How then can we discern what are the 'true, certain and distinguishing evidences of a work of the Spirit of God?' We need to consider the means to use, and the tests to apply.
1. The means to use
(a) the scriptures
Supremely, we are given the scriptures. To quote Edwards 'This is the great and standing rule which God has given to his church, in order to guide them in things relating to the great concerns of their souls; and it is an infallible and sufficient rule. There are undoubtedly sufficient marks given to guide the church of God in this great affair of judging the spirits, without which it would lie open to woeful delusion, and would be remedilessly exposed to be imposed on and devoured by its enemies'. (Distinguishing Marks, 260)
Note the stress on the sufficiency of scripture. This accords with the testimony of scripture itself. Isaiah 8:20 'To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn'. The Bereans are commended for they 'examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true' (Acts 17:11).
(b) reason and understanding
In order to benefit from the scriptures, we have to use them, from which we can infer that a second means is the use of our reason and understanding. This is implicit in the scriptural command to test the spirits, which means to weigh, to evaluate.
It may be argued that true discernment is about an 'inner witness', and that our reason is unreliable as a judge in these issues. However such a view offers no help in the situation where Christians differ in their inner witness. One person senses the powerful presence of God in a movement, another sees only emotion. How can things be moved forward? Furthermore the scriptural view of discernment does involve use of the mind. In the context of teaching, the writer to the Hebrews addresses the mature '... who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil' (Heb 5:14). By the renewing of our mind, we will be in a position to discern God's will, which must include knowing whether it is his will for us to be part of a new movement purporting to be of God.
It is interesting to note the comment in this connection from Dr Lloyd-Jones, on the burgeoning tongues movement in the early sixties. "There is a teaching which comes to us and says 'Now if you want this blessing, let yourself go, and especially your mind .. If you want this you have got to abandon yourself' (Prove all Things, p.71). Such teaching is always wrong, because the scriptures never tell us to abandon our intellects.
(c) Church History
Very much as a secondary test, it may be possible to use lessons from church history in evaluating a new movement. This is discussed further in a later section.
The core biblical approach, then, to 'testing the spirits', is reason in submission to scripture. I believe that we should be very suspicious of other means. Some other means which are commonly employed by Christians today are:
1. Reliance on an 'inner witness', as discussed earlier. 'It feels right to me', 'I felt a sense of peace'.
2. Reliance on claims to fresh revelation. In particular, today, there is the assertion that we are entering or have entered what might be called the 'last last days', in which many prophecies will be fulfilled, including Joel's prophecy of an unprecedented outpouring of the Spirit. The critical question is not whether such claims are true, but the basis upon which they are assessed. I fear that such claims are being accepted simply because certain people claiming prophetic insight are making such statements, without subjecting them to thorough scriptural examination.
3. Reliance on current prophecy, or personal leadings. 'This move must be of God because person X prophesied that it would happen in this place, or on this date, or in this way'. Or 'this is definitely of God because when person X was about to start this thing he received this telephone call from person Y who knew nothing about it with a message that exactly confirmed what he was doing', etc. The point here is not to say that God never leads in such a way, but rather that we must apply the scriptural tests first. If they prove positive, we can rejoice in these incidents as the leading of God, but they cannot in themselves be used to 'test the spirits'.
4. Reliance on the miraculous as proving a movement to be of God, e.g. healings or physical manifestations. Scripture makes clear that the miraculous is no test at all of the genuine, because it can be counterfeited by Satan (Matt 7:21-23, 2 Thess 2:9. Matt 24:24). It may also prove to be the case that what was thought to be miraculous has a natural explanation.
5. Maybe the most common means used today is to rely on the wisdom of Christian leaders, together with the testimony of other Christians. 'Leader X is sound, he has examined this thing and is going with it, therefore it must be of God'. Sadly, at times when there is no unanimity among senior leaders about whether certain events are of God, individual Christians really need to examine these things for themselves.
2. The tests to apply
How do we use scripture in order to test whether a new movement is of God? I suggest there are two main categories of test.
(a) Scriptural Teaching
Does the teaching (explicit or implicit) accord with scriptural doctrine? The injunction to test the spirits in 1 John 4 is immediately followed by a doctrinal test: is it acknowledged that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh? In 2 John 10 this test is given 'If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him'. The doctrinal test is the first hurdle which any movement must pass, which claims to be of God.
Under this heading of teaching, account must be taken not only of doctrine, but also of practice. Are the methods and techniques employed consistent with the scriptural pattern? This is important because the cross is not simply the content of the message of the church; it also determines the nature of the ministry of the church, its manner and conduct. In 1 Corinthians Paul dealt with major doctrinal issues - the nature of the resurrection. He also dealt with practical issues: the way the Lord's Supper was conducted (1 Cor 11:21); and orderliness in worship (1 Cor 14:40).
Evaluating teaching against scripture involves asking the following types of question:
1. Is it in the Bible?
2. If there is no specific proof text, is it consonant with the Biblical revelation?
3. Does the teaching omit or distort certain key biblical doctrines?
4. Is the emphasis and balance biblical?
(b) Scriptural fruit
Is the fruit of Christian character and practice evident in those who are leading the movement, and affected by it? Matt 7:16 'By their fruit you will recognise them'. Although this verse is directed at individuals, it is valid to apply it to a movement also. What kind of fruit should we expect? In terms of character, Gal 5:22 lists the fruit of the Spirit. The beatitudes could equally be used as a basis. Col 1:10 speaks of 'bearing fruit in every good work', a reminder that true Christ like character will be expressed in action. The purpose of Christ is that his people should bear fruit (John 15:16). We can therefore infer that if a movement does not produce this sort of fruit, then it is not an outpouring of the Spirit, and that if it does, then it is.
It should be emphasised that the essence of scriptural fruit is active obedience, as distinct from words, or inward experiences. John 14:21 'Whoever has my commandments and obeys them, he is the one who loves me'. 1 John 3:18 '... let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth'.
Edwards is again helpful 'Thus, if we see a man who in the course of his life seems to follow and imitate Christ, and greatly to exert and deny himself for the honour of Christ, and to promote his kingdom and interest in the world; reason teaches that this is an evidence of love to Christ, more to be depended on than if a man only says he has love to Christ, and tells of the inward experiences he has had of love to him, what strong love he felt, and how his heart was drawn out in love at such and such a time ...' (The Religious Affections, p.330-331).
This is not in any way to denigrate Christian experience, but simply to make the point that it is a less reliable test, because easier to counterfeit, than the maturer fruit of character and service. It may be argued that the fruit of the Spirit in Gal 5:22,23 have a strong experiential flavour: love, joy, peace. I think the important point here is that in the context, these are more dispositions determining the way we live, rather than emotions strongly felt at particular times.
If the above analysis of fruit is correct, an implication is that when a new movement purporting to be of God first surfaces, 'sitting on the fence' may actually be a proper biblical response, and not a cop-out, because fruit takes time to mature.
3. The scriptural tests: some further issues
The previous section has established that there are two basic categories of test to apply when 'testing the spirits': the test against scriptural teaching, and against scriptural fruit. There are some further issues which must be considered in relation to these tests.
1. Only Fruit?
Some have argued on the basis of Matt 7:16 that we are commanded to apply just one basic test 'By their fruits you shall recognise them' and just concentrate on whether the fruit in people's lives is good or not. Here we can observe that: (a) the context of this verse is of a false prophet who gives every appearance of being a true disciple. The verse is not so much an injunction 'only look at fruit' but a promise 'the true inner nature is bound to express itself through that person's life' (b) this verse probably includes teaching as part of the fruit to be tested, especially when the parallel verse in Luke in considered (Luke 6:43-45). (see Calvin). So 'fruit only' is correct provided that a wider definition of fruit is taken to include doctrine, and methods.
2. Is teaching relevant?
Moving on to a related point, it can be argued that if we are dealing with a sovereign outpouring of the Holy Spirit, evaluation of teaching is not relevant, since we are not dealing with a new teaching, but an act of God. Therefore 'By their fruits' is the only relevant test.
Certainly leaders within the new movement will 'teach into' the experience, and this teaching can be evaluated, but if such teaching by way of interpretation is incorrect, this does not prove that the experience was not of God. A further problem is the chameleon effect: as a movement spreads within different Christian groups, the teaching takes on local colour to fit in with the teachings of that group. As a result, there is no one consistent set of teachings to evaluate.
To give a couple of examples, John Wesley experienced a remarkable work of God in the eighteenth century awakening. He interpreted the dramatic changes in people's lives by developing a teaching that has become known as Perfectionism. Most people today would take issue with the theology, yet affirm the experience as being of God. Jim Packer develops a similar argument with respect to the Charismatic experience interpreted as the baptism of the Spirit. The Restorationist theology to explain this is wrong, he argues, yet the experience is often genuine. His answer is to re-theologise the experience (this argument is developed in 'Keep in Step with the Spirit').
The problems with this argument are:
(a) it begs the question as to whether we are dealing with a genuine work of the Spirit. Examination of the teaching in the widest sense, including the methods used, will prove an important element of the assessment, and may suggest other causes for the experience;
(b) even if we are dealing with a genuine work of God, which has been wrongly interpreted, there is a great danger that the incorrect teaching will hinder or quench the ongoing work of the Spirit, and maybe generate a counterfeit experience. Hence the importance of assessing the teaching against scripture
(c) the problem with only looking at fruit is that it leaves the church very exposes to pragmatism - anything which appears to produce beneficial results is treated as a move of God. Other causes, e.g. psychological techniques, can produce 'fruit' in a limited sense of generally beneficial results. While it will eventually become clear that such 'fruit' is not of the Spirit, this could be detected more quickly if the teaching and methods were examined at the start.
3. What about roots?
There has been some recent debate about whether it is valid, in assessing whether a new movement is of God, to look at the roots of that movement. Using the tree analogy in Matt 7, bad fruit is the result of bad roots (see James 3:11,12). Normally we rely on the fruit to test the character of the tree, but if we have access to the roots, is it wrong to use this information? I believe it is valid to use all means available. Nehemiah is recorded as discerning an evil root in Neh 6:9-13.
The problem with the roots approach, however, is that it is easy to make invalid assumptions, e.g. supposing we infer that the teaching of person X is suspect because they have had connections with person Y. There are many assumptions here that may be incorrect.
(a) Is the influence of person Y really bad?
(b) Was person Y really an influence on person X?
(c) Has person X subsequently repented of the influence of person Y?
(d) If person X carries a bad influence from person Y, is it nevertheless peripheral to his ministry?
As the links in the chain increase, so do the questions. A further problem is the danger of a witch hunt mentality. The journalist sent off to find something bad in the past life of a politician is likely to be successful, the more so as the net is widened to include family, friends, etc. Every movement of God is sure to have some bad features which can be dug up.
4. The problem of inconsistent results
The tests of scriptural teaching and fruit are fine if they all point in one direction, either for or against. But what if the evidence is mixed? What if we are faced with a situation like the church in Corinth, where there is abundant evidence of the Spirit at work, yet horrendous errors in doctrine and practice? At what stage can we safely say 'this can't be of God because it involves this false doctrine, or that erroneous practice?' When are the tares so bad that it is better to move on to another field, or stay in our own? I would answer that, in practical terms, the purpose of testing the spirits is in order to decide 'do we want to be part of this?'. It might be that the errors in a movement were such that we would not want to be involved, although at the same time we could affirm certain features as of God.
4. Summarising the Scriptural Tests
One way of doing this would be to simply ask 'does this glorify Christ?', since that is the stated purpose of the coming of the Spirit. John 16:14 'He will bring glory to me ...' However there is a danger of using this test in a superficial way, so that if a movement talks a lot about Christ then it is assumed to pass the test, when other aspects may be contrary to scripture.
The tests proposed by Edwards in the 'Distinguishing Marks' have become a commonly accepted basis for assessing new moves of God. Taken from 1 John 4, they represent a combination of the scriptural teaching and scriptural fruit tests, expressed as five points.
1. Does it raise people's estimation of Jesus Christ? (orthodox views, together with esteem and affection)
2. Does it work against the encouragement of sin and worldly lusts? (awaken to sin, encourage heavenly mindedness, detachment from selfish pleasure, operate against interests of Satan)
3. Does it produce greater regard for holy scriptures? (submission to scripture)
4. Does it result in a greater awareness of, and seriousness about, key scriptural truths, e.g. God, our helplessness?
5. Does it produce true love for God and man?
5. What are we testing against? The facts
Although this is stating the obvious, the scriptural tests must be applied correctly against the facts. It is possible to have scriptural knowledge and spiritual wisdom without measure and yet still come to the wrong assessment as to whether a movement is of God, if the facts at one's disposal about a movement are incorrect.
6. Lessons from Church History.
Church history can help us evaluate new movements. There is after all, nothing new under the sun (Eccl 1:9). It is particularly useful, when evaluating alleged outpourings of the Spirit, to consider how God has worked in the past in revival. There are some cautions to consider:
1. There is a bias in the way church history has been interpreted. For example, was what happened in 1906 in Azusa Street, Los Angeles revival? Yes according to Pentecostals, no according to Reformed writers.
2. Our understanding of what happened in past revivals is imperfect, and the records must be treated with caution (e.g. treatments of the experience of Sarah Edwards)
3. It is common to find two logic errors committed in this area:
(a) Feature X (e.g. certain manifestations) was common to many past revivals. We are seeing feature X in this new move, therefore it must be revival.
(b) Feature Y (e.g. an outstanding preacher) was common to many past revivals. We don't see this feature today, therefore this can't be revival.
It is possible to identify certain general characteristics of past revivals. Brian Edwards lists three.
1. An overwhelming sense of the presence of God
2. An awful awareness of the seriousness of sin
3. An eager enthusiasm for, and an effectiveness in, evangelism
7. Some practical observations on discernment
Things to be very wary of:
1. The foolish, or spectacular
2. Anything that makes self prominent
3. Prominence of the physical element in experience
4. The power of suggestion, or auto-suggestion
5. Prophesying of future events
6. Personal leadings
8. Some references to fruit in the New Testament
9. False movements in the New Testament - some principles
Note: not all of principles below would apply to any one false movement
1. Focused on issues which drew people away from the Lord Jesus Christ and godly living (1 Tim 6:3-5)
2. Methods involved cunning and deceit (Eph 4:14, 2 Pet 2:1)
3. Taught 'Jesus Plus' other things, in particular legalistic observances (Gal 4:9-10, 6:12)
4. Taught that true freedom = freedom from moral constraint, i.e. licentiousness (2 Pet 2:18,19)
5. Were themselves driven by hatred of authority, lust and greed (2 Pet 2, Jude 10)
6. Boasted of special piety and qualifications, special knowledge of God and deep secrets (Col 2:18, 2 Cor 10:12, 11:5, 12:1-11, Rev 2:24, 2 Pet 2:3)
7. Held false views of Christ (1 John 4:2, Matt 24:4,5)
8. Able to mimic God given signs and wonders (Matt 7:21-23, 2 Thess 2:9, Matt 24:24)
10. Reference Material on Discernment