By: Pneuma Review

Pneuma Review — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 23:00:21 +0000

B.C. writes: “We should ignore *Strange Fire*. If we could answer every question and correct every abuse, McArthur and his ilk would still be opposed. Rather we–since we are in the middle of it and understand what’s going on–should examine our movement and ask our own questions.”

By: Pneuma Review

Pneuma Review — Tue, 09 Dec 2014 00:45:12 +0000

In Tony AndSue Richie’s review of *Strangers to Fire* http://pneumareview.com/strangers-to-fire-when-tradition-trumps-scripture-reviewed-by-tony-richie/ he mentions some of these same concerns as Jonathan Downie brought up: “With the indisputable benefits of Strangers to Fire firmly in mind, at this point I wish to admit that I’ve given some consideration to whether we ought to even being doing this at all. Let me explain. Is all the attention to JFM either appropriate or productive? I wonder if so much attention to such a minor and obviously over-the-top perspective is the way to go. Why take this esoteric bunk so seriously? Hardly anyone agrees with it. Outside of a sliver of a slice of fundamentalists, on one hand, and of modernists, on the other hand, both simply different versions of anemic and arid anti-supernaturalism, arguments for cessationism are falling to the ground due to the weight of their own failure to measure up to sound exegetical and theological standards. So, why give MacArthur’s ilk any attention at all? Might it actually be counterproductive regression? Why go back and fight the same old battles all over again when the general consensus of most fair-minded believers is already affirming continuationism? It might even set us back in the eyes of a new generation.”

Comments on: Should we keep talking about Strange Fire?

By: Pneuma Review

By: Pneuma Review