Romans 1:26,27 and the current debate on homosexuality

Romans 1:26,27 and the current debate on homosexuality

Each day I write a blog which is a commentary/observations/thoughts on the Bible. I have recently just started on Romans. Not unnaturally this involves Romans Chapter 1, and in particular Romans 1:26,27. It cannot have escaped your notice that homosexuality and Christianity are a hot topic in certain circles these days, and these two verses in Romans are pretty central to that debate. I write the material for the Bible Blog several months before it appears, so it will be January 2016 before Romans 1:26,27 appear there. However, I have put the material together (it will cover three days in the Bible Blog) into a single post here in case anyone finds it helpful. This essay has three parts:

• The Biblical and cultural background
• Comments on the text itself
• Some thoughts of a more pastoral nature

While this essay is quite long there are many who have done much more in-depth work, and from whom I have learnt a lot. At the end there will be a list of references to some of their material.

Biblical and cultural background

We now come to the currently most inflammatory verses in Romans 1. Now I will say quite a lot about these verses, but we do need to remember that homosexuality is not the the prime focus of what Paul is teaching, it is one example of the manifestation of sin in humanity. However, it is such a hot topic and one where there is much false teaching in the church that it needs to be addressed in some depth. However, there is an awful lot more that can be said that I can say here. If you want a full account of these matters, with in-depth analysis of all the Bible teaching then I would recommend the works (books, podcasts, debates on YouTube, blogs etc) of Sam Allberry, Jame White, Michael Brown, and Robert Gagnon. Some references will be found at the end.

First we need to remember what the positive Bible teaching on sexuality is. It is given in Genesis 1 and 2, and this was endorsed by Jesus, Mark 10:6-9 (just for those who think Jesus had nothing to say on homosexuality), and sex is for marriage between a man and a woman. Sex in any other context is dangerous, is sinful and is destructive (the evidence for which is all around us). It is worth remembering that in Leviticus 18 where homosexuality is one of the forbidden acts there are a whole bunch of forbidden heterosexual acts. Furthermore, having sex before marriage was regarded as a most serious sin (Deut 22:20,21). We do well to remember that when it is accepted as the norm in our society, and even regarded as not that serious a matter by many Christians. Why do I draw attention to all this? Because the charge is often made that the Bible has it in for homosexuals. The truth is that the Bible teaches that sex is for marriage between a man and a woman and nowhere else. The Bible treats all violations of this with equal seriousness, and homosexuality is one sin among many.

Now let’s look a little at the cultural background, and this mostly comes from Keener’s commentary. Homosexual activity was common in the Mediterranean world,but not in Judaism. The Jews looked down on it and regarded it as a Gentile sin, reinforcing their view of Gentiles as less worthy. Most homosexual activity was bisexual and the predominant form was pederasty, ie an adult male having sexual relations with an adolescent boy. They would commonly marry a woman later in life. However, homosexual relationships between adult males were not unknown (contrary to what some would have you believe). Homosexual behaviour was looked down on by some, others regarded it as a matter of personal preference. However, Jewish people were almost all against it. The attitude of people in general doesn’t seem that different from today! It may also be the case that the state of most homosexuality being promiscuous, with stable relationships being rare is not that different today either. With the recent legalisation of “same-sex marriage” the picture that is presented is of nice loving homosexual couples, just the same as heterosexual couples except both are men, or both are women. This may not be an accurate representation of the totality of the situation. Indeed, Evan Davies (a BBC reporter and presenter who is gay) recently got in trouble for saying that gays are generally very promiscuous. Now I am very cautious about arguments from either side on this, but we should not take things at face value.

Anyone interested in looking at these matters in more details should go to the works of the authors mentioned earlier.

Comments on Romans 1:26,27 itself

“God gave them over ...”. Again we have this phrase which appears several times in Romans 1. A common argument today is that people are “born gay”, sometimes people ask “if homosexuality is wrong why did God make me gay?” Well first of all the matter of being “born gay” is to say the least very contentious, and certainly not everyone who practices homosexuality is “born gay”. However, taking this verse talks of God giving people over to shameful lusts. It also talks about homosexual relations being unnatural. Again, this deeply offends our society. So what is the Bible saying? Well sex is intimately connected to reproduction. Reproduction is not the only purpose of sex, but it is a very important one! Homosexual sex clearly cannot lead to reproduction. So what is the Bible view of someone having homosexual feelings? It is that these are a symptom of the fall, they are a symptom of our sinful nature. Now, remember that Paul is using homosexuality as one example. All (or virtually all, but probably all)  of us have a corrupted sexual nature. If you have heterosexual feelings of lust for someone other than your wife that is a symptom of your fallen nature. So homosexuals are not special in this sense.

Now revisionists say that Paul was talking about pederasty and so is not condemning stable same-sex relations. This is a specious argument produced by people whose only aim is to justify sin. Even if Paul did have pederasty in mostly in mind that is no argument for saying the Bible is OK with stable same-sex relations. There is not a single positive word in the Bible about homosexuality.

Moreover, verses 26 and 27 speak of women having relations with each other, and of men having lust for one another. So there seems to be a mutuality here, and it is certainly not clear from the text that Paul only has pederasty in mind.

He then says that they “received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” Now what does this mean, and what about the undoubted offence it could cause a gay person? Well we see here the effect of sin. We often think of sin purely in terms of what we do and of it being bad. This is all true of course, but there is more to it. When we sin we become a slave of sin, as Jesus said (John 8:34). Sin takes over our lives like a cancer, and this is the effect of all sin. Heterosexual lust has the same effect, hatred has the same effect, lying has the same effect.

So what else can we say? Two things at least. First to reiterate, homosexuality is being used as an example by Paul. The majority of sexual sin is heterosexual in nature. All sexual sin causes immense pain. Heterosexual sin leads to the murder of millions of babies in abortion, homosexual sin does not. Heterosexual sin is predominantly (though not entirely) responsible for the sex trade and trafficking of women (and children) for sexual purposes. Heterosexual sin is primarily responsible for the increasing sexualisation of our children. I could go on, but I won’t. The Bible teaching is that anything outside of God’s plan of sex within the marriage of a man and a woman is sin and is destructive, both on those involved and on society as a whole.

Secondly, we need to remember where all this is leading in Romans and that is to God’s gift of salvation in Christ for all. Reading these verses and writing this stuff my thoughts are the sooner we get to the latter part of chapter 3 in Romans the better!

There are those who look at this thinking “you homosexuals are a reprobate bunch of sinners”. Well yes they are, but so are we, so are you. So is anyone without Christ, and in Chapter 2 Paul will turn to those who have such an attitude. Next I will make a few pastoral comments because I realise that what the Bible says here is uncompromising and cuts to the quick.

Some comments of a more pastoral nature

So what if you do experience same-sex-attraction (SSA)? Where does all this leave you? Well, if this is you well done for sticking with this! Let me say a few things, let me also refer you to the Living Out website, which you might find helpful.

As I have said before, Paul is talking about homosexuality here as one example of sin. Later he will talk about salvation and that salvation is open to all, and all here does mean all. So what if you experience SSA, does that exclude you from the kingdom of God? In itself it does not, in the same way that feelings of heterosexual lust do not. What matters is what we do in response to these feelings. If we indulge or entertain these thoughts, whether SSA or heterosexual lust we are heading for trouble, but having to resist temptation is, sadly, a normal part of the human condition.

What about “pray the gay away”, or being set free from homosexual feelings? Well with all sins we may be set free from them suddenly, either at conversion or after some special encounter with the Lord, but this does not happen with all sins, nor even with most sins. For the most part being “set free” is a gradual process and involves learning self-control. This is the consistent teaching of the Bible. Sadly parts of the church have sometimes promoted the idea that all people who come to Christ who experience SSA will be miraculously “set free”, and if they aren’t there is something wrong. This doesn’t happen with any other sin, so why should homosexuality be any different?

Society seeks to define us by our sexuality. This is a lie, while sexuality is important, we are not defined by it. We are defined by the fact that God created us and by the fact that Jesus died on the cross and rose again for us.

What about counselling or psychological help? Well this might be helpful in some cases. There are moves in the US, and I think in the UK, to ban counselling of this nature. This seems very strange to me. If someone has SSA feelings and would rather not have them then counselling of some form might help, why deny it to them? Especially at a time when society is quite happy to promote pumping someone full of hormones and carrying out mutilatory surgery on parts of their body which are in perfect working order. Why one is OK and the other not is beyond me.

Finally, I have listened to people like Sam Allberry and other friends of his on Unbelieveable, and to Rossari Butterfield. These are all people who experienced SSA, the latter was a promoter of gay rights and a lesbian who then turned to Christ. What strikes me about them is the depth of commitment and love for Jesus that comes over, the joy in their salvation that comes over.

The gospel offers freedom for all people, and all of us are in equal need of that freedom.

Sources

Is God anti-gay - Sam Allberry

Can you be gay and Christian? -  Michael Brown

The Same Sex Controversy - James White

Romans (New Covenant Commentary Series) - Craig Keener

Secret Thoughts of a Most Unlikely Convert - Rosaria Butterfield

Robert Gagnon

Living Out

Gay Christianity Refuted - James White

David Gushee Reviewed and Refuted - James White

The church and homosexuality - the real issues

It doesn’t take a genius to realise that homosexuality is a key issue facing the church today. There was the whole same-sex marriage debates a year or so ago in the UK. In the US there is currently a big controversy over the state of Indiana and its introduction of a religious freedom act. Then there are debates within the church or Christian community around such questions as “Is the church failing gay Christians” as a recent episode of Unbelievable was entitled. It seems that in these debates we are often missing the key point.

Let’s start with “Is the church failing gay Christians?” First, why don’t we have debates about the following questions:

• Is the church failing adulterers?
• Is the church failing fornicators?
• Is the church failing liars?
• Is the church failing thieves?
• etc

Now considering this highlights two issues: one for the “gay community” to consider, and one for the church to consider. Behind the question “is the church failing gay Christians” is the implicit demand that the church say that homosexual activity is OK, but it is dressed up as “you are not treating me properly”.

For the church we need to realise what our mission is. Jesus came to die for sinners, He died on the cross to pay the price for our sins. If the church does tell society that “homosexual activity is OK” then we are truly failing people. A central part of the good news is to help people come to a place of repentance so that they can receive forgiveness and new life from Jesus.

In the US there are increasing issues over whether Christian businesses should be forced to actively participate in “gay weddings”, the Indiana controversy is the latest manifestation of this. Similar issues have arisen in the UK. As with the “Is the church failing ...” question, we again seem to be missing the point, or only considering one of the important questions. The concern is focused on religious freedom. However, as the church we should be concerned to tell people what sin is and what the remedy is. I would very much prefer to be free, but my rights are not actually the central issue. There is a lot of shallow thinking about Jesus. Jesus said He did not come into the world to condemn the world, but this manifestly does not mean that He had nothing to say about what is right and what is wrong, and even who is right and who is wrong. Look at the gospels and you will see that he frequently made “judgements” on what is right and what is wrong. So as the church we should want to tell society that homosexual activity is wrong, but we do not do so in order to condemn the world, but in order to give people the chance to repent and turn to Jesus, to receive forgiveness and to receive new life. This is often portrayed as being bigoted or self-righteous, but this should not be so. We are all sinners, it is not singling out any one group, and even if we already know Christ there is still much sin in our own lives that needs to be dealt with. The mission of the church is declaring good news to sinners, and this is where as the church we are missing the mark. We so often preach a “nice” gospel, or a “prosperity” gospel, or an “environmental” gospel. We need to preach the gospel that Jesus and the apostles preached.

Having said that the question of religious freedom is important. Let’s look at the matter of different religions. The secular response is to say that all religions are essentially the same. Any true Christian, Jew or Muslim knows that this is complete nonsense. There are fundamental and irreconcilable differences, and if you say the differences do not matter you are saying that what we believe does not really matter, and that is showing respect for no one. However, it is far better that we live in peace with each other, it is far better that we have sensible dialogue with one another.

Now if we go back to the situation of preaching repentance, we can see the real challenge. The gospel is offensive. No one likes being told they are living their lives the wrong way, no one likes being told that there is no way we can save ourselves. Now that society has decided that homosexuality is OK it is not surprising that there is conflict between the church and society.

So the true challenge for the church is how do we preach a gospel that calls on people to repent. Changing the gospel, or rather abandoning the gospel, which is what many are doing, is no answer at all, and is no help to anyone. One part of the answer is that we preach that all need to come to repentance. The gospel says that all have sinned. Whatever label we put on ourselves, or someone else puts on us, we are included in that “all”. Equally, all can be saved through faith in Jesus Christ. This is what we need to preach.

Thoughts - The Real Problem of Hell

Seeing as it is New Year I thought I would write a nice cheery message on hell!

One of the most common “objections” to God is the so-called problem of hell. In this essay we will look at three issues:

• Hell and a God of love
• Eternal torment or annihilationism
• The real problem of hell.

Hell and a God of Love

Perhaps the most common objection is “how can a God of love send people to hell?”. This is a false problem. The fundamental error is that it takes a purely one dimensional view of the matter, focusing only on the punishment of hell. However, hell does not exist in isolation. The last day will be a day of judgement, there will be an open court on that day when all actions and attitudes will be laid bare. On that day the true awfulness of sin will be made known to all. You see, at present none of us realise just how terrible sin is, and the terrible effects that it has, both on the sinner and the ones sinned against.

Now consider who God is and what we know about Him. We know that He is a God of love and a God of perfect justice, and a God of great mercy. So we can be absolutely confident that on that last day every judgement will be completely fair.

On that day no one, not even Richard Dawkins, will complain that a single unjust decision has been made. The only scandal on that day will be that God was so patient for so long and has been so merciful to so many.

Eternal Torment or Annihilationism

Currently there is debate about the nature of hell. The traditional view is that it involves eternal torment, against this there are those who argue that it is annihilation of the soul, total destruction. Both sides quote Scripture to support their view. I am not going to go into all the ins and outs of this, Unbelievable had an interesting programme on this early last year, but will make a few observations.

The first is that we actually have a limited idea of what eternity means. We do know that it is much more than merely “going on forever”. Things will be very different in the new heaven and the new earth. So just as we do not know what heaven will be really like, we do not know what hell will be really like.

However, that does not mean that we do not know anything about it. Just as we know that heaven is the place to be, we know that hell is definitely the place to avoid. As Timothy Keller said in one of his sermons, the language used in the Bible about hell is almost certainly metaphorical, but it is a metaphor for something far worse.

I worry sometimes about those who argue for annihilationism. What are you really trying to say? Is it “Hell, it’s not so bad really”?

And another question for those who argue for annihilationism. Do you know what it is like to be completely annihilated? No you don’t, you have absolutely no idea. One thing we can be pretty certain about is that it is not a matter of being put to sleep!

So let’s look at what Jesus said, for He is the ultimate authority.

The Real Problem of Hell

It has often been observed that the person who spoke most about hell is Jesus Himself. And it is Jesus who spoke about torment and gnashing of teeth and fire. The message that Jesus had on hell is that you absolutely do not want to go there and should do everything you can to avoid going there.

So our teaching and preaching on hell (you don’t get much of that these days, though) should focus on what we can be sure about, sharing the emphasis that Jesus had.

You see, the real problem is that every single human being, without Christ, is on the road to hell. The good news is that there is a way out, but there is only one way out. That way is to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Thoughts - Virgin Birth and Christmas

This is just going to be a brief blog on the Virgin Birth. It is commonplace among atheists and sceptics to consider the virgin birth as just totally made up. This is not too surprising a reaction. More concerning is that a lot of Christians consider the virgin birth to be something of an optional extra or even an embarrassment.

It is nothing of the sort. Consider what the Bible says happened at Christmas. God became man. The creator of absolutely everything came to dwell amongst us as a man. Now that is truly amazing and something we should ponder on, just as Mary did. Now if God is the creator of the universe, surely a virgin birth should not be beyond His capabilities?

Now as a slightly speculative aside. In much talk of the virgin birth from those who believe in it, it seems to be assumed that while there was no male sperm, it was one of Mary’s egg cells that was fertilised. I guess this is where the whole immaculate conception and related controversies and ideas arise from. However, I don’t see anything in the Bible that demands that one of Mary’s egg cells was involved. Indeed it would seem to make more sense if it did not. Maybe I am wrong on this, just thinking!

Merry Christmas.

Thoughts - Chance, Evolution and Predestination

So what have chance, evolution and predestination got to do with each other? Well let’s start by looking at some of the thoughts (and fears) behind evolution and predestination. Now many people working on evolution are just scientists trying to do good science, but there are others for whom Darwinian evolution seems to be a vehicle for “proving” there isn’t a God. I intend to show that even if evolution is true then it in no way proves that God did use evolution as part of a design process. In fact evolution could be part of an intelligent design process. Since creation and evolution is such a contentious topic let me lay my cards on the table. If you want to put a label on me then old-earth creationist would probably be the best, but it would not be a perfect fit. With regards to evolution, if evolution is “true” then that holds no fear for me. However, I have severe doubts about neo-Darwinian evolution and random mutations and survival of the fittest seem totally incapable of explaining the development of life upon the earth. I would strongly recommend Stephen Meyer’s book, Darwins Doubt.

Predestination is a doctrine that seems to hold much fear and misunderstanding. The common misunderstanding is that it obviates man’s free will. It does not. The Bible is very clear. The doctrine of predestination states that there are primary and secondary causes. God is the primary cause of everything. The Bible attributes all sorts of things to God’s will, but this is in no way takes away our free will and responsibility. We struggle to get to grips with this concept, and the reaction of some (many?) is to reject, or at least ignore, predestination.

What we are going to do is a little thought experiment. It is going to involve some mathematics, but fear not, there won’t be any equations. We are going to look at genetic algorithms.

Genetic Algorithms

Genetic algorithms are an optimization technique used in mathematics and are an example of what are called heuristic algorithms. The idea behind genetic algorithms is inspired by evolution. The following is a very basic explanation, if you want more in depth information there is plenty out there on the web. A population is generated randomly. Then pairs of individuals mate and produce offspring. When two individuals mate there is crossover of “genetic” information, there is also an element of random mutation. All this creates a new population. A fitness function is then applied and the fittest members survive, the others don’t. This is just a basic description, there are numerous variations. This process is repeated many times and after many generations the optimum solution, or something close to it, is arrived at.

So you can probably see the affinities with evolution, especially the fitness function (survival of the fittest) and random mutation. Let’s consider the process a little.

First, it is a mixture of design and randomness. The initial selection of the population is random, mutation is random. However, there is also much design. The initial structure of the members is designed, the fitness function is designed.

Secondly, the outcome is, to a large extent at least, predetermined. If we consider a mathematical function which we are trying to minimise (consider a curve), then the outcome of the process, if the algorithm is designed properly, is predetermined. It will converge on the minimum point of the curve. So even though the process is random the outcome is not.

Thirdly, processes involving randomness can sometimes be more effective than more guided processes. The most popular optimisation methods use “hill-climbing” methods. You start from a point on a curve, calculate the gradient and then move in that direction to a new estimate. This process is repeated until the minimum (or maximum, depending what we are trying to do) is reached. For a simple curve this works well, but suppose the curve has lots of local minima. What will happen? The hill-climbing methods have a habit of getting stuck a local minima. Algorithms with a degree of randomness built into them tend to be better at reaching the true (or global) minima.

Now let’s consider how these impinge on evolution and predestination. Before going further let me make clear that this example is just intended to help us think clearly. With evolution and predestination we are considering “life, the universe and everything”. Genetic algorithms are simple mathematical tools dealing with specific problems. Nevertheless, consideration of it can help us to think.

Evolution

Many of those who consider the theological/philosophical implications of evolution seem to think that because of the randomness of the process then either (i) there isn’t a God (from the atheist side), or (ii) God cannot have used an evolutionary process as part of creation (from the creationist side).  Both of these views are wrong. Genetic algorithms illustrate that a process with much randomness built in can be used to reach a predetermined outcome, and may even be better at doing so than a more clearly directed process. As mentioned earlier, I have serious doubts about many of the claims for evolution, but even if evolution is completely true, it does not “disprove God”. Conversely, those theologians who use randomness as an objection to theistic evolutionists are making a false argument.

Predestination

So what can this teach us about predestination? In the genetic algorithm we have a process where individual steps are random, yet the outcome is not. This is something that we mere humans have invented. Surely God, who is infinitely cleverer than we are, can do much greater things. So it is may well be possible for God to predetermine the outcome of something and still allow the individuals free will with decisions within the process.

It seems to me that two of the things the Bible is absolutely clear about are:

1. God is in complete charge of everything, and He chose us for salvation before the creation of the world.
2. The decisions, actions and attitudes that we have and make matter and have an effect.

We sometimes find it hard to reconcile the two as at times they seem to be contradictory. Our reaction tends to be to favour one (Calvanism or Arminianism) or the other. Genetic algorithms should help us to realise that it might just be possible for both to be true, at least to some extent.

I do emphasise that I realise that evolution and predestination are much more complex than what I have presented here, I just encourage you to think and not to let God be limited by the limits of our intellect.

Thoughts - Reflections on Cessationism

Strange Fire?

There has recently been a lot of controversy in the US over cessationism, caused by the John McArthur’s Strange Fire Conference. Let me make it clear that this post is not about the Strange Fire conference itself as I have not listened to the talks, rather it is about cessationism in general. From what I gather the conference was motivated by a concern for many of the excesses of the Charismatic world, such as so-called prosperity teachers etc. If you want to see more of a response to the conference itself (from a Charismatic perspective) then I can recommend Dr Michael Brown and his Line of Fire podcasts, and from a UK perspective, Adrian Warnock.

The reason for writing this blog is that as a result of the furore I have listened to a couple of debates between sensible charismatics and reasonable cessationists, between Michael Brown and Sam Waldron  and between Adrian Warnock and Doug Wilson. I have never seen any Biblical support for cessationism and have paid little attention to the topic. However, listening to these debates has at least helped me understand the issue a little better, and I am even more firmly convinced that there are no Biblical grounds for cessationism.

Cessationism

Cessationism is the belief that the charismatic gifts ceased after the time of the apostles. It is important to realise that it does not mean they don’t believe in the active role of the Holy Spirit in the church, nor does it mean they don’t believe in miracles.

So what are there grounds for saying the gifts ceased at the end of the apostolic era? Essentially it is that the primary purpose of the gifts was to authenticate the apostolic ministry. First let me say a few words about apostleship for the term apostle is a little controversial today and is misused.

Cessationsim & Apostleship

The term apostle is used in two ways in the New Testament. First there are what most people think of as apostles, namely Peter, John, etc and Paul. There are no apostles like these now and never have been since Peter, John etc. These apostles had been with Jesus and were physical witnesses to the resurrection (Acts 1:21,22), with Paul being one “abnormally born” (1 Cor 15:8). They had special authority and established the foundations for the church, in particular the New Testament. However, the term apostle is also used in a more general sense.

Now to apostles and the gifts of the Spirit, and it is the Peter type apostles we are talking about. The argument of the cessationists is that the primary purpose of the charismatic gifts was to back up the authority of the apostles. Now it is true that signs and wonders were one of the signs of an apostle. However, the gifts, particularly those spoken of in 1 Corinthians are not there purely or even primarily as signs of apostleship. Let’s take tongues. First we need to realise there seem to be two types of tongues. There is the instance in Acts 2 where the disciples spoke in human languages that people who were visiting Jerusalem could understand. Then there is the tongues that Paul speaks about in 1 Corinthians 12 & 14, and which seems to be the more common, where the main purpose is the edification of the individual, and need not be a human language. From my reading of the New Testament, tongues seems to have precious little to do with apostleship. The only possible argument could be taken from the Samaritans who received the Holy Spirit through Peter, but that seems to be reading too much into it.

Cessationism & Prophecy

One of the themes that cropped up in the two debates noted above is the seeming insistence of cessationists that all prophecy must be inerrant. They seem to rely on there being only one model of prophecy, namely what most Christians will think of when we talk about a prophet, ie an Isaiah or a Jeremiah or an Amos. But this does not seem to be supported by the Bible. This will be only the briefest of comments here. For a much more detailed study of the matter I would refer you to Wayne Grudem’s book, The Gift of Prophecy.

Consider Elijah and Elisha. No one doubts that these are prophets of God, but how much scripture did they contribute (in the sense that Isaiah etc did)? Virtually nothing. They are known for two main things: (i) confronting power with truth; and (ii) performing various miracles. Then there are prophets Nathan, who was a prophet to David. He got it wrong when he told David to go ahead and build a temple. God quickly corrected him. In Chronicles it says that David appointed prophets. In the Old Testament there were numerous prophets and types of prophets, including, of course, false prophets.

Now turn to the New Testament. There are no prophets of the Isaiah mould. There is no record in the New Testament of prophecy playing any part in the laying down of Scripture. Again, there is an example of a prophet getting it wrong in the strict sense when Paul was warned against going to Jerusalem. Moreover, the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 seem to speak of a gift that is for general application in the church.

There are many other arguments against cessationism. Adrian Warnock’s blog contains some very useful comments.

In short, I have never been able to see any Biblical support for cessationism and the Strange Fire furore has only confirmed that view. However, to those of you who are charismatics, do not write off cessationists. They may well be wrong on this matter, but many of them are spirit filled servants of Christ doing a great work. Conversely, in the Charismatic world we have a good selection of loonies and charlatans and need to use discernment.