# John MacArthur on 1 Corinthians 12-14 (from "Charismatic Chaos")



## Eoghan

I am slowly working through the book and am intrigued by many things John has uncovered such as the roots of the charismatic movement in topical exposition (as opposed to systematic).

I have however been surprised to read his observations on the charismatic gifts discussed in 1 Corinthians. 


_Note that in 1 Corinthians 14:2 Paul was criticizing the Corinthians for using their gift of tongues to speak to God and not to men: One who uses a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries." Paul's comment is not suggesting that tongues should be used as a "prayer language"; he was using irony... _Page 279

_As we have seen (Chapter 7) the mystery religions in and around Corinth in the first century made wide use of ecstatic speech and trancelike experiences. I t seems that some of the Corinthians had corrupted the gift of tongues by using the ecstatic counterfeit._ Page 278


1 Corinthians 12:31 which is usually translated "But earnestly desire the greater gifts." The verb form is either indicative or imperative (NIV notes the former). MacArthur prefers the translation "But you are eagerly desiring the greater gifts." This becomes a rebuke of self aggrandizement and an inflated ego - sound familiar in a charismatic context?


My question is what we make of this treatment of I Corinthians? I am naturally inclined to go along with John MacArthur but not at the expense of altering scripture to fit my theology.

What do you think of this way of reading Corinthians?


----------



## Scott1

I have not read the book and am hesitant to comment on its excerpts without more context.

As I understand I Corinthians 12-14, there was a place for the "spiritual gifts" (I Cor. 12: 7-10), speaking in an unknown tongue and interpretation of an unknown tongue were among those. Paul said he spoke in tongues "more than all of you" and was thankful for that (I Cor. 14:18). He concludes this section by saying not to forbid it (I Cor. 14:39).

_However,_

He described the proper role of tongues/interpretation in this section:

1) Not the greatest gift, prophesy is (I Cor 14:4)
2) Not the focus of corporate worship (I Cor 14:5)
3) A sign for _un_believers (I Cor 14:22)

All these are violated today, as they were in Paul's day violated, as standard operating procedure in charismatic/pentecostal communions. This is a reason there is so much disorder in their communions.

But the even greater issue, in the context of Scripture, is that the Word of God now completes the special revelation of God, at least in any ordinary sense. (Miracles being the extraordinary, the exception to that).

The Scripture, _sola scriptura_ is the means of special revelation, not speaking in unknown tongues and interpretation.
The foundation of our faith is built on the prophets and apostles (Eph 2:2), that was once delivered (Jude 1:3).

The cannon of Scripture was not completed at the time of the Corinthians.

It is now.

So, ordinarily, at least I Cor. 12 spiritual gifts are not sources of new revelation today.

The fact that they are drawn upon for that as standard charismatic/pentecostal practice (though they often do not realize that is what they are doing) is serious error. It leads to all sorts of confusion including a devaluing of the central place of Scripture, and perhaps the egocentric seeking of "secret knowledge" or spiritual "superiority" the author is speaking of.

But, we all do that, in many ways, not just then, we do it today- including those of us not in charismatic/pentecostal communions. It is root error and pride we must all, and always deal with in our sanctification.

My reading of the excerpt you cite is that there certainly was ego rampant in the Corinthian church (as today), with people centered on self, including claiming special spirituality- nothing has changed. True today (and it is offensive to a Holy God to misplace His worship with the imagination of his creatures as the center of that). But that was not because they spoke in unknown tongues, there was legitimate revelation and/or miracles happening at that time, without the canon of Scripture completed.

But they are not an ordinary means of revelation to the church today because Scripture has that purpose.

Two cents,

Someone who is in a charismatic/pentecostal communion will likely not be persuaded by the line of reasoning presented, that Paul was only condemning the (I Cor 12) spiritual gifts and their application in Corinth. The Corinthians were "out of order" in many ways including spiritual gifts. They were not understanding the primacy of Scripture as the rule of faith and practice.

Nothing has changed.


----------



## FenderPriest

I think you'd find this a beneficial follow up to MacArthur's work, in which D.A. Carson engages with him and others at various points with illuminating exegetical help: Showing the Spirit: A theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14.


----------



## Eoghan

Thanks Jacob, Carsons sermons/lectures can be found at D.A. Carson on Spiritual Gifts – The Gospel Coalition Blog

Cant transfer the sermons to my mp3 player though.


----------



## FenderPriest

Eoghan said:


> Thanks Jacob, Carsons sermons/lectures can be found at D.A. Carson on Spiritual Gifts – The Gospel Coalition Blog
> 
> Cant transfer the sermons to my mp3 player though.


Yea, I've seen those. I haven't listened to them - mostly because I read the book. I don't know what he does in those lectures, but I did find the little conversations he has in the footnotes at times to be helpful in the details. I hope it's helpful stuff either way! And it seems odd that you can't transfer to your mp3 player...


----------



## Eoghan

For some reason Firefox could download where Internet Explorer merely streamed the mp3. What I would like to know is if D A Carson is a cessationist? In his exposition he seems to be conceding some validity to the charismatics.


----------



## kodos

No, Carson is not a cessationist. It's pretty clear if you look at the book being recommended by FenderPriest.


----------



## FenderPriest

Eoghan said:


> For some reason Firefox could download where Internet Explorer merely streamed the mp3. What I would like to know is if D A Carson is a cessationist? In his exposition he seems to be conceding some validity to the charismatics.


Carson gives a thorough exegetical account as to why he'd be in the "Open but cautious" camp on this issue. His last chapter couches his exegetical observations in the context of Biblical history and contemporary issues. I think he does a good job on the matter, and is helpful for both charismatics and cessationists.


----------



## Scott1

There is a fundamental issue here, that what is called in this generation "continuationism" do not get to.

It is that of new revelation.

Is new revelation, at least in any ordinary sense, coming outside of now completed Scripture?

This helped me understand this issue, and cleared up years of confusion and aimless (and mostly superficial) discussion about this.

Think of it logically- is the Scripture (sola scriptura) insufficient, in any ordinary sense?

If, for example, I Cor. 14 unknown tongues and interpretation "must be in agreement" as charismatic teaching reflexively says, with Scripture, isn't that meaning its revelation is equal with Scripture?

Being "open" usually means-
against the "abuses" of I Cor 12 spiritual gifts. 

On one level, it sounds reasonable.

It seems virtually everyone who has been in communions where this is practiced for any length of time sees something weird ("abuses"- someone prophesying the price of gas next month, announcing that someone in the congregation has cheated on their taxes, etc.) and senses it cannot be biblicaly right.

But the problem is their _substance_ which is extra biblical revelation, made the center of corporate worship.

Charismatic/pentecostal communions do this as standard operating procedure, whether they realize it or not. They center their denomination (identity) on it, though even when Scripture was not yet complete (I Cor. 14) Paul tells them _not_ to do so.

All that before one gets to Arminian influence, dispensationalism, a low view of the church and sacraments in their communions, no wonder there is such disorder in their communions.


----------



## FenderPriest

(point no longer pertinent to conversation.)


----------



## Eoghan

Carson seems to have in view some sort of role for prophesy, distinct from the OT. As he put it Agabus prophesied re Paul being bound by the Jews and handed over to Rome.
1. The details are wrong
2. Paul "weighed" and discarded the injunction not to go to Jerusalem

I don't thin k he is right but he does build his case slowly and carefully.

The last lecture is supposed to pull it all together - still to listen.


----------

