Today, in the tradition of my previous Arminocalvinist Spectrum, Evolution vs Creationism Spectrum and Spectrum of belief on hell and salvation  I present a “Charismatic-cessationist spectrum.”  For some more background on this issue, and a fairly typical charismatic perspective see my series of posts on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.  As usual this may be a bit of a living document for a couple of days as I welcome suggestions for improvement from others.

Intriguingly this spectrum is much harder to label than the previous ones.  There are many differing views about the role of the Spirit in the Church today, but the key differences are really the answers to a series of questions that do not always go together.  Some have tried to delineate the positions something like the list I created below  (and I would be very glad of any further comments), but a number of the following labels are not entirely accurate in that people will “pick and mix” on this issue somewhat.  In fact (and I do try to reflect this in the spectrum below) there are two distinct areas which are often not answered consistently: I call these charismatic beliefs and charismatic experiences.  Before reading the rest of the article, why not scroll down to the bottom of this article and take the following questionnaire to calculate your own personal “charismatic quotient” an idea I have developed from John Piper. My survey deliberately distinguishes between belief and practice, and I would welcome feedback on its validity.  But first, here is my attempt at delineating a charismatic-cessationist spectrum:

1. Strong cessationist  Perhaps this is something of a caricature, but there are a number of Christians who would basically deny that a modern Christian can have any sort of relationship with God today except  exclusively though prayerfully reading the Bible.  God’s word to us today would be entirely  limited to reading the Scriptures, and some would not expect any kind of excitement or emotion about the Christian’s time of worship.  Many in groups below would accuse these people of having a relationship with a book rather than the living God, while they would presumably dismiss all reports of divine activity today as either lies or delusions.  It is debatable how many people would truly be in this group. It should be noted, however, that when Piper wrote about how he heard the voice of God, some did criticise him for sounding too charismatic, when in fact his experience of God speaking to him through the Bible would surely have been entirely consistent for anyone who was a moderate cessationist.

2. Historic cessationist  I have often argued that prior to the pentecostal and charismatic movements, the mainstream view seems to have been one which claimed that God was very much active today, and was aware of the potential for a living relationship with him.  In fact, there have been many documented descriptions of what a charismatic today would call a word of knowledge, or a healing, or a prophecy associated with previous heroes of the faith.  But many of them would have been theologically cessationist, in that they would not have described their experiences with the language of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  There are many today who would also feel comfortable with descriptions of an experience of God, perhaps believing in a “call” to ministry, but who would not believe that gifts continue. In fact, it is very possible for someone in a group like this to have what some would term a stronger so-called “charismatic” experience than someone who would be theologically charismatic.  It is vital to remember that not only charismatics believe in the Holy Spirit, and some of the arguments are about terminology (see this article for example).  It is fair to say that most people who claim to be a cessationist have at least some sense of a personal relationship with God.

3. Aspirational charismatic  This is a term I have shamelessly stolen from Ed Stetzer who seams to have coined the phrase.  It seems to be something of a majority view among many reformed people today, especially younger ones who have read Grudem, and perhaps watched Piper or Driscoll sermons online. People in this group are theologically convinced that gifts of the Spirit are at least potentially available today. Many would not have seen any gifts in operation, or at least not in a safe, controlled environment.  At an emotional or experiential level, many might even have more distrust for the gifts in actual operation than some who call themselves a cessationist.

This is, in my view, despite its popularity, an inherently unstable position.  This is because it is a fact of human nature that our beliefs influence our behavior in every area. It would, for example, be odd indeed if someone claimed to be a baptist but did not practice adult baptism.  I suspect that many in this group of necessity will eventually either have to embrace a pursuit of the Spirit and his gifts more actively, or retreat into historic cessationism.

4. Third Wave charismatic  Popularised by the Vineyard and men like Sam Storms, this position would definitely be open to gifts, and will often have a significant experience of them. It rejects any notion of a “subsequent” Holy Spirit baptism, however.  (See Sam Storms detailed article.) It is perhaps an unfortunate term and I wish I could come up with a better one, but for the record, the term reflects the fact that this view was dominant among a historically distinct movement subsequent to both the charismatic movement of the 1960s and the pentecostal movement of the early 20th century. (see wikipedia on the three waves of the Spirit’s activity in the last century)  Some in this movement have adopted the term “continuationist” to distinguish themselves from other charismatics.

5. Strong charismatic This position advocates an eager pursuit of the Holy Spirit and all his gifts.  It would also advocate a distinct experience of the Spirit’s filling or Baptism with the Holy Spirit.  Prophecy, tongues, and other gifts would be common in these circles, but most charismatics would not insist on tongues as being the only or necessary evidence of the Spirit’s baptism.  Many point to Lloyd-Jones description of the “sealing” with the Spirit which gives assurance, and is associated with the love of God being poured out into our hearts as the root of the experience, with gifts being important but stemming from this anointing in which God visibly acknowledges our sonship. Advocates of this position would argue that receiving the Spirit is a conscious thing that may not happen at conversion. These would agree that every believer is regenerated by the Spirit and in-dwelt by him, but not every believer is conscious of a relationship with God through the Holy Spirit. Believers are urged to seek and “receive” the Holy Spirit as experienced in the book of Acts.

6. Apostolic  In addition to all the points in the “strongly charismatic” position, these people believe that Ephesians 4 ministries are all to be expected, recognized and released in the global Church today.  If this view is new to you, and you want to understand it further, I strongly recommend Terry Virgo’s book The Spirit Filled Church, followed by Dave Devenish’s Fathering Leaders, Motivating Mission, or why not just attend our next 300 leaders conference here in London?  In case you are a new reader, it is this group that I fall into, despite (just like Devenish and Virgo) being firmly in the reformed camp.

7. Traditional Pentecostal or “tongues as the initial evidence” Some traditional pentecostals would agree with the strong charismatic position, and in some cases the apostolic also.  In some cases they have emphasized tongues to such an extent that it becomes a necessary sign that God has granted the baptism of the Holy Spirit to someone.  This position is far from universal among pentecostals, as this interview I did with Jack Hayford makes clear, and sometimes can be misunderstood with to a closely related position that encourages people to expect and pray for tongues, but without making them an absolute requirement.  Again, I am struggling for a label here, so any suggestions very welcome!

8. Extreme charismatic This label is intended for a disparate group of people who emphasise an experience of gifts to such an extent that at least one doctrinal position held by other evangelicals is displaced. Most seriously, some would begin to de-emphasise the role of the Bible in testing gifts, and even in some cases allow a so-called “revelation” to trump the clear teaching of the Bible. Some have argued that since we have a “now” word we do not even need the Bible at all! Clearly this is the way a non-Christian cult can arrise, and it is striking how often “angels” have apparently appeared to people and taught things contrary to Scripture.

Less apparently extreme (and not always stemming from a denial of the Bible), but dangerous nonetheless we see a revaluation of “standard” doctrines among some in this group, perhaps because of a feeling of alienation from mainstream evangelicalism. So, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity can sometimes be denied (eg “oneness pentecostals“), or the notion of God blessing the believer is taken to an extreme where any sickness is a sign of unbelief, or speaking in tongues is seen as necessary for salvation.  Most charismatics and pentecostals would strongly repudiate all of these positions.

So, there are some of the labels, but how charismatic are YOU in your beliefs and practices? Please complete the survey below and let us know what you think of it! You are welcome to remain anonymous if you prefer!

This is the second of a four-part interview with Matt Chandler. At Together For the Gospel, Chandler began his talk by claiming to be a reformed charismatic. After Grudem’s recent interview on this subject at New Word Alive, I was eager to ask Matt just what he meant by this, as there is a broad spectrum of people who would describe themselves as charismatic. His response including the memorable phrase, “I have never read anything in the Scripture where the devil was in the business of converting hearts to Christ”

Watch on vimeo

This video might surprise some of my readers. Wayne is well known as a reformed theologian. Arguably he and Piper have between them, with some help from Keller and Carson, led to this resurgence of “Young Restless and Reformed” that so many people talk about. So when a man like that argues that God has not stopped speaking since completing the Bible, it is worth listening to what he has to say. Wayne is theologically charismatic (believing that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today) and argues that prophecy is still available today, representing what God is saying to individual Christians rather than the whole world:

Wayne Grudem on whether God’s revelation has really stopped or not from Adrian Warnock on Vimeo. ]]> http://adrianwarnock.com/2010/05/wayne-grudem-on-whether-gods-revelation-has-really-stopped/feed/ 0 http://adrianwarnock.com/2008/10/augustine-was-not-cessationist/ http://adrianwarnock.com/2008/10/augustine-was-not-cessationist/#comments Tue, 21 Oct 2008 02:50:00 +0000 adrianwarnock http://adrianwarnock.com/2008/10/augustine-was-not-a-cessationist/

Lex Loizides tells us more in a post whose title provocatively states: “From cessationism to joy — how a healing increased Augustine’s understanding of God’s grace.”

Now somebody somewhere is possibly going to try to explain to me how healing doesn’t have to be a gift of the Holy Spirit, and that not all cessationists deny the possibility of God healing today. It’s just possible that I might understand that distinction this time round, but I must confess, I struggled to grasp it last time. Does anyone want to try to enlighten me further?

To be fair to Lex, I also ought to point out that his blog is not entirely about the cessationist issue. I do encourage you to join him as he slowly works his way through Church history in bite-sized pithy chunks.

This astonishing description by Iraneus of normal church life in the early centuries was cited on Lex Loizides’ blog.

‘So it is that in His name those who truly are His disciples, having received grace from Him, put it to effectual use for the benefit of their fellow-men, in proportion to the gift each one has received from Him.

Some drive out demons really and truly, so that often those cleansed from evil spirits believe and become members of the church; some have foreknowledge of the future, visions, and prophetic utterances;

others, by the laying on of hands, heal the sick and restore them to health; and before now, as I said, dead men have actually been raised and have remained with us for many years.

In fact, it is impossible to enumerate the gifts which throughout the world the church has received from God and in the name of Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate, and every day puts to effectual use for the benefit of the heathen, deceiving no one and making profit out of no-one: freely she received from God, and freely she ministers…

Similarly, we hear of many members of the church who have prophetic gifts and by the Spirit speak with all kinds of tongues, and bring men’s secret thoughts to light for their own good, and expound the mysteries of God,’ (Quoted in Eusebius, History of the Church, Penguin Classics [UK Edition], pp. 209-210).

UPDATE
Frank Turk has posted on this, claiming that this quote is not originally in Iraneus. However, one of his commenters says she has checked on it and said that it is, indeed, there in Iraneus, although another commentator has disputed the context these quotes were found in Iraneus by Eusebius.

As a believer living in the West, I’m constantly reminded of the need to exercise discernment, especially when it comes to matters such as claims of spiritual gifts and the activity of the Holy Spirit. I thought today I would go to one of my favorite works by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Joy Unspeakable.

Directly before this quote, the Doctor points out that in all ages there are two main dangers confronting Christians when they need to evaluate claims regarding the reappearance or revival of gifts in the church. The first danger, he says, is to immediately reject such reports, which he is not afraid to call “quenching the Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 5:19). He goes so far as to call that the more common danger. The second risk is, of course, the opposite to this—uncritical acceptance of everything, which leads to extremism.

He is always very systematic in his thinking, so he goes on to list why we need to be careful to weigh and test everything we hear about. My paraphrased version of his reasons why we need to be discerning are as follows:

1. The Bible tells us to. (See, for example, 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22.)

2. Studying Church history throughout the ages should strongly warn us of the consequences of being naive and accepting everything that is reported to be a “work of God’s Spirit.”
3. Clear evidence we hear of demonic activity in the occult. He argues that it is even possible for evil spirits to “heal” people.
4. The amazing things that hypnotists can make their subjects do.
5. The clear weakness and suggestability of people as demonstrated to us through modern psychology and what is called “hysteria.”
6. The fact that there is a real devil whose goal is to destroy us, and as a result inspires and empowers his servants.

Matthew 24:24: For false christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.

He then stresses that he is concerned to warn those who are passionate about God, and open to him acting today in dramatic ways. He is clear in the context that he would count himself among that number. The Doctor was clearly not an extreme cessationist.

In this quote he explains what we should not rely on to enable us to make appropriate judgments. Next week we will examine the tests that the Doctor believes should be applied.

I am speaking particularly to those good, honest, spiritually-minded men and women of any age whatsoever who are longing for revival and reawakening . . . For it is your very anxiety to know the fullness and the baptism of the Spirit that constitutes your danger and exposes you to this possibility of not using your critical faculties as you should. . . .

Do not rely only upon your inward feelings . . . that is entirely subjective, and while I do not discount the subjective altogether, I say it is not enough. You must not rely solely upon some inner inward sense, because that is the very thing the devil wants you to do. That means you are not using your full critical faculties; deciding in a purely emotional and subjective manner.

. . . do not be swayed even by the fact that something reported to you makes you feel wonderful . . .You may say, ‘I have never known such love, I have never known such peace, I have never known such joy’ . . . Do not say ‘I feel this is right, everything in me says this is right . . .’ It is not enough. The devil is as subtle as that . . .

Lastly, do not base your judgment on the people who are . . . making their report to you . . . It is often some of the best, most honest and sincere people who can be most seriously led astray . . . The devil does not waste any of his time and energy with your smug formalist — he is safely asleep, already under the drug of the devil, though he is sitting in a Christian church.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Joy Unspeakable, (Eastbourne UK: Kingsway Communications, 1995) 193-195. Emphasis mine.

For more information on Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones see this summary post, my Lloyd-Jones page, or the MLJ Recording Trust.

UPDATE
The written transcript of this video is now available and can be accessed here.

At the recent New Word Alive conference I was able to record a four-part interview with John Piper. John rarely gives interviews of any form, so it was a real privilege, and one that I hope you will enjoy.

Dr. Piper asked that we begin with prayer. His humble request of God that, for the sake of others, he would help us in our conversation was no mere lifeless routine. Here is a man who oozes the presence of God even when you are with him in such conversational moments. I found it challenging and stimulating to spend a little bit of time with him at the conference.

I began by asking him what brought him to this conference in Wales. He spoke of his surprise at realizing he seemed to have a broad appeal in the UK. He is welcomed to speak at a wide range of conferences from different backgrounds. He said that he was both “contaminated by the charismatic” and “a seven-point Calvinist.”

He described how he felt drawn to help in the process of realignment that is going on in UK evangelicalism at the moment. He spoke about the previous differences with Spring Harvest, which together with his discussions with the authors of Pierced For Our Transgressions, had made him especially keen to help the organizers of New Word Alive.

John said he was keen to do what he could to draw exegetically serious Bible, gospel people together—whether charismatic or not.

This interview will be continued tomorrow.

No. 2 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on October 26, 2007. This post was an expression of some of my own concerns and frustrations about the blogging world I have come to love so much. I said some things I had been wanting to say for a long time, and it was not a great surprise that the aftermath of this post would lead me to disable comments on my blog a month later. Tim’s book addresses discernment, which lies at the root of many of my issues with the Christian blogosphere and its direction.

A couple of updates to the original post appeared several days later and have been included here as part of the original post.

UPDATE—November 3, 2007
Phil has now written part two of his reply, and I have responded with a post entitled, “Of Tone, Discernment, and the Charismatic Question.”

UPDATE—October 29, 2007
Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs and I have been debating the issues raised by my criticism of him in the comments section of his original post. Just search for “Adrian” using the “find in page” function if you want to follow our specific debate. Phil has also written a new post, “If you can’t say something nice,” and we are debating in the comments on that post.

I will leave this post at the top of my blog for a couple more days as I want to give you all a chance to read it. If you are interested in some of my related thoughts on this subject, you could read the following posts:

• My Visit to the Billy Graham Center
• I Don’t Want Balance, I Want It All!
• My Comments Policy
• Blogging Principles for Christians

---

Those of you with an eagle-eye will have already noticed that I am publicizing Tim Challies’ forthcoming book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment. I doubt that many are surprised that I should want to encourage you to read his book, and I will show in this post why that is the case.

To begin with, however, I want to be very open and honest with you. When I first heard that Tim was writing a book I was actually a little concerned. This may surprise those regular readers who know how much I respect Tim and enjoy his blog. But I still had in my mind an old paradigm where those who are in some way “approved” as trained experts are the ones who should write books. Tim, like me, has no theological degrees. I also know that, just like me concerning this blog, he has been rather surprised by the way in which his readership has grown to an extent he never predicted (and, I should say, to a substantially larger figure than my own). So I was surprised that Tim put his neck on the line still further by taking on the challenge of writing a book.

Tim and I have both been riding a wave—the wave of blogging. In both the secular field and the Christian field, it seems that the most successful bloggers almost all seem to have something in common; they are not “officially trained” recognized global experts in their chosen fields. Perhaps this is because the real experts are too busy to write on a daily basis, or perhaps this is because of a new phenomena in our culture—one with which I’m not particularly thrilled, to be honest. In our 21st century culture there is a growing mistrust of any form of authority and of academics. It is actually rather sad to me that this now seems to be spilling over into the Church, and that it might seem, at first glance, to also include the Christian blogosphere.

One of the most influential early articles discussing the Christian blogging phenomenon was titled, “We Know More Than Our Pastors,” and it embodied this trend. It concerned me immensely. David Wayne summarized this piece and sounded some very valid concerns about it. For me, I wanted almost nothing to do with the concepts outlined therein.

Even as I have enjoyed the way that I have been able to be buffeted in this hurricane called blogging, I have also been somewhat concerned about some of the implications of this new marketplace of ideas. I suppose that, despite these reservations, I remain in the blogosphere because I am drawn to it as surely as a bee is to a flower in bloom, and as the Apostle Paul was to the debating spots of ancient Athens.

I am also here because somebody has to be. I am certainly not here because I imagine myself to be at the vanguard of some modern reformation that will sweep away the “old guard” in the way some bloggers (usually not Christian ones) speak about. I am here because, ironically enough, I see this new media as a way that we can proclaim the old, old message. I am here because, in some small way, I can act as a signpost to direct passing traffic to wiser heads than mine. The more readers I find visiting here, the more I feel the need to both quote and link to others. Whatever the size of your blog readership, that filtering process is the single best gift you can give both to your readers and to the writers of even the biggest blogs. I am pleased that the headlines from several bloggers who deserve to be read more than I do appear in the “Warnie Winners” box in my sidebar.

The blogging community can be thought of as a road system, a library, an ecosystem, or perhaps most aptly of all, a jungle. With no single classification system or map, what is needed are good wise guides. There are precious few of them online.

Read more . . . Blogging, Discernment, and a Book by Tim Challies

UPDATE—February 19, 2008
In January 2008, the following post was identified as the 2nd all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 3rd most-read post was “The ESV: A Bible Translation for Everyone?“

This post was an expression of some of my own concerns and frustrations about the blogging world I have come to love so much. I said some things I had been wanting to say for a long time, and it was not a great surprise that the aftermath of this post would lead me to disable comments on my blog a month later. Tim’s book addresses discernment, which lies at the root of many of my issues with the Christian blogosphere and its direction.

***************

UPDATE—November 3, 2007
Phil has now written part two of his reply, and I have responded with a post entitled, “Of Tone, Discernment, and the Charismatic Question.”

UPDATE—October 29, 2007
Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs and I have been debating the issues raised by my criticism of him in the comments section of his original post. Just search for “Adrian” using the “find in page” function if you want to follow our specific debate. Phil has also written a new post, “If you can’t say something nice,” and we are debating in the comments on that post.

I will leave this post at the top of my blog for a couple more days as I want to give you all a chance to read it. If you are interested in some of my related thoughts on this subject, you could read the following posts:

• My Visit to the Billy Graham Center
• I Don’t Want Balance, I Want It All!
• My Comments Policy
• Blogging Principles for Christians

Those of you with an eagle-eye will have already noticed that I am publicizing Tim Challies’ forthcoming book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment. I doubt that many are surprised that I should want to encourage you to read his book, and I will show in this post why that is the case.

To begin with, however, I want to be very open and honest with you. When I first heard that Tim was writing a book I was actually a little concerned. This may surprise those regular readers who know how much I respect Tim and enjoy his blog. But I still had in my mind an old paradigm where those who are in some way “approved” as trained experts are the ones who should write books. Tim, like me, has no theological degrees. I also know that, just like me concerning this blog, he has been rather surprised by the way in which his readership has grown to an extent he never predicted (and, I should say, to a substantially larger figure than my own). So I was surprised that Tim put his neck on the line still further by taking on the challenge of writing a book.

Tim and I have both been riding a wave—the wave of blogging. In both the secular field and the Christian field, it seems that the most successful bloggers almost all seem to have something in common; they are not “officially trained” recognized global experts in their chosen fields. Perhaps this is because the real experts are too busy to write on a daily basis, or perhaps this is because of a new phenomena in our culture—one with which I’m not particularly thrilled, to be honest. In our 21st century culture there is a growing mistrust of any form of authority and of academics. It is actually rather sad to me that this now seems to be spilling over into the Church, and that it might seem, at first glance, to also include the Christian blogosphere.

One of the most influential early articles discussing the Christian blogging phenomenon was titled, “We Know More Than Our Pastors,” and it embodied this trend. It concerned me immensely. David Wayne summarized this piece and sounded some very valid concerns about it. For me, I wanted almost nothing to do with the concepts outlined therein.

Even as I have enjoyed the way that I have been able to be buffeted in this hurricane called blogging, I have also been somewhat concerned about some of the implications of this new marketplace of ideas. I suppose that, despite these reservations, I remain in the blogosphere because I am drawn to it as surely as a bee is to a flower in bloom, and as the Apostle Paul was to the debating spots of ancient Athens.

I am also here because somebody has to be. I am certainly not here because I imagine myself to be at the vanguard of some modern reformation that will sweep away the “old guard” in the way some bloggers (usually not Christian ones) speak about. I am here because, ironically enough, I see this new media as a way that we can proclaim the old, old message. I am here because, in some small way, I can act as a signpost to direct passing traffic to wiser heads than mine. The more readers I find visiting here, the more I feel the need to both quote and link to others. Whatever the size of your blog readership, that filtering process is the single best gift you can give both to your readers and to the writers of even the biggest blogs. I am pleased that the headlines from several bloggers who deserve to be read more than I do appear in the “Warnie Winners” box in my sidebar.

The blogging community can be thought of as a road system, a library, an ecosystem, or perhaps most aptly of all, a jungle. With no single classification system or map, what is needed are good wise guides. There are precious few of them online.

One such wise guide is surely Tim Challies. I know that he shares many of my concerns about the world of blogs, and has a similar attitude in wanting to support those in positions of authority in the Church rather than tearing them down. I know that he is submissive to others. I like that he respects those, like me, who might differ with him on secondary issues, but firmly join hands on the Gospel. I have also met a godly man called Paul Martin who pastors him wisely. The more I came to know Tim, the more my concerns about the concept of a non-expert writing a book began to evaporate. If the modern world needs non-experts to grapple with the words of the experts and make them more accessible to the rest of us, then those who have been given that gift should be encouraged to find an appropriate outlet, even if that looks a bit different from previous models.

Writing a book is very different from writing a blog, even though the number of words involved in a blog over the years may be just as numerous. With a blog, there is instant feedback, and a chance to easily go back and reword or retract an argument. With a book, not only is it more permanent, it is somehow expected to be more accurate, so the responsibility feels greater. James 3 is ever present in the mind of a preacher, and should be in the mind of a blogger as well. Speaking personally, I have applied it even more strongly to the concept of writing a book, which quite frankly has always terrified me rather than attracted me.

But for some people there comes a time when a book finds them and demands to be written. That is what has happened to the man I am glad to call my friend, Tim Challies. He is painfully aware of the cacophony of voices available online, and the need to discriminate between them. The average member of your congregation might well be either theologically illiterate or have imbibed a watered-down, overly simplistic doctrinal system which he has heard away from your church pulpit. Blogs, mp3s, books, magazines, TV programs, conferences, and radio all compete for the minds of modern Christians. The battle has never been stronger. How should we respond to this?

There are a number of different approaches that could be taken. We could just ignore what is going on around us, which would not be wise. We could, instead, become great experts in the different types of false teaching that are being purveyed. There are some bloggers who seem to have the goal of ferreting out everything that is less than perfect. These are often termed “watch blogs.” The temptation is to take some kind of perverse gratification out of proving others wrong. As the years have gone on, by God’s grace, that temptation has increasingly looked less appealing to me, although there was a time when I frequently delighted in giving in to it.

Sometimes even bloggers with good intentions can fall into the trap of being over zealous in their discernment. I am sure I have fallen into that trap myself at times. But this past week, in reading a post by Phil Johnson, I thought I saw a classic example of someone who had over-reached himself in reacting to some things he had discerned. Now, don’t get me wrong. I share many of Phil’s concerns. I am indeed concerned about some aspects of Willow Creek’s ministry philosophy. Personally, I am not sure how to interpret their recent “repentance,” and certainly was VERY worried to see that they have invited Brian McLaren to speak at one of their conferences. BUT it bothers me that Phil seemed (at least to me) to be implying that Willow Creek has absolutely nothing to teach us. I am sure that if we fail to recognize something as being good and helpful and true, we fail in our discernment as much as if we blindly accepted everything in a naive way. I know it sounds cliched, but we really must be looking for the good in people, especially in those who have not denied important aspects of the Gospel. It is quite correct to say, “I like what this person says about the following subject, and have learned from them, although I disagree strongly with them on another subject.” If, instead, we lump people and whole movements together into an amorphous lump of theological rejects, surely we risk alienating them and, ironically, driving some further away from the truth of the Gospel that I know Phil and I both love.

But if Phil was harsh on Willow Creek, he went on in the same post to be even harder on the charismatics. I mention this because this kind of over-zealous discernment is sadly quite common. Again, quite rightly, he was pointing out the sin in a specific charismatic minister. Also, quite rightly, he was pointing out that due to an absence of discernment this kind of error is all too common in the charismatic movement, and sadly is often covered up. So far so good. And, despite his claim that his charismatic friends would be angry at these comments, I agree! What I struggle with, however, is that he then makes plain that he believes that charismatic doctrine itself is to blame for these sins and the lack of discernment that allows them to continue unchallenged. Phil applies the red card of his disapproval to the entire movement that, despite all its acknowledged weaknesses, I am thrilled to have been part of for decades. Should we use discernment with such a broad brush stroke?

My dear friend, Jesse Phillips, took Phil to task admirably in the comments section and repeated this on his own blog. No one seemed able to answer his arguments that while it is true that some second-order implications which people draw from core charismatic doctrine do encourage gullibility and an absence of discernment, the core doctrines themselves do not need to do so. Phil, in reply, claimed that reformed charismatics were a new breed, and only caused by alien influences on the movement. This is not true. Men like Terry Virgo and C. J. Mahaney and the groups of churches they lead have been around for many decades now. Perhaps these groups are not as visible as they could be, but I know they are also not alone in being committed to a firm grasp on reality and the wisdom of the Bible.

To simply dismiss the entire charismatic movement in just one sentence does not seem a wise response to the fastest growing segment of Christianity. It is not, of course, wrong to disagree with charismatic theology (some of my best friends online are cessationists, like Tim himself, of course), but Phil does not seem to recognize any good that has come out of the movement. It would be like me refusing to acknowledge the fantastic work being produced by cessationists. Much as I disagree with some of the positions cessationists take, I am willing to go so far as to state I learn as much and perhaps even more helpful theology from their teachers as I do from fellow charismatic teachers. Doesn’t discernment require that we identify helpful material even when it comes from those we disagree with on relatively minor points?

There is surely another way to respond to the marketplace of ideas to which we are exposed in today’s church. The single best approach to discerning truth from error is to focus on understanding and proclaiming the truth more (while remaining aware of what is being taught around us). We need to learn to recognize the truth for ourselves by studying the Bible. But we must recognize that we ourselves are not immune to error. We need to ask God for humility wherein we submit ourselves to the views of others and are willing to be taught by them. Indeed, we should be willing to use our discernment as a sieve to strain out the good bits from a mixture of error in order to do so. None of us has a monopoly on truth, or for that matter, error. Some may grasp certain aspects of the truth with remarkable ease, while others of us may struggle to understand it for years. There is, in my view, often much truth in the very ministries of those who we eagerly criticize. We can learn from more people than we like to think we can—provided we have discernment. I am frequently provoked when I read the writings or listen to the teachings of others who come from different parts of the Church than I. This must be done with caution, of course, and requires that I have studied the Bible for myself first. The more we understand the biblical truth for ourselves the better skilled we will become at testing everything and holding onto the good. I love the way Tim says it in his book:

“We can best know what is wrong by first knowing what is right. Experts on counterfeit currency know this as well. They train others first to know the traits of genuine currency because such knowledge will make apparent what is fraudulent. Christians need to dedicate themselves to learning and knowing truth so that what is evil and abnormal will appear obvious. For this reason the Apostle writes, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8). He encourages us to think first and foremost about what is right and true and pure and lovely. In Romans 16:19b he says this as well, exhorting the Roman church “to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil.” Never does the Bible tell us to dwell primarily or repeatedly upon what is false.

The relationship of truth to error is such that we can best know error by knowing truth. The opposite is not true. People who invest undue effort in concentrating upon what is false will not necessarily be able to identify what is true. By dwelling upon the beautiful truths of Scripture we will subsequently learn discernment. A discerning person will know that he must focus his heart upon what is true and pure and lovely, having confidence that in doing this God will bless Him with the ability to expose darkness.”

Tim Challies takes us from the turbulent marketplace of ideas that is the modern western church back into the world of the Scriptures. Sadly, today many people fall into the trap of being naively blown from one wind of teaching to another. Others become so expert at straining out the gnats of what they believe to be error that they are unable to learn from anybody. Instead they believe themselves to be the guardians of “true” doctrine. Tim shows us from the Bible itself how to avoid both errors. Tim’s reliance on the Bible is refreshing in an age when doctrinal pillars of our faith are being challenged by prominent preachers, and there is a constant search for novelty in parts of the Church. This book, like no other I have seen, aims to give ordinary Christians like you and me the tools we need to learn how to discern truth from error. I wholeheartedly urge you to get yourself a copy and read it, and then buy one for a friend.

I will close by quoting another passage from Tim’s book that expresses well his aim in writing the book:

This book is written for the general reader who wishes to understand discernment, to understand what the Bible teaches us about discernment, and who wishes to equip himself in this discipline. It is not written primarily for people with theological training, though I trust they, too, can benefit from it. Rather, it is written for you and for me—average Christians living in a culture and in a church where it so often seems that anything goes. It is written for those who look at much of what is said and done in the name of Jesus and ask themselves, “How can this be right?” It is written for all those who believe that it is the duty of every Christian to think biblically about all areas of life so that they might act biblically in all areas of life . . .

I do not intend to do the work of discernment for you. There are many books, web sites, and ministries that claim to teach discernment but do so by simply listing all the things you must do and the things you must not do. This book approaches the subject differently and is the result of my studies in Scripture to find the tools of discernment that God provides to us in his Word. And so I will not present a list of ministries you should avoid or endorse, authors whose books you should burn or buy, and music you should not listen to or that you should immediately download to your MP3 player. Rather, I hope to teach biblical wisdom on how you and I can become more discerning. I will present to you the wisdom of the Bible as it teaches us how we can become men and women of discernment. I will present principles you can use as you walk this life distinguishing between what is truth and what is error, what is right and what is wrong.

I’m back, but tired, and as usual, when I simply don’t have anything to say myself and it’s getting to the end of the week, I turn to one of the greatest living preachers—John Piper. Last Friday I quoted from his first talk in a series on suffering. Today I will quote from the second. It is striking how boldly he states that he believes in healing today, but in a context where this world in which we live is one in which we groan for heaven.

God’s Ordinary Way Today: Partially

Don’t misunderstand: I do believe in divine healing and miraculous rescues. God can today—and he does today—take away sicknesses and rescue miraculously. However, there is good reason to believe that his ordinary way of applying what he bought at the cross is to give it partially now. His normal path is that we arrive in the kingdom along the path of affliction.

A Groaning World—Even for Christians

Let me give you one passage on this: Romans 8:18-25. Paul says that now the whole creation groans. It is a groaning world. And then Paul adds: We ourselves, the ones with the Holy Spirit, groan, waiting for our adoption, the redemption of our bodies. Even people filled with the Holy Spirit groan—waiting, waiting, waiting. How long, O Lord, in this wheelchair? With this Alzheimer’s? Sometimes he heals now. But sometimes healing comes at [the] end.

This is a short excerpt from a quote on Challies Dot Com which Tim says is entirely consistent with a cessationist perspective. It sure doesn’t sound like the cessationism I love to caricaturise!

“. . . My friend knelt down in the middle of a circle of elders. We anointed him with oil, laid lands on him, and began to pray. Since I had started the process, I was appointed to offer the closing prayer.

As soon as we began to pray, I had an overwhelming sense that God was, at the moment, healing my friend. My arms felt what I can only describe as bolts of fire pushing through them. As I grasped my friend’s shoulder, heat and energy burned my hand. I felt that my one hand could lift all of his 230 pounds to the ceiling or push him through the floor if I wished.

I knew God was healing him. I wanted to shout, ‘We must stop praying that God will heal John and start praising God that He has healed him.’ But I was too astonished, too ensure of my sensations, to say a word to anyone that night. For four days, I kept my experience to myself.

Four days later, after church, my friend beckoned me with a wild grin, ‘Dan, watch this.’ At once, he dashed up a flight of steps. I dashed after him and met him at the top. He smiled, ‘And I’m not even breathing hard.’

‘I knew it,’ I exclaimed, and told him what I had felt a few nights earlier. And he told me, ‘I knew it too . . . .”

Over on the Pulpit blog, Nathan Busenitz — who has graciously commented over here — has asked us charismatics to add any further killer arguments to his list of the top 10 charismatic objections to cessationism. I am not sure if he will have time in his seminar itself to address those that I offer below as additions to his very helpful list, but I suspect, given his gracious demeanor, I may find myself debating this issue with him further in the future. If I have worked his comment system right, these may also be appearing over on the Pulpit blog.

1. The argument from church history that men like Huss prophesied, men like Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones spoke of being guided by the Spirit, and dramatic healings are recorded associated with some of the reformers — including the resurrection of the dead.

2. The argument that since Peter in Acts 2 stated that the “last days” prophecy of Joel was being fulfilled, and that this promise was for future generations and all Christians— to then argue that the gifts have ceased is to argue that we are living in days AFTER the last days! (Now where does THAT fit in anyone’s eschatology?)

3. The claim that the goal of our salvation appears to be receiving the Spirit, who is a guarantee of our inheritance. If there is no conscious experience of the Spirit to be had today, how can He give us assurance? (cf Ephesians 1:13-14, Galatians 3:14, Philippians 3:8-11)

4. That Jesus promises us an experience of the Spirit that would be better for us than if He Himself were to remain on earth — which of us have plumbed the depths of an experience of God to that extent that we could say we would prefer our experience to meeting Jesus in the flesh? (John 14, 16:7)

5. The claim that biblical prophecy was not always 100 per cent accurate, nor automatically enscripturated (1 Corinthians 13:9; 2 Samuel 7; Acts 21:9; Acts 21:4,10-11, 32-33; Acts 27:10; Acts 27:22; 1 Samuel 10:5, 10, 11, 12, 19:20, 24, 28:6, 15; 1 Kings 18:4, 13, 19, 20; 1 Kings 20:35, 41, 22:6, 10; 2 Kings 2:3, 17:23, 24:2; 2 Chronicles 18:9, 20:20, 24:19; Ezra 5:1; Jeremiah 7:25; Hosea 12:10; Matthew 2:23)

Shepherds’ Conference III is a post with a set of notes which my buddy, Tim Challies, made of C.J. Mahaney’s gig as stand-in for John Piper. To play stand-in for someone like Piper has to have been slightly off-putting, even for a man like Mahaney! C.J. took the opportunity to talk about humility, and wisely began by talking about just what it means for a reformed charismatic like him to be welcomed back into the fold like that. To see Mahaney and the author of the book Charismatic Chaos sharing the same stage would have been interesting.

There is a part of me, however, that wonders if reformed charismatics becoming part of the evangelical “establishment” is entirely a great thing without any potential drawbacks. It does seem to represent something of a seismic shift and currently reflects an organic unity which I believe is the kind that Jesus prayed for. I am sure that the amazing convergence we are seeing in these days will have effects for a generataion. What I am wondering is — What will the Church look like in another thirty years across America, and for that matter over here?

• Will there still be recognisable groupings that are charismatic and cessationist?
• If those two groupings still exist, will there be greater understanding between them than there has been over the last few decades?
• Will it become as “rude” among Christians to talk about the charismatic issue as speaking about eschatology seems by many to be perceived today?
• Will the charismatics become gradually more respectable and eventually — having lost their cutting edge — totally vanish?
• Will instead the cessationists begin to recognise that Huss isn’t the only Christian to have prophecied since Paul, and eventually cede more and more ground to the point of becomming charismatics?
• Will instead some new compromise position become the norm that looks something like charismatic practice and something like more reformed practice?
• Or will we instead return to an official cessationism, but a practical relationship with God and experience of Him guiding us that the Puritans and their successors such as Lloyd-Jones and Spurgeon freely spoke of?
• Will we still see active worship, with hands raised and clapped, and participation of the congregation in sharing spontaneous “words”?
• Will the so-called “New Wineskins” age and then become identical to the “Old“?
• Or can the “Old Wineskins” somehow change sufficiently to hold the active presence of the Holy Spirit?
• In summary, does C.J.’s appearance on the stage at a MacArthur conference as a preacher mark the beginning of a new phase for the whole church or the beginning of the end of the charismatic era for some?

Continued at Shepherds’ Conference IV - Lig Duncan on the Book of Numbers

Well, I made it – at least as far as Toronto. I had an eager sense of anticipation as I got off the plane. As I met my now dear friend, Andrew Fountain, it was amazing to me to realize how true it is that being a Christian makes you part of one big family of God. For those of us like Andrew and I, who are also part of newfrontiers, that sense of family is strengthened still further. When we meet, we realize that we all share the same spiritual DNA!

In what seemed like a blur, we were seated in a Keg Steakhouse with two other great blogging buddies – Tim Challies and Paul Martin. There is lots that I could say about the dinner we had together. The first thing is that, in fact, the whole thing was an internet date. Only Paul and Andrew had known each other first in real life – all the other relationships had been formed online. It was a real advertisement for internet “dating” – at least as far as friendships go.

We all shared so much – a love for the Lord, a basically reformed Baptist position (albeit with Andrew and I having a bit of a bonus add-on in the form of a charismatic theology!) and were all part of relatively young churches, none of which had a building they owned between them. Paul and Tim’s church is practically a house church!

The other nice thing was the way in which Tim managed to dispel all those myths about him being quiet, reserved, and never smiling. I have photographic evidence that he smiles, and I can assure you that he spoke at least as much as any of the rest of us.

We avoided the whole “Stop saying that I read it on your blog!” by pretending that none of us actually reads the other one’s blog at all!

Tim and Andrew broke off into technobabble at one point. In fact, for a moment I thought that they were both speaking in tongues as they discussed the intricacies of the databases that can power websites.

I then chipped in with a few comments about how to be a friend of Google – in particular my bugbear that we should all try and remember (I often forget this myself!) that when we link to other webpages we should try and use appropriate keywords. So, for example, if I wanted to link to Tim’s most recent post (and I do!) I should write something like this:

Tim Challies has updated and republished his post ironically enough on the updating and publishing of old Christian hymns.

Rather than what we all (including me!) tend to do, which is this:

Tim Challies has updated and republished his post ironically enough on the updating and publishing of old Christian hymns.

Google already knows that Tim’s site includes information about himself – the first example signals to Google that it might want to consider that page as a resource on Christian hymns, too. I have checked and right now Tim’s site is nowhere to be found on a search for the phrase “Christian hymns” – it may be that my link alone will change all that once Google indexes this post. What is certain is that if just a few good blogs were to link to him like that, his page would definitely end up appearing in the top ten for such a search.

I want even more people to find Tim’s site than already do – don’t you?

Anyway, back to our dinner. I banned any theological debates as I felt that it would be unfair to me having just got off a transatlantic flight, but that didn’t stop us from a few gentle digs at the areas about which we do disagree. More than that, though, we had a lot of fun and laughter. For example, the waiter took a photo of all of us (which I will share at the end of this post and whilst doing so told us to “look like we like each other and sit closer together” – to which the inevitable “not like we like each other too much!” and “not TOO close!” were the instant retorts and at the time seemed as hilarious as they were predictable with a bunch of us guys eating dinner together.

I had a great time, and I was left with a sense that as great as online friendships can be, it is no substitute for meeting face-to-face and seeing the whites of each other’s eyes, the smile as a slightly cheeky point is made, and feeling the warmth of the friendship and respect mutually held.

We discussed how perceptions can be distorted online. Certainly Tim and Paul were a whole lot funnier than I imagined them to be (at least until our crazy email exchange over arranging this dinner!) I also gave the specific example of Phil Johnson, who I also met a while back. I am sure Phil won’t mind me sharing that here. In person, and in his audio messages, his genuine warmth, respect for those with whom he disagrees, and general nice-guy nature is abundantly apparent. Sometimes online, our personalities don’t always come across as we want them to, and we can surprise ourselves by the way we are perceived.

Every now and then Phil will say something that, if said face-to-face, the twinkle in his eye would have given the appropriate context to it. I hate to admit it, but there is then a peculiar fascination in watching the wave of indignant reaction that sometimes hits certain corners of the blogosphere after Phil writes something which at the time I guess he had no idea would offend anyone. The wave of anguish is then almost inevitably followed by a genuinely puzzled Phil trying to figure which part of his comment caused the reaction The trouble is that the whole thing is not as funny as all that, as every blogger knows he could be next – and indeed has probably been there himself – I know I have been, and probably will be in the future.

I am not sure that there is any reliable way we can guard against being taken the wrong way from time to time as we write. So for every time in the future some unguarded un-nuanced comment I make here on my blog will offend someone, I apologise up front! I am afraid a few “smileys” definitely cannot take the place of all the non-verbal communication we miss when we read the written word.

What happened last night over a dinner near the Toronto airport was a precious thing – it involved a strengthening of trust. If a relationship is like a bridge, then our bridges were reinforced last night. For me, once a connection has been made face-to-face, it makes electronic communication much more enjoyable and, I guess, even safer in a funny kind of way.

Tim, Andrew, and Paul . . . thanks for a great evening. Thanks for being brothers fighting together on the same side. I commit to never seeing any of you as the enemy as we go about this blogging business and possibly even interact and disagree publicly. You guys have my permission to critique me privately or online.

I pray now that, together with many other bloggers, we will always find ourselves in this online world to be “standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel” which was “once for all delivered to the saints.” (Philippians 1:27, Jude 1:3)

UPDATE
Tim Challies and Paul Martin have both posted about our dinner. I just want to point out, that if my memory is correct, it was the Holy Spirit and not cessationism as such that I brought up, but it was only in passing and I could be wrong!

This is a round-up of some of the posts that caught my eye from the last week or so:

First up, on items of clothing. It seems Martyn Lloyd-Jones may win a most peculiar contest over at Pyromaniacs – the things that lot get up to when I am not looking!

Talking of which, the Pyros also talked up a storm about Mark Driscoll. I have to wonder just how unlucky Phil was – is that the first Driscoll sermon he has listened to, or has he been listening for a while looking for something to jump on? In all the aggro that seems to gather around Driscoll, I have yet to see a single referenced example of him actually cussing in the pulpit. I have heard quite a few Driscoll talks and never heard any swearing or anything for that matter that would be significantly offensive to most, as far as I can tell. Not yet having listened to the talk that Johnson cites, I will not comment on his specific problems with it. To be fair, I have wondered a bit about the number of Driscoll’s comments about sex – but I suspect he would justify this by the need of his particular congregation to hear “Don’t do it!” almost weekly! Anyway, Phil did post a great follow-up post about the need for ALL of us to be more careful about what we say and how to say it.

“People get shot in that neighborhood and cars get car-jacked all the time,” he said. Phil is starting his second childhood early – that’s what comes of having a cop for a son!

No Bible verses were harmed (or even touched!) in the writing of this sermon. Dan has a great post on the vital place of the Word of God in our preaching.

Dear Abby: Can I wear my swim trunks to church? If you want to understand what this missional thing is really all about, this is the post for you!

How to Prevent a Church Split. Pure church has begun a new series on this vital subject.

“I follow Jesus!” So says my friend Jason who has become a Christian in the last six months and was baptized last Sunday at my church. Pray for him, and go read his blog – his posts about baptism are great! Like my other friends, his headlines will appear in the gray box at the bottom of this page.

“In the New Testament, the Spirit works in three kinds of ways. He is called “the Spirit of Love.” [Rom 15:13, 5:5; Gal 5:22-23] He is called “the Spirit of Truth.” [John 14:17, 15:26, 16:12-14; 1 John 4:6, 5:6] He is called “the Spirit of Power.” [Zech 4:6; Luke 4:14; Acts 10:38; Rom 1:4, 15:19; 1Cor 2:4-5] We find all three together in 2 Tim 1:7: [For God has not given us a Spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.]“ Andrew Fountain on the work of the Holy Spirit.

Andrew Fountain Reviews newfrontiers Material (including Terry Virgo’s teaching). Andrew is planting a newfrontiers church in Toronto, and shares his view of this year’s newfrontiers conference and some other material.

Dan Phillips hasn’t managed to find the time yet to answer my latest post in our long running charismatic debate, but he does post a review of a cessationist book which seems to have a single “cascading” argument that I do not find at all convincing.

Also, my friend Rob Wilkerson has certainly been busy this week – he has written Gospel-Driven Prophecy: Understanding the Differences Between OT and NT Prophecy all six parts are now available Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Conclusion

Highlights from this series include the following quotes:

• “[New Testament] prophecy is no longer about a rare individual anointed as a prophet by another prophet. It is about the Holy Spirit anointing all His people to prophesy as His prophets – men and women, sons and daughters, children and adults, young and old, slave and free. None of this is in common with OT prophets.”

• “…a plain reading of 2 Samuel 7:1-17 winds up the not-necessarily 100% accuracy track record for even OT prophets as necessary to remain alive or even maintain one’s position as an OT prophet. In this text we read of David telling Nathan of his heart’s desire to build a temple for the Lord. Nathan’s response seemed fitting: “And Nathan said to the king, “Go, do all that is in your heart, for the Lord is with you’” (v. 3). At this point our minds are called to attention again with the rule of exegesis regarding context. The very next verse begins with a conjunction which contrasts verse 4 and what follows there with verse 3. “But that same night the word of the Lord came to Nathan…” In verses 5 and following, the Word of the Lord to Nathan differs completely from what Nathan the prophet told David to do. Yet strangely for our cessationists friends, Nathan still lives and retains his position as prophet of God.”

• “Cessationism claims that if one has received and given a prophetic word he or she believes has come from God, then that prophetic word should be considered equal to the words of Scripture and therefore ought to be recorded in the Bible. To this a simple question would seem to resolve this dispute. Was every prophecy of every NT prophet enscripturated? How about every prophecy of every OT prophet?

• “The fact that some NT prophets had their messages recorded as Scripture does not necessitate that all NT prophets’ messages must also be recorded there. God’s sovereignty is the determining factor here, so that only He can explain why Agabus’ prophecies are recorded and not the prophecies of Philip’s three daughters, for example. A prophecy was recorded in Scripture when God sovereignly determined that it should be.”
  

Make sure you DON’T miss the posts from the DGM conference whatever you do – just follow my headline links and get reading. But for those of us who have been consumed with that conference, what did we all miss?

The ESV Bible Reaches Five-Year Milestone. Five years ago on 1st October 2001 the ESV was released. Three million copies later, J. I. Packer believes it could be one of the most significant things with which he has ever been involved. I wonder if this will be the version that finally replaces the KJV, which is still (bizarrely) the best seller as far as I know. To celebrate there were, of course, a couple of blog potshots taken against it!

• ESV person and number changes. Better Bibles Blog reports two times where the ESV has changed her to you or they. The good news is that, unlike some translations, they tell us in the footnote that the context of the verses seems to demand the change, and it’s 2, not over 3,000.
• Singular “they” in ESV 1 John 3:24. Wayne thinks that he has found another inconsistency in the ESV with its own translation principles. We are up to three so far! In this specific example, it is simply not possible in English to say “He in Him,” so I understand why they did it.

“God’s purpose in ordering marriage is peace. One takes the husband’s role, one takes the wife’s role, one in guiding, one in supporting. If both had the very same roles, there would be no peace.” Over on T4G, they are quoting Chrysostom as a complemenatrian.

The marginalization of evangelical feminism. Dave Warnock sits on the other side of the fence from me on a whole host of different issues. What I love about blogging is that I get to actually hear what people like Dave think of people like me and hopefully understand his perspectives.

David Field: Roasts Anglican Bishops. Despite being a lecturer at Oak Hill, he suggests a new test for bishops – “If I heard that X were to be my successor as pastor-teacher of the congregation I’ve cared for over the last ten years, would I be thrilled, content, mildly concerned, or dismayed?”

An assault on our friends the Pyromaniacs. “In the middle of a serious exposition of Scripture or analysis of a deadly error within the Church of Jesus Christ, one’s sense of sobriety is assaulted by a cartoonish parody usually involving the ubiquitous Pyromaniacs label. It appears to the non-fans like gamesmanship. Gamesmanship about matters of doctrines that have split churches, turned homes upside down, divided families, and have consequences of such importance that agonized prayer and thought must be invested in the imbibing of them is simply unfunny.”

Tim Keller. Articles and audio by Tim Keller.

Guiseppi’s Ramblings: Non-Cessationism and John Piper. More quotes from Dr. Piper on the charismatic issue.

Heavy Dluxe journey towards charismaticism. Seven careful posts on the Spirit later, this blogger feels he has become a reformed charismatic. This whole series is well worth reading and interacting with.

The Perfect and the Prophets. Eddie Beal weighs in with some heavy logic regarding Dan Phillips’ view that the perfect in 1 Corinthians 13 “most likely refers to the completed result of the process of revelation.”

“Perfect” – Canon or Christ, Part 2. Mathew Sims’ continuing discussion regarding the meaning of the “perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:8-12. He references several other bloggers’ arguments, and then lays out the evidence to support his own view, including a fantastic table which identifies usage in the Old Testament, inter-Testament, and New Testament. For those of you who may have missed part 1, you can access it here. Sims will have one more post on this topic, which will be written from an historical perspective.

Exhibiting The Value of Knowing God: has some great quotes from one of the panel discussions.

Piper on studying for his new book:

“This is a crucial point where some of the emphases of Adrian Warnock and John Piper just lose me. Whenever I say that I think emotion in the Christian life can be a fine thing, my brother Adrian gets all giddy and surprised, and seems to think I’m ready to start babbling incoherently, dancing, and turning expectantly to the blank pages at the back of my Bible.”

A friendly debate continues in this post with me first explaining why I hope I’m not your typical charismatic. I then explain why I believe Ephesians 4 demonstrates that these kinds of conversations are vitally important before engaging with a meandering list of issues. You can blame me for the disorganisation in this post since, although I am following Dan, he was following a staccato post I rattled off quickly one evening! The whole series demonstrates it really is possible to disagree violently and still have a warm friendship with a Christian brother. This post addresses tongues and other charismatic phenomena, and puts them in a context of a genuine experiential Christianity where the Bible is our only source of authority and we do not hang up our brains on the way into church!

This will be the final post in my series responding to a set of four Dan Phillips articles, which were themselves penned in response to my response to one of his articles! Blogging sure can get convoluted, but if you haven’t read these posts, it is probably worth your while if you’d like to see how two people committed to the Bible can disagree so fundamentally on these issues whilst growing in respect for one another in the process.

In my first post I dealt with Dan’s final one, and challenged us all — charismatic and cessationist alike — to pursue knowing God experientially. My second post addressed points raised in Dan Phillips’ first, and this final one will address the second and third. After this, the ball will be firmly back in Dan’s court — I look forward to reading his response!

Dan begins his second post with some bluster, followed by a light-hearted introduction to me. One thing on a personal front which has given me some cause for reflection is my own internal reaction to a comment Dan made about my preaching. Dan said, “Warning: he kinda preaches like a charismatic.” What interested me was the way I immediately felt about that comment. Whilst I understood the humorous tone, my pride sinfully responded. It suddenly struck me how thoroughly I wanted to dissociate myself from certain charismatics — possibly even the majority of them! The last thing I wanted myself to be described as when it came to preaching was a “typical charismatic!” Since I am unashamedly charismatic, why should this be?

The answer to that question is fairly straightforward. Many, or perhaps even the majority of charismatics — and this is especially true of those who get on to TV or radio — seem to teach all kinds of doctrines that I would want to be dissociated with totally. I am much more likely to listen to preaching from any of the speakers at the recent Together for the Gospel conference and say “amen” than I am to a randomly selected charismatic.

I am not, however, going to list all the charismatic ministries with whom I have theological differences and repudiate them in detail because to do so would take weeks worth of blog posts! Suffice it to say, if as a reformed cessationist you listen to a charismatic preacher and disagree with them (and it is not on the one issue of continuationism) the chances are quite high that I, too, will disagree with them in just the same way.

Thus, I guess my desire to, in some senses, dissociate myself from some charismatics is firstly because I am a reformed charismatic, but it is also because of some of the excesses in whipping up an emotional frenzy by some. I certainly do not aim to do that, either.

Dan then goes on to make the point that both he and I are happy for you to disagree with us publicly. I, for one, have never been of the opinion that Matthew 18 applies to theological discourse carried out respectfully. In fact, blogging as a format is well-suited to this. I can read a book by a theological opponent and disagree with it in my head violently. The chances are I will win that argument as the book cannot answer back. With the debate Dan and I have started, if I misunderstand his position and respond with my own straw-man version of it, he can defend himself and say, “But, I never meant that!”

So, in short, take this post as your invitation to dissect my arguments and put me, and for that matter, Dan, straight. I genuinely believe that one thing he and I have in common is a desire to follow the Bible in all our doctrine.

I am perhaps naïve enough to believe that continued examination of the Bible’s teaching will eventually lead to agreement among humble-thinking Christians about this and other vital issues for the church. The early church had church councils. We have blogging. Perhaps as greater minds than mine begin to engage in this medium, we will see some real progress in mutual understanding, and even some progress in the work of constructing a systematic theology on which we can all agree. I do believe in the restoration of the church, and that there really will come a time when

“. . . we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.” (Ephesians 4:13-15)

I’d be very saddened, however, if anyone misinterpreted my, erm, spirited disagreement with Adrian’s words on this one topic, and this one specific position he has adopted, to translate to general overall disagreement, or specific animosity for him as a brother in Christ. I honestly have no doubt that, in personal conversation, we’d hit it off well, and that we’d find a host of shared truths we’d gladly proclaim and defend shoulder to shoulder.