satan is trying to lure us to bite the miracles when God forbids it, except for one tiny error, or should we say lie? God never forbids asking for miracles - ever! It is a lie. In fact in Matthew 7:7-11, Jesus himself teaches us, "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 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 good gifts to those who ask him!"

Again in Luke 11:5-13 Jesus again teaches: Then he said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend, and he goes to him at midnight and says, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, because a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing to set before him.' "Then the one inside answers, 'Don't bother me. The door is already locked, and my children are with me in bed. I can't get up and give you anything.' I tell you, though he will not get up and give him the bread because he is his friend, yet because of the man's boldness he will get up and give him as much as he needs. "So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. "Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 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!"

This whole section is immediately preceded in verse 4 with the words, "Lead us not into temptation". The implication is clear. Do not be tempted, as Eve was, into thinking that God does not want to bless you. He has abundance for you. Just ask, even persistently if necessary. Every single revival and miracle has always been preceded by one simple thing - asking faithfully. That's it. By the same token, if you expect nothing, believe for nothing, and then act as the wicked servant who buried his portion in the ground, all you have left is what you started with. These teachings are so clear and simple it takes a whole lot of twisting and turning to get them to say not to ask for miracles. But that certainly seems like something our enemy has done since the Garden of Eden. Scripture of course becomes our main test of what is of God. As Warfield pointed out, not one scripture agrees that God ceased miracles. That should tell you all you need to test what else he says after.

The counter is also true that God does not automatically dispense what we ask for if we ask Him the right way with the magic Pentecostal prayer formula given by the revivalist. All miracles Jesus did he specifically said were given him by the Father. It is the Father's will and timing and way which directs our work and examination of the miraculous. Pentecostal preachers will find passages in which Jesus healed everyone in a town and then declare that God wants to heal everyone tonight. One cannot ascertain God's will for a specific situation that way. We can ascertain that God does heal, and sometimes heals everyone in a town, and certainly could if He wanted. This is His sovereignty, He does as He wills. One might ask if He can heal why He doesn't? I believe it is this issue alone which has caused more problems with the doctrines and investigation of the fire of heaven. So good and sound doctrines, not the kind we have seen made up on the fly, are also tests of what is happening around us. But we also hit problems that our current doctrines do not answer.

Why would God heal my sister and not I? Why would God let me suffer if He could do something? This leaves the Pentecostals trying to explain that it must be our lack of faith or blocking the miracle, which adds more shame and guilt to the injury, certainly not of God. The issue leaves the reasoning of the main line church exhorting that God must be like their Presbytery, fair and democratic. He is not doing anything more for one than for another. This too is not from God and not an acceptable answer. Some claim that Satan is blocking the miracle, which is kind of ironic since the cessationists are claiming he is the one offering it. You begin to see the messiness around this core issue. Once again we are back to the sovereignty of God. He does His Will, His way, in His timing. However, being a loving Father we can talk and even pester Him as Jesus teaches us.

Can you think of one single example in the Bible where Satan gave anything good to anyone? Perhaps we can make that our second test of the spirit. If the gift seems to come back with the authentication of God, and our heart agrees, and then we see that the gift is good, and there is Mr. Satan condemning us and telling us to reject the gift and making us feel guilty and shameful, well then we begin to see the nature of the situation. Super-natural has a nature just like the natural world. As a matter of fact at times it is only slightly bigger or super than the natural world around us. It is not a terrifying world of bogeymen as Satan has purported it to be in order to keep us out of our own inheritance. Satan is always trying to get us to turn away from the good, not toward it. Therefore we have another test, the nature of the gift, does it seem Godly, according to scripture, and is Satan trying to get at us through guilt and fear, his nature, trying to get us to turn away from it.

We have considered many tests and tools for examining and understanding the miraculous. All human interaction, as well as our relationship to God, is predicated upon the concept of agreement. Satan used this device with Eve in the garden when he subtly gets her to agree with certain premises he is making. Before she knows it she has bought the whole scenario and is now biting into his reality, thereby bringing death to her. Jesus tells us that where two are more are gathered in his name, there He is. He also says that if two or more agree on anything, well, you get the point. The working of the Kingdom is based upon agreement. When we begin our relationship with the Lord and are baptized, we are asked if we agree that Jesus is Lord. It is that agreement or belief that marks us as a Christian. All covenants whether social, political, economic of religious are based upon agreement.

We have seen that out of fear, ignorance, or prejudice we might agree that miracles do not exist. Even if one should occur we would move to validate our own agreement and thereby try to discredit it any way we could, even by lying and saying Satan did it, when that violates God's nature, and scripture, and Jesus' own words. If a miracle does occur and we validate it by our 'testing', then we have entered into an agreement with God that greater things are currently possible through Him than we imagined before. We might begin to see why some seasons, or as Mr. Ryrie liked to call them 'dispensations', had more miracles than others. Some may have been so blocked and out of touch with God as they could not receive them simply because they would not agree. Or maybe things in that season were humming along just fine and a greater revelation was not needed at that time. Whatever the extreme of the season however, we have seen in all seasons that there were still individuals open to and agreeing with God for miracles. And those individuals were called by Him; therefore, they had His agreement to do miracles, just as Jesus and his disciples did.

God is not just a mechanical God. You don't just rub the magic lamp and stuff happens. Wherever we see that mechanistic mindset, either for or against miracles, there is a disagreement with the personal nature of God and His Word. Jesus said that the householder will come down and open the door because of persistent knocking. God is moved by the prayers and passions of His people, His children. What Father gives a stone, Jesus said. He was referring to His father, and now our Father. We need to sense that we come into agreement with what God is doing in a season, and in a situation. God cares about nations and history, and He cares about the hairs on your head, they are numbered. So another test is agreement, does the miraculous agree with the Word, agree with other Christians' prayers, agree with what God is doing in that time and season, and agree with our hearts. We begin to see God has given us a lot of ways to test and be assured whether something is or is not of Him.

Another example people often give for fearing the supernatural is what happens if we let something impure into our stream. We worry that if we accidentally ingest something impure, we will become horribly tainted and fall away from our salvation. If one eats a bad burrito, one is going to have a very unpleasant evening, but it eventually passes through. Usually things that are not of God can pass through our system and be expelled. We can try to screen for known impurities so that we do not continue to eat at the greasy spoon restaurant and get sick every night. We try to filter out known impurities in our teaching by having a filtering system known as doctrine.

It may be noted that the word purity does not mean the absence of something. One hundred percent pure maple syrup does not mean there is absolutely no maple syrup in the bottle. Some bottled syrups only have 10% real maple syrup, and the rest is corn syrup filler. One hundred percent, or totally pure, means there is nothing but maple syrup. The same applies to God. Purity of life and thought means the absence of that which is not of God. Since God speaking and addressing His Word to us directly is the most pure method of hearing Him, the one He used with Moses, Abraham, and His son Jesus, would not the absence of His purity, His spoken word, be less pure, not more? Would not the absence of His interaction and super natural manifestations be less pure?

This has been one of the main premises of this work. People have let huge impurities into our doctrine which ended up blocking Him out of our lives. We did this by trying to keep ourselves pure of error, when we were actually in error. The doctrine was not the real deal. The 2% fruit juice is not real fruit. Even God's pure Word written in the bible is intended to point us to the source and author of purity, God Himself. 100% pure means a direct encounter with the living God, and when that happens, since he is obviously super natural, supernatural events will occur. This is so simplistic, yet our error blinds us. We end up straining out a gnat, a false healer or two, and end up swallowing the camel that God does not do supernatural things, when that is all He does. Our two percent fruit juice filled with all kinds of junk, now claims that 2% God is all there can possibly be, but when we try to drink up pure fruit juice of 100% God, then it must be false. We end up with the pure and the distilled confused.

Since He never said He would stop interacting with His people, and states that in Christ all now have direct access and He even gives us Himself in the form of the Holy Spirit to "be with us forever" would not prohibitions on experiencing Him, or discounting His acting today be less pure? Because we are familiar with something does not necessarily make it the most pure method. We begin to see why God breaks through in various seasons in a more direct than usual encounter because we have gotten too far away from Him. Who had the most astounding of all conversions of the apostles? On the road to Damascus, Paul was the one most far away, and he now gets blinded by the presence of God. So the time God tends to "show up" in the Bible is when we are far off, and when we need Him most.

If a person says to God, thank you I am fine. I do not need anything. God is a gentleman and will honor that. So if you wish to keep the miraculous out of your life because it tends to be messy and emotional, He may allow that in a loving way, unless it begins to block others from receiving, or you from fulfilling your God given destiny. He needed Paul to be a witness to the gentiles and could not wait three hundred years for him to be converted so God jumped in. He did that, he still does that. So there is sometimes a suddenness to his interventions which may startle or cause awe (fear of the Lord). Our personal discomfort may not be a test that it is not of God, as we have shown it has been misused for over 100 years. However, a sense that there is something wrong should cause us to investigate, pray and test harder.

During the last U.S. election, much information was being circulated via e-mail and personal blogs. The authors suggested that because it was not being filtered and presented by the corrupt media, it was pure information. Since many of the allegations were so bizarre and outrageous, I decided to actually check some out and do my own research. I applied scientific methods of testing the veracity of the information, i.e. research and observation. What I discovered in the research was that the person presenting these pure bits of information was presenting pure error. Many of the pieces of information may have been all or partially shown to be false, and then out of these threads of falsehood a story or blanket was woven, and then the fact that many believed this blanket of falsehood therefore made it true. It was the single most non scientific format of proof I ever saw and I was surprised that educated, intelligent people were forwarding this garbage to me and others. We of course may expect this in our politics, but

We are receivers of God's word, spoken or written, we are impure always except where made pure by Christ. Our systems of hearing and receiving are impure, our systems of delivery are impure, and our cultural and theological understandings are always less than perfect. The best we have right now is all we have right now, but God is always trying to purify us more and bring new understanding, trying to reform us according to His word and the fire of heaven. If we have a relationship with our spouse, and we never listen, only talk and read their book, can that by definition be characterized as a pure relationship. It is by definition a total lack, or absence, of relationship. God by inspiring, which means breathing life into us personally, makes His written Word come alive. It moves from being the logos (written word) to the rhema (living word). So God intervenes in times and seasons in a very personal way.

God purifies our limited understanding in each season and age of our life. To claim our doctrine is ever totally pure is false, and to use it to limit God's activity is evil. Like the walls of an old time fort, it should be used to keep evil out, not God. And so we are always developing filters to allow the purity of God to flow in our own day and generation, through His Word, as well as other means, and always checked against Him and His word as outlined here. This is one of the greatest needs in our hearts—to feel and experience His 100% pure love, not a 10% bottled version.

Some of these filters or tests we may already be aware of and using proficiently. If a person brings an idea or inspiration for the church, we test or filter that idea. First we ascertain the credibility and reliability of the soundness of the idea itself. If a person in our congregation comes to us one Sunday and says, I think we should sell the church building and give all the money to me to live, I think we would not give the idea a second thought, nor pass it on for review. On the other hand, should a member of the congregation tell us that the widow Jones has some special need after her surgery and could we get the Mission Committee to consider taking her meals for the next week, I think we could call a gathering of a few people and get the ball rolling immediately after church. What is the filtering system we used to determine one as being a worthy idea and the other not?

We use two of our more well known tests, experience and wisdom. These are two wonderful tests and filters. Herein lies the problem. In order for God to give us a new word, or get us to do a new work, our very filtering system, i.e., experience and wisdom, will usually reject it in the first pass. Why? Because we do not have any experience with it and therefore have no wisdom collected about it. Therefore, our most prized filtering system keeps out some of the very best that God wishes to give us, i.e. the new wine. Unless we have arrived at a very dangerous place where we wish to declare that we have learned all there is to know about God that we are ever going to know, then our system only allows us to experience things previously declared safe. It is a catch-22 situation in which we cannot expand our wisdom except by time honored traditions, and then how can we expand them if we never learn or try anything new?

This is not to say that everything new is of God. Our tests help us to ascertain what is of God and what is not, but now we need some filtering systems to help keep out impurity while we refine and purify the new teaching or word. The water that comes out of our tap is useful for bathing and cooking, but in order to ingest it into our bodies as drinking water it may need more filtering in order to be safe. This is often where our Charismatic and Pentecostal brothers and sisters err. If it is wet and feels like a river, they jump in, a favorite phrase of theirs. Not everything wet is safe and to be called living water. If you hold up two glasses of water, one glass might seem cloudy or murky and the other glass perfectly clear. At first glance, which are you more likely to drink? However, after chemical analysis if I told you the murky water was safe, while the clear water had too much e-coli and might make you deathly ill, which one would you drink? I personally would get a bottle of water from the store at that point.

One of their favorite sayings during the last century, after the Azusa street revivals, is that education or science keeps out the pureness of God's flow. In some ways this was true in their experience, but when education and science help purify the drinking water even further, and are recognized as God's gifts, then we can avoid typhoid, diphtheria, and other plagues which crippled whole civilizations. And this is precisely where the main line churches err. We often drink pre packaged teachings from the Lord which are decades old. It is not that they are not safe, but that the Lord wishes to give us a fresh drink for our generation. The Pentecostals may often have that fresh drink, but without filters they may be ingesting teachings which will keep them sickly for decades until they are finally filtered out.

God does not wish us ignorant, the apostle Paul tells us. However, when the knowledge gets so thick and impassable that nothing of God can get through it, then we are relying too much on the old and not letting anything new enter. This is not a filter, but a dam. A dam will result in backups and flooding of other regions in life. We begin to understand Jesus' analogy when he told us we strain out gnats, but let bigger problems into our body

Another test we are familiar with is the test of plausibility A person tells you they saw what they think was a flying saucer on a back country road late one night. After applying certain tests, i.e. asking about their sobriety and emotional state and receiving satisfactory answers, one might press on to eliminate natural possibilities. However, if the person says they were taken up in the spacecraft, the plausibility factor just decreased dramatically. Why? Once again it is too far outside our sphere of experience to even do any testing. If they then tell us that the space men told them that they were appointing the person we were talking to as savior of the earth, well then the plausibility of the story drops to zero in most of our minds.

How real or plausible the account sounds is a major filter or test in determining what we allow into our minds as real. One of the problems we have with the Bible is that a great deal of it is totally implausible by all modern accounts of scientific verification and normal human experience. The basis of the Christian faith is that a dead man who was brutally tortured and killed on a cross walks out of the tomb three days later. That story is day one in our faith. From there it goes on to creatures with eyes all over their body in a throne room by a glassy sea.

The Apostle Paul tells us that we see through a glass darkly now, which means we are the ones in a limited reality. If our eyes or ears were suddenly open thorough an idea, thought, inspiration, dream, revelation, or vision, how would our sense of plausibility serve us? Rather than revolting at such a notion or occurrence, we should actually feel a sense of keen interest or even pleasure that God is at work. Rather like a fifth grader who spends most of the softball season warming the bench, we may be getting called into the big game. There should always be a sense of excitement and anticipation that God might be going to use us.

It is through Christian culture and testimony that the early ecclesia kept the plausibility and the expectation that God was working alive. If we ride to work on the train with sleepy people who do not even believe in a resurrected Christ, and then work in an office with them all day, and then ride home on the train, and then go to a church and the experience of the miraculous is presented to us, such a story is going to shock us. We need to cultivate places where the miraculous is desired, expected, and welcome. We can then begin to much more clearly filter out and test the implausible form the real. Currently we are using the world's measurement of plausibility, which Ryrie, Warfield and cessationists ascribe to. Who is the ruler of this present age, who set that ruler that miracles cannot and should not happen? - Mr. Satan again. The same one purporting it through counterfeit doctrines. It seems he really does not like this miraculous stuff and works extra hard to keep it from us. I wonder why?

I grew up in a time in the Christian church in which miracles were considered silly. In the post WW II Baby Boom of the 1950's -1960's, the suburban churches which I attended as a child taught that miracles were simply stories to help more primitive people understand the Bible truth. Now that we were more sophisticated we did not need such trivialities, and could by our own reason decipher what was needed for life with God quite apart from the superstitious nonsense which bound our more primitive ancestors. I remember quite distinctly asking my Sunday school teacher on a particular day when we were given little tie tacks which had a mustard seed in them (to represent the mustard seed of faith to move mountains), why we could not move mountains. She laughed warmly and replied, "Don't be silly. The mustard seed is just a metaphor, a representation of a story about faith. It does not mean we can really move mountains. That is just a figure of speech."

After 17 years of this kind of teaching, in which much of the power and efficacy in the Bible was taught to me as being silly, I began to wonder if going to a place each week and spending my time and placing offerings in the basket did not also seem a silly thing to do. After all, is it not silly to spend hours each week picking apart an ancient silly book and trying to find some meaning between the lines? A rather large segment of my generation did the same. It was many years later when I met a group of Christians who actually believed what was in the Bible and did not think parts of it were silly that I was encouraged to seek a relationship with Jesus. I remember that the ingrained teaching that this stuff was silly was so strong, that I actually felt silly trying. Imagine my delight as I discovered that He was real and He really loved me. It was not just a metaphor in a book. It was not silly at all.

I began to use a scientific exploration method, some of which I am presenting in this little book, to see how much more of the Bible is not silly. After 30 years, I have discovered that all of it is not silly, and quite an accurate presentation of God's reality and Kingdom that He wishes us to consider. It is in this respect that the silly filter, i.e., using our reason to perceive what it thought was silly and could not therefore be real, actually proved to be a rather harmful filter. It kept out much of God's love and power, while letting in all kinds of destructive and divisive forces. I wonder who invented the silly filter for the church, Mr. Satan again. It seems he really hates this miraculous stuff.

We often see the silly filter being used to screen supernatural manifestations. In preparing for this work, and reading many different definitions and scholarly accounts, many of the writers would simply judge all miracles today by the silly factor. If something seemed too far out, weird, or silly by the definition of our reason and feeling, it must be false. They would then explain the Bible writings the same way that my Sunday School teachers did - that it must have been for more primitive times. We have seen how some scholars differed on whether it even happened or not and whether these accounts were historical fact and which were allegorical. There are whole schools of theology divided over this distinction, with both however agreeing that it would be silly to actually consider that they could happen to us today. Even if they did historically happen, then they were for those times, not ours.

We cannot have our reason place something in the unreasonable or silly category simply because it is not known, familiar, or practiced among us currently. If we used this device, every first year geometry student would immediately conclude that the information being presented is silly and would proceed to more familiar subjects. Relegating everything that is currently unknown as being silly, because it is unknown and therefore can and should never be known, well, that would be silly. I think our reason can come to see that dismissing something out of hand because it is unknown is probably the most unreasonable and unscientific method one could invent. It reminds us of one of the methodologies of the Middle Ages in which scholarly works were deemed silly because they did not help one learn a craft. This concept held mankind back for hundreds of years until the age of reason began. We can see all the horrific crimes against knowledge which have occurred by relegating the unknown to the waste can of silliness based on untested assumptions and unsound reason. This should not pass for rational intelligent methodologies.

Reason itself needs to therefore be tested as one of the spiritual voices according to 1 John, because it is one of the voices we strongly listen to. We cannot ascertain that a thought, simply by occurring to our minds and seeming reasonable, is in fact, not silly. I have often heard those who lament modern prophecy by saying, "We cannot just take as God's voice something which just pops into our heads, would that not be listening to the voices in our minds?" However, we do just that all the time. Each of our thoughts and ideas, not there a moment ago, just occurred to us. Like a dream or a vapor, suddenly we had a good idea. Cartoonists depict this by a little light bulb going on over our brains. The fact that the church today almost universally listens to these little light bulbs and considers each one as having some divine merit would seem a tad silly upon closer inspection, which is precisely what we are doing now. We are testing the spirits, little ideas and lights popping into our minds and presented to our leaders regularly as being worthy of consideration to become the work of God today.

Reason can often end up with very unreasonable conclusions, especially when it is being fed a diet of fear and darkness. So an idea popping into our head is just as supernatural as a dream, a vision, a prophetic utterance, and also needs to be tested just as stringently. Please bear in mind that our treatise is not to simply to say let's follow every voice or vision, but to test them, and also to test the current methodology we use which can be just as mad and unreasonable as any other. Something should therefore be filtered as "being silly" only when it has been listened to, examined, prayed over, held up to the word, and discerned.

We have seen in this chapter that there are quite a few tests which the bible gives us, and some are well learned, which can help us as we investigate claims of the miraculous. Armed with the ability to ascertain what is of God and what is not on a case by case basis, we then begin to see some patterns of God's work emerging for our day. However, we cannot jump to Ryrie's conclusion that this therefore becomes our "dispensation" and God is "always" doing this same thing; hence the need for case by case investigation.

# Chapter 6 - Feelings

_"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained." -Mark Twain_

_You blind guides! You strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. -Matthew 23:24_

"Feelings, nothing more than feelings", are lyrics to a song recorded in 1974. It was nearly three quarters into the 20th century when people began to rediscover their feelings after almost a century of derision, mostly from the emerging science of psychiatry. The ideals presented in the first half of the century were that feelings and emotions were a weaker primitive part of the human psychology which needed to be repressed and stamped out completely in favor of our intellect or reason. Intellect and reason were listed as the highest of ideals and associated with God himself. It was seen that Eve's decision in the Garden of Eden to disobey God came directly as a result of feelings, and had she thought more carefully we would certainly not be in the mess we are today. Although, the story actually shows that Satan used reason and logic to make his case, these facts were glossed over for the popular notion then that feelings were the cause of all mankind's problems, and intellect will be our cure.

In the second half of this book I would like to take a look at some of the more popular notions and ideals during the last century which led people erroneously to mistrust the fire of heaven. It may seem strange to us today in a culture where feelings are not only accepted but treasured, that there even existed a time when feelings were considered harmful to our well being. It is no wonder that a move of God appealing to our feelings and expressed through passionate songs, dance and manifestations during this same period would meet almost instantaneous widespread derision and skepticism from all. Despite the fact that the Bible abounds with passionate feelings, even going so far as to equate love of God with a popular erotic love poem in the Song of Solomon, these were our more primitive and embarrassing roots to be left aside as we moved forward into the future of rational enlightenment.

Sigismund Schlomo Freud (6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939), was an Austrian neurologist who founded the psychoanalytic school of psychiatry. Freud is best known for his theories of the unconscious mind and the defense mechanism of repression, and for creating the clinical practice of psychoanalysis for treating psychopathology through dialogue between a patient, technically referred to as an "analysand", and a psychoanalyst. Freud developed therapeutic techniques such as the use of free association, created the theory of transference in the therapeutic relationship, and interpreted dreams as sources of insight into unconscious desires. He was an early neurological researcher into cerebral palsy, and a prolific essayist, drawing on psychoanalysis to contribute to the history, interpretation and critique of culture. (Wikipedia)

Out of all the religious teachings and revivals that flowed into the American church during the twentieth century, it is ironically something not of the church which had one of the greatest impacts. The newly emerging scientific field of psychiatry, often attributed to Freud, began to shape the culture, thinking, and a critical analysis of religious experience. While Freud may not have been a Christian revivalist, he was perhaps the greatest modern shaper of modern Christian thought. We did not even have a chance to examine this effect because the newly emerging field of psychiatry happened around us almost invisibly.

Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries the treatment of the mentally ill was handled rather poorly. The Quakers took some interest in this area, forming asylums for the care of these poor souls, but there was little treatment or hope. If there was not a care facility people were simply thrown into a holding center which amounted to not much more than a prison environment. These lunatic asylums, or madhouses, as they were known, gave a fearful glimpse of life without the facility of properly functioning reason. Many of these old asylums have become the backdrop for today's horror movies. There was a very real fear around the issue of mental illness still existing during most of the twentieth century, which did not ease until very late in that period, and there is a stigma associated to this day. The field of psychiatry offered some hope that there might be a scientific cause and treatment, but newly forming state hospitals for the insane became the legend of real life horrors.

New experimentation emerged in the twentieth century which has also become the stuff of horror. Lobotomies, electric shock therapies, insulin shock treatments, cold water wraps, and isolation cells, when looked at by today's standards seem barbaric and torturous. What was worse throughout most of this period is that you could be committed to one of these institutions merely on the word of one or two relatives who thought you were acting strange. When I grew up in the 1950's, we were taught that you did not want the men in the white coats coming to take you away. All of your rights and freedoms would be instantly removed and you could be literally jailed for years against your will. There are stories of immigrants who simply because no one understood their language were locked in one of these institutions for years until someone recognized they were not speaking gibberish, but a real language.

Some of the signs looked for in mental illness would be excessive behavior, loss of control, fits or ecstasies, claims of divine power, or inappropriate social behavior. As you read this list, it also could be an exact list of some of the manifestations of a revival. Since one would not want to be put away, one better shape up really fast and start acting like a good Christian. And therein begins the first great psychiatric wave, or purifying of the Christian church from feelings. We began to move away and distance ourselves from almost all experiential elements of the faith which at some points in history were widely accepted. It is strange looking back now, but much of our prejudices and ideals toward the fire of heaven during this period were not really part of the long history of Christianity. New concepts and processes were added in which the goal was to look like or act like a good Christian.

The early part of the twentieth century had a distinct anti- emotional wave that shaped and defined much of the American church. It was deemed that emotions were a bad thing that could lead one toward mental illness and one needed to rely only on reason and intellect. Sermons were shaped around this ideal trumpeting the intellect over feeling and education over experience. Emotions were seen as a bad thing and to be avoided. In an openly sexist society, young men were taught that big boys don't cry and weeping was entertained only for weak women and mental patients. A truly model citizen had his stuff together, which meant under tight control with no emotions and no excess behavior. Since the Industrial revolution was now moving into full swing, and cities were growing and emerging, these rules tended to promote the ideal of a machine like society in crowded over populated urban situations in which many new immigrants to America now found themselves.

A large part of the new immigrant population in America, which almost doubled America's population during that time, were people who brought their Roman Catholic faith over with them. We will discuss this effect in another chapter, but the Catholics were especially resistant to the church in America and stood apart. These groups which were not easily socialized into the emerging machine like view were also treated with contempt and disdain. These newly emerging societal standards of work hard - keep your nose clean, don't act crazy also became the religious norm as well during this time and were also touted as being the great doctrines of our faith. Little was done to distinguish the modern values, rightly or wrongly attributed to Christianity, and true doctrine. People who violated these societal norms were warned that it could result in loss of job and social status, imprisonment, and/or a trip to the loony bin, not to mention God's eternal disfavor. These were very real threats and were often carried out during the opening of the twentieth century.

You can see how the behavior of the church, once one of the leading shapers of the culture around it, was now being infiltrated and shaped by this emerging field of psychiatry. Psychiatry did not merely see itself as the science of treating mental abnormalities, but as an overseer on what would be considered good mental health in society, i.e. morality. The American church slowly began to hand its power in this area over to this mindset, because after all, one did not wish to end up at the funny farm. The church began more and more to see itself as an intellectual entity and embraced many of the new emerging scientific ideals. So by the time the fire of heaven was spreading for close to thirty years, the Scopes monkey trial becomes one of the first great religious debates heard on a new invention called the radio. This debate pitted science vs. religion and unfortunately set a tone for this area in which Christians still have difficulty communicating their message without tripping over this mindset.

Rural America did not get caught up in this psychiatric craze. First of all, with limited resources there were not many options for the mentally ill. As long as grandma could still churn butter and do some laundry, she became a functional part of the farm even though she might have fits. Families adjusted to the eccentricities of their relatives, because after all, what choice did you have. There were no mental institutions in rural areas, so unless a person became violent, the mentally ill were somehow assimilated into rural life. Actually this treatment became the therapeutic model later in the twentieth century. Rural farms or pastoral settings became kinder alternatives to electric shock and invasive techniques trying to cure the illness. Of course these rural private settings were expensive and only the rich could afford them. However, one still did not wish to end up at the funny farm if one could help it.

Mental illness was therefore seen as a personal commentary on your ability to control yourself, rather than a disease. It was not until late in the twentieth century that treatments gave way to medications and methodologies to treat the illness rather than trying to shock the patient back into their right mind. Early in the century the only medications were heavy doses of narcotics which drugged the patient so badly that they could not be a danger to themselves or others. Now medications help patients tone down the effects of chemical imbalances and function.

It cannot be overstated how much effect this had on the American church and how much a power shift in society happened with the new morality dictated by the field of psychiatry. It was the rural people who noticed this shift and developed a somewhat healthy distrust for this emerging field that was still in its barbaric experimentation phase. We can also see why revival spread much more easily in rural America in the 30's, 40s' and even into the 50's. Tent meetings sprung up, often having a somewhat carnival feel to them, sometimes as the only entertainment in a rural setting for months. If people could see someone coming out of a wheelchair and walking, or getting suddenly healed, this would indeed impress them for life. You can imagine the temptation of revivalists to make sure something happened by having at least one or two plants in the congregation to boost the faith. Some revivalists later stated that a great deal of what they did was faked to raise the level of giving. It was a show.

However, whether real or faked, it did raise the hopes and expectations, and often things did occur. If we remove the invalidation of the miraculous simply on the ground that it can't happen because we said so, as we examined in the first few chapters, we then have to measure each miracle, each manifestation on its own merits. First, we have seen Jesus' own test, Satan is not going to help anyone. He is not dividing his kingdom. So if a real miracle occurred, a lasting healing which promoted peace and piety in one and one's neighbors, certainly that could not be claimed as an act of Satan. It could be attributed to mind over matter, and a whole host of revival phenomena were now being measured by this newly emerging field of psychiatry. Once again we see the shaping of the faith of Christ by this emerging field of science and psychiatry in its early experimental phase which was often clumsy and barbaric.

You read reports of the revivals that the people were under hypnosis, a newly rediscovered art by the psychiatric community. The power of suggestion was another term borrowed from psychiatry. A third was hysteria, a catch all quasi scientific sounding word which simply meant, We don't know what is going on, but we want to make it sound like we do. These crudely defined terms do not begin to characterize or describe what was happening in revivals, and are still being used today erroneously. One cannot describe a bright red wall as being coffee colored. There is such a thing as coffee colored, but red is not close to coffee colored on the color wheel and could not even be mistaken for it. Revival certainly could not be attributed to hypnosis. The two are not even related on the experiential spectrum.

Other attributes of revival were also being classified by psychiatric terms, and I do not mean the psychiatric community was coming out and doing this investigation, but rather people were loosely borrowing terms that did not apply which oftentimes still stick today as real analysis. Terms like histrionics and hysteria were used to describe what looked exactly like biblical descriptions of people worshipping before the living presence of god. King David's dancing in his underwear before God, would have been seen as a break from reality needing electric shock therapy to get him back under his wife's control. One of the worst psychological controls was classifying the entire movement as emotional. The word emotional was said in a tone of voice indicating one would rather be waddling in a pig sty in Sunday attire rather than being emotional. It was contrasted to intellectual which meant very controlled and reasonable. These two were contrasted as if they could not coexist in a sane individual.

It wasn't until much later in the century that psychologists admitted that they got that one totally wrong. They discovered that the exact opposite of what they were teaching was true, that the repression of emotions causes severe psychological trauma and neurosis, and could lead to a split in the psyche of the individual. My generation, the Baby Boomers grew up with the teaching that big boys don't cry. The teaching was not only sexist, implying that women, being the lesser species would of course have emotions, a primitive expression of humanity, but not men. The repression of feelings was seen as psychiatric health. The Christian church unfortunately also adopted these values, but was much slower in accepting that they too got it wrong. These psychiatric ideals of early twentieth century America were now being touted as long held doctrines of our faith. While they were neither long held, or remotely doctrinal by definition we see the emerging of a particularly disturbing trend of calling whatever passes for a fad today as being doctrinal. This had never occurred in the history of Christianity.

The word doctrine up to this point in history was held reverently and almost sacredly and one would not claim one's ideas or feelings as being doctrinal under any circumstances unless they had tomes of research to prove that it was held this way. Now we see who churches and groups of people starting to take modern ideas, not even tested and proved and mixing them right in the faith and calling it doctrinal. I do not mean to hearken back to unscientific ways, but to point out the digression of true doctrine from the use of this word to refer to a cultural phase. Ironically the driving force behind this was fear, discomfort, anxiety, etc., as we have seen, which are also feelings. So basically it was underlying feelings which were driving the early anti-feeling movement.

During the sixties, seventies and into the eighties, suddenly big boys were flocking to psychiatric centers, self help books, and eventually Dr. Phil to help us reintegrate our emotions. To repress one's emotions was now seen as the leading cause of mental illness, stress, disease, divorce and every other human malady. The turnaround in this area of psychiatry was so severe and happened in such a short period of time that during the last half of the century many were confused on this topic, but the church went right on with its anti-emotional stance, which many in the church still hold today even though the position of anti-emotionalism is now seen by psychiatry as mental illness. People still in some ways hold that emotionalism is the weaker cousin to intellectualism. The scripture tells us that God gives us both, and that both parts have strengths and weakness. One can be just as out of control intellectually, as one can emotionally. Too much of one or the other leads to serious imbalance, both individually and corporately, within the body.

Of course the Christian church was slow in getting this memo. Still teaching, even today at times, that intellect or reason is to be preferred over base emotions, this seems to fly in the face of scripture that teaches that our God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, display huge amounts of emotion and tell us that we are created in His image. As a matter of fact, the seat of wisdom in the bible is the heart, not the head. The intellect can be very unreasonable, inventing weapons of mass destruction and then deciding to use them, when our hearts would condemn us. It seems that to dismiss one's emotions is a very illogical and unreasonable thing to do which can lead to mass psychosis. The American church has been following that path for a century. If Christians want to know WWJD (what would Jesus do?), he would cry, laugh, mourn, weep, get angry, turn over tables, and be willing to die for you. These are all passionate or emotional choices. It turns out that to create a church valuing intellect at the expense of emotion is the truly crazy way to go, yet it became almost doctrinal. We begin to see the need to reexamine these new and hastily formed doctrines shaping us today.

If one looks at a simple coloring book, the lines represent our reason, giving order and shape to our existence. The colors we add are the feelings. Bright colors, or dark colors, indicate much more about the mood of a drawing than the simple lines of intellect. Art can even represent itself with splashes of color without lines such as modern art. Almost all the arts like poetry and music are based in large part on feelings and inspiration. Could one imagine living without emotion? How dry and boring life would become. In 1966, there was a new television program invented by Gene Rodenberry called "Star Trek" in which one of the leading characters named Spock came from Vulcan, a planet of reason without emotion. He was born of an earth mother and a Vulcan father so many of the episodes showed his battle with trying to control his emotions. This played out on our television screens the emerging dialogue at that time between reason and emotion in our cultural lives. America was beginning to heal, but the church retreated into what it considered a pro-intellectual doctrinal position, which as we have seen was not doctrinal, or even healthy. One could predict the coming schizophrenic break with society and within itself. Soon the church no longer spoke to or for the society, and soon masses were leaving the church in droves.

One of the things Freud revealed to us about our psyche, and was picked up and developed more by his student William James, is that we have differing states of consciousness which affect the way in which we see, organize and relate to the world. A simple example of this is that we are often quite different people before our morning coffee. When we are happy and relaxed our days usually go better than when we are feeling down. Our state of consciousness affects the information we receive and our decision making about it. This is not mere emotionalism, but the very context in which we live and move and have our being. Some still have difficulty realizing that they live in a culture or atmosphere which affects everything they think, say and do. An illustration of states of consciousness is the Charles Schultz character from the comic Peanuts called Pigpen. Pigpen was always inked as a small boy with a cloud of dirt and dust drawn around him wherever he went. Our moods, feelings, ideas, philosophies, theologies and past history go around with us all as a cloud around us wherever we go. This is our state of consciousness.

Revivals have historically been movements which change a culture's state of consciousness very rapidly. They do not simply introduce a few new doctrinal ideas to ponder, or bring a teaching or word for us to consider, they literally blow into town in a hurricane like force, knocking people over and creating radical changes of consciousness and piety in a very short period of time. Since these type of events do not happen normally in nature, then the very existence of such phenomena places them within the confines of the super natural, or what science calls altered states of consciousness. A natural fear and aversion to both the suddenness and overwhelming nature of the experience is often what causes the negative reactions around revivals. It should be noted that the reactions are often altered states of consciousness as well, which is some of what this book is revealing. Fear, discomfort, anxiety, prejudice and denial are also states of consciousness produced in reaction against great moves of God. This has been shown to be true historically in the First and Second Great Awakenings in history, as well as the Reformation. The reactions can be just as emotional—fear, discomfort or dread, as sudden and illogical as the revivals themselves..

Altered states of consciousness, by their very nature, are weird, and little is still written or studied on the subject in science. It is usually left up to the field of mysticism and metaphysics to ponder and investigate these altered states. Mysticism is the boundary where the science of psychology ends and spirituality begins. A person claiming to be in the third heaven "whether in the body or out I do not know" as the Apostle Paul writes about "some man he knew fourteen years ago" in 2 Cor 12:2, is clearly having an altered state of consciousness. Someone who is seeing purple dragons attacking them and believing it is the government sending them is also having an altered state of consciousness, so we begin to see how insanity and mysticism often get lumped together. I have even see Christians who are against the miraculous because of these altered states of consciousness likening them to the new age movement and other so called evil demonic influences. This is a rather odd reaction because about 90% of the Bible is either reporting about, or reporting from, an altered state of consciousness.

So if we are seriously going to try and understand the miraculous, we begin to see a strong need to understand altered states rather than simply deny them. The first stage of this investigation is the state of light or dark, good or evil. Just as a small child learns to cross a street, so too a Christian should learn early on to recognize the difference between God and Satan. It is embarrassing after 2000 years to have people reporting an encounter with God, and others claiming it's really Satan. The two should not be remotely mistaken for one another by even the most recent believers let alone experts in the field. While scripture reports that Satan can still masquerade as an angel of light, he certainly cannot masquerade as God. Can you imagine going to a jeweler with your mother's diamond engagement ring and him telling you it is fake? You then go to several more experts who tell you it is genuine and worth a fortune. At some point the jeweler reporting the fake needs to be exposed as a fraud. While it sounds pretty impressive to make bold statements which go against other experts, this does not make one by definition an expert themselves. Their credibility needs to be tested.

There are certain fruits we can see around altered states which should tell us immediately whether it is light or dark. Ironically we often see more dark energy and words around the reactions to revivals. There is fear, fear mongering, false reports, rumors, and unsubstantiated claims. Once again, if a person is having what that person believes is an encounter with the living God; we should handle that with extreme caution. Either the encounter is real or the person is deluded, but both are altered states and need to be treated with examination and care.

We should also have our Christ given sense of truth be able to tell truth from falsehood. Truth rings a certain way, and one should have skills in discerning the correct notes of truth. Truth is not just a set of intellectual facts we believe. Jesus presents Himself as the truth. It is a relational quality that one should cultivate and trust. I am surprised how the sense of light and dark, and the sense of truth and falsehood, can usually give us a clear warning from a proclamation whether God is at work, or not. It is more shocking that at this point in Christianity that we cannot do this and rely too much on warning labels and messages from so called experts on the subject. This inability to sense light and truth after years of being a Christian is a bad state of affairs. When Warfield tells us that there is not one shred of evidence in the Bible for cessation of miracles, and then proceeds to try and convince us its still true, something inside us should recoil in horror at the false doctrine emerging.

The thing most people seem to object to about altered states is the fact that they are mystical. Somehow the faith which begins with Jesus rising from the dead, has evolved into an anti mystical one. This is a sad state of affairs as well. We sit on wooden benches in church on Sunday morning signing some of the most mystical songs ever written, we affirm our faith in the mystical in our prayers and confessions, the minister reads from a mystical book, the Bible, and then expounds it using the mystery of preaching. How can people believe in a resurrection, but have trouble with a miracle? The conclusion is irrational.

In this chapter we have shown that the fear and anxiety around mystery and mysticism is the culprit of the anti-emotional movement. However, the fear seems really more pronounced than simply disliking another's religious approach. My suggestion would be that the darkness in our spirit is reacting to the light of Christ. The sin inside us is reacting to drawing nearer to God and experiencing more of His holy pleasure. We observe that at most revivals you see people weeping and confessing sin. It seems that the approach to God, when moving faster and deeper into these altered or spiritual dimensions causes one to feel deeply unworthy, sinful, and aware of one's own evil inside. Therefore we shun coming into the light, choosing to remain in darkness. When one measures the light in a revival, and the darkness in its anti reactionaries, one can see that this is true.

# Chapter 7 - The Price of the Kingdom

_"More persons, on the whole, are humbugged by believing in nothing, than by believing too much." -P.T. Barnum_

_For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's shall save it. For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? For what should a man give in exchange for his life? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. -Mark 8:35-38_

It is hard to imagine that anything spiritual born into the culture and climate of what we have previously exposed could have survived at all, let alone the Pentecostal movement flourishing, surviving, and now the fastest growing movement of God around the world. However, the attacks against this movement do not stop there. We have seen erroneous teachings purported to be doctrine, we have seen psychological elements influencing the assessment, and we have seen people just blatantly declaring it wrong based on their opinions cleverly inserted onto the pages of scripture, an act forbidden by scripture itself. The entire culture turned against it by mid 20th century with cartoons in popular newspapers and periodicals, comedians, and Hollywood openly lambasting the fire of heaven. If any other religious movement in the history of America had received so open a persecution, it would have been claimed to be bigotry and anti freedom, but this attack went unchecked.

This is not to say that some of the critiques were not brought on by the movement itself. It has been said that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the excess around those who claimed the power of God to intervene in human affairs was at times bizarre to say the least. For some who were at the end of their rope in life, financially, emotionally, or spiritually, were encouraged to find as much money as they could find in order to seed the miracle. Now while the concept of seeding is in scriptures, and it is a very good teaching in the kingdom, the early Pentecostals made it one of their founding doctrines, and used it to explain why some miracles happened and some didn't. That question has long dogged both the proponents and the antagonists of the continued practice of the miraculous, but the newly emerging Pentecostal groups assure everyone that seed faith was the answer.

Now, seed faith may indeed be the answer to some issues of faith, just as a headache may be attributable to not eating all day. However, it is not the only reason, and in the case of someone needing serious diagnostic studies, we would not want to be found telling someone with a brain tumor to merely eat a good meal. In looking for answers to the most difficult theological issues of all time, Pentecostals sometimes latched onto simple explanations, and then made them into general doctrines to cover all circumstances. This practice of course alienated long time theologians and long standing churches. However, the simple truth is always right, has not become wrong or unfashionable as many in the main line churches seemed to be stating.

With all the twisting going on in educated circles, it is no wonder that some in rural communities of faith, clinging to an experience of the kingdom of God, chose their simple answers over people using convoluted theories as to why their Godly experience was invalidated. As a result, deep rifts of mistrust opened fairly quickly. I think some sane and sound theological investigation on both sides at the beginning of the twentieth century, without trying to jump to conclusions, may have benefited the ease into main stream America which was emerging from the Industrial revolution. However, the rift also mirrored the rift between rich and poor, the haves and the have nots, the educated and those unable to afford education, the cities and the rural. America itself was becoming deeply divided as a nation, and Pentecostalism often found itself the emerging faith of the poor and rural, or the uneducated blue collar workers of the newly emerging industrial cities.

The real problem with the culture came when some in this newly burgeoning experience of the power of God, began to try and sell the experience to the dying, the lost, and the hopeless. Tents, of the kind that P.T. Barnum used to travel around the country with his circus, began holding nightly meetings in the backwoods of America. Camp grounds and other temporary venues were pressed into service. There was no need for control or oversight, the revivalist owned their own means of authority, a quick exit out of town should the need arise, and no permanent accountability for promises made. I do not mean to dishonor those brave men and women who answered a call of God to bring this means of faith in a distrusting, disbelieving and hostile culture. God Himself knows the hearts, and many were pure in trying to share this heavenly experience they had encountered. But the fire of heaven was being bottled and sold like snake oil before it which did not lend credibility to this emerging movement in the eyes of many.

There were also those who were out right dishonest in selling this experience to those who could least afford to pay for it. It became big business, and revival often continues that way today. Stadiums and large hotels host a venue of big name, top draw, speakers, a good musical act, and tables full of books and CD's for sale. People pay premium prices to attend to try and get a touch from their favorite revivalist, in the hopes that what ails them will be transformed by the power of God. Once again, this is not to imply that all such actions are either dishonest, or devoid of God's power. However, it does look really bad to the world. It looks like a business, and leaves them wondering what God is doing in business when He gave his grace freely. However, the local church spends millions on air conditioning and padded seats, and luxurious decorations just the same, but somehow this is construed as holy.

During the height of the Great Depression a large tabernacle was built in Los Angeles by the revivalist, Aimee Semple McPherson. She was one of the first to discover the power of radio combined with the power of the Holy Spirit. However, there was much criticism for using pennies in a depression to build such extravagance. Today Benny Hinn, a well known TV revivalist is criticized for his lavish lifestyle and wealthy appointments. This is not to imply that the laborer is not worth his hire, as the apostle Paul states. However, when the hire is discovered to be jets, luxurious homes, trips to exotic locales, massages, and other luxurious items at the expense of the poorest and lowest on earth, it does seem to contradict what Christ taught. The Pentecostal movement has not often examined its own witness to the world. Perhaps this was due to it being cut off from local churches and authorities, perhaps it was done to stand out and draw more people. Only God knows the hearts.

There has even emerged a teaching (doctrine) around this new wealth calling it favor, and if you too would put your money in the bucket, and buy a book or CD, you too could get the heavenly favor which will bring you the wealth. It is called the prosperity gospel, and it sells like crazy. I have recently seen a version on late night cable where the preacher, without even bothering to mention Christ, or the gospel, was simply teaching that to send him the seed gift of $1,000, and he did mention that amount, would guarantee you financial fortune in the coming year. He even had figured out that he needed 876 people to do this gift right now, and if you were one of the 876 you would get your fortune. He also stated that to miss out on this was sure to bring hardship in the coming year. It seems like a very expensive chain letter, in which those with lesser wisdom might feel the need to write the $1,000 check. This fellow even went so far as to openly state that you could charge it on your charge card, even if you have no job or no means to pay for it, because the benefit would be so quick you would not notice it.

It is that kind of self appointed irresponsible teaching, now being elevated to doctrine, which soured the culture. This is not to state that there is not some truth in seed giving, and some have found some power in it, as did the woman in the bible who gave her last two cents, and Jesus applauded her. It is the application of this truth into a sales pitch to make one's TV rental, which leaves people cold and distant to the claims of thy kingdom coming. This is not to imply that the business practices of the main stream church are much better in leading the way into kingdom culture.

Churches with large stained glass windows, expensive artwork, Starbuck's Coffee shops in the lobby, and rich lavish shops for Christian artifacts in the entry do not seem to do much justice to Jesus' command to feed my sheep. It is not too difficult to sit in an air conditioned auditorium the size of a football field in comfortable padded seats, and look at the lighting and sound effects, and figure out how many people this could all feed. But then again we wouldn't have our Christian entertainment for the week, and they do take an occasional offering to help the poor. Now, I am not so naive to think we should sell all our churches and go back to the house church model. Actually, the large church probably ends up doing a lot to help the poor. However, there seems to be something wrong with the business of the church, on both sides of the experiential divide.

In rural America, which was most of her history, there were small country churches. Maybe a few dollars were collected each year for missions or to aid the parson. The clergy often worked as farmers, and were afforded gifts of food and necessities by the congregation on what was then the major economic system of the day, barter. It wasn't until the Industrial revolution around large urban centers that the monetary system of today began for most of the clergy. The clergy became a paid position. In a barter society, which rural America was, everyone was equal. In cities, the distinction between rich and poor was staggering, and the two could walk side by side down the same street. Churches, as well as clergy, did not often want to be the poorest in town, rather striving as all did in the twentieth century for God's favor upon their hard work. Poverty was often viewed as a judgment on laziness, and some churches did not think they held any accountability toward the poor. Each class deserved what it received, no more so than the rich.

Into this culture in the cities the social gospel began to emerge to help the poor through education, invitation, and grace. This social gospel began to be viewed by some as a distortion of scripture, especially to those of more evangelical leanings who believed that the acceptance of Christ as Lord was more important than food or raiment. This began another rift between the emerging 20th century church in America, with each side quickly developing so called doctrines to support their emerging views. Of course on all sides, the mark of a successful church was a large one with lots of adherents. This alone in the American culture was proof that God had ordained and blessed your message, and it is still in use today. The first question Christians will ask each other after "what church do you attend" is, "how large is it"? The size of one's church seems to be the biggest factor in the purity of one's doctrine. Therefore for the first two thirds of the century the main line church was safe, because they were the oldest and the biggest, as well as the wealthiest and the most politically connected in the community. God must love us.

A funny thing happened to the culture beginning around mid century. A new class of people began to emerge in the society who were neither poor nor wealthy. They were known as the middle class. It began to be noticed that the middle class were actually spending more and influencing both the economy and political landscape more than the other two groups combined, the rich or the poor. Also, about mid century they had a huge baby boom after returning from World War II and created a doubling and tripling of the middle class ranks. Main line churches moved out into the new suburbs (hastily created communities), and their ranks swelled. The inner city churches, once the bastions of power and prestige, began to decline while homes in urban areas were sold to minorities and new immigrant groups. As people fled the urban areas, so did their churches, purchasing tracts of land and building new contemporary houses for these congregations.

One noted theologian has stated that there was one invention which changed the face of American Christianity more than any other single factor, the automobile. People could now drive to where they wished to worship. In the urban centers one would walk to their neighborhood church, and in rural America one had to be a horse and buggy ride away from the church. No longer tied to what was available, people began to shop around. After all, we lived in a consumer society where one looked for quality and price. So people wanted churches which were the best, but didn't cost them too much. Programs for the kids and good education were the main factors they shopped for, along with interesting sermons and a good choir. Low guilt was a necessity, except among emerging Catholic populations who still only were given one choice in each parish or community to attend. The theology was shaped around this newly emerging suburban experience, and relativistic Christianity was being born. Christianity can be whatever you wish it to be.

The Pentecostal and Evangelical churches were often not part of this emerging landscape, being associated with poorer and rural areas. This snobbery and bigotry was not concealed, it was actually elevated as a value. Children were taught you did not want to fail at school because you might become like "one of those" (minority, Pentecostal, and Catholic were implied and often outright stated). There were signs on shops and work places in many communities throughout the early twentieth century "Irish or Catholic or minority Need Not Apply". So you could even be denied work and a livelihood if one did not ascribe to these newly constructed moral ethics of success.

The Evangelicals and Pentecostals actually held meetings, not with each other but with their respective groups, to discuss why they were not getting a share in this new American Pie. They too began to craft their experiences to spread more easily into the American culture. The Assemblies of God actually decided to tone down the wild fire, and the Evangelicals decided to remake their image around Billy Graham and the four spiritual laws, a little cartoon booklet which explains the entire mystery of God's kingdom in four pages. Imagine God needing the whole Bible. They noticed that advertising and radio and TV time paid off, and so they adopted the culture to begin the selling of their doctrine.

The Evangelicals began to emerge first. People tired of the social gospel now embraced a born again experience, toned down of course, which allowed them to imagine heavenly delights after a long hard day here on earth. The Pentecostals still were a little too weird. Evangelicals began to adopt some political and social issues, namely anti homosexuality and anti abortion, which seemed to resonate well with suburbanites. Unfortunately for the main line church, they adopted cultural values which were completely opposite, now being called Liberal. By the 1960's it was revealed in a survey that 85% of Main line Christian clergy did not believe in the actual resurrection of Christ, and thought it a mere metaphor. The Evangelicals were teaching the reality of the gospel, similar to what suburban children had heard growing up in Sunday School.

So the two groups took a radical turn in opposite directions. There seemed to be a mass exodus from the main line churches in the 1960's and 1970's, while the Evangelicals swelled in numbers following city wide Billy Graham crusades, TV shows of Pat Robertson and other people on the new UHF channels which were almost giving away air time to get started. The main line church responded with a somewhat snobbish attitude it had adopted for most of the century. However, no one was buying it, and churches closed in record number. By the time the main line church began to even address the issue, and then made bumbling attempts to fix it, it was too late, they had ceased to be the major religious influence in America. The few large churches left were highly programmatic churches often referred to as country clubs of the elite.

All of this was not being lost on the Catholic Church in America. Early on they realized the bigotry and extremism of the emerging American church, and they realized their members were not only being assimilated in the new culture, but also into Protestantism. In an effort to control their own demise, they formed the Catholic school system to allow young people a chance to develop their own identity apart from the Protestant landscape. They secured air time for Bishop Fulton Sheen, a rather charismatic catholic whose black and white image on TV was as well known as any revivalist of the day. Catholics worked hard in politics and social endeavors to stop the bigotry toward their faith. However, even by mid century, the fact that John F. Kennedy was a Catholic played a huge part in the elections, with local protestant churches decrying his loyalty to the Pope and his hand on the nuclear trigger.

The Catholic Church also seemed more easily to embrace some of the mystical movements such as the charismatic movement of the 60's and 70's, starting groups on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit open to the community at large. They did not force their adherents to make a choice between long standing doctrine and experiential faith. They offered both. This might have been a lesson to the Protestant church, but instead engendered more anti Catholic sentiment for their Mary, miracles, and mystics among Protestants during this period. The Catholic Church also had the Ecumenical council in the 1960's, deciding to forgo the Latin mass and open it to the native tongues of countries in which the church found itself. These actions probably stemmed a tide of exodus which may have occurred in America. The Catholic Church did not have another crisis in America until its stance over the use of birth control later in the century and the issue with sexual deviancy and abuse among priests.

The main line church had also aided its own demise by adopting the business model of the day, known as the IBM model, for its corporate life. The church was divided into committees, who reported to officers, who reported to the board. Dollars and cents were often the deciding factor in what got done or didn't, and at the end of the meeting, people had a cup of coffee and a piece of pound cake and assumed what they just voted must somehow be God's will if they even considered God at all. The goal of the church became the balancing of the yearly budget, followed by the second highest goal, keeping the members happy. The concept of even considering doing God's will, or that he remotely took any interest in what we were doing, was as preposterous as a Pentecostal rolling in the aisle with a heavenly vision of glory. All religious or spiritual experience was wrung from the church like a towel coming out of the washer. The goal of purity and holiness meant the absence of spiritual experience in favor of the will of man and his reason, the exact opposite of what it had meant for most of Christian history. Reason was God's crowning achievement, or so they taught and therefore He abandoned emotion and spirit.

To give the system some credit, the IBM methodology did work in the business world. Except for one difference, the business world was in existence to make money. The goal was clear. A group of people with no goal, trying to discover their goal, while another religious group was siphoning off their sheep in record droves, is obviously doomed. What is most ironic in this situation, is that these same reasonable people thought it emotional and not reasonable to simply pray and ask God. Prayer had become merely a ritual the minister did, and an arcane one at that, which wasted precious meeting time for discussions. Warfield's vision of the government of man, forged in his reason at the beginning of the century, had reached its zenith by the end of the century, and the result, as always in the Bible when man takes charge, is death and madness. Now devoid of God, the main line church had only one place left to turn to keep its existence going, the endowment fund.

So the IBM model continues as a means for making decisions about decaying endowments, decaying buildings, and decaying congregations, while churches full of spiritual life emerge. The Pentecostal Church began to emerge with the children of those who had left the main line church. Devoid of the snobbery of the main line church for an entire generation and raised to believe that God's word was real, the last fence that miracles no longer happen could easily be crossed. It has been said that we are all one experience away from being Pentecostals, and indeed the experiences are very profound and have a life changing effect on piety and faith.

Once people had an experience, and found that their old main line church was teaching it was of the devil, and that the church was basing that judgment on outdated theological twisting and turnings, groups began to gravitate toward the Pentecostal Church. The Assemblies of God, now toned down a bit from their humble beginnings, along with newer groups like the Vineyard movement, created independent churches built around a praise and worship experience and a direct encounter with God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The world wide experience of Toronto and its subsequent experiences spreading around the globe in the 1990's saw a growing trend away from intellectual Christianity toward more expressive forms.

The fact that the culture was also moving in a more spiritually awakened direction seemed to support these changes. Main line Christian groups tried to dig in and point to the fact that many of the spiritual experiences were similar to the new age movement, thereby proving once and for all they were of the devil. The growing Evangelical churches also began to turn away from spiritual experience. It is ironic that those who built their faith on the experience of being born again, now wish to deny experiences beyond birth. Again ironically, Evangelicals seem to have embraced Warfield and Ryrie, who would probably not wish to be associated with one of their churches.

The conclusion we can draw is that most Christians have been competing for a market share in a consumer society, and rather than taking the lead out of that mindset of greed and excess, the church has actually been converted to it, by competing for bucks and bodies in the pews. After all, success does mean you are right and have God's favor, doesn't it? Each group claims it is reaching the culture for Christ, when in reality we simply have Christians migrating between churches while the rate of the unchurched in America grows daily.

America at the beginning of the 20th century sent out missionaries to save the world. Today nations send missionaries to us. The American church is trying to evangelize its own nation on this worldly diet of American success and greed. The nation was recently almost ripped apart by an economic collapse of huge proportions brought on by sheer greed. Yet if you attend any Christian church, the sin of greed is never mentioned.. Greed is destroying the church, the culture and the nation, but we need to focus on our private matters.. It seems the church has gone quite mad. The culture outside Christianity, the very atmosphere around the American church, began to influence the thinking and actions of the church more than the church was influencing it.

When a society gets control of the church, then the church has lost her leading and light in the world and will always end up in severe decline. We see this happening toward the end of medieval Christianity when the empires and kingdoms of this world got serious influence over the Roman church. The birth of the Protestant reformation came as a direct result of the world tainting the word and led to what would become the foundation of the Reformation church. The mantra of that reformation was "sola scriptura", which meant we were going to put our trust in God's word alone, not the doctrines and governments of men.

It seems every new generation rediscovers not only the kingdom and power of the living God, but also the sins and errors of Adam, i.e. self reliance. When we start thinking we know how everything works, it is precisely the moment we fall. As Proverbs teaches, "Pride goeth before the fall", so also does our pride in our own achievements, intellect, reason, or abilities which sets our kingdoms over the kingdom of God, the same act as the Fallen Angel Lucifer. It is ironic that Ryrie almost had it right. Each generation has a fresh dispensation of God's mercy and power to deal with the sins and errors of that generation. Ryrie missed one thing though—the word of God never organized itself into historical periods as he calculated, although it often organizes itself around generations. One is biblical, the other is not. It is subtle changes and ingredients like that which can radically alter the doctrine of our faith.

# Chapter 8 - God In A Box

_"At this day, the earth sustains on her bosom many monster minds, minds which are not afraid to employ the seed of Deity deposited in human nature as a means of suppressing the name of God. Can anything be more detestable than this madness in man" -John Calvin_

_Also before the throne was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal. In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered in eyes, in front and in back. -Rev.4:6_

One of the unpleasant side effects we have to deal with after 100 years of Pentecostalism is a blessed mess. I do not wish to dishonor in any way the work God may have been doing, or to seem ungrateful for the fullness with which He may be enriching our lives by this new addition to His body here on earth, His beloved bride, the church. However, even the Pentecostals admit that things have gotten messy, with some even claiming that you can't have a revival without the mess, and they welcome the mess along with the blessings. Perhaps they have the right idea, the right spirit. to approach this.

The way in which Christians clean up beliefs and teachings about God is through doctrine. We humans literally construct a system to organize and support our beliefs. This doctrine is called systematic theology, and could be compared to a shelving system one puts in a garage to organize all the tools and supplies we store there. While doctrine is very handy to keep things from spilling out all over the place it also has a tendency to reduce the reality of God into what is understandable to us. In effect we end up with God in a box.

Pentecostals have often distrusted systematic theology because it has a tendency to limit and control what the Spirit of God may be doing in a season. However, to not have a clear and compelling system for organizing one's beliefs does not mean one is necessarily closer to God. It could simply mean one has a messy garage. As long as we are human and attempt to communicate and understand our faith, which is spiritual, there will always be a systematic theology. The only choice we have is will it be neat or messy. We have seen how Pentecostals often take an experience of God, and it is their explanation or teaching, that confuses it. We have seen Baptism in the Spirit confuse people over the use of the word Baptism, and how holy laughter was really joy., These types of miscommunications can cause much difficulty for those investigating the phenomena.

The experience of stepping outside the veil of our human perception to catch a glimpse of God's spiritual reality, either like the prophets of Old Testament or the people worshipping him ecstatically before the ark of the covenant with the fire and cloud of glory, or in New Testament times on the day of Pentecost, or in subsequent generations becomes a problem the minute we return to our earthly mind and then try to describe it to another. Since 1John 4 tells us to test the spirits, and that not every spirit is sent of God, we are well aware that the first thing we need to do is examine the experience and find ways to determine if it really is a God thing.

Our doctrine is certainly one way which could aid us in that process, but as we have discovered, much of our doctrine today may have allowed false ingredients to enter the mix. We began the Reformation with the simple doctrine of sola scriptura which means, the Word alone is our measure, not human authorities, as had become the case in the Roman church. However, we arrive at Warfield who openly states that not a hint of his theory can actually be determined from scripture. According to the doctrine of sola scriptura he should have been drummed out of the lectures in 1917 and no self respecting publishing house should have touched his writings. The academic institution which employed him should have immediately fired him for being a heretic, one who writes and teaches outside of prescribed doctrine, and his theological life should have ended in shame. How did we get so far outside a doctrine like sola scriptura, and then start using it to strain out the gnat of religious experiences?

Ryrie had a great idea, dispensation, in which it appears that God does different things in different times. However, the word dispensation is only found four times in the scripture, and each time it is intended to be used simply as a word implying a measure of something given to an individual. Never is it used to explain epochs of history as Ryrie purports. He used the word dispensation loosely to apply to a better biblical term age. However, the bible uses age. So if I am explaining to a group of new theological students that an age is something like a dispensation, that would be considered an analogy. If I then take my analogy of dispensation and begin expounding it like it is scripture that is where the error begins.

A doctrine, while helping us organize our beliefs, can never be used like scripture. We cannot start expounding the writings of any one man, nor take ideas and start expounding them as we do with scripture. One ends up with lesser and lesser amounts of God when we try to build our understanding of Him on the writings of other men and women. We need to stay within the confines of sola sciptura, no matter how wonderful the human invention may appear. So people begin to explain ages to be like dispensations, Scofield begins to further elucidate and define dispensation, an explanation, not the word, and Ryrie, then builds a whole theology off of a second generation word of explanation which is 99% human invention. It is quite clear the scriptures were departed after the first explanation.

This happens so much in the field of Christianity as to be frightening, and has led us off track so many times in our history, that you think people would learn. But like ancient Israel we keep coming back to kings of our own choosing to govern us, rather than God and His Word. People have done this with Calvin, and Luther and other theologians. Pouring through their writings as if they were scripture and then building more edifices for the expounded theology, so that the original authors might not even recognize the theologies which now bear their names. Ironically, a doctrine given us for an age, or a season, written by one person, or a group of scholars, is intended to help us with the dispensation of God's grace for that season. Here is where Ryrie's ideas may have helped us if he had stayed within scripture rather than building idea after idea on man, primarily himself and Mr. Scofield.

A doctrine, or storage box in the garage, may no longer fit our growing understanding of God over time, or in light of new discoveries, may prove to actually be false. The apostles passed on power and authority by the laying on of hands. By the time we get to 16th century Roman Christianity, Popes and Cardinals can actually purchase this laying on of hands, and their approval and doctrine is the only seal needed to prove its authenticity. This corruption is what led to the Reformation. The doctrine was corrupt. The original idea was sound and biblical, but generation after generation, age after age, added more human interpretation to it. The Roman Church actually got to the point where a group of men decided that the Pope was infallible, so even if he made a mistake, it was not a mistake. One is reminded of Warfield stating that miracles cannot happen because he simply says so, or wiping out the history of ages of miracles because we no longer ascribe to the doctrine of that particular church. This in effect wipes out the history of the work of God by one person.

Like ancient Israel, theologians promoted their own thinking and reason and government over God, and said, we will take it from here, in effect becoming the reigning monarch. I know they do not think they are doing that, but neither did the Pope and the Catholic Church realize how far outside the original chalice they had actually spilled. This is why we established sola scriptura, not to argue about arcane Old Testament rituals and customs, which the New Testament asks us not to do, but to reexamine our doctrines and teachings each generation so that we can continue to reform ourselves according to the word of God. Reform does not mean we can get away from scripture now that we are so brilliant in our learning that we can pick and choose which parts are worthy to follow and which parts we wish to cut out and burn. We end up with cut and paste scriptura, and thereby lose our own authority, the Word.

Our doctrine helps us to organize, sort, and contain our current understanding of God and His kingdom. The doctrine is not the kingdom, nor does it begin to accurately describe or contain the kingdom. When people mistake doctrine for the Word itself, we end up with God in a box. God then has to conform to our understanding, and He has to work within our expected perceptions. Ryrie does this by pointing out that God ceased operating in some ages, and he ends by stating that because of our doctrine, God has to stay in the box and never intervene again until we say so. Like our box of favorite cereal in the morning, we may wish to sit down and pour out our God in a box and have Him be exactly as we found Him yesterday, tastefully the way we like Him. It is at this point that we have created idolatry, creating our own God. We have replaced the living God, and His revealed Word with our limited understanding of it, and are now worshipping the box, i.e.. our limited understanding,

We need to stand in awe of God and constantly be impressed with new revelation he gives us through His word. Our understanding should grow so much that as an adult we look back at our childhood and marvel at how far we have come, each ten years we should be progressing in wisdom, knowledge, power and experience of the living God. If this were happening, as scripture dictates, then it is easy to see we would not only outgrow our doctrines, but also the garages we keep them in. This is not to sate either that our experiences alone shape and write our doctrines, but it is to state, that our doctrines should not be writing our doctrines and thereby keeping everything within our current confined space of learning.

There are so many passages where Jesus says and implies that future generations will do greater things than He did while here on earth. The notion that He would stop doing the miraculous goes against scripture. Even though a few passages seem to go into the makeup of the false doctrine of cessation, it is very easy to see in the clear light of scripture that they do not support that doctrine. How then did it get so far? We allowed false doctrine to become our word, and we worshipped it. It also has divided His body, our church for over one hundred years. The fact that scripture says His spirit unites us should have been a clue that we were on the wrong track, but it is remarkable how convincing false doctrine can be in giving us security that all is well, even though our behavior and actions are far afield of sola scriptura.

Once again, this is not to imply that every single experience of God is real, and that we can throw away doctrine and merely wing it from here. The absence of doctrine means we end up with a mess. Our doctrine helps us accomplish the scriptural mandate to "test the spirits", to validate each confessed occurrence of a Godly experience so that we can be pretty sure what is of Him and what is not. While the absence of doctrine is messy, so too is a leaky doctrinal system which has been stacked with years of untested ideas and principles and built upon a shaky foundation to begin with. Each new generation must also test the doctrine with which we use to test our understanding.

We currently live in an age where being outside the box is sometimes deemed a good thing. Not everything outside the box is good, or of God. God does work outside our boxes though, and helps us in each age to grow in our knowledge, understanding and applying His Word. If you are wearing the same clothes you wore when you were 10 years old, they have probably grown small on you, even though they are actually the same size, and they have begun to become restrictive to your movements. What was appropriate for a ten year old, is not appropriate for an adult. Our understanding of God grows along with our age. When I was a child I thought like a child, so the scripture passage goes. When I became an adult I put childish ways behind me.

Therefore an age in scripture can also refer to our chronological age. Scripture says we are growing up into Him. Therefore the finger painting I studied in kindergarten is not appropriate for my tenth grade biology class. However, my tenth grade biology class was not meant that I should stay inside a classroom memorizing passages from my tenth grade text book for the rest of my life. It was an introduction to further study and understanding of the experience of life around me. Our doctrinal understandings of God must grow along with us in each age of our life,. as well as growing up through the ages of history. This process was called the Reformation. It is ironic in my own Christian denomination, the Reformed Church in America, to hear people actually say, "We can't change, we always did it that way because we are Reformed". In that case the word "Reformed" means the exact opposite what it was intended to mean, to be changing according to the word of God. This is how God in a box can actually constrict and reign in growth and understanding rather than promote it.

If God is operating outside the box, to expand our understanding , how then can we test the spirits if they are outside our current doctrinal understanding? This is precisely the right question we should be asking. It would seem that if an experience is asking us to consider it Godly, and recognizes that it is outside the box, that it would be willing to allow itself to be tested more rigorously. We cannot accept something by faith, if we have no assurance it was from God. Faith does not mean naiveté. People who put their faith in Christ when he was alive, did so because they met him, saw his miracles, and tested his character by listening to his words. Everyone around him sensed something powerful going on and then they put their faith in him.

God does not ask us to jump off mountains and expose ourselves to danger of discovering that we are falling to our death in mid flight. Rather he asks us to "test the spirits". It is precisely in areas that we have no previous knowledge or experience that we need to do some rigorous testing. The knee jerk reactions of Warfield and other protestant theologians was a disservice to the very work they served, and they will be held accountable to it by the mercy and grace of God. They should have spent decades withholding judgment, gathering data, and studying this new movement. Their writings are akin to an airline accident investigator coming to the scene of a plane crash and pronouncing that the cause was pilot error. This would be highly irresponsible, and so too were the initial scholarly reactions to Pentecostalism. We must repent for that error.

By doing so we are not simply accepting every manifestation or claim of one for the last hundred years. I am currently researching claims that jewels have been appearing, and are being touted as gifts from God. Once again Pentecostals jump into the messy garage and throw in another item without thought or consideration. They seem intent in their defensiveness to want to justify and prove every miracle is evidence that every other miracle happened. This logic is that the more we have the more proof we have. They never stop to examine the first evidence. Are jewels actually being given by God? Is someone faking this to make themselves famous, or to bilk believers into buying their books and CD's and coming to more conferences and lining their pockets?

It is a very fair question. It is very right to ask since it is currently outside existing doctrine. My first knee jerk reaction would be to simply dismiss it because it is outside doctrine, and that would be God in a box, and would be wrong. So I have to go to work. There is a claim of my loving Father here on earth doing a miracle. It is my job to investigate. If it turns out to be Him, and I have wrongly denounced it, woe is me. I often hear people who were once in the Pentecostal movement and accepted these miracles without testing, now deciding they were in error and they are now suddenly knowing these things are not of God. My thought is that since they were hasty and wrong the first time, by their own admission, maybe they should be a little more careful this time around, but they make the same mistake in zeal opposing miracles as they once did espousing them.

Investigators of truth should never rush to conclusions. Getting verdicts on the doctrine of revivals the night after they happened is highly irresponsible and should be tested as much as the revivals themselves. We do not wish to keep God in a box, but every single event outside the box is not from God either. So the place to begin is in prayer. I ask God, are these magically appearing jewels gifts from you? I wait for a sense from Him. I wait for my heart to convict me or a word to speak to my mind, or a deep sense of knowing or wisdom. The answer I seem to hear are, some are, some are not. I then turn to scripture. Is there any evidence that this has happened before?

I must admit I feel uncomfortable with this new experience. One ruby appearing was reported at 50 carats. I looked online at the value of such a ruby and was shocked. I do not think they would be passing around such a ruby at a local church event. I have prejudices including the sharp cuts of the stone which look amazingly like fake ones you can get online for fifty dollars. I will continue to leave the investigation open for now. I am not ready to embrace it. I ask God to open my eyes. If there is more happening here, I do not want the box I am in to restrict my experience of Him. I think we need to hang loose with these experiences.

I am not willing to mock this one manifestation and then say this proves all others are counterfeit. The claims of miracles are not ripping apart the fabric of our faith. Most people who see them actually come away inspired in God. The only negative effects I see are irresponsible people arguing over their instant doctrines and God in a box brands of Christianity while promoting judgment, ill will, and hostility. These clearly are works of my enemy; clearly works hurting the church and clearly works hurting our witness. That is evident. I think we need to watch and see that the purported cure for what ails us may be poison in disguise. The real problems and divisiveness seem to come from those opposing miracles rather than those touting them. We really need to watch the fruit of this which happens to be another scriptural test.

We also cannot let our deep feeling of discomfort become our doctrine either. I sense that Warfield was deeply troubled when his own wife did not get healed, although that is merely speculation on my part. But we do need to guard our own hearts and take "every thought captive", as scripture teaches, and sometimes our motivation for putting God in a box is not order, but rather personal discomfort. The shepherds out in the fields watching over their flocks by night on the first Christmas eve were "sore afraid" at the sight of angels. Sometimes the supernatural can scare the wind out of us. For some anything outside their order of things disturbs them, and because of this experience of fear, God is being kept out of our process of growth and examination. Sometimes we stop growing because we are happy with our tenth grade explanation of reality.

To reach a place of comfort, and say to God, that is all I wish of You, He will honor and respect. You should however dismiss yourself as any kind of teacher, preacher, or investigator for God and drag other people into your garage. Like the Pharisees, who were the only group in the New Testament that Jesus said was going to Ghenenna (the burning hell), we do not want to be found holding others back because of our own discomfort.

# Chapter 9 - Quantum Christianity

_"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. .As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they certain, they do not refer to reality." -Albert Einstein_

_And you (did he make alive,) when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: — but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly (places), in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus: for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, (it is) the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory. -Eph 2:1-9_

The great debate which became one of the chief ingredients in the debate over the fire of heaven for almost all of the twentieth century was science vs. religion. It started innocently enough with a high school biology teacher by the name of John Scopes in Tennessee. The year was 1925, and a new theory by Charles Darwin had become popular known as evolution. Evolution taught that species adapted to their surroundings and evolved over time. He surmised that since we were so closely related to the ape, that we in some primitive time past had evolved from apes. Of course this theory left open the possibility that there did not need to be a creator in order for all this to take place.

The notion seemed silly at first, but as it began to be presented in classrooms, many communities actually banned its teaching. In Tennessee, the Butler Act had made it unlawful to teach. The trial became one of the first national media events in US history. Because of the potential publicity, William Jennings Bryan, three time presidential candidate for the Democrats, argued for the prosecution, while Clarence Darrow, the famed defense attorney, represented Scopes. The trial saw modernists, who said religion was consistent with evolution, against fundamentalists who said the word of God as revealed in the Bible trumped all human knowledge. The trial was thus both a theological contest, and a trial on the veracity of modern science regarding the creation-evolution controversy. The whole affair became known as the Scopes Monkey Trail. Scopes actually lost, but had his conviction over turned on a technicality, however, Christianity as it was presented, lost in the court of public opinion.

The whole affair sent religious groups scurrying to either appeal to the modern age by repressing talk of miracles and the like, while fundamentalists dug trenches to defend that old time religion. Ironically, fundamentalists, who believed in the inerrancy of scripture down to the exact 24 hour days they said Genesis referred to in creation, somehow managed to distance themselves from two thirds of the New Testament which tells of miracles, by simply following Scofield and Warfield into the notion that the supernatural had somehow ceased for some inexplicable reason. So while main line churches were embarrassed by the miraculous, Fundamentalists fought them just as hard as they fought modernists. It was a difficult time for the newly emerging Pentecostal churches, unable to find a brother or sister in the rank and file of everyday Christianity. The one thing both sides of the Scopes trial agreed on was that Pentecostals were weird.

You would think that among all the brilliant theologians in main line seminaries, it would have occurred to them that every time God's presence grew quiet in the history of Israel, that it was not a good thing, but rather a sorry state of affairs usually preceding their judgment and doom. You would think that it would have occurred to Fundamentalists who claimed that God was the same, yesterday, today and forever, and always works the same, that to deny the miraculous somehow violated that entire premise. Such is the problem with doctrines of man. If you start with the wrong premise, you can end up a long way down the wrong road still marching happily on to the wrong conclusions.

Main line churches and teachings developed a new ingredient for their presentation of the Word, intellectualism. They wanted to appear scientific and rational, not like these rabble rousing Fundamentalists whom America was seeing as backwoods hicks, and especially not like those holy rollers the Pentecostals falling down in the sawdust and having revival experiences. No one in Christianity wanted anything at all to do with Christians rolling on the floor weeping for the living God. This seemed the worst state of affairs of all. Warfield had led the way for introducing the fact that we could rewrite our own history and then reinterpret the Word through the lens of our own rewrite. The door that he opened a crack was shoved open by scientific modernity, and the result was not at all what he and his cronies imagined. Princeton Theological seminary was itself torn in two in subsequent years with Warfield's successors emerging into a much more conservative branch of scholarly thought in Westminster Seminary outside Philadelphia.

By now clergy were getting fine salaries and prestigious professional positions in society. They saw the emerging role of Christianity to enlighten the masses for social justice and education. They couldn't quite get out all the strains of faith, as people clung to the old time music where the echoes of previous revivals still lingered. So they could sing about the virgin giving birth at Christmas time, they just didn't consider it a scientific possibility, and of course by now we had become almost totally "sola scientifica", using the principles of science to discern what was possible and not in the Bible. If one suggested that the writings of the Bible were real in the beginning of the second half of the century, one would be considered a simple minded Fundamentalist, or worse, their mentally troubled cousins in the Pentecostal church.

By this time Pentecostalism had been around for half a century and was forming schools, colleges, and institutions of their own. However, the American church did not take any of this seriously. The American church had developed a way of simply branding and ignoring any branch of the faith they did not like. They would call them a sect. Mormons, Amish, even Evangelicals were all considered sects during the early part of the 20th century. A sect to a lay person simply referred to something that was not quite real. It was a form of mass denial, like not admitting your brother in law had a drinking problem even though he got drunk at every family gathering. The word "sect" was said with a certain disdain, as if the person had some form of leprosy and should be avoided at all cost.

By the 1960's, when Time magazine published on the cover that "God is Dead", millions began exiting the church. If there was no real God, and there was no real reason to go to church other than social activities. Then one could simply choose one's own social activity.. Golf on Sunday morning replaced the men's fellowship hour, and kids got to stay home and watch cartoons. The death knell for the main line church sounded when Blue Laws, local ordinances prohibiting business on the Sabbath were repealed en masse across the nation. Once the shopping centers and the newest attraction, the mall, were now open on Sunday, churches were only needed for the holidays of Christmas and Easter where the look and feel still had a quaint old time appeal.

Young people growing up began to see science as providing all the answers of life, while Christianity possessed nothing to offer. During world fairs in major U.S. cities such as the New York World's fair in the 1960's a bright vision of future life presented to us by science began to become the expectation. Our faith was now firmly in the scientific establishment, and the church was proclaiming it as well. Star Trek and Lost in Space became TV shows that a generation grew up on, believing that outer space travel was in their lifetime. We saw a man land on the moon in 1969 further proving our faith. Science was real, God was not. God was for the weak and mentally unstable, people who needed a crutch in life. The strong, the educated had themselves and science to rely on. New advances in medicine promised longer lives, perhaps even immortality one day. Science was our hope, our faith, and Christianity, what was left of it, was selling it as fast as she could. Only the sects opposed this modernist view, and grew more out of touch with the populace.

A funny thing happened though on the way to the 21st century. Many of the scientific visions never emerged. Time travel and strange new worlds never happened. Chemical factories were polluting our cities and rivers. Science had invented weapons of mass destruction, and crazy people were now wielding them. Marriages were dissolving along with emotional stability, and psychology had nothing to offer except tranquilizers, which millions became addicted to. A few scientific visions came true. The cell phone and small pocket communication devices were like the wrist radios Dick Tracy used to have in our youth. Computers were a novel invention from which people could watch porn and shop for stuff, our national pastime. The church had little credibility and could barely stay alive, let alone offer leadership or answers to a culture in trouble.

The simple faith of the Evangelicals, and later the Pentecostals, began to attract millions. People discovered there really were people who still believed in a real God, not the intellectual metaphorical one presented in nice prose and poetry at the church of their youth. Catholics, remaining somewhat aloof to these changes, pointed to this confusion as somehow being proof they were right all along and maybe the "sola sciptura" idea had been a bad idea. With their own schools, universities, and a Catholic President by 1960, they were well established in America. Very few turned toward them for answers unless they were raised in that faith to begin with, but they did begin to shape and effect cultural change around them. A few left the Catholic faith; some over issues like women's rights, and birth control, but Protestants were not offering much better, so Catholics just disaffected and attended on Christmas and Easter like Protestants.

By the late 1950's along came a good looking young revivalist by the name of Billy Graham. He had the idea of taking the old fashioned evangelical message of salvation to cities in stadiums and large arenas and through television. His crusades claimed to save millions who either accepted Christ for the first time, or rediscovered a faith they and their church had lost. Many clergy also were reintroduced to Christ as Lord, which ironically was now a new idea in modernist scientific America. The Evangelical movement was born. An organization called Campus Crusade for Christ sprang up on American Universities, and people dedicated their hearts to Jesus. This of course reignited the debate of science verses religion, and evangelicals once again hardened into the position that if "god says it, I believe it".

However, people fed up with the false hope of modernity actually began to embrace a more conservative approach. Even the Fundamentalists were growing and opening academic institutions of their own. It seemed to be a new day and a new age and conservative Christianity, along with Conservative politics was on the rise, and often the two seemed indistinguishable. The long standing American tradition that politics and religion should not mix was breached, and many churches were now espousing political ideals, if not openly supporting parties and candidates. Prayer and Bible reading which had been removed from public schools during the later part of mid century, was seen by millions as the reason for our moral and religious decline as a nation.

Along with the Evangelical crusades, the birth pangs of what was becoming the "end times" movement, Pentecostalism was actually experiencing major revivals, first at 30 year intervals, then at 20, then ten, then five years apart. Each wave brought manifestations as great as the early church experienced except now affecting millions. One Methodist pastor who did not believe in these kinds of Pentecostal manifestations, attended reluctantly one of the revivals in the 1990's and fell to floor filled with joy. When he stopped laughing from sheer delight he said, "Oh well, I used to be a Methodist". It was ironic that the Methodist movement which had begun in America as a revival itself a century earlier had now come full circle.

Of course the backlash, now fueled by the Internet and millions of people seeing these events live, was instantaneous. This was not scientific, and science had long ago proven that there was no God. If you wanted to be a primitive and sit in a church and believe in the Easter Bunny then you could do so, but how dare people suggest that God actually existed and worked miracles.. It was heretical to modern science. The church also blasted back now citing Ryrie and Warfield and 100 years of this doctrinal error gone unchecked as proof that these manifestations were unreal. When they saw the reality of them, they believed it was the devil. This debate between God and the devil made the science group certain they had entered the Twilight Zone.

However, a funny thing had happened to science toward the end of the century. The realized that centuries of Newtonian Physics, based on mechanical laws and principals was simply wrong. They had discovered something called Quantum Physics in which the entire universe was built on light and darkness. Where did we hear that before? They also discovered that there were no fixed laws and the very act of observing changed the universe. Kind of sounds like the definition of faith. They even went so far as to suggest there were other dimensions of existence and that quite possibly there was life and interaction within these other dimensions.....well there goes the anti-supernatural theory. It seemed that everywhere you looked in science, they were saying the exact same thing this thousands of years old Word of God had been saying all along.

Science even went so far as to discover that the exact order of evolution matched exactly with the order of creation in the Bible. If you allowed for Einsteinian relativity of time, then the two were essentially exactly the same. While Fundamentalists are not exactly ready for multi dimensional reality and the relativity of time, they have come a long way. They began to actually talk about creative evolution, arguing that the order of reality proved a creator behind it. That was a bit much for the scientific community to accept, but after 100 years of evolution, they had yet to offer a single plausible explanation for what lit the fuse to the Big Bang. The gap between science and religion is now less than a microcosmic number, but still separated by a wide dimension of prejudice on both sides. Metaphysics and physics often sound identical in their descriptions of the world around them, and here are the Pentecostals with 100 years of experience in exploring this area of faith.

In Einsteinium physics of multi dimensional reality, one could have the front door of their house in Iowa, and then go upstairs and look out their window in Paris. Don't ask me to explain that. I have read a very few elementary books on the subject which taught me enough to know that I didn't know very much. Suffice it to say, it is quite possible to walk on water, and do everything that Jesus taught, in Quantum physics because just by observing and understanding the nature of the universe can change it. God is the author of creation, and therefore the author of science. The more science discovers, the closer they get to seeing the fabric of what God created, not the other way around as some scientists believed.

The old Newtonian view of physics that the world was just a big mechanism, could allow for no God, or an absentee one who simply wound the thing up and let it go. Quantum physics would mean that everything is in motion, changing and being directed by all times by God. It is very much a hands on universe. It is most unlike an industrial factory as the early twentieth century understood, and much more like a garden, ever changing, ever growing as directed by the creator. It is strange how we Christians let the Newtonian understanding of the universe affect our own understanding of god and thereby limiting him, as well as ourselves. I think history will look back in dismay at these primitive understandings, much the same way we look back on those believing in a flat earth.

While mentioning the flat earth thing, let me clarify that it was scientists of the day who taught that the earth was flat, and it was a churchman, Galileo, who contradicted it. That is not to say the church did not go along with the current understanding, much like the church in the twentieth century went along with Newtonian understanding of a mechanical God in a mechanical world. Many still have issues that if God dispenses a miracle or manifestation to one person, then it would have to be the same for everyone. They view God like a giant gumball machine and aside from the color of the gumball, if you put your prayer in, then you should get your gumball out.

God presents the process as much more interactional and personal. Jesus tells the story of the pesky homeowner who goes to a neighbor to borrow something in the middle of the night. The neighbor doesn't wish to help, and wants the person to go away, and yet because of persistence the neighbor relents and gives him what he wants. Jesus then compares this to God. This sounds very weird compared to the 20th century notion of God. The Pentecostals often see him as a genie in a bottle who grants them what they wish if they only wish hard enough, i.e.. have enough faith. The main line church sees him as a missional director handing out spoon size portions equal to all people in order to be fair. God would not dare to give us too much cause that would upset the mission. Both views are clear discrepancies of the relational nature of God and his universe.

God is the creator of quantum physics, and he tells us we are going to live forever, without time, in his kingdom where there is no sickness, disease or death. These are realities. Jesus came from that place and demonstrated how they work for us "here on earth, as it is in heaven". He also put the qualifier on that, that it is God's will. He also added to that qualifier that we are allowed to try and influence God's will. It is `100% non mechanical. It is not Newtonian, the apple does not just fall because of gravity. There is also the nature of time and space around the planet which creates what we have come to know as gravity. Once you see how it works, you understand the fullness of the picture.

In discussing the manifestations of miracles as purported by Christians who have received them from Pentecostal type experiences, there is often this sense of "I just knew it". It is not so much closing one's eyes and wishing real hard, it is more akin to bugging the neighbor, and then getting your bread. Once you have it, you do. It is as easy as that, but as hard to explain as quantum physics. We tend to think and operate in three dimensions.

In the Old Testament we see Jacob having a vision of God's reality. Angels are going up and down ladders into this world. One should reasonably wonder why angels who can fly are using ladders, which seem to be floating on their own without gravity. One could simply interpret the whole thing as symbolic, even thought the bible does not present it that way, or reduce it down to metaphor through critical interpretation. or, you can simple accept it the way God presents it. In another more complex view of reality, angels go up and down ladders. That is how God chooses to present it to us, and actually it does work that way sometimes for angels. It is an amazing place much greater than our limited understanding and we should receive bits of descriptions of it like children hungry for more news of home while we are at camp.

The goal is to make everything fit for a lot for Christians. They love to see the theological pieces of their puzzle come together into a familiar picture. And yet that is precisely what scripture is trying to undo. It is trying to give us glimpses of what we do not see clearly now because we look through a glass darkly as Paul puts it.

# Chapter 10 - The Shame Game

_"A thing is not necessarily true because badly uttered, nor false because spoken magnificently. I have read in Plato and Cicero sayings that are wise and very beautiful; but I have never read in either of them: Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden." -Saint Augustine_

_"What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." -Mark 8:36-38 NIV_

The expose on Warfield and Ryrie in this work is not intended to single them out as being the cause, nor the continuation of a long standing movement toward an anti experiential, mystical, or supernatural faith. As Warfield's work attests, there were many before him who argued for the cessation of miracles during the long history of Christianity as well as those arguing when it might have ceased. Nor is it to be argued that many today might put all their stock in either Warfield or Ryrie for the cause of anti emotionalism in Christianity. As it might seem, that by addressing these two theologians alone that the entire body of anti experientialism might come tumbling down. I did however wish to show that these two fellows were the two roads by which this sentiment of being against the manifestations of the Spirit entered the twentieth century, the prime focus of this work, and were thus carried forward in a mighty stream, being influenced along the way by the other ingredients as we have seen.

I have hoped to demonstrate that the foundations upon which this false doctrine of the cessation of miracles is based, is built with termite infested wood and is now quite rotten to the core. So much of today's modern attitudes in this area of the manifestations of the spirit are built upon this supposed rock of ages that miracles ceased. We find that it is not a rock at all, and that it is not even a doctrine widely held or agreed upon. By displaying that not only is this foundation on shaky ground, but the very pillars holding it up were hastily erected and few in number, my goal is not intended to prove the existence of all miracles by simply dismissing the enemies arguments against them. Quite the contrary, it is used to show that the enemies of experiential faith cannot dismiss all such claims of the miraculous by simply stating "miracles do not exist".

So much of the twentieth century, and into the new millennium, has been comprised of this very work, trying to totally disprove the other side and leave the victor claiming the rock, or high ground, upon which the reality of the church will be constructed. The sentiment has been that if we can just recruit enough believers to one side or the other, then the opponent will fall, leaving one point of view emerging as the winner. Much of that comes from the success motif we discussed in the last chapter, to the victor go the spoils. If one can shame the other group into submission, then one side would remain clearly the victor. The scope of this chapter is to examine a number of those shaming techniques both sides used to try and intimidate the opponent into surrender, or at least inflict pain on their followers.

One of the greatest fears the church in America has is over authority. Coming out of Roman Catholicism, the Reformers, and their generations of children, have feared putting too much authority into one person, or hierarchy of human origin. The term sola scriptura may actually be more anti authority than it is pro scripture. There have been many Protestant feints in the subsequent march forward from the Reformation which claimed that we did not go far enough to clean out Catholicism. Ironically, the expounders of the sola scriptura, and its institutions of higher learning beyond the local Sunday School, have often taken grand leaps of faith in making up teachings and interpretations that one would be hard pressed to actually discover if one were merely reading scriptures alone. As long as one says, "It is in the book", one is excused from all sorts of errors whether it is actually there or not. .

Into this fear of authority come people claiming that God speaks directly to them, they have had private audiences with Him, He is granting special favors, powers and healings.. You would think such claims would have Christians lining up for their distribution, or at least curiously asking questions. The really shocking reaction to claims of God's miraculous intervention today is primarily one of fear. I am not speaking just of the bone jarring fear the shepherds out in the field at night felt on that first Christmas, but rather the fear of this direct encounter with power and authority. Can we have people just going around speaking for God? Can we have them claiming they have some divine Word or revelation? Does this not usurp our entire structure we have set up to tell the people what sola scriptura really means? The fear is one of the entire collapse of the Reformation structure into a gooey mess of emotional histrionics. Worse still, we may end up with someone claiming to be God's representative on earth, the Pope.

The Protestant church is made up of its own hierarchical structure of pastors, bishops, elders, deacons, Sunday School teachers, and of course the ruling body in every church, the choir. The appointments are no longer based as the Catholic hierarchy on a rigid set of internal requirements; instead we base it on sola scriptura, which means education and popularity. The local American church in the 20th century desired two things, a building first, and an educated clergy second. The first meant you were there to stay; the second meant you had arrived. For a poor farming community, to afford a full time clergy was really a luxury, but it is what made a real church. The clergy would then organize and assist in the education of all sectors of the society within the church. So education was one of our highest values.

The Sunday School movement swelled the ranks of the early twentieth century church offering education to the young people in the community, often an expensive item for the poor working class, especially in inner cities. Those who could teach, those who had learned their lessons were considered worthy of promotion. Sunday school pins and badges for meritorious attendance became the display of prestige and power. Those who grew up in the church, whose families had been there the longest, or contributed highly in wealth or service were elected, now by democratic vote, to the offices of the church, elder and deacon. The election by God was now replaced by popular election which Americans were sure must be the will of God. The blur between the kingdom of God and emerging representational democracy was getting blurrier by the day during the twentieth century until we were sure all divine decisions came through elections, rather than election, which means God's appointment.

Therefore, to suggest that God would speak or act directly without a congregational or committee meeting seemed somehow heretical. Plus, hadn't we determined that those who hear voices in their heads or have visions are mental patients? Therefore, the deepest desire of scripture, to hear the still small voice of God, the desire taught to us by Christ, "My sheep hear my voice", the desire to die to self so we could have a personal relationship with him, meant we could only share that experience by reading His book. If you stop and think about it for a moment, it almost seems preposterous. Can you imagine a husband telling his wife, "Of course I love you, read our marriage contract"? It really defies the act of love, and I suspect any self respecting wife would slap him. We had gotten to a point where intimacy was only to be found in a book, and the only way we could know God's will was through a democratic committee meeting.

So the American church was run by a group of people sitting in a meeting, arguing their opinions, then casting a vote for what was most popular. Hopefully as you read this simple description of our 2000 year old process now, you will begin to see something amiss. The purpose of the congregational system was to pray, read scripture, seek God's will, and then come together for verification. Somehow the hearing from God part was left out. The reason? Fear of authority. Authority can only be trusted to the group, the democratic process. The current system is pretty far off the mark from where we began, and really translates power back to people in a slightly different way than Catholicism, but nonetheless about 98% human, 2% God.

So you can imagine the fear when people start saying they are having a direct encounter with God. This seems foreign to everything we have done. As the Catholic church responded to the reformation, so the American Protestant church responded to this new wave of God's revelation., They branded it heretical, well almost. There were no doctrines to brand it heretical, only a vague uneasiness about it, so we needed to hastily construct some doctrines so we could brand it heretical. This is where Mr. Warfield suddenly is deemed the genius of the century. I am quite sure had he come to the complete opposite opinion, he would not have achieved such an elevated status. People needed something to shame those having such an encounter with God, back into their right minds, i.e.. American democracy. A good electric shock therapy of about 200 amps of good Christian shame should have them back in the pews sitting quietly with their hands folded in no time. And so the shaming began. The Pentecostals were referred to as uneducated, simple minded, and out of their minds. Those were the mild shaming techniques before good Christians dialed up the amps.

The Pentecostals responded with their own brand of shame right back at the church. So filled with this new found piety and love, they were sure they were God's gift to earth. They invaded local churches believing that the rapture had begun and their kin folk were going to miss it unless they too spoke in tongues. Pastors were accosted after sermons, and whole churches were lectured to by these newly fired up evangelists. There is a little embarrassing moment in American history during the early days of our Revolution from Britain. General George Washington, as his first assignment after being appointed by the Continental Congress to lead the American army was to promptly invade Canada. He imagined that the Canadians wanted to be as liberated as we were and would join our cause, and help close our northern boundaries to the British. The Canadians did not share America's spiritual outpouring of liberty, and promptly fought back with the British defending their own borders from Washington. It is easy to see how someone caught up in zeal can sometimes be invasive, when a more diplomatic and instructive methodology might have assisted the local churches in receiving this new wave.

When they were rebuffed the Pentecostals began to add their own shaming to the mix. These heathens in the pew were the frozen chosen, not worthy to be called sons and daughters of the living God. If you didn't speak in tongues then you weren't a real Christian. Fired by this new zeal, they believed they had some divine appointment to tell others how to worship and serve God. If you didn't come and get some of their latest anointing, well then something was wrong in your heart and you must be of the devil. Along with the awakening spiritual vision, came the new eyes also seeing Satan and his work more clearly. Of course those around them in society not having these new eyes, thought them to be quite mad when they began doing living room exorcisms everywhere. Everything wrong was caused by this or that demon, and all kinds of strategies were employed to exterminate the demons from their local church, including naming those they believed had them.

Both sides ironically used the shaming technique of calling each other Catholic. That seems to have been a really derisive term, especially in the early part of the century. The Pentecostals thought the church was behaving like the Catholics in the Reformation and not recognizing a clear move of God. The local churches claimed that the mystical nature of the Pentecostals reminded them of the saints and relic worship of the Catholics and was therefore detestable. There is not much written on how the Catholics responded to all this. I am sure there must have been those among them who were touched by these various waves of God's spirit. Not only did they have to deal with the same thing the local churches were going through, but now suddenly everyone on both sides of the debate were comparing all that was wrong to them. It must have been a really difficult time for them. In the 1970's, the Catholic church did embrace the charismatic movement having their own Catholic Charismatic Groups with the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit". They seemed to have figured out, and explained in their little booklet, that this baptism was not the same as the sacrament, and merely meant "immersed" in the spirit. What a wonderful method they used, education and communication.

I first discovered the charismatic movement through one of these groups. I had returned to college to study for the ministry and was working part time at an apartment complex. The elderly woman who managed the complex, and was our boss, was the most miserable, unhappy person I had ever met. Everyone who lived and worked there would concur, so I do not feel as if I am gossiping or being judgmental simply informational to this story. She had been invited by one of the residents to attend one of these Catholic charismatic seminars. This was 1979. She came back the next day and told us everything that was wrong with it, but she continued to attend, primarily as she put it, because they had good refreshments and she would load her pocketbook for snacks later in the week. The day came for the service for the baptism in the Spirit. She returned to work the next day, smiling, glowing and the happiest caring person on earth. The change was so radical it was stunning.

We pushed and prodded her for over a week to try and get the old Theresa back, although we actually liked the new one better, but just could not believe it. I had studied psychology and was currently taking a course in sociology, and this amount of change in an elderly woman was just not possible. I spoke with my Professor of Sociology and he asked if I could do my research paper on this group. I subsequently got an A+ on the paper, and experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit myself. About the only change I could register in myself was that my prayer life did not seem as dry, and I was enjoying worship a lot more. Since I went to a church which had a split over this issue ten years earlier, and the people left behind were not into this sort of thing, I learned to keep it to myself. I became what I later termed a "closet charismatic"

The point of this story is that the Catholics found a way to maintain the integrity of their doctrine, structure, and practices, while integrating and utilizing this spiritual experience for those who wished it. The Protestant church did not fare so well. Churches split with one side or the other leaving for greener pastures. Whichever side left was sure that the other group had done them wrong and should be ashamed, and those staying closed ranks and defended their decisions stating that those leaving were deserting the ship and should be ashamed. Those observing this whole thing from afar, ended up wishing to remain afar, and hoped that this disease did not come to their church. The various revivals and movements of the Spirit seemed to cool and stop as fast as they arrived.

The Welsh revival made it to the shores of Pennsylvania in the beginning of the century. It travelled through Philadelphia where some of the early proponents of Azusa street were touched. Azusa street is of course marked as the birthplace of Pentecostalism, and many of the branches of the movement went out from there. One ended up in South Carolina affecting the Presbyterian churches there. Perhaps that is why Warfield chose his cessationist topic to try and stop the "wild fire". The tent revivals of the 1950's stopped suddenly in 1956. William Branahan, one of the revivalists proclaimed that the people of America had offended God by not receiving His gifts. More shame, whether deserved or not, only added fuel to the fire. By whose authority does one make such proclamations?

By the 1970's with the hippies promoting a more experiential lifestyle, and the Calvary Chapel movement being "born again" among them, people began to associate the experiential side of our faith with hippies and later New Age peoples. Among white shirt and tie church going Christians, a hippie, or later a New Ager was considered in itself a derogatory term, a means of evoking shame. In our Presbyterian church we needed to cut our hair otherwise we would be like the "hippies". Mother would say to sit up straight at the table otherwise we would be like the "hippies". When I was 16, in the summer of 1969 when Woodstock shut down the New York thruway and America watched horrified at the summer of free love, sex and rock and roll, Christians were sure the devil had taken over. Experientialism became associated with all that was deemed wrong, and emotionalism was the devils slippery slope into the fires of hell. That was of course unless you were a Presbyterian, in which we didn't say "hell", it was too uncivilized a word..

In the 1980's and 1990's America turned away from its fascination with consumerism and greed and began seeking some spiritual enlightenment. The Baby Boomers growing up on the Beatles, and their Magical Mystery Tour, had a sense that there was more to life, and now having had the two kids and a house in the suburbs, they wanted to find out what they were missing. Some returned to the church of their youth, only to find moldy basements, financial problems, and their parents still arguing over who was going to pay for this. This did not seem spiritually appetizing. So they turned to Kung Fu, Tai Chi, yoga, Buddhism, Eastern Philosophies, paganism, wiccan, and just about anything that promised a spiritual high. The main line church once again turned a cold shoulder and declared this "new age" stuff to be too self seeking. They referred to it as "navel staring" after a meditative practice in Yoga, which apparently at least one of them secretly tried.

The Evangelicals offered a born again experience, and having come through the hippie movement themselves, understood that music was the key to this generation's heart. They began to use contemporary music, modern styled sanctuaries, and a hip presentation of simple spiritual Christian values. It worked like a charm. As a matter of fact the main line church while watching millions go out their doors, claimed they were "charmed" and would all come flocking back one day when they realized what they were missing, coffee and pound cake, and a good educational lecture on what was socially wrong with America. They never came back. Ironically. I use that word a lot because there is so much real irony in this that someone should have picked it up. The Evangelicals began to turn on the new age movement as well. They claimed that any spiritual experience except their own was from the devil, including voting for anyone in the Democratic Party, which was now deemed worse than the devil.

The abortion issue affected the church like no other issue in the last part of the twentieth century. It became such a public debate that many Christians became defined by this one issue alone. Politicians were polled on their stance on this one issue, and eliminated if they were pro abortion. Some Christians began hurling rocks, blowing up abortion clinics, and even in rare cases killing those performing abortions. Something new had entered the mix of Christianity. If you were doing what was right, you could do anything wrong in doing what was right. Shame had been used so much, that people became numb to it, and only the most horrible of all infractions could be considered shameful, abortion or homosexuality. Why homosexuality out of all America's sins? Who knows. During the early part of the new millennium, America's economy almost collapsed because of the biggest American sin of all, greed, yet Evangelicals were still trying to save us from homosexuality saying it would pollute us from God.

One other thing Evangelicals were very sure of, their experiential cousins, the Pentecostals were new age devils in disguise, and they warned their members to stay away. Standing now on the promises of Ryrie and Warfield, they were sure the scriptures said that miracles no longer happened. Oh, you could have those little cute miracles like what happens in "Chicken Soup for the Soul", where an angel helps you find your keys when you are late for work, just none of that falling down slain in the spirit filled with the Holy Ghost healing of cancer miracles. God doesn't do that. Scripture must say so. Since that position is of course "right", one is exempted from any of the other suggestions for doing right such as love, kindness, gentleness , and meekness and one can tear one's unrighteous new age devil filled miracle believing son of a gun into pieces, praise God.

On the other side, Pentecostals can now go on TV and declare that they are the New Awakening, the New reformation, or the Last Days, without waiting for the benefit of the body or history to pass that doctrinal judgment. Shame on anyone who "misses it", you will of course be "left behind". Shame on you. The press of course eats this stuff up, because whenever they show this stuff, a nation which is largely Christian somewhere in the mix, suddenly becomes fascinated like they do with train wrecks and natural disasters. So the entire presentation of our faith is left to extremists on each side arguing like a pro wrestling federation costumed muscle head yelling at the top of their lungs about who is more macho, i.e. Godly. Those who best communicate their version of Christianity are promoted to the top of the heap, followed by monetary success, and allowed to sell books, live a lavish lifestyle, and have a Starbucks in the lobby of their church, a sign one is really in favor with the Almighty.

There seems to be some new rules emerging in Christianity. Angels are allowed to assist humans in little ways like helping you find the right pocketbook on sale at Macy's, but you are most definitely not allowed to talk to them, a sure sign of mental illness or demon possession. God is able to hear and answer all your prayers, especially about helping you find a job so you can buy a bigger house and appear successful, but He will most certainly never instantly heal a person of cancer or blindness. Jesus is able to save us from our sins, but he is most certainly unable to teach us how to do the things he did while here on earth, because those were only for his boys, the apostles. Even though scripture says we get the same inheritance, that does not really mean the miracle stuff, because, well because we said so. Shame on you if you do not believe this way; may you forever be doomed to living a fashion less life.

The new Pentecostals also are quite sure they are right. Every silly thing they say is possible because they say so, and therefore since all things are possible with God, then whatever they say goes. They too seem to have forgotten to ask, to test the spirits, in their quest to chase the signs and wonders, they sometimes forget to ask if this is the season, and if today is the day, if God is calling them here, now. We forget that every single miracle Jesus did, he checked with his Father, he didn't just run out and do it in "Jesus name". He did it by his Father's power and permission. Pentecostals often act as if they believe that God is a giant soda machine and if they put the right amount of faith in, the thirst quenching liquid will come out in a shiny can. We forget that we do not deserve to be alive. We are under a condemnation of death here on earth. We forget that we do not deserve salvation, that is too great a gift. They forget that we can request anything from our father, but He also has a say in the matter.

Wherever there is shame, there is the human condition, and both sides in this argument need to turn back to God. We need to repent of the harm we have done on both sides, and learn from our mistakes. We need to approach this subject humbly, asking God what is of Him and what is not, instead of depending on our hastily constructed doctrinal fortresses. We need to remember that God draws near to those who earnestly seek Him, and when He draws near, all kinds of history altering stuff occurs. We need to stop being the spokesperson for God like Job's friends, and we need to listen to God speak from the whirlwind. Both sides have it wrong. Really wrong. God is the only one who has it "right", and we need to seek Him.

Guilt has too long been a motivator in our faith, but now it was simply not working. Anti- Pentecostals began using a variety of tactics to try and demonstrate that revivals and religious experiences were not of God and probably of the devil. Not simply content with having their quasi- doctrinal ideology state that it wasn't real, not satisfied with name calling and shaming techniques, people turned to trying to discredit the movement by disgracing its leadership. Sometimes the Pentecostal leadership made it all too easy for that tactic to work.

Aimee Semple McPherson born in obscurity in the closing days of the nineteenth century, ushered in much of what we know today as modern Christianity. She became a travelling evangelist, first with her husband Robert, and then on her own. Certainly a grand accomplishment for a woman of that era. She went on to build an extravagant 5,000 seat auditorium in Los Angeles called the Angelus Temple during the height of the depression. She was one of the first Christians to use radio and advertising media to spread the message, and she did so successfully. Many f the crusades she developed went on to become the model for many who would fallow after her. She also formed a large branch of the Pentecostal movement called the Foursquare Gospel Church. It went on to become a denomination with some eight million members today and 66,000 congregations worldwide.

Aimee had become a celebrity similar to what would later be Billy Graham, Joel Osteen, and Rick Warren. On May 18, 1926, while Aimee was enjoying the height of her ministry, she simply disappeared. It set of a 32 day national search. A note demanding $500,000 ransom letter and the press went wild. Aimee sightings were everywhere. There was a national frenzy. Once she was reportedly seen 16 times on one day from coast to coast according to the written account by Roberts Liardon in his book "God's Generals". It was presumed she was dead and a memorial service was scheduled for her on June 20. Three days after the service Aimee walked into Douglas, Arizona from the desert. She claimed she had been kidnapped The Los Angeles Attorney, Asa Keyes, accused Aimee of lying and went to great lengths to discredit her.

There ensued a great scandal, with reports being made of widely diverging details. Most never checked out. Attorney Keyes brought felony charges against Aimee and her staff was also indicted. During the trial evidence was offered with her having an affair with a known businessman at a local hotel. Aimee lashed back attacking Keyes from the pulpit and the airwaves. She also hired a detective to get something on Keyes. The public ate it up. Aimee was eventually cleared of all charges, but her health and finances were all but destroyed, and the press abandoned her. She continued to preach worldwide. She died of barbiturate overdose in 1944

Keyes's downfall, in 1927, came as an aftermath of the collapse of the $40,000,000 Julian Petroleum Corp. stock swindle. He was called upon to prosecute the stock cheats under California's corporation laws. He asked dismissal of the charges. This motion Superior Court Judge William Doran denied. The trial dragged to an acquittal. Judge Doran flayed District Attorney Keyes for his "lackadaisical methods of prosecution." Five months later Keyes was indicted for conspiracy to receive a bribe from the men he had so feebly prosecuted in the Julian case. Tried and convicted, he was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment in San Quentin prison.

McPherson was not the first, or the last to end her powerful ministry in a very destructive way. Todd Bentley, a modern day revivalist of the same type as Sister Aimee as she was called, had spent ten years travelling the world in a ministry known as "Fresh Fire". He is credited with countless miracles and literally over a million people coming to know Jesus as Lord and Savior around the world. He too, coming from very humble beginnings experienced a powerful conversion and personal experience with God. Toward the end of this very successful period he began extensively tattooing his body, his marriage began crumbling, and at the same time, while at a church in Lakeland, Florida for a three day meeting, the power of God fell.

Todd and his worship leaders often wound up on the floor for hours during worship as the presence of God was very heavy upon the place. Millions came from around the world, and this became the very first revival that was televised nightly over the internet by a new media enterprise called God TV. The experience for those attending and watching by home was very holy, and some felt this might be the final move of God before His return since it was going into all the world simultaneously. Then something went horribly wrong. Todd began calling for the media to come and scrutinize this work of God. He taunted them nightly, and they began to come. They discovered his failing marriage, his affair with a staff member, and the tattoos. Todd collapsed under the national attack and other leaders took over the revival, which in a few weeks was dead. Todd's marriage ended, he married his staffer, his Fresh Fire ministry team split from him, and he was assigned to Rick Joyner and Morningstar Ministry for rehabilitation.

Time and again between the humble beginning, and the end of a mighty work of God, the leader/s collapse into moral failure, financial meltdown, emotional and physical crisis. Perhaps the intensity of such an experience is partly to blame. Perhaps it is the strain of persecution. However, the persecution is always positive that the ensuing collapse meant they were right all along and that this wasn't the work of God. One might understand if this type of persecution was coming from the world. But it is coming from the church. I am not implying that we should overlook faults, or that there is any excuse for moral or personal failure in ministry, but it does happen. We see hundreds of priests being tried for child abuse in the Catholic Church. Does this imply that their beliefs and practices in Christ are to be scrapped and stopped?

How many local clergy are quietly asked to resign each year when it turns out they are having an affair with the church organist, or some sum of money was misallocated for a gambling debt, or the pastor has a drinking problem. Are these failures to mean that we should close all protestant churches? Both the attack on, and the subsequent failures of religious movements should not be a measurement of the work of the movement. That almost sounds so foreign to us that we might simply dismiss it. A part of my brain is going," Wait a minute, of course the evaluation of a work should be determined by its leader". Who else but the chief proponent of a particular philosophy or teaching would better exemplify its fruit than the leader? It seems such a simple matter. If the leader falls, then the fruit proves his/her system/doctrine is bad. But didn't we see that is not how it's practiced in other branches of Christianity? Is there some get out of jail free card? Are there some groups that get indulgences while others do not? And how is the pass issued and who gets one?

We sometimes spend years living with these weird inconsistencies in the logic of our doctrine and practice without realizing it until someone holds it up. I am reminded of the issue of slavery in America. Good Christians promoted and believed in slavery for years. It was after all, in the Bible. It was after all, the foundation for a lot of people's economy. Folks saw no inconsistency between being a free and loving Christian, and forcibly holding slaves to work against their will. All sorts of arguments were invented to defend it. The African Americans were less worthy and therefore maybe we were going them a chance to know God, was one mind numbing argument. It was even deemed "God's Will" that these people were snatched forcibly from their homeland and brought here to work for us. We look back now in horror at those mindsets, but they were widespread and no one noticed them at first.

The people who first brought to public attention the inconsistency of slavery, were thought of as irrational dreamers. Many were persecuted. Our faith from its early beginnings in the Old Testament had a habit of killing and stoning the prophets. Each new revelation of God was brought at first through one or two, and then later many caught the fire, but always through persecution. Even the son of God was killed, and even if he came today, he would be killed again. Probably by well meaning Christians. I doubt Jesus would recognize his religion as what he called us to do. Just because God gave us the fullness of Christ and His word, does not mean we fully grasp it, or even begin to. People proclaim Christ as the fullness of revelation and then go out and burn Korans on the front lawn of their church or throw rocks through the local abortion clinic window.

I also wish to point out, that Koran burning pastors, and hate groups that tell people that "God kills fags" at soldier's funerals are not the representational of our faith. The media loves to find the extremes, the train wrecks to report on. However, if the rest of Christianity was not so far away from the teaching of love, these extremes might stick out as being more different than they do. Jesus said, I give you one new command. That is the prime doctrine in case any of you have a problem with that word "command". It seems we could not handle 10, that was too much to ask, so God sends His son to reduce it to one. I know you know this one. C'mon. You can do it. "Love your neighbor", or to make it even simpler, love". The number one complaint the world has against us is that they perceive us to be "hypocrites". Rightly, or wrongly, we do add to their confusion by stating our law is "love" and then arguing and fighting and attacking, and that is even before we get out of the Sunday School class. I agree that the Koran burning pastor does not represent a large segment of the population, or does he?

# Chapter 11 - Revival C.S.I.

_"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. ~Mahatma Gandhi_

_Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons. -1 Timothy 4:1_

There was a television program entitled Miami C.S.I., followed by popular spinoffs of a similar name. C.S.I refers to crime scene investigation, and the show revolves around detectives, using the latest scientific forensic devices solving complex mysteries through careful minute investigation. It actually doesn't seem like it would be a hit in our hurry up and make a quick judgment world we live in today. Watching a group of people stare through microscopes at rope fibers, and matching DNA and blood samples seems more like something for the college laboratory than popular television which usually panders to a lower intelligence level. The show has become so popular it has actually spun off sequels and copy cat shows. We now have a Las Vegas CSI and a New York CSI, and other shows which do not bear the same name, but follow the same investigative format.

You would think that those investigating and writing about the most important subject on earth, Christian doctrine, would handle the matter even more stringently than a CSI investigator. Could you imagine a CSI detective saying that she has wrapped up the case? The team gathers and asks her what evidence, what forensics have led her to the conclusion that "the butler did it". She answers, " I just know, he looks guilty". Obviously, a real detective would not last long, and neither would a popular TV show that insulted our intelligence that way. Could you imagine a detective standing before a judge on the day of trial and stating that the accused is guilty simply because "people like him have always been guilty"? The judge would immediately throw out the entire case.

In order to come to an intelligent conclusion on any subject there must be careful scrutiny and investigation, research and study, as well as conclusions which investigated all the possibilities. How many revivals did Warfield attend in order to come to a conclusion that all revivals are "counterfeit"? Hundreds, thousands? How many tomes of revival histories did he study and quote in order to show the forensics of the errors in their reporting that a real move of God happened? The correct scientific evidence as reported to us by Warfield himself is exactly zero. He attended no revivals and used no writings or eyewitness accounts to carefully scrutinize conclusions that millions of Christians believe.. It is hard to imagine that a scholar would write a paper, and propose a radical treatise, without doing the homework, but there it is. Warfield simply came to the conclusion that miracles no longer happen because, well, because he believed it.

I do not doubt that he believed it, nor do I question his ability to believe any way he chooses. However, I do not want this kind of CSI work on the team proposing Christian doctrine. In order to come to a conclusion, or propose an understanding of a subject, one has to investigate the scene more thoroughly than anyone else. In order for a doctrine to be proposed the evidence must be incontrovertible. We must have a careful inspection, careful scrutiny of opinions on both sides, and above all prayerful investigation. To come to conclusions without research and evidence is the single most unintelligent action in two thousand years of Christianity. And this behavior is coming from the side proposing to offer us the "intelligent", unemotional side to the issue.

It is quite evidenced that people on both sides of this issue, have loaded up their sides with ammunition. Books written on the subject merely wish to prove or disprove the other side's claims. Grand and glorious theories are proposed without really investigating the issues involved. The irresponsibility around this entire issue for over a hundred years is staggering. Historians will look back at the theology of this era in dismay. It has become little more than a polemical snowball fight of words and ideas, with little real investigation and understanding emerging. What is worse, doctrines have been proposed using our temporary snow forts. When this season is over, I am afraid all we will have is puddles on the floor where the solid arguments have melted into nothingness.

We need to begin with carefully putting some yellow caution tape around the area. If someone is claiming to have a direct encounter with God, this must be handled with the greatest of care. If they are correct, then the whole issue takes on an importance on the magnitude of God Himself.. What if we found ourselves on the wrong side of a movement which indeed is being directed by God? We have seen this historically, that good men and women totally missed a work of God and found themselves on the wrong side, even while believing they were right.

The wise action in all investigations is to take the time needed to really investigate. How calming it is to the masses to hear that someone in authority is "investigating" the matter. Both sides of an issue calm down. Both sides take the time to think and learn. Time reveals new clues, distance gives us a bigger perspective to understand and fit the pieces, and most importantly, time allows us not to get boxed into a corner where we end up defending a narrow limited perspective which day by day God is revealing as being wrong.

We need to appoint people on both sides of an issue to investigate. Steel sharpens steel, and opposing opinions forces one to be more careful and diligent in their research and study. Both sides need to experience and learn their opponents views and be able to at least verbally show they can intellectually speak to their opponents side. Without such dialogue, our reasoning is built upon defensiveness, argumentation, and fear. Hardly the stuff of intelligent doctrinal material. Warfield's work at the beginning of the century and Ryrie's work at the midpoint were highly inflammatory, and neither one took the time to really investigate their subject. The amount of divisiveness caused by these works is evidenced.

A doctrine should unify our thinking around common areas and then seek to give us fertile ground for thinking and dialoging areas we are not so sure about. The current works do neither. They are harmful works which do not belong in the same library as true works of doctrinal material. They belong on the counter with the supermarket tabloids of sensational overblown mischaracterizations written hastily and without any investigation whatsoever. The fact that these people were smart and learned and had vast resources at their disposal does not excuse such writings, on the contrary it makes them even guiltier because they should have known better. They knew where the foul line was, and they crossed it for personal glory and satisfaction. They wrote counterfeit doctrines which cannot stand the scrutiny of time because their ingredients were not based on CSI, but merely doctrinal opinion and conjecture.

I have personally been to dozens of revivals, read hundreds of books on both sides of this issue, and researched thousands more. I spent dozens of years praying and testing conclusions. I do not state that to set myself up as an authority, but rather to point out that during that time, many things have changed in my personal opinions and prejudices with which I began this investigation. I have spent a great deal of time on my knees repenting for hardness of heart and attitudes I learned were opposing God rather than helping Him. This is exactly what the process of good investigation does, and why the early Christians spent three hundred years on the first few doctrines alone. Let us take the time and get it right.

I love the part in the CSI show where the team has been investigating what looks to be the sure answer and suddenly they discover a bit of evidence that reopens the whole case. They always go to commercial right at that point and the viewer is left wondering, where do we go from here? I have also seen a few shows with the theme that a certain investigator buries or hides information which would lead away from their conclusions for a variety of personal reasons. In the end the investigator is either shamed, dismissed, or arrested themselves for leading everyone off track. We call the off track part of Christianity a heresy. We have learned that certain ideas, no matter how compelling they may seem, just do not hold up to scripture and truth.

One such heresy early on was that Jesus was not really a man, but he was a spirit. Various forms of that heresy were that he may have been a physical man, but he did not physically resurrect, but it was his spirit, or simply the wishes of his followers that he is still alive in our hearts. All of these heresies were disproved over hundreds of years of investigation, yet the ideas still pop up in each generation. It has become our doctrine that Jesus was "fully human" and that there was a "physical resurrection". One may believe otherwise, but it could never be considered doctrine, it would be a heresy, or an error in doctrinal thinking.

We study past heresies so we can learn to avoid common mistakes, just like a child does math homework to practice and avoid fundamental errors. We also learn the hastily rushing to conclusions leads to disastrous results. How much better would it have been for the body of Christ to simply state that we were "investigating" revivals over the last one hundred years rather than rushing to heretical conclusions such as "miracles cannot happen because God wants governments to save us". How embarrassing is that now to see that great men of faith and thought were rushed into conclusions they would probably wince at themselves today. Warfield's and Ryrie's works should have been entitled, "Early Thoughts on the Subject", which is precisely what they were. How much less embarrassing would it be now when we discover how flaky and wrong their theories are?

This is one area I believe the Roman Catholic Church has it over us in the Protestant sector of the catholic church (catholic, with a small "c" refers to the universal church, to which we all belong. The Roman version of that catholic church is one sector). The Roman church takes its time to deliberate and review, sometimes centuries before issuing a decree. While that can be maddeningly frustrating to those desiring change faster, it does prevent huge course corrections which may later prove wrong. It is rather ironic that the reason for the reformation, i.e.. indulgences, was eventually worked out by the Roman church. So one might say, if that was our reason for splitting off, then we might have waited a bit longer. Perhaps haste is built into the Protestant system because of the Reformation, but maybe we need to rethink some knee jerk doctrinal shifting. The Protestant church has split over the most minor of sub points in doctrinal theology, leaving a much more pronounced bad taste of disunity than whatever minor error it was seeking to correct.

By calling for a CSI, I do not mean to imply that there is a crime scene. Perhaps we can reuse that lettering to mean Careful Scrutiny and Investigation, the actual hallmarks of a true CSI. I like that word careful, because once again, if someone is believing they are having a true manifestation of holiness or an encounter with God, we want to be careful with their emotional and spiritual state as a brother or sister in the Lord. Aside from the previous issue I mentioned that it may indeed be an encounter with God, and God forbid we should speak against it should it be, but their emotional and spiritual condition is going to be fragile after such an encounter, real or imagined. Throwing quasi doctrinal statements at them and bombarding them with our beliefs is probably not the best medicine or Christen care giving. Once again, time is our friend, allowing the person to settle, pray about their encounter, perhaps giving them books or research on both sides to decide the place for their experience in their total view of the faith.

It seems strange that we would allow people with no such experiences, to not only write about such experiences that have never had not experienced, but then to issue care and teaching to those who have. One, of course, one does not need a broken leg to treat a broken leg, but one does need a medical degree in which one studied and practiced setting broken bones. You would not want one who had zero studies in this area, and did not even believe in setting broken bones, treating your mother who just fell down the steps. The way in which the church has handled this issue has been irresponsible at best, and uncaring and harmful at worst.

So if an outbreak or revival is claimed to have broken out, reputable witnesses and scholars should be sent to investigate. They should not jump online to a blog and start issuing decrees the next day that this revival is counterfeit because they just know it. There are great questions which need to be addressed before conclusions could ever be drawn. First of all, do any of the manifestations resemble anything in the bible? Do they resemble anything Christians have reported before in history? Warfield at least answered those questions by affirming that the manifestations do measure up to step one, and one should not disqualify them on those grounds. At least he got the first step right.

The second step takes even more time. It is the question, what in the world might God be doing? In order to investigate something we have to propose the hypotheses, and then test it. One cannot begin an investigation by dismissing the hypothesis and then trying to validate and prove their own dismissal. This would be grounds for dismissal of the investigator and any subsequent investigations they founded. So therefore the hypothesis is that God is at work in human affairs. The investigation is into those allegations. So the second step would be, what is He doing if he is doing something?

Throughout scripture God seems to get involved in human affairs when there is no other way. We are told it is the same in New Testament times and throughout the end of human time in the book of Revelation. Paul gets knocked off his donkey. One might conclude that there is absolutely no other way Paul is coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. At the end of time, when mankind gets so bad salvation is no longer possible, God shows up for the final visit. So, one of the reasons for a visitation from God, which is always unusual, is because there is simply no other way. .

Warfield did not leave open the scriptural possibility for God to intervene at times when governments get so bad they need a direct intervention. It is striking to note that a vast amount of modern revivals occur at just such moments in human history when it seems no other way out has been found. Both the first and second great awakenings in America come to mind, with the spiritual and religious climate described being strikingly similar although almost a century apart prior to the revivals. Warfield also lived in a very Newtonian world where the universe was like a clock, wound up and running. We have learned that those very physics that Warfield and Ryrie grew up with are wrong. The very laws of science have changed. We explored that in our chapter on Quantum Christianity. But it is very possible for God to be one who has come and is coming all at the same time.

The issue that neither Ryrie or Warfield seems to deal with is that when God is absent from the human condition, that is considered a punishment, not a natural condition. This is probably the biggest error in both of their doctrinal writings. God leaves Israel alone to stew in her sin when she has been very bad, and He reenters the picture when His heart softens. Jeremiah writes, "Is not Ephraim my dear son, the child in whom I delight? Though I often speak against him, I still remember him. Therefore my heart yearns for him; I have great compassion for him," declares the Lord." (Jer 31:20 NIV) Jesus tells his followers that he will "not leave them alone". but will send another to guide and counsel them, the Holy Spirit, which is God Himself. If we have gone through a long dry spell without Godly intervention, might that not only indicate we have gotten off track, but actually be the precursor to explain His need to reinvigorate His work, or revive it? I am not defending revivals here, merely setting the groundwork for investigating them.

Would it not be a heresy to state that God left us alone? Therefore, we are debating about how much God is acceptable. We discussed this in a previous chapter, is it OK to pray for the surgeons hand to be guided, but not OK to pray for a direct healing? Why? It is exactly the same God, exactly the same power of God, the only difference is the amount of that power. If you turn the dimmer switch on your room light down, the same power is coursing through the wires, you have merely resisted the flow of electricity which causes the drop in resulting light. The switch is a giant resistor which drops wattage across the dimmer before it gets to the bulb. One can actually measure the amount of drop on a meter. The power is still there, it is just diverted.

So where does God's power go when we pray for limited amounts? It would seem first we have to agree on what God is capable and willing to do, before we can even invent a meter to measure it. These are doctrinal issues. One must have a criterion for investigation so that the investigation is fair. None of these issues have been settled in Christianity and Ryrie and Warfield and subsequent theologians are trying to settle these great questions with the revival issue. If we state that the butler did it, then we live in a world where the butler did it, and therefore the butler always does it. Logic does make some huge mistakes and there is such a thing as counterfeit logic. I think we all remember those proofs we used to do in geometry class. If John has hair, and all men have hair, then John must be a man. Each logical step must be proven to lead to the next. What if John is bald and some men are bald? What about women having hair too? The proof does not work because the postulates, or parts, are flawed. So too with the earliest writings on the miraculous.

We need to be much more careful and not be jumping to conclusions or hoping our pet theory is correct and rushing the investigation. The same is true for those claiming the direct encounters with God and His manifested glory in their lives. There have been some recent writings on supernatural transportation happening to some people. People being in one location and suddenly moved, or appearing in another thousands of miles away. The first thing the Pentecostal books do is to issue a teaching how we all can now do this. Right there you have about ten years worth of investigation. Right on the surface, it does happen in the bible, both old and new testament, both physically, spiritually and in the Apostle' Paul's case he said he "was not sure whether in the spirit or out". Why is God doing this, is God doing it now?

We could form a rudimentary theory that the birth pangs will be increasing until the end, meaning that supernatural releasing will be increasing along with increasing evil until He returns. Do we see increasing evil exponentially in the world. Yes. So the theory is on the surface plausible. Not proof, but an idea. However, teaching that everyone can transport supernaturally, one would first have to ask, is that God's will, even if a few have done it? Pentecostals seem to have an erroneous doctrine that if one child of God experiences something then ipso facto its available to everyone else, like God's penny candy store. They forget about the sovereignty of God and that he alone dispenses to whom He wills. The Pentecostals seem to thank that once it happens, it's free for all and all can partake. The non Pentecostals also forget about the sovereignty of God and that is he suddenly chooses today to release something he never released before, both groups miss out on the important doctrine of God's sovereignty, his kingship and Lordship. All need to approach the throne and ask His will.

This whole sovereignty of God is a huge issue which has been already doctrinally decided long ago, and both sides have been playing fast and loose with this doctrine, leading to errors and fouls on both sides of this issue. The sovereignty of God means He is the King. If He says the world ends, it ends. If He says the criminal gets mercy, then he gets mercy. That is what sovereignty means. God is a sovereign God. He is in control, not we. We need to approach all our dealings bowing low to the King. We may never predispose to use His rule and judgments for our personal agendas. So the question even before all investigations ever begin should be, what is the King's will in all of this? If He is releasing something, then for what purpose? If He is not, then why these claims now?

We have seen that hasty answers to the investigations has caused so much pain and suffering already. Claiming a healing to be the work of the devil goes against scripture and the words of Christ and hurts the church and her credibility. Claiming something is not of God because Ryrie or Warfield or some other supposed genius said so is equally is not helpful. Claiming something must be of God because Aunt Joan's other leg grew out to match her first one equally creates more dubiousness than inspiring faith. Slow and careful investigation under God's guidance and Lordship is our best methodology. We need to be investigating what is purported as doctrine, as well as modern day experiences of the fire of heaven.

# Chapter 12 - When In Rome

_"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is." -Yogi Berra_

_He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. -1 Pet 2:24:_

What we have seen during the twentieth century is that both sides of our debate have been largely anti Catholic for most of the century. The main line Protestants, still carrying a chip on their shoulder from the Reformation, seem mostly anti Catholic, with some dialogue claiming that we did not go far enough in removing the Catholicism from our ranks during the Reformation. We have seen in Warfield's writings that those against the revivals often compared them unfavorably to Catholic mysticism, another reason why Warfield believed that miracles were counterfeit. The Pentecostal/holiness movement also derided the Catholic church holding them in the number two spot of derision right after intellectuals. Ironically, the one thing both sides agreed on was a dislike for the Roman Catholic Church.

The Protestant main line churches began to warm slightly during the ecumenical movement of the 1960's and the election of John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, to the Presidency. The Roman Catholics also seemed to tone down their strong isolationist views which characterized their survival here in the States. However, I am still surprised when discussing religion between a Roman Catholic and Protestant, the Catholic is often surprised to learn that Protestantism is Christianity. I remember a young member of my congregation requesting a wedding and asking if her Catholic groom's priest could assist in the officiating. I was totally agreeable. She later informed me that the Priest would do weddings with Jewish Rabbis, but not with Protestant ministers. I do not know if that is Roman Catholic policy as she reported it, but it clearly shows an attitude which is still prevalent among Roman Catholics that they are the one true church.

I do not mean to add to the pain or divisiveness of the long history between Protestants and Catholics, especially at a time when it seems to be healing here in America, but to point out that once again during the Twentieth Century the doctrine of Catholic, meaning the universal or true church, became confused into meaning an exclusive franchise of believers to which all other believers in Christ must be wrong. I suppose the word true came to mean the only authentic and certified version of Christianity. Perhaps this emerged with Roman Catholics fighting for their own identity here in America. They felt that their children were being Protestantized in the public schools and formed their own education system, which now goes all the way up past the college level. So it is quite possible for an adult to go through the entire school system up to a Masters level and not know that Protestants are Christians.

So I do not know if Roman Catholics actually sat down in a meeting and discussed ways to blot out all existence of other Christians in the minds of their adherents., So strong is this value that the Roman Catholic is the only Christian Church that Roman adults often view Protestants as some cult or other religion of some sort. Even if an individual's views and beliefs may be diametrically opposed to the Roman Catholic Church they fear leaving because: a) They know of no alternative b) They fear eternal damnation because they left the Roman Church c) They fear being shunned by other family and friends who remain Roman Catholic d) All of the above.

Because I feel that the Roman Catholic Church has a lot to offer to the doctrinal issues of mystical experiences that would be very welcome at this table, I wish to clarify the doctrine of the universal, or one true church, from where it has been Americanized today. I also wish to accept blame and repent of the way in which Protestants claim that Roman Catholics were no longer Christians and were somehow less than authentic. When the large influx of Roman Catholics came to America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the Protestants had a very large foothold in this nation. There were even signs in shops which read "No Catholics Need Apply", so prejudice was rampant and fierce among Protestant Americans.

Some have speculated that those prejudices emerge when incoming cultural groups resist the blending process of becoming nationals in a new country. However, in the land of the free, the very essence of cultural diversity and religious toleration were hallmarks of our espoused beliefs, even if not of our practice. Or sometimes freedom is extended to those like us, meaning that one is free to become like our group. Whatever the cause, as in all situations, it takes two to disagree, and the Protestants and Catholics, as they did in many lands, deeply divided, often hostilely. In my own native Philadelphia there were riots between the groups in 1844 in the Kensington section. Cannons were employed, shots fired and a Catholic Church burnt to the ground. So these were not mere religious disputes of some finer points of theology.

My primary reason however, in including a chapter on Roman Catholicism in a book about the fire of heaven, was a recent website I came across in which former evangelicals and fundamentalists are now going back to the one true church. The web site is calledtocommunion.com, and its members and contributors are former members of the Presbyterian Church in America, the evangelical/fundamental branch of the Presbyterian church, as well as other conservative Protestants groups who have now gone over to the Roman Catholic faith. I came across the web site while doing research for this book, primarily a Google search for John Calvin.

In an article on their site came up, in which a doctor of religious studies, Dr. David Anders, writes, "How John Calvin Made Me a Catholic," the good doctor, whose doctoral thesis was on the reformer, John Calvin, concludes that because Calvin was presented to him as the beginning of the split with Rome, and his own faith, largely evangelical was presented as a continuous stream from the reformer to the present day, that a crisis was formed in him when studies revealed to him that Calvin would not be considered evangelical. Up to this point we are in agreement, and I do not know what passed for education for Dr. Anders, but I too am shocked that anyone would think John Calvin as the father of evangelicalism. As we have seen, evangelicalism is a largely a 19th century experiential movement. So I do not know if there really are people walking around out there thinking John Calvin is the father of evangelicalism, and would be as equally shocked as Dr. Anders if there were.

The irony in all of that is that while Dr. Anders is indeed coming to some of the same conclusions presented in this book that the 20th century took a lot of liberties with our history, faith and doctrine and created something not wholly pure, his reaction was to go back to the one true church, Roman Catholicism. I do not mean to question his landing point after theological crisis, nor his personal religious preference, but rather to lift up his new error that he is replacing his old error with, that is the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has not been one continuous stream from the time of Christ, nor has anyone ever agreed that it is the sole experience of Christianity, with the exception perhaps of some Roman Catholics. My concern, as has been throughout this work, is that people can no longer tell the difference between doctrine and myth.

Let me take a few paragraphs to illustrate my point. Once again, a few paragraphs is not intended to fully cover all of Roman Church history, but to give an illustrative overview for the purpose of the point at hand. Rome, while an authentic church and expression of Christianity has never been the one true church, meaning the exclusive purveyor of the Christian message, and has always, like all forms of Christianity, been in constant reformation. Nor has any of its forms been a continuous stream from the Bible to the present as Dr. Anders and his colleagues seem to desire. They seem to be replacing myth with another, which they now believe to be real and authentic.

Anyway, back to the beginning. In the Bible, there was a church in Rome. We know that because Paul wrote a letter to them entitled appropriately enough, Romans, or more accurately, the Epistle to the Romans, epistle meaning letter. We also know there were churches in Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Philippi, back in Jerusalem, and elsewhere, as there are also epistles written to them as well. We see very clearly that Rome was not the one church, nor did it have any hierarchical standing among the other churches. It was merely one church in Rome, among many others. I do not think anyone would wish to debate this point.

In the final book of the Bible, John in his Revelation writes from God to the seven churches in the province of Asia. We clearly see independent bodies, not under any Roman church government, each having its own identity, mission, and accountability before God himself, not each other or a single church governing board. So clearly up the end of the Bible period, one hundred years after the death of Jesus, there is no one true church in Rome, although there is one church in Rome. I am beginning to show how the word one was altered into a doctrine which was never intended.

Following historically, Rome became the very enemy of all Christians, and about the only light Rome brought into the Christian world was when Nero crucified Christians and then had them lit on fire to light the way to his orgies. Therefore martyrs became the first street lamps, their very faith causing their death at the hands of Rome. During this time, there indeed remained a loyal group of followers who managed to survive in Rome as they did elsewhere. One church among many churches. This continued for over three hundred years. So we clearly see no scriptural or historical precedent for Rome being the governing agency of the entire Christian faith. Christians would often look reverently to Rome as the final place of Peter, but it held no ecclesiastical powers over the other churches. It is not until the second century do we find a few scant references that there was some communication with Rome over some emerging issues.

The Emperor of Rome, Constantine, seeing a cross in the sky one morning before a battle in 312 AD, remarked that if God gave him the battle he would convert to Christianity. As history tells, he won that battle, and the persecution of Christianity stopped. However, Constantine was not baptized until his death bed many years later, and Christianity was slow growing in its popularity in Rome. Constantine actually proposed the city of Constantinople as the new center for Christianity, not Rome, and there was some movement in that direction. So basically another hundred years goes by and Rome is nowhere seen as the central or authoritative branch of the Christian faith. So much for the one true and continuous church. It never happened.

We see the first Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, in which Christian churches from all over gathered to hammer out our first doctrines, was held in what is now modern Turkey. Bishops from all over the catholic or universal church were present. Each Bishop was independent, each church was independent, and they came as representatives of their groups. Nowhere was the Roman church officiating or organizing or overseeing these important meetings. Nowhere do we see the Roman hierarchical system prevailing .So we see absolutely no authority or credence for Rome's assertion as being the center of the faith either historically, biblically, theologically, or in church practice for over four hundred years. That is a pretty long time, longer than the existence of America. We clearly see that the word catholic meaning the larger church in which all individual churches are spiritually joined somehow became associated later on with the church in Rome and its particular way of doing Christianity.

Augustine, who was Bishop of the church in Hippo, modern day Algeria, wrote about the "City of God", the concept that our unity is found beyond our separateness here on earth. He was not a member of the church in Rome, nor did he ever serve the Roman church. He is one of the church Fathers of all Christians, all catholics who are part of a larger body. One might imagine Augustine having nightmares about his understanding of universalism being used to promote one branch of the church in Rome as the primary one true church. The concept would be abhorrent to him, yet he, along with hundreds of years of Christian history are now claimed as being Roman, when they clearly never were. This is a very clear historical, theological, and scriptural distortion of intense magnitude. While the church in Rome has and always will be a part of this universal church, she does not hold the exclusive franchise rights.

When the Huns sacked Rome in the fifth century, much of the known world had been civilized and built up by Rome's conquering of it. There was an extensive system of ports, roads and governmental structures in place. The Huns allowed these systems to remain along with the emerging church hierarchy in Rome. As the Roman Church went out with the spread of Roman culture into all lands, slowly these branches began to report back to Rome, mimicking the Roman system of government. Ironically, Rome, now a deceased culture, lives on in the Roman Church system of government and hierarchy. Once again I do not mean for this overly simplistic short version of Roman Catholic history to be seen as authoritative in and of itself, but I merely wish to illustrate that the Roman Church has always, in the stream of the catholic-universal faith of Augustine, and Nicaea, and the Bible has always been but one part of the whole, not the one whole.

In 451 AD, at the Council of Chalcedon, the Egyptian Orthodox, or Coptic, church expressed openly its individuality from the eastern and Western Branches of Christendom. The Egyptian Church traces its roots to St. Mark and the church he founded in Alexandria, so they have direct roots back to the bible and a continuous stream as is claimed by Rome. In 1050 AD we see the Eastern Branch declaring its separation from Rome, so historically there has never been one true church aside from the mystical vision given us by Christ and written about by Augustine and other visionaries throughout the ages. The church here on earth has always had its separate branches and it separate forms. Therefore, to declare oneself as the only true church is a clear rejection of the unity proposed by the name catholic and the unity we are supposed to be keeping according to scripture. In essence to declare oneself as the only representative of Christ would make you least "catholic" and least Christ like than any other group.

By the time we arrive at the Reformation, which was never intended to be a secession from Rome, but merely a reformation of Rome, the church in Rome had hardened itself into a hierarchical Roman cultural version which had been evolving over the 700 years since Constantine. Several times in that history other groups had protested and had either been killed, silenced, or simply ignored. The singular reason Calvin and Luther got so much attention was primarily historical in nature. The times were ripe for some independence from the Roman overrule of governments which the church had extended itself to in true Roman cultural fashion. We begin to see there never was one church, but many, and that the church in Rome has not been the same over its long history, but has gone through its own Reformations, as with all churches both good and bad.

It cannot be overemphasized how Roman the Roman church is culturally. If one were transported back to the Middle Ages, the services at the basilica in Rome would look strikingly similar to today. The cultures and traditions which are supposed to be a continuous stream back to Christ, are probably closer to a continuous stream back to the Middle Ages Italian Roman culture. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, just that it's not the one true form of worship, it's simply a form of worship, primarily Italian and Roman reminiscent of the Middle Ages. The governmental structures, the hierarchy is set up along Roman governmental lines, and even the male exclusiveness of the leadership is reminiscent of old Rome herself, as well as some very middle ages views of sexuality which have not seemed to have worked even then. If that is your personal preference, then you should feel in heaven in Mass. It is one version of Christianity, it is clearly not the only one, nor should there be a doctrine stating that it is.

We are all part of the catholic church so it should be that we all use the designation to proclaim the universality of our Christian identity, or none of us should use it. To use it to mean a distinct branch heralding itself as the one true church is the exact opposite in doctrinal definition to the word catholic. We might also look at the misuse of title having the Church of Rome in Philadelphia, or Texarkana. They should rightly be the Church in Philadelphia and the Church in Texarkana. This is the correct usage of the term church as set forth by scripture and history. Once again, we have become so used to this doctrinal error, that we simply take it for granted. This is the problem with uninvestigated doctrines becoming reality over time. Our doctrines have been debated since the beginning of the church. Nowhere was one true church set up to be the arbitrator. The churches came together. The concept of a Pope with infallible powers would make Peter dizzy with disbelief. Clearly the one benefit the Roman church has to us is to show what happens by not constantly challenging counterfeit doctrines and then suddenly proclaiming them as being the work of Christ because they have existed so long.

Does longevity make something right eventually which had once been wrong because we have gotten used to it? Protestants using the Warfield system of theology, declaring they must be right that miracles ceased because we say so, also are guilty of this historical error. The councils are the correct historical method of discussion, debate, decision and finally doctrine. All churches are welcome to participate. It is discussion about our divisiveness which unifies us and makes us catholic.

I also wish to reiterate that Protestants also set themselves up as the one true church as did many early Pentecostals, believing that their direct encounters with God gave them some earthly prerogative to suddenly be in charge of everyone else. It is also ironic that many of the main line Protestant churches in trying to be not like Rome actually allowed Rome to dictate their identity by trying to be more not like them rather than simply letting sola scriptura shape their destiny and history. The very doctrinal idea that one group has it right is a heresy. This is why we had councils, to sit around a table and share. To learn from one another, to challenge one another, to pray for one another, and to recognize how God may be working differently in differing people groups and cultures. He may be the same yesterday, today, and forever, but we sure are not. God recognized that and meets us where we are.

Without councils we cannot form doctrines about the current work of God, whether experiential or intellectual, whether Pentecostal or theological. A council must take the respected leaders of all branches sharing and learning from their experience and teachings and agreeing on what points we disagree and what points we can find common ground. One of the hallmarks of a direct experience of the presence of God, whether in Roman liturgical form, or while dancing and singing in ecstasy in a Pentecostal church should be His love expressed to those who know Him differently than we do. God is big enough to reveal Himself to us smaller creatures in ways that are intelligible to us, and those ways may differ over time and culture. The divinity proves His love and mercy and is the very hallmark of our unity and universal catholicism. It is in dialogue and discussion through councils that we display that unity and love.

Whatever one branch holds dear as their own doctrinal creeds must be recognized as distinct, but not authoritative for all Christians. We can discuss these differences, even applaud the one true God who unites us all in our Catholicism in Him, not in the creed, confessions, or governments. Once again we see the same mistake Israel made, and Warfield made, in expecting that governments are what define us. They are what alienates us from God and disrupt our outward flow of love and unity. We will probably never shall, nor should we try, to hammer out all those differences and arrive at one true church government. If that were to happen, I would deeply distrust it on scriptural grounds.

I have heard some criticize this universalism of the church in its diversity being spiritual by calling it the invisible church. They imply that invisible, or spiritual do not count, and are therefore somehow less than real. However, even using their own argument, our universality should not be invisible , but should be tangible and visible in our toleration at best, acceptance in the middle, and ultimately our love for those professing the faith in Christ in diverse and differing ways. Having a government that agrees on finer points of doctrine does not mean we are universal in our love. It means we are narrow minded and bigoted at best.

Trying to force others to accept our understanding of the mysteries of faith surely cannot be what the bible talks about as unity and peace. Finally, the bible never speaks about something called church as we understand it today. It speaks about gatherings. ecclesiae. The word ecclesia from which the word church is loosely derived, becomes defined incorrectly when we interpret it to mean a hierarchical church structure of ruling leaders. The bible clearly does not use the term in that fashion, nor does the body of Christ resemble that remotely for its first four-five hundred years. It is the one prevailing reason for the Reformation to decry the hierarchical governance not based on sola scriptural, and then we turned right around and built a non scriptural hierarchical government supposedly built on sola scriptural. We did not throw the baby out with the bathwater, we threw the baby out and kept the bathwater.

Does this mean we accept everything and anything purporting to be Christianity? First of all what power do we have to stop anyone from using the name. Mormons use it, hate groups use it, skin heads use it, the Klu Klux Klan uses it, Jim Jones used it, and some Koran burning church in Florida used it. Who is going to go around handing out licenses and inspections? The government? Is the one true church me and you who agree today, and sometimes I wonder about you? Seriously, we spend so much time arguing and ultimately there is no fruit born out of these arguments. This is where our doctrines come in. We identify the big issues from which we will not depart. If another group wishes to use our name erroneously, what can we do, but clearly our doctrines, and our love for one another would expose them as being other without our help.

If some hate group is calling people names in the name of Christ, and we go and call them names, how is the world better seeing Christ? How can they spot the true religion of love? We can begin with the Nicene creed which all Roman Catholics adhere to, as well as 99% of the Protestant world, as well as the Greek and Coptic Orthodox churches. It is a good foundation. Starting for the premise that God saves a fallen and dying people for their sins and grants them immortality and heirs to His kingdom, is it really beneficial to argue whether one wants or desires miracles today or not? If you are perfectly happy living in a world where God already did enough for you, God bless that. If you need a miracle and want to cry out to Abba, Father for His intervention, why should other Christians be arguing? And if a group wants to get together and believe miracles still happen today, where is the real harm? Would not the harm be in opposing it if it is really of God? Would not the harm be in holding others back if that is exactly what God called them to do? Would not the harm be in the argumentation itself, especially if it is based on non rational, non doctrinal viewpoints of fear, and bigotry?

The reformation failed. It created mini hierarchical churches forever arguing over who has it the most right and who has the right to tell others who is right and who is not. The fire of heaven is only one of many discussions caught in that mindless trap. It is almost comical to hear people in a Roman( hierarchical) way decrying miracles as being too Roman. It is also very confusing to see people leaving evangelicalism because John Calvin is not their father, and going to the Roman church because it might be. Perhaps the fatherless, or those feeling so, should turn to our father who art in heaven.

# Chapter 13 - Call to Council

_" An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason." -C.S.Lewis_

_This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what is become of him." -Acts 7:38-40 NKJV_

The year was 380 AD. Theodosius, one of the joint Emperors of Rome issued the following startling edict to the people of Constantinople, what was then the center of Christianity:

It is our will that all peoples ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practise that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans...that is the religion followed by bishop Damasus of Rome and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man od apostolic sanctity: that is, according to the apostolic discipline of the evangelical doctrine, we shall believe in the single deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity. (Charles Freeman, AD 381, Overlook Press p. 25; Quoted in Friell and Williams, p. 53; The original is found in the Theodosian Code, 16:I,2.)

This is the first time that Christianity is elevated above the other religions of Rome, which up until that time had practiced religious toleration of a variety of faiths and beliefs. When Constantine had embraced Christianity, he did not do so at the expense of other faiths. He merely added Christianity to the pantheon of views prevalent at that time, and protected Christians under the state allowing them to practice openly and receive government aid.

The year prior to this edict by Theodosius, he and co-emperor Gratian had issued a joint edict proclaiming the Trinitarian views of the Council of Nicaea, so this redundancy of re-proclaiming the Nicene faith is unnecessary except to elevate Christianity to the sole religion of the state, a rather shocking move for the people of that age. This reversal of almost five hundred years of Greco-Roman culture of open discussion and practice between culture and faiths, which allowed for much of the expansion of Roman authority as well as the Greeks before them, has been debated amongst scholars for generations. Was this a last desperate grasp as Rome was falling apart?

What is even more shocking is the second half of the edict that Theodosius issued in 380:

We command that persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom we judge demented and insane, shall carry the infamy of heretical dogmas. Their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by Divine Vengeance, and secondly by the retribution of hostility which We shall assume in accordance with the Divine Judgment. (Ibid.)

In one fell swoop, Theodosius reversed the first four hundred years of Christian practice of differing Christian views gathering together for discussion in Councils. If you do not agree with the Roman way, then you are insane and open to "Divine Judgment" as issued by the state. There has been widespread disagreement on how seriously and far reaching Theodosius expected this edict to be taken, but nonetheless, it pretty much changed Christian history forever. The emphasis was no longer on Christ the King first, our unity or Catholicism second, and our distinctiveness third, whether it be location, culture, or doctrine. It elevated Rome and her hierarchy first, and then if you believe like us, then you can be considered catholic, or unified, and thirdly you are a Christian only if you do it our way. This is no subtle change.

I place this piece of historical information in the closing chapter on the fire of heaven because it underlies much of the problem which has been highlighted in this book. While we have seen in the chapter on Rome, that over time she elevated the church in Rome to being the one true church, which she most certainly was only a small part in Christianity's first 400 years, but she gave herself state powers to issue "Divine Judgment" on all who disagree, a rather dangerous, and most decidedly anti Christian practice. While it might have easily passed in an edict in the fourth century Roman world, it seems shocking by today's standards. We need a new way of approaching our differences before we approach our differences. Shaming and blaming others for being not like us, and then castigating them to the role of being "demented and insane and worthy of divine judgment" ( being our own of course)

Once again, as I stated in the chapter on Rome, my intention is not to single out the Roman church, nor to open old wounds, but rather to accomplish the opposite of reunification. I wish to lift out the fact that when Protestantism was born in the 16th century, and while she was attempting to rid herself of everything Roman, somehow she not only left this part in, but actually embraced it wholeheartedly. At the very beginning of trying to purify ourselves of error we managed to keep the biggest one of all - that is defining those who differ with us as being somehow not Christian and worthy of whatever divine judgment we wish to procure upon them. So the Protestant church was born in defiance and opposition to Rome, and then continued that practice with each new splintering over the least jot or tittle or sub point of our doctrines between each other.

So by the twentieth century we have whole branches or denominations of Christians devoted to some rather obscure viewpoint, and sure that everyone else in Christendom was going to hell in a hand basket, except their adherents. About the only thing we Protestants could still agree upon is that we were most clearly anti Rome still, now calling her Catholic in a rather ironic twist of using the word which means universal to be a sign of our divisive displeasure. The Roman church hardened her stance building her own schools and universities and doing as Rome had done as a state, establishing her rule and authority in a distinctive way within the existing culture. This of course led to the American culture which had originally been built on being the melting pot, now hardening itself against the Roman church, and the rest as they say is history.

Our problem is not doctrine or theology, which helps us organize and categorize our beliefs to ourselves and others, but the fact that we use it to divide ourselves as Christians. What is worse, is that this heresy is growing, not shrinking. The view of Christ, the gospels, and all of scripture, is that He is Lord, sovereign over all. He does not dispense that back to mankind, the church, or any other authority, and anytime mankind takes that authority of "divine judgment" bad things happen. Jesus did warn, "Judge not, lest you too be judged". But somehow we miss those dire warnings in our haste to be standing on the right side of our minor technical view of some doctrine of this or that and knowing that God is just going to love us on judgment day while he sends all those others into the fiery pit.

What we fail to miss is that we violate the very essence of Christian doctrine of love, mercy and grace when we do that, therefore the doctrines that purport divisiveness, or ones that cause it are heretical, and should be seriously reexamined. Jesus said to us that since we had trouble with Ten Commandments he would lower it to one, Love. He said very clearly, do that first, and everything else will work. Isn't it amazing that a doctrine of grace and mercy actually gets doctrinally re-amalgamated into a doctrinal practice which alienates, hates, and judges. We have got to begin to open our eyes and see this.

One of the attributes I have personally observed during revivals of my own lifetime, and in extensive studies throughout the ages, is the sense of the love and mercy of God the Father present within them. The fire of heaven brings with it an intense experience of the love of God which does not negate previous experiences but enhances them. My own personal view of God the Father had been instilled by own experience with my father on earth. He was a good provider, distant mostly, leaving for work before I went to school and arriving home late in the evening tired. He wish after a quick hug to be left alone in the living room to read his paper, and woe to the son or daughter who had to interrupt to ask him something.

This was my emotional and theological view of God, distant and emotionally unavailable. One of the dangers of investigating revivals is you sometimes actually experience what is going on. So I found myself with some 19 year old kid about to pray for me and stating that God might pour in a dramatic amount of love. Being reformed, Presbyterian, and pretty sure this kid had some serious problems of his own, I merely smiled in kindness. The next instant more love than I can even begin to describe was pouring through me. God showed me that He was not the father in the living room, but that He was close, very close. All I could say was, "I didn't know, I didn't know".

I spent years investigating that experience. I wondered if someone had drugged me or slipped something in the coffee. But I noticed I was different. I just felt more love to people, and my own children asked what happened to their old distant dad. I could not deny that when I sang the hymns in church I suddenly understood them in a way I never had before. My ministry and love of life intensified. Revived would be a good word, but I have chosen to use the word restoration as it seems more biblical now. I offer none of that as proof, but simply as a way of saying we need a place to talk about our experiences in the faith and to guide one another.

We have seen throughout this work, although limited in its scope of investigation, that we can derive a conclusion that doctrine can create as many problems as it solves for us as Christians. A doctrine, which is an invention of man to explain a Godly principle, or scripture, is intended by its very nature to divide—that is, to divide truth from error. The problem with these divisions is that if someone disagrees on the line of demarcation, then hostilities and disputes emerge from the very doctrine designed to promote peace and unity. This became the Roman way, militaristic, hierarchical, firm and unyielding. The goal would be to keep the process open through grace to make the edges a bit fuzzier. Even our basic view of the Trinity, proposed by the Nicene Creed, pretty much accepted widely by all branches of Christianity, which in and of itself should be enough to unite us all in love, has some fuzzy edges to it.

There are passages in the scripture where Jesus most certainly does defer to the will of the Father, which led to the Arian view, and does so rather willingly. There are some places where it looks like he is directing the work of the Holy Spirit. We cannot presume to know the exact micro organization of God to explain these differences in our Trinitarian views. Also, we who are now believers are declared to be included in the oneness of God creating even more multiplicity in the unity. We began to see in the chapter on Quantum Christianity that these views may actually be explainable through science and multi dimensional reality. We have seen that much of our thinking in doctrine has borne the marks of the industrial revolution and the machine like view of the universe which is now undergoing major scientific shifts.

Our very educational models are changing rapidly and the way in which young people today approach any subject is far different than any generation before them. Therefore our tired bumper sticker slogans which managed to pass for doctrines, presented in hostile and divisive way appear to them as being the work of rather bizarre individuals who have some arcane view which is neither desirable nor even worthy of thought. This result is the exact opposite of what doctrines were designed to do, invite people into deep thinking about the matter of God. This does not mean we water down the doctrines even more to make it acceptable, but rather that we get back to the real awe of the fire of heaven, and invite people to taste and see what really is the essence of our faith, i.e. love, peace, unity, and salvation.

Therefore we should be careful about taking a small portion of some disagreement among our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and elevating it to a doctrinal battleground. Such has been the case around the subject of the experience, of the fire of heaven both for and against it. There is way too much drama. As Paul advised the early church in his letter to the Romans, in dealing with a controversy of disagreement, he advises them, and us, "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind" (Rom 14:5). This is a good word. Should one esteem a faith of Orthodoxy and disciplined study and ritual, then they should be convinced this is what God has called them to do. We should honor that. Should one seek a more mystical path of spirituality, fervor, revival, and manifestations of God's presence, that person should be equally convinced they are correct in their calling, and we should all honor that.

I am always amused by the person who writes or gives a testimony where they believed one way, changed their mind, and are now purporting that everyone else who believes the way they used to believe is now wrong as well. If they are admitting they were totally wrong in their choosing before, would they then not be the last person who should be leading now? Maybe they are wrong again? The point is that we can make our personal choices which, as Paul states, God gives us the freedom to do, however these personal choices do not automatically become doctrinal for us or others. The only qualifier Paul, and the Bible places on that personal choice, is that you are convinced in your own mind, between you and God. How did we end up in a place where the belief police show up at your door, or internet, trying to convince you that the way you believe is wrong. According to scripture, that is the only thing wrong in the picture.

Much of our wrangling and debating over personal religious experiences, and then elevating it dramatically to some high and exalted Council of Nicaea because me and Mary Lou can't decide if miracles occur any longer, is just plain wrong. Let Mary Lou be convinced in her own mind that miracles do not happen any longer. Let her rest easy at night knowing that God will never show up at her door and do a miracle. She is totally and completely safe from miracles. She does not need to get an insurance rider in the event that a case of miracles breaks out.

If I choose to believe that miracles still happen, and I have applied all the tests I mentioned here, and studied personally for years and I am convinced in my own mind they are of God and for today, that decision is no more authoritative for you than the man in the moon. It is just my testimony, and my witness of what I have seen and experienced of the goodness of God.

We can share our testimonies in love. We can perhaps long for others who share a similar belief as our own. This is why there are ecclesiae, or gatherings (churches) of like minded believers. We can even carefully investigate each other's reasoning and experience and maybe slightly alter our view based on the growth of what they have bestowed upon us. Perhaps upon closer examination we may choose to change our minds. Our new found zeal is not a cause for us to start recruiting every other Christian who is not as convinced in their mind as to our view. Recruiting people to the love of God does not mean arguing with them miniscule tidbits of quasi doctrines that we invented last night. Nor does our deep and life altering experience in the fire of God at a revival mean that anyone else suddenly needs to get it. If we wish to share, and they are interested, so be it. Let each be convinced.

One hundred years of the same argument seems a long time, but then again we Christians have been arguing for thousands of years over how much God is in our Communion wafer, or piece of bread. How can we let so great a gift of grace, and salvation become eclipsed by a differing experience with our brother or sister over trivialities? The argumentation alone, the disagreeableness and the prejudice should all be a clear mark that we need to head back to the showers, our game is finished and we need some cleansing and grace.

I am sure that Scofield and Warfield thought that the revivals of their day were an exaggeration, and they were convinced in their own mind that it would not last. One hundred years later and growing in intensity and fervor, they have been proven wrong. How less embarrassing if they had simply kept their opinions to themselves instead of leading millions of Christians into serious doctrinal error over their erroneous opinions, which they were obviously convinced were right at the time. Maybe poor Dr. Ryrie would not have been so deluded if he had not spent most of his life reading Scofield's errors in the margins of his bible. Maybe his students could have come to their own conclusions without his faulty logic and unscriptural foundations. The point being, they were entitled to their opinions, they were convinced, however there is a different criterion for elevating an opinion into the arena for doctrinal consideration.

One does not qualify for the Olympics merely because one joins a local gym. An opinion does not qualify for doctrinal consideration ever. There needs to be years of serious investigation, proofs offered, test conducted, witnesses secured. One cannot simply declare something null and void because of some notes in the margin of a bible, or because they do not like something and feel it is too Catholic or too new age. Using vague terms like that should have the item thrown out the window before consideration begins. One needs to investigate, test, research, not merely espouse their opinion, as if they had enough people agreeing with their opinion it then becomes a fact. A fact is not an argument, it is documented reality. If one can biblically show where it says miracles and manifestations will cease, I will show a hundred that contradict it. The body of evidence is that scripture never supports cessation. If one can prove all the miracles over the ages written and documented are false, then the burden of proof is on them. Historically manifestations are proven by the sheer witness and testimony and proof offered.

If one can prove one or two miracles false, or one or two revivalists false, by some evidence, then they have proven individual cases, not an entire body of evidence. If I find one person in a neighborhood committing a crime, the whole neighborhood is not guilty. The sheer preponderance of evidence is for the growing movement of the miraculous. If someone wishes to dispute that the burden of proof is on them to dispute every single case down to the last one over two thousand years. The point being, they cannot. The preponderance of evidence is for the miraculous being for today. Even Warfield agreed. If one is still convinced they are not for them, so be it.

In conclusion this work is a clarion call to our basic tenants and doctrines of faith beginning with love and unity first and foremost. In our discussion on the remaining differences, and they are slight in comparison to the great love and mercy which has saved us by our benevolent Father through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ, my suggestion is the we use the first century model of councils. Since we have the internet, we can go online and discuss with Christians all around the world our views and beliefs, which we are already doing. However, we are doing it in a way of divisive, unloving, and judgmentally, which has characterized our faith since the great mistake of Theodsius in 380 AD. His edict is still the same today - those who do not share our belief are, "judged demented and insane, shall carry the infamy of heretical dogmas." We then reserve the right to condemn our brothers and sisters to hell because they are seeing some sub point of faith differently than ourselves.

What does this look like to the world? What kind of witness does the Christian faith give when brothers and sister cannot get along even after we have received so great a faith? Do people honestly believe that a loving Father who saved us when we were lost in sin is going to now disown us because we have a more ecstatic form of worship, or raise our hands, or believe that a miracle might happen? It is important for people to investigate the underpinnings of their doctrines, see how they emerged, and test those doctrines against scripture. Using them as clubs to beat each other over the head was not the indeed purpose of Christian doctrine and automatically invalidates anything which we might intend to say. We also need to examine whether our beliefs make sense in light of other doctrinal beliefs we hold dear.

If we no longer believe in the miraculous, what exactly do we believe? How much will God intervene? If he leaves 100% up to us, as some Christians purport, then why do we bother to pray at all? If he intervenes sometimes when people are very ill, then what are the criterions we believe for that intervention? When one is applied to working out their faith in this manner, rather than simply putting bumper sticker slogans out there like a political rally, one discovers that doctrines are not easily arranged. There is a great deal of work and thought to make sense and reason of our beliefs. One does not simply go to a machine and push a button and out comes instant doctrine. The work causes us to value our true doctrines of faith, as well as continuously working on those other sub points for refinement and mutual understanding.

My intention was not to convince one of the existence of the miraculous today as revivals claim, but rather to show that there are literally one fourth of the world's Christians who now do, and many more in some degree or another. What I have argued is that any existing doctrines which decry this phenomenon are heretical in nature and may be even worse when viewed in the end by God Himself. That does not prove or justify the existence of the miraculous, but it takes away reasons for standing against it solely on the superstitious and fearful whims and errors of the past. One is still entitled to believe as one wishes, but said beliefs should not be done from behind walls made of lies, deceit and error. One must come out into the light and examine their conscience within the dictates of the body of Christ here on earth, not merely with fellow defenders of their particular belief du jour, which they somehow claim as doctrinal.

My call is also to the practitioners of the fire of heaven who have not made it easy to accept what God is doing by all their shenanigans. The revivals where the offering call is longer than the message and the book table is stocked to overflowing leaves a lot to be desired in humbly presenting what God has entrusted to you. I know the laborer is worth his hire, but the wealth and extravagance around the fire of heaven has been a noticeable element for over a hundred years, and has become an offense. The claims that God is definitely going to do a miracle tonight, when that may not be His will this evening is an outrage. Telling people to take this back to their churches and burn them to the ground with the fire of heaven is inexcusable irresponsibility at best.

All beliefs must be held accountable to the great doctrines of our faith, no matter how long or well established they may have become. Beliefs, even those which undermine the Roman or the Protestant Reformation must be held up to the light of the love of Christ and His mandate of unity. No longer can one fence in the term unity putting some principle, culture, or tradition as being the precursor to unity. Unity must come first. We are one in faith, one in Baptism, and one in the Lord. Therefore those with dissenting views cannot be excluded because they have dissenting views, a very convenient trick, but clearly dishonest and divisive in nature. Beliefs must remain just that, personal or group beliefs until such time as they are declared doctrinal by the entire body. Billie Bob and I cannot create a doctrine late one night on some Christian blog because he and I agree that all of you are wrong. We are entitled to believe that, but not entitled to declare it doctrinal and form a church and then judge all of Christianity by it. That becomes heretical by the mandates and doctrine of love Christ gave us, and is dissolved in its inherent mandate to disunity.

I know this frustrates many, because they find comfort and peace in discovering those of like mind, and wish to exclude all those of differing view. However, such a peace is not won at the cost of love and sacrifice on the cross, but rather on human good will. It lowers the essence of the mandate of the gospel by relegating it to getting along, and then lowers it even still to getting along with me. We begin to see there is no end to this madness until there is a bunch of arguing Christians who can't agree on a single thing together, which is exactly what we find on Christian blogs some evenings in cyber space. Our unity is won through Christ, and when we disavow that unity because of our beliefs, we do damage to the core of our faith in the name of preserving some minor tenant.

It is into such times that God's restoration always seems to come to remind us of the essence, or presence of Christ which first secured our salvation. The fire of heaven is God's way of restoring our sanity in Him and our focus on Him as His body the church. It was fascinating for me to discover that the Quakers, who now seem to be a rather politically liberal presence in my area, Philadelphia, the Quaker State as it is known, was once founded on fire of heaven occurrences very similar in description to modern revivals of the twentieth century. Perhaps, as I stated earlier, Scofield and Ryrie were onto something when they discovered that revivals come and go. Perhaps revivals are the strong medicine to call us back to our core faith, and then in more stable times are not as needed. Perhaps if we achieve the level that revivals manifest, like one achieving health after a long illness, then the medicine is no longer needed in such a strong fashion. This is just a theory of why it seems there are dispensations and then disappearances of the miraculous. Perhaps as suggested in the Old Testament the withdrawal of God is a sign of disfavor and disrepute and is a call in and of itself for repentance, rather than religiously accepting it as a way of life. When Israel did that she always seemed about to fall.

Wherever we place the fire of heaven in our eventual doctrinal schemata of God's history, we certainly cannot deny its historical and prominent place for the people of God. Perhaps as some claim it is an over excited emotional outburst, similar to children at play after too much candy. Even in that scenario, usually young converts, children, are excitable and may need this inspiration for the long adult years ahead. If this was a good initial inspiration for the Christian church, as cessationists and dispensationalists agree, then certainly it still is just as effective today for getting Christians going who are new converts.

What I am suggesting is a variety of scenarios that even if you believe that revival and its accompanying signs and wonders are not for you or your church, it may still have a place in the body of Christ. I do not take medicine when I am well, but I am glad it is there when I am sick. I have noticed in my study of the history of Christianity that revivals tend to happen when the body is most sick. The fact that they have been happening more in the twentieth century may be symptomatic of the body being too long apart from the truth of our basic doctrines, and too far in error. It may also be a sign, as the Gospel claims that these signs shall increase as we get closer to the end.

Some have contended that these revivals are the fresh blowing of God's Holy Spirit, and some contend that they are the very breath of hell. This is a pretty wide gap in diverging opinion. It should seem that such a wide gap could not exist for long if well meaning Christians began investigating and stopped hiding behind the walls of hastily constructed Pentecostal air raid shelters. As I discovered there is much good, and holy and beneficial and certainly of our Lord. Once again, that is not my appeal, but my opinion. My appeal is for you to really investigate yourself these phenomenon first hand, not simply accepting a third string testimony from a neighbor who heard from a neighbor who got an email form a cousin who once knew of someone who once went to a revival. It is clear this is not witnessing, because one did not see or investigate for oneself. This is gossiping, whisper down the lane style.

It is because of study and my encounter with many on both sides of this issue that today I am a new creation. Not a product of one side or another in a long standing debate, but one who has begun to investigate new ways of looking at the amazing love of my Lord, Jesus Christ and the work of His Holy Spirit. It is my hope to be able to write more on this in other venues, but the limit of this book has been to simply reopen the debate and allow for all sides to investigate and discuss in true brotherly and sisterly Christian love. I wish to assure the reader that there are no Pentecostals in heaven, no Baptists, no fundamentalists, no evangelicals, not that I mean they won't make it into the pearly gates, but once inside, we are all one in Christ. All those divisions melt away.

There in the kingdom we will all raise our hands, all fall down before Him who is worthy of our love. We will not have churches and Bible studies as all will know Him personally and up close. There we will not argue as all our questions will be answered. Until such time, my prayer for you is the same one that our Lord taught us, His kingdom come, His will be done, on earth, as it is there, in the kingdom. It is my hope that we can start living like we actually believe that.

# About the Author

Rev. Robert J. Jones was ordained into Christian Ministry by the Reformed Church n America in May of 1985. He was 32 years of age. He had spent ten years prior working in electronic repair and diagnostics, owning his own business, and finally being called to study for the ministry by the Lord. He graduated Temple University and New New Brunswick Theological Seminary with honors with a degree of Master of Divinity, and then started and built a church in Newtown , Pa. and pastored there for 21 years. He is currently working for the Reformed Church in America in church multiplication, starting and overseeing churches in the Philadelphia area, and consulting with other church planters on new church development and outreach. He currently co-pastors LIghthouses of Oxford Valley in Fairless Hills , Pa.

Rev. Jones was asked to write a paper for one of the oldest main line Protestant denominations on the phenomenon of pentecostal experiences. Pentecostalism is the fastest growing arm of the Christian body in the world today and is breaking into older more traditional churches, as well as touching almost every city in the world through the last three waves of the Holy Spirit, the Charismatic movement of the 1970's, the Toronto Movement of the 1990's, and an experience in Lakeland, Fla. in 2009.

While many people are having deep and moving experiences, many in the main line churches are charging that their doctrine teaches that these experiences no longer happen, or worse, are counterfeit experiences. Rev. Jones was asked to do some research and write a paper addressing these concerns.

What he uncovered as he did his research shocked him, and will shock most people in the Christian Church today on all sides of this issue. The deeper he explored, he uncovered that what the church has been presenting for the last 100 years on this topic is not doctrinal, that is sanctioned by any arm of the church. Even more shocking was these counterfeit doctrines are not even based on scripture or tradition, and when examined are quite heretical to most Christian doctrine through the ages. He was dismayed to learn that most of what he had been taught and grew up with are loosely based on the writings of one or two men, and when investigated, the writings themselves are filled with all kinds of prejudice, error, and confusion.

The paper became this book, and it reveals something that the body of Christ desperately needs to see, the counterfeit doctrines which have crept into the main line church over the last 100 years. These insights have never been revealed before and will change the way in which we discuss the pentecostal experiences, as well as the way in which we allow the very doctrines by which we measure experience to be infiltrated to such a high degree with erroneous thought. This book is intended to reveal and open new discussion on the current move of God in the church and world today.

You can read more about this online or contact the author at http://www.TheFireofHeaven.com

_++++++++++++_
