In my Q#3 to you, Bryan, I take the blame for being too vague. Let’s assume that the Apostolic Gifts are necessary for the life of the church; therefore, let’s then posit that all cessationists are unorthodox. It’s obvious to me what sort of response is warranted for them based on the responses to the Strange Fire Conference.
My Q#3 was in fact regarding what to do about those who, on paper, believe what you believe about the Apostolic Gifts but are not orthodox due to abuses and excesses (you have mentioned Mike Murdock; I am sure there must be others).
Let assume that 70% of all Charismatic globally are orthodox and of good faith, but that 30% of them are of a stripe like Murdock and his cohorts. What should the 70% do about the 30% who are, frankly, causing division in the body of Christ through false teaching?
My Q#3 was in fact regarding what to do about those who, on paper, believe what you believe about the Apostolic Gifts but are not orthodox due to abuses and excesses (you have mentioned Mike Murdock; I am sure there must be others).
Let assume that 70% of all Charismatic globally are orthodox and of good faith, but that 30% of them are of a stripe like Murdock and his cohorts. What should the 70% do about the 30% who are, frankly, causing division in the body of Christ through false teaching?
May I re-frame your question this way so that I've an actual figure to go by?:
Say we have only 1,000 teachers/leaders/pastors who on paper believe the same thing about the miraculous gifts. We got together and agreed across the board on all our terms and standards of orthodoxy with the gospel and practice of miraculous gifts within the church and conducted on-site surveys on those 1000 teachers to see how they measured up against the standard. We then got the results back which revealed that 700 of them were orthodox and of good faith with the standardization put in place, but 300 of them were deemed false teachers of a stripe like Mike Murdock and are currently causing division within the body.
What do the 700 orthodox do?
First I'd say we'd need to stay calm and controlled and keep ourselves away from guns, explosives, Saran wrap, and imprecatory Psalms (at least at first).
Scripture exhorts us who are leaders/elders in the church to "hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9)
Since we know we're dealing with Mike Murdock types, we know that we're dealing with primary issues (especially the gospel), not secondary ones.
We protect the sheep entrusted to our care and shoot the wolves closest to us. We do this as best we can with our own platform and sphere of influence, dealing first with any problems in our own local assembly and network of churches, and then move outward. The more public the false teacher and teaching, the more public the confrontation and exposure.
As for more of a principled process:
--We pray for them.
--We ask our Father for wisdom.
--We watch our own life and doctrine closely.
--We plead with them privately and publicly to repent.
--We publicly confront them and censure them.
I understand Frank that in your thinking you are being gracious with that figure, that in your mind it's more like 70% quacks who make headlines and 30% orthodox who smoke pipes and stroke their beards while reading Piper and Grudem. Of course, that number of orthodox would be different if you guys were actually more orthodox:) But I get that we conservatives make up a small percentage of the movement, if we can be considered inside the movement at all.
I think it's important to note here that Mike Murdock's views on or practice with the gifts of the Spirit (which I know nothing of) have nothing to do with why I find him repulsive and to be a false teacher, and never have. I would feel the same way about him and those like him if on paper they all had a high view of the sovereignty of God but still preached a false gospel and aired late night TV $1000 seed garbage.
There is a difference between false teaching/preaching a different gospel and misuse/abuse or perceived misuse of the miraculous gifts, but since you didn't make that distinction in your question, but rather implied they were one in the same, I chose to answer the question as you asked and make the clarification here.
What clearly emerges out of this question is our differing perspectives on hearing God and what we believe to be the true nature of the New Testament gift of prophecy---and how those differing perspectives translate into what we'd be willing to consider excessive abuse and false teaching...and subsequently, how we think things should be standardized.
Say we have only 1,000 teachers/leaders/pastors who on paper believe the same thing about the miraculous gifts. We got together and agreed across the board on all our terms and standards of orthodoxy with the gospel and practice of miraculous gifts within the church and conducted on-site surveys on those 1000 teachers to see how they measured up against the standard. We then got the results back which revealed that 700 of them were orthodox and of good faith with the standardization put in place, but 300 of them were deemed false teachers of a stripe like Mike Murdock and are currently causing division within the body.
What do the 700 orthodox do?
First I'd say we'd need to stay calm and controlled and keep ourselves away from guns, explosives, Saran wrap, and imprecatory Psalms (at least at first).
Scripture exhorts us who are leaders/elders in the church to "hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9)
Since we know we're dealing with Mike Murdock types, we know that we're dealing with primary issues (especially the gospel), not secondary ones.
We protect the sheep entrusted to our care and shoot the wolves closest to us. We do this as best we can with our own platform and sphere of influence, dealing first with any problems in our own local assembly and network of churches, and then move outward. The more public the false teacher and teaching, the more public the confrontation and exposure.
As for more of a principled process:
--We pray for them.
--We ask our Father for wisdom.
--We watch our own life and doctrine closely.
--We plead with them privately and publicly to repent.
--We publicly confront them and censure them.
I understand Frank that in your thinking you are being gracious with that figure, that in your mind it's more like 70% quacks who make headlines and 30% orthodox who smoke pipes and stroke their beards while reading Piper and Grudem. Of course, that number of orthodox would be different if you guys were actually more orthodox:) But I get that we conservatives make up a small percentage of the movement, if we can be considered inside the movement at all.
I think it's important to note here that Mike Murdock's views on or practice with the gifts of the Spirit (which I know nothing of) have nothing to do with why I find him repulsive and to be a false teacher, and never have. I would feel the same way about him and those like him if on paper they all had a high view of the sovereignty of God but still preached a false gospel and aired late night TV $1000 seed garbage.
There is a difference between false teaching/preaching a different gospel and misuse/abuse or perceived misuse of the miraculous gifts, but since you didn't make that distinction in your question, but rather implied they were one in the same, I chose to answer the question as you asked and make the clarification here.
What clearly emerges out of this question is our differing perspectives on hearing God and what we believe to be the true nature of the New Testament gift of prophecy---and how those differing perspectives translate into what we'd be willing to consider excessive abuse and false teaching...and subsequently, how we think things should be standardized.
