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

Phil Johnson has a second post answering my two-paragraph criticism of him. My schedule does not permit me to make a full reply as I am traveling on business. (All the posts you will see for the next few days were written before I left.) All I will say in reply, therefore, is this:

1. Thank you, Phil, for sounding a much more conciliatory tone and for the acknowledgement that these issues are less important than the core of the Gospel, in which we both continue to delight in being united. You remain my dear friend despite these recent online skirmishes, and I hope we can have coffee again some day!
   
   
2. I think that there is almost nothing in your post which would not evaporate if we did not all learn to follow Paul's command:
   

   ". . . test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil." (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22).

If charismatics as a movement remembered the need to follow that Scripture when it came to gifts, I suspect that there would be fewer cessationists who felt the need to exercise their discernment in our direction! I believe that it is the absence of discernment rather than the doctrine itself that causes the problems we all see only too clearly. But then I would say that, wouldn't I?

That Scripture is surely our authoritative word on the discernment issue—we must remember to both hold onto what we see that is good in other Christians and avoid what is evil.

As a charismatic, I cannot resist the temptation to be a good biblical scholar and put those words into their context. Paul says immediately before them, "Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies . . ." For me, the fact that there are phony prophecies around is not enough to make me feel I can simply ignore that text or claim it does not apply to me today. I know Phil will, of course, see that differently, but I am proud to still be able to call him my friend and brother.

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."
  

Well, I've just about caught my breath from the conference posts, but thought it might be an idea to just list a few things some of us might have missed whilst we have all been away. No pretty pictures in this post, I am sorry, but lots of lovely links to take up all the room instead!

This week, I will not be as available as normal to interact with email and comments since I am traveling with work and will not have time in the evenings to blog, and then when I get back I have a sermon to prepare for next Sunday. I have a couple of articles already written that should get published whilst I am away, though, thanks to my ever-patient editorial assistant! There will, however, be no MLJ Monday today, and possibly not next Monday either.

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:

"A devastating thing to submit yourself to the 500 imperatives of Jesus in the Gospels. He is always pressing deep. Eleven weeks of having my heart exposed. Then clamoring for the second impression of the offerings of mercy for the sinner. Desolation and hope. The personal effect was to intensify my desire to be in the face of a post-modern world with the power of Jesus Christ. There is so much mealy-mouthed hesitancy to preach righteousness."

Driscoll on culture:

"The two problems are syncretism and sectarianism. Be with the people in this world, but with Him – tethered to Him through His Word. Relevant orthodoxy is our goal. As missionaries, how do we incarnate into these cultures? Jesus was in culture, never went too far. . ."

Piper on culture:

"I think I am weak and would fall if I plunged into culture."

Justin Taylor:

"The two hottest theologies are reformed and emergent. Mark, why are these rockers listening to Keller and Piper?"

Mark Driscoll's reply:

"Grudem’s systematic. Mahaney’s non-cessationism. Keller’s urban missional engagement. Piper’s passion and emphasis on supremacy of Christ. These things are drawing young men."

John Piper:

"Why not ask for fifteen minutes to speak of Jesus in the mosque."

John Piper on Andrew Fuller:

“John Owen saved his life.”

Today, over on TeamPyro, Dan Phillips has written an interesting post entitled, "Worship Feelings and What If?" For me the whole post brought to my mind an illustration. Imagine that two teams are climbing a mountain on opposite sides. If they are near the bottom, they could be miles apart. They will have a very clear view of the side of the mountain they are on, but no clue whatsoever what the team on the other side is facing. As they climb the mountain they will need to focus on their side, but the closer to the top of the mountain they get, the closer together they become.

I feel that on this issue of the experience of Christian life it is a bit like that for us – especially now since the excesses of the charismatic have caused a reaction that has created the excesses of extreme cessationism. I fear that we are so far away from a true biblical experience of God that, like the climbers on that mountain, we have no real clue of what those on the opposite side are facing.

This comes across even in Dan's brilliant humor – you got to love a guy who can say something like this –

"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."

Dan asks, "What do we do if we don’t feel emotion?" almost as though this is an issue us paid-up charismatics don’t wrestle with. Actually I can say amen to Dan's post almost in its entirety. We have to learn to wrestle through what the Puritans used to call the "dark night of the soul" when God feels distant. The psalms are full of this. My difference with Dan is probably simply this – if emotions are absent, we should still continue to trust, worship, and pray – we should also be fighting and yearning for appropriate emotions to return. Many Psalms describe this process well.

To use his illustration, it would be a strange marriage indeed that did not seek for happiness and romantic feelings to be present in it. The Christian husband or wife does not, however, have a right to divorce their spouse simply because the warm feelings are absent. Instead, they act as though they loved – making the CHOICE of love – and pray and hope for the feelings to return. What Christian pastor would hold up an emotionless marriage as an ideal example of a Christian marriage for others to emulate?

All I am really calling for is that we would have a higher expectation of what the "normal Christian life" can look like, even if that is not our experience, rather than being content to do our duty without any hope of a passionate experience of God.

SUMMARY

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)

It is in this hope that I continue to engage in spirited discussion with those like Dan who I recognise as a Christian brother who shares the same view of the Bible I do. I hope that people who read both sides of these debates will see the increasing esteem with which we hold each other. Dan says in his post:

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.

Well, I don’t think I am breaking any confidences by saying that since this post Dan and I have connected via GoogleTalk and have "met" each other via PC microphones and speakers. Dan was right; we did get along, and what is more, we found a whole lot to agree on! You can see an example of this in my recent post on proverbs in which I quote Dan extensively.

After his introduction, Dan launches straight in with the crux of his original post which sparked all this. I think there is actually little more for me to say about tongues. I think that the lines are well drawn. Dan feels that tongues in the Bible were always human languages. I have shown that there are at least hints that this may not be the case. Dan feels that there are absolutely no reliable cases of modern tongues being recognised to be a specific human language. I have linked to one documented example, but acknowledge that this is rare.

Funnily enough, in common with most people sitting on this side of the charismatic divide, I am not overly concerned with discovering precisely what tongues are. Tongues themselves seem to flow out of a certain kind of experience of the love of God being poured out into our hearts and an experiential connection with God. For many of us, the real issue is not precisely what is happening to our mouths, but rather what is happening in our hearts and how that then affects our lives.

I don’t tend to worry too much about defining and pigeon-holing spiritual experiences. When I wrote on the Toronto Blessing, I surveyed the history of some of the more bizarre apparent manifestations of the Spirit. Like Jonathan Edwards in Religious Affections, I am convinced that the appropriate way to judge spiritual experiences is by their fruits in terms of changes in doctrine believed and life style.

If speaking in tongues makes me more inclined to read my Bible, helps me to feel closer to God, brings life into our prayer meetings, gives me passion to preach, inspires me to love God and my neighbour more, and leads to an increase in the fruit and gifts of the Spirit being seen in my life, isn’t that enough for me to judge that, at least in my case, it is harmless and, on the surface of things, quite likely to be of God?

If there was one verse that directly forbade tongues speaking I would think differently, of course, but there isn’t. In fact, as we have seen, quite the opposite is said. Paul tells us to desire the gifts and not to forbid speaking in tongues. I believe in the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture, and I simply cannot believe that someone reading the Bible without preconceived notions would come to a cessationist position.

So, to summarise, tongues to me are not the most important thing. They are for many the natural outflow of what is happening in our hearts experientially when we receive the Spirit. It is that experience of God that I do believe we should seek passionately. Tongues are something of a by-product, and I do think it is very possible to over-emphasise them.

Dan then accuses us charismatics of wanting to "give up control" of mind and body to a spiritual power. Well, for me, I have to say it doesn’t work like that! I am constantly alert to the possibility that my mind could deceive me, and I test every impression by the infallible Scriptures. I do not empty my mind, but fill it. I do not "give up control," but, in fact, make a decision with my mind to seek God for gifts, and am at all times able to stop or start what I am doing. I know that for many this invalidates our experiences automatically — they are expecting more of a sense of being overpowered. I do not believe that Paul could make the regulatory commands concerning gifts that he does if it was the case that people are carried along outside of their control. The Corinthians could have answered, "How can we stop ourselves . . . if the spirit moves me, I have to speak in tongues or prophesy." Paul clearly assumed that they could stop and start at will, or else why would he have told them how he wanted them to use the gifts? In the context of the rest of 1 Corinthians 14, I am sure that verse 32, which says "the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets," means that Christians are by no means meant to relinquish control and be passive.

So to be clear, I do NOT advocate some kind of mystical style of meditation where we empty our minds and try to achieve an altered state of consciousness or be out of control. We should instead fill our minds. I know, for me, whenever I am experiencing the Spirit, my mind is always full of thoughts like, "Wow! How much God loves us!" or other biblical doctrinal content.

I certainly do agree that we should test the spirits. Dan quotes 1 John 4:1 and rightly asks us to ask the spirit we are experiencing what he makes of Jesus. I am not quite clear why he makes the jump to claim that, for charismatics, the answer our spirit has given us has been "maybe." I have yet to meet a single charismatic who has received revelation that undermines the claims of Christ - which is not, of course, to say that doesn't ever happen. But for most of us the reality is quite the opposite. Certainly for me, I find that the Spirit reminds me of the words of Christ and leads me to value Him and recognise Him as my Lord more and more. Let me be clear — it simply is not true that everyone who has received modern gifts of the Spirit is, as a result, unclear about their Christology. To imply such a thing is nothing short of slander!

Dan then explains that he, too, has experienced tongues in the past. He concluded that it wasn’t biblical and stopped. I commend him for that as I like it when people act true to their biblical convictions. As well, I want to commend him for his frank admission that it "felt good" and "came out of love for the Lord." I would urge him to ask himself, however, "What, if any, has been the effect of his no longer stirring up the gift of tongues on his love for God?" For me, if I don’t speak in tongues for awhile, God feels more distant and my love for Him is less ardent. If I was convinced by Dan's biblical arguments against the use of this gift, that would, of course, put me in a difficult position. But I have not been so convinced. So, I hope that Dan and others can respect the fact that I am a card-carrying charismatic quite simply because I do believe that to be the biblical position.

Dan goes on to explain his explanation of our experiences and focuses on tongues. In my previous post in this series, I again urged him for a diagnosis, not just of our tongues, but of those experiences in our hearts which are so much more precious to us.

Dan then begins to address some of the specific passages I asked about.

Mark 16 — my point here was simply this: tongues is clearly something that was important enough to somebody to mention here. It is important to remember that for the cessationist position to be true, tongues and prophecy would have only lasted for a few decades. The continued interest in them during the early periods of church history, as evidenced by the writings of the early church fathers, denies this.

Acts 2 — Here the battle lines are again clearly drawn. I maintain that the disciples must have had something about them (possibly just excessive happiness?) that meant the scoffers could claim they were drunk. Dan seems to disagree with that. In his third post, Dan continues to address Acts 2 and loses me somewhat. My clear reading of this passage is that the promise of the Spirit from Joel is for the whole church age right up to the point where the last bit about signs in the heavens will be fulfilled, and it is this promise which Peter speaks about in his sermon. Dan seems (at least to my reading) to have a different view. But I am not clear why he feels there are two promises spoken about in this passage. I have addressed Acts 2 more in my previous post — in which I also explain my reasons for believing that receiving the Spirit is a clear dynamic experience.

1 Corinthians 13 - I am not going to comment extensively on Dan's cessationist interpretation of this passage. I must congratulate him, however, as he has answered my question with an explanation of why he feels this passage supports his perspective. I wonder how many other cessationists take that interpretation, however. Is Dan alone? I certainly am not convinced that Dan has the natural interpretation here and would love to know if anyone else agrees with him - which of the commentators or great preachers take this view?

1 Corinthians 12-14 - We now move to the issue of Paul's desire for everyone to speak in tongues. I do think that much confusion comes of not realising that when Paul speaks of the spiritual gifts in chapter 12, he is talking of their being outpoured in the context of the church meeting. It does not, to me, seem inconsistent (given his own expressed preference to speak in tongues outside of the main corporate church gathering context) for him to desire for everyone to be able to enjoy their own private prayer language, whilst not expecting everyone to have a message in tongues to share with the whole church. Incidentally, I do feel that when, as in Acts 4, there is a gathering of the church to pray, and all are praying at the same time, it is entirely appropriate for the gift of tongues to be used.

Dan then gets onto the thorny issue for him of Paul's commands to us concerning spiritual gifts. Clearly he must feel that they no longer apply. It really isn’t good enough to say that we must all acknowledge that at some point in the future these commands will no longer apply. There are lots of Bible commands that won't apply to us in heaven. I simply want to know, if these are commands that no longer apply to us today, how can I know which other commands also do not apply? What principles of hermeneutics allow me to reject these commands as not relevant whilst accepting others? If I can pick and choose which of Paul's commands were intended just for his initial readers and which were intended for now also, then there are a long list of commands I could drop to make the church more culturally acceptable today. What possible criteria can I use to ignore Paul's commands about gifts, but follow his commands about homosexuality, the role of women, and sex outside of marriage?

In his post, Dan returns to the issue of what tongues are. He is firmly sticking to his postion that tongues are ALWAYS known human languages. All I can say here is that he doesn’t address the issue I raised. In 1 Corinthians, tongues are often referred to as prayer towards God. In Acts 2, they are, of course, preaching directed towards people. Thus, it seems to me that there are some differences in mind here, even if both types of tongues come under the same heading. Paul even speaks in 1 Corinthians 12:10 of "various kinds of tongues." There does seem to be variety in this gift - why should it not include both human and non-human languages and even, dare I say, fragmentary language?

Romans 8:26 - Dan dispatches my interpretation of this verse speedily, and I will acknowledge here that - like his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13 - I am not sure that many people (even on my side) would agree with my position on this verse.

We then move back to 1 Corinthians 14 - in the natural reading of this whole passage I remain convinced that Paul is describing tongues as unintelligible. Dan doesn’t address the context of what Paul says - which is that the tongue would be unintelligible to the hearer unless they have a gift of interpretation. Interestingly, Paul doesn’t seem to even entertain the notion of someone being present who naturally understands the utterance of tongues. Thus, he does not seem to be expecting recognisable human languages to be used. I am still not sure why Dan feels Paul clearly says tongues are always known human languages. Perhaps he can enlighten me!

So, there we have it. I would urge people to approach this subject in the order I have taken it, and to focus on the experience of God rather than the gifts — which in some ways are by-products of what we are really looking for — but I am increasingly convinced that the hermeneutical arguments are consistently stacking up on the side of the charismatics.

There seem to be few serious attempts, either in blogland or in the books of which I'm aware, to defend a cessationist position these days. I want to thank Dan for plugging that gap. My plan for the next little while is to review some resources you will, no doubt, find useful on this subject, most written from a perspective similar to mine. It would be great if Dan or someone else could point us to resources produced from the other side. I am sure Dan will now return the volley; I wonder how many more rounds it will take before we both feel that we have said all we can on this subject.

Last week I began my response to Dan Phillips by focusing on the importance of authentic relational Christianity. I had hoped that cessationists would have rallied to say something like, "Adrian, you are right about this bit — keep your tongues and prophecy to yourself, but we are as much in favour of a real emotional relationship with God as you are!"

Sadly, this was far from the case. Even David Wayne begged to differ. John Piper, on the other hand, even seemed to take this a step further than I had by claiming, in effect, that it is impossible to over-emphasise the place of emotions in the Christian walk! I fear for the spiritual vitality of anyone who calls themselves a Christian, but cannot say "Amen" to Spurgeon's passionate cry for a relationship as described in this quote Scotty B found:

"I would not think of closing my eyes in sleep unless I had some sense of His love shed abroad in my heart by the Holy Ghost. "Oh!" says one, "I have lived fifty years, and I have never felt anything of God." Say that you had been dead fifty years; that is nearer to the mark. But if you had been quickened by the Holy Spirit fifty minutes, this would have been the first fact in the front rank of all facts — God is, and He is my Father, and I am His child. Now you become sentient to His frown, His smile, His threat, or His promise. You feel Him; His presence is photographed upon your spirit; your very heart trembles with awe of Him, and you say with Jacob, "Surely God is in this place." That is one result of spiritual life."

Do YOU feel Him? Does your heart tremble with awe? Perhaps it doesn’t. I think it should, and that we should seek after an experience of God that is Bible-based. That is, if you like the first point that I would like to emphasise, and it is explored more completely in the first post.

The second point that I would like to make about my charismatic theology is that the doctrine of a "receiving" of the Spirit that is distinct from conversion is in place precisely to protect my brothers and sisters who do not claim these experiences. Spurgeon's quote could almost imply that someone without great spiritual experiences is not saved. Indeed, the Puritan approach to salvation seems to have emphasised experiences so much that until the sinner had felt his sin and wept for a while, he would not normally be led to believe that he had been forgiven. There was also a search for an assurance of salvation that seems to have been almost identical with what I call the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

For sure, one of the functions of what the Apostle Paul calls the sealing with the Spirit is to bring assurance — as Lloyd-Jones admirably expounds. But, I am not one who says that such an experience is essential for salvation. Some can receive Christ by faith with little or no spiritual experience associated with it. It simply isn’t true that every new believer is suddenly overwhelmed with either a sense of their own sinfulness prior to conversion or subsequently with joy at being forgiven. Now one approach to the emotionally unaffected Christian is to say that they are not saved — at times the Puritans and Piper seem to get pretty close to that. For me, I would rather say they are not living in the experiential goodness of what God has done for them. They are, however, also missing out on one important element of the assurance God intends them to have - that their own salvation really is genuine.

To many cessationists today the receiving of the Spirit is seen as something that automatically happens when you become a Christian and is not at all dramatic. But, as Lloyd-Jones points out in this post, it was the power to impart the Spirit for which Simon was willing to pay money — rather than the power to perform miraculous healings (Acts 8). Thus here, as elsewhere in the New Testament, the receiving of the promised Holy Spirit is a powerful experience. It was the promise of Acts 2, and according to Galatians 3 the very goal of the Gospel is that we might receive the Spirit — which is for me a foretaste of heaven. There are a number of verses that seem to agree with this notion that in a sense the reason Jesus died was so that we could taste of the Holy Spirit:

Galatians 3:13-14
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us — for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree' so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith."

Matthew 3:11
"I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

John 3:34
"For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure."

John 7:39
"Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified."

Acts 2:38-39
"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

To me, the meaning of this astonishing emphasis on the pouring out of the Spirit is this — Jesus died in order that we might taste heaven. The role of the Spirit is nothing less than that we might begin to taste heaven here on earth. (Ephesians 1:13-14)

It seems to me that the logical conclusion of the cessationist is that Jesus has in some sense withdrawn the Spirit — at least in terms of our relational sense of His being with us. This seems to directly contradict the words of the following Scripture: "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you." (John 14:16-17)

We cannot over-emphasise the importance of the Spirit in the life of the Christian. Jesus says to His disciples: "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you." (John 16:7). It simply cannot be true that if the Spirit is in some sense withdrawn, it is to our advantage not to have Jesus with us. This challenges even the most avid charismatic — is MY experience of the Spirit such that I would prefer that to having Jesus Himself here in the flesh with me?

This all brings me neatly to the very beginning of Phillips' original reply to me. He took issue with my use of Jesus' parable in Luke 11. Dan makes a typical mistake in arguing that there is nothing in that passage to link the Holy Spirit with gifts. The Bible must be allowed to interpret itself, but I am not asking people to believe that everyone in ear shot of Jesus said, "Ah, that’s obviously referring to tongues and prophecy."

But there are a number of clues here in the text that when seen with the rest of what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit (just do a search using any online Bible website), allows us to explain what the gift of the Holy Spirit actually is. It is clear, as we have seen, that the Spirit is a major part of why Jesus came — and the focus on giving us the Spirit is so strong that it seems clear to me that we need to allow the Bible to explain what that looks like. In Acts we see what it looks like, and in places in the epistles we see it also. If that receiving of the Spirit is not available to us today, it seems we have either gone back in time to before Jesus or are in some time after what is described as the last days when the promise of the Spirit for all flesh has been rescinded!

Firstly, in the text Jesus is speaking of people asking for a variety of gifts, and in His punchline, this variety of gifts is replaced with the one Holy Spirit. This in itself proves little, but a quick look at the parallel passage in Matthew is illuminating — there, according to many translations, Jesus replaces the word Holy Spirit with good gifts. Again, on their own, these two points are weak, but they are at least consistent with the much more potent use of the concept of receiving the Spirit in Acts.

In Acts, we see very clearly indeed that not only is receiving the Spirit an experience that impacts strongly on its recipient, it is almost always accompanied with receiving gifts such as tongues or prophecy. As we have already seen, it is always described as something tangible and real — something someone might even be willing to pay to have. (See e.g. Acts 8)

But my original argument was simply this — the cessationist must actively deny the validity of what has happened to people like me and show me where we have gone wrong and what exactly has led to the experiences we describe. Are we deluded? Deranged? Liars? Unsaved? Demonised? Deceived? Hypnotised? We have prayed, "God give me the Spirit." We have then had an experience and received what we call gifts of the Spirit. Can we really all be deluded? Could we be demonised? Should we even be recognised as Christian? Have we all received a stone and not bread? Dan, please diagnose our condition for us!

Dan then accuses me of turning this verse into a cast-iron guarantee. Of course, I do not do that! This verse is a general principle. Clearly God is not bound by it to answer every prayer of ours the way we want Him to. Rather, He promises to give us good things. I feel that God has broken that promise if every charismatic in the world is totally deluded by what they have received when they simply took these words seriously and asked Jesus that they, too, might "receive the Spirit." That does not mean, however, that every spiritual gift or experience described by anyone must be legitimate! None of this should be taken as an automatic validation of every spiritual experience anywhere reported. I am making a general point rather than assuming this is true of every specific situation.

For example, if someone is so foolish and sinful as to go to God in prayer, asking Him to speak about something He already has commanded us clearly about, he should not be surprised if he receives a demonic impression as punishment for his folly. The classic example I am sure I have used previously about this is the husband who asks God to speak to him about whether he should divorce his faithful wife. God has already spoken about that. So, such a man should not be surprised if part of God's judgment on him for daring to ask such a foolish question is for him to receive a vision or impression that seems to reinforce his own sinful desire to forsake the wife of his youth in direct contradiction of the Scripture which is sufficient for us in all matters of life and doctrine!

Dan asks if I think anything changed as a result of Jesus' incarnation and resurrection. The answer to that is "Yes," there are at least two things that are incredibly different — one is that revelation stopped. (Hebrews 1). Note the timing of this. It is not at the end of Scripture-writing that revelation stops, rather it culminates in Jesus. The writers of the New Testament look back to and explain that revelation, rather than introducing any new doctrine that was not already implicit in Jesus’ revelation of Himself.

The second thing is that the promise in Joel of the Spirit being poured out on all flesh so that they, too, could prophesy has occurred. So, in complete contrast to Dan's post of this week (which will only get this limited response from me), I do NOT believe for a moment that the prophecy which is promised to be poured out in association with the Spirit in Acts 2 (as Peter quotes Joel) is in any way authoritative. Prophecy that is for "all flesh" can never be authoritative - how on earth can we cope with everyone prophesying in such a way that we should write Scripture down? Also, of course the prophecy of Joel clearly wasn’t fulfilled in any real way if only Scripture-writers in the New Testament prophesied — the handful of Scripture writers are hardly "all flesh," are they, and there were not any women or children who wrote Scripture! So I cannot see how this view of prophecy can account for Peter’s claim that Joel's prophecy which promised the Spirit and revelations for all was fulfilled.

Such a widespread outpouring of the Spirit cannot ever be purely for Scripture-writing and authenticating. If "all flesh" can prophesy, it is inevitable that they must have something by which to judge those words, for they cannot all be of equal weight or authority. In fact, Jesus was the last true Prophet in the sense of being authoritative and inerrant in everything He said. So where, prior to Jesus, authority rested in a few people who prophesied, but did so inerrantly, in the new era authority rests solely with Jesus and operates through the Scriptures, but the Spirit is poured out so that "all flesh" can prophesy whilst those prophecies are to be judged by the authoritative revelation contained in the Bible.

After Jesus, there was no more authoritative revelation, with the exception of our canonical books, which themselves were dependent on the authoritative final revelation which was Jesus. It is vital that we do not make claims for the New Testament Apostles that they did not make. The Apostles themselves were not inerrant and authoritative, except when they were writing Scripture. So Peter can be rebuked by Paul as in error (Galatians 2), who himself can say he only knows in part (1 Corinthians 13), whilst James can say that we all stumble in what we say. (James 3:1)

The finality of God's revelation in Jesus is why we cannot ask Him to give us a Scripture-writing revelation today! God has said all He wants to say. Jesus was God's final Word to the world in terms of doctrine and ethical guidance. To ask for Him to guide us morally or doctrinally now, or to give us a new book of the Bible, is nothing short of a heinous sin. The Bible, when illumined by the Spirit, really is all we need to know and understand what God wants us to believe and how He wants us to act in a moral sense. In the moral and doctrinal spheres, God has nothing left to say — He has said it all. Any modern impressions or prophecy (or whatever you want to call them) can only really serve as either illumination of old revelation — designed by God to make clear to us some truth or other which is contained in God's Word — or to give us wisdom and direction about how to apply the biblical principles to a specific situation in our lives.

Dan concludes his first post by arguing from his experience. He mentions someone who clearly hadn’t remembered to test his impressions by our one infallible guide — the Bible. Incidentally, if New Testament prophecy wasn’t fallible, I am not sure why Paul told us to test them — rather than testing the prophet, who is then simply to be listened to.

For now, I will leave you with these words from 1 Thessalonians 5:19-20:

"Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good."

Well, finally I have managed to find time to begin to respond to Dan Phillips reply to my smattering of charismatic questions for cessationists. In his last post, Dan states so well the main drive behind my commitment to all of this, and it is with this that I intend to start. My second post will begin to address some of the specific arguments Dan raises.

"First, I'm struck by how fair and even-handed Adrian clearly strives to be, and I think he succeeds. It'd be a harsh read to hear him as blaming us "have-nots," or meaning to talk down to us. Adrian believes there's a wonderful experience out there for all of us, one that all of us should be seeking. He clearly and sincerely feels that we not only rob and impoverish ourselves by not seeking it, but we weaken our ministry, and the impact we might have for Christ. This should concern us all."

He is exactly right. That is precisely what I believe. I am eager to point out that I am not the only person to think this way. Why? It is not that I want to wheel out heavy-hitters to support my position, but rather out of recognition that they have a much better grasp of the Scriptures than I do. I am eager to learn from others, so I will quote from a few of them here as we go through this post. To begin with, let's hear from Tim Challies' notes of a Bob Kauflin session.

"Too often we approach God like the subject of a biography. We read about Him, but do not expect to actually encounter Him. We pray, but don't think He'll talk back. We read His Word, but see it as lifeless facts and information, not a living Word. But the Bible is not the biography of a dead God! Jesus Christ is alive! God's presence and power is not only in Scripture, for He can be personally encountered. Our worship is not only to or for God, but is where we encounter and experience God. The One who allows us to encounter God is God Himself in the Holy Spirit."

For me, what I am most eager to contend for in all of this is an authentic, experiential, and relational Christianity.

But, coming back to Dan, it seems, at least in part, that while some might accuse him of wanting to rob us of our experiential relationship with God, Dan does recognize the dangers that modern western people uniquely face in our sophisticated society:

"It is, beyond argument, all too possible for us to preach and live a hollow, cerebral, naturalistic Christianity."

I have not only seen such a Christianity practiced elsewhere, I am constantly aware of the pull towards it in my own life. The desperate need of the hour is a vibrant, living Christianity which worships a God who is not dead, but acts today!

Dan would probably agree with all of this up to this point. Where he parts company is over my call for us to eagerly seek for experiences of God. He repeats a frequent misunderstanding that cessationists often have of charismatics when he removes the last two words of that sentence and claims we are merely seeking emotional experiences. For most of the charismatics I know at least, it is NOT mere emotion that we seek; rather we seek an appropriate emotional response to the presence of God, and we seek His activity in our lives and churches to be manifestly present.

There is all the difference in the world between trying to work up an emotional frenzy (which, of course, we have all seen) and using legitimate God-given means of putting ourselves in an appropriate place where God can meet us.

God has given us bodies, and it is important for us to at times adopt an open posture that signals to God we are ready and willing to receive a touch from His Spirit. One of the key ways in which we do this, both biblically and in my experience, is by using our hands. Dan criticizes the approach of 'reaching out your hands' seen in meetings. Yet, let's just take a quick look at what the book of Psalms teaches us about the use of the hands and appropriate passionate longing for God:

• "Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to God with loud songs of joy!" (Ps 47:1)

• "So I will bless you as long as I live; in your name I will lift up my hands." (Ps 63:4)

• "In the day of my trouble I seek the Lord; in the night my hand is stretched out without wearying" (Ps 77:2

• "Every day I call upon you, O Lord; I spread out my hands to you" (Ps 88:9)

• "Lift up your hands to the holy place and bless the Lord!" (Ps 134:2)

• "I stretch out my hands to you; my soul thirsts for you like a parched land." (Ps 143:6)

The New Testament is clear in its expectation that we will have an experience of the Spirit - ". . . hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." (Romans 5:5)

Of course, we must seek God, not mere emotional highs - after all, illicit drugs will give you a "high," but they won't help your spiritual walk! It is, however, quite correct that we are to seek God in the Bible.

But, the Bible is clear about our need to draw near to God in worship, and puts the onus on us to "be filled" with the Spirit (Ephesians 5). This is not something that happens automatically every time we study the Bible. We must approach the Bible prayerfully, with an open heart, and cry out to the God of the Bible to make Himself plain to us as we read. I seek my experience of God within the context of His revealed Word to us - not outside it.

I long that my reading and prayer life will lead me to love God more - and yes, love IS a feeling, whatever else it is! It is love that we need, not mere intellectual knowledge, for "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up." (1 Corinthians 8:1)

Who else holds a similar view, and how do they express it? John Piper puts it this way:

"When the eyes of our hearts are opened to the greatness of God's love, the love of God is poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us. Seek this. Seek this in its fullness with all your might."

Piper back in 1984 argued forcefully for an experiential reality of receiving the Holy Spirit and said,

"We could talk for hours about what that experience is. In fact, most of my messages are just that - descriptions of the experience of the Spirit of God in the life of the believer."

So, to Piper, all his talk about seeing and savouring God and delighting in Him really boils down to this - an experience of the Spirit of God in the life of the believer. There is much more in Piper's writings about these issues, and I have collected some quotes together on my blog on this and other matters.

Piper's position is remarkably similar to his hero, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, from whom, if you follow the link, I have also provided a set of quotes. There is so much material from the Doctor that I could quote here that I will leave you to go and read most of it, except to say the following:

Piper rightly describes the Doctor as follows:

"From the beginning to the end, the life of Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a cry for depth in two areas - depth in Biblical doctrine and depth in vital spiritual experience. Light and heat. Logic and fire. Word and Spirit. Again and again he would be fighting on two fronts: on the one hand against dead, formal, institutional intellectualism, and on the other hand against superficial, glib, entertainment-oriented, man-centered emotionalism."

Lloyd-Jones said some striking things about cessationism:

"What is being taught in Christendom today is this; that since we have got the New Testament canon, since we have got the Word now, we do not need these direct interventions, we do not need God to speak to us directly, as He spoke to Abraham and to Isaac and to Jacob and these patriarchs. We have got the Word now! Is this superior to the direct speech of God? I think we are mad! There is no other word for this. We are mad. We are meant to be in a superior position to every Old Testament saint because of what has happened in our blessed Lord and Saviour! But this teaching would have us believe that we do not need this direct contact with God now, and that all that has come to an end since the formation of the New Testament canon . . . remember that the great point of the whole teaching of the Bible, of all you can deduce from it, is to tell you that God is a God who acts. And our only hope this afternoon is that this is still true. He has not finished acting. He is going on . . . There is only one hope. That is that He is still the living and the acting God. Christ is at His right hand, and He is seated and waiting until His enemies should be made His footstool . . . ."

I have been defending the faith - and people have praised me for doing it. Rubbish! What a miserable failure it has all been! From now on I am determined to do one thing only, and that is to give God no rest nor peace until He does prove Himself and show Himself. I have expended so much energy in reasoning with the people about this faith. We have got to do that, it is part of preaching. But if we stop at that, it will avail us nothing. But what I now am concerned about and I am concentrating on is this: asking God to show Himself, to do something, to give this touch, this manifestation of power. Nothing else will even make people listen to us . . . . Nothing is going to call the attention of the masses of the people to the truth of this faith save a great phenomenon, such as the phenomenon of the day of Pentecost, the phenomenon of any one of the great revivals, the phenomenon of a single changed life. This is something that always arrests attention, maybe curiosity - what does it matter? The people come and listen . . . .

We must not be content until we have had some manifestation of the activity of God. We must concentrate on this. This is my plea, that we concentrate on this, because it is the great message of the Bible. Let us put it like this: Do we really believe that God can still act? That is the question; that is the ultimate challenge. Or have we, for theological or some other reasons, excluded the very possibility? Here is the crucial matter. Do we individually and personally really believe that God still acts, can act, and will act - in individuals, in groups of individuals, in churches, localities, perhaps even in countries? Do we believe that He is as capable of doing that today as He was in ancient times - the Old Testament, the New Testament times, the book of Acts, Protestant Reformation, Puritans, Methodist Awakening, 1859, 1904-5? Do we really believe that He can still do it? You see, it is ultimately what you believe about God. If He is the great Jehovah - I am that I am, I am that I shall be, unchanged, unchanging, unchangeable, the everlasting and eternal God - well, He can still do it."

Spurgeon puts it better than anybody else I have read:

". . . Does any man know what the Spirit of God can make of him? I believe the greatest, ablest, most faithful, most holy man of God might have been greater, and abler, and more faithful, and more holy, if he had put himself more completely at the Spirit's disposal. Wherever God has done great things by a man He has had power to do more had the man been fit for it. We are straitened in ourselves, not in God. O brothers, the church is weak today because the Holy Spirit is not upon her members as we could desire Him to be. You and I are tottering along like feeble babes, whereas, had we more of the Spirit, we might walk without fainting, run without weariness, and even mount up with wings as eagles. Oh, for more of the anointing of the Holy Ghost whom Christ is prepared to give immeasurably unto us if we will but receive Him!"

So my appeal to the cessationist is - don't give up studying the Bible; rather also seek to know the God of the Bible. My appeal to the charismatic is - remember the God you worship gave you the Bible so that, as Dan puts it so well, you can "carefully and diligently put your feelings and experiences to the test of the bright white light of the Word".

But, unlike Dan, I do believe that we should seek those experiences of God and take every appropriate step to actively pursue them. The Bible says the Spirit is 'received,' and my sense of that is it is not a passive event, but rather a laying hold of by faith.

There is no real conflict between Word and Spirit. We need both. Somehow I think that the charismatics and cessationists have a lot to usefully learn from each other.

Can we all agree that the two errors of lifeless intellectualism and brainless emotionalism are to be avoided, and that instead there is a way for us to seek to know God and not only learn about Him?

Such knowledge is, of course, only perfected when we see Him face to face, but in the meantime, here on earth, I do believe we can expect moments when heaven seems almost to break in and we respond with joy and wonder at the manifest presence of our coming king.

But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith, that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (Philippians 3:7-11)

I know some of you might think that all I ever blog about is the charismatic/cessationist debate and the gifts of the Spirit. At first sight, this list of over 90 posts might seem to confirm that. But, this list of posts amounts to only around 4 per cent of the total number of my posts so far. There is much more to this blog than the Holy Spirit, but as I can't seem to find time to write my new post series on this subject to answer Dan Phillips (I will do so eventually, honest!) - in the meantime, here are my writings on this important issue.

Holy Spirit Posts
An E-Reproof for Reformed Cessationists
Apostles are Meant for Today
Are the SBC Being Hypocritical?
Assorted Thoughts on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Blogging the Gifts
Blogging the Gifts 2
Blogging the Gifts 3
Blogging the Gifts 4
Blogging the Gifts 5
Blogging the Gifts 6
Blogging the Gifts 7
Blogging the Gifts 8
Blogging the Gifts 9
Blogging the Gifts 10
Blogging the Gifts 11
Blogging the Gifts 12
Blogging the Gifts 13
Calling all Reformed Charismatic Bloggers
Cessationism and Charismaticism
Cessationists and Hearing the Voice of God
Charismatics, Prophecy and Healing
Churches Who Leaders are Genuine and Spirit-Filled
Collin Potter on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit
Confessions of an Experiential Cessationist
Convergence or Divergence over Spiritual Gifts and Cessationism?
Defeating Sin
Do Cessationalists have a Real Relationship with God?
Does Spirit-Less Preaching have Power?
Fallible Prophecy
Fallible Prophecy 2
Finding God's Will
Finney's Experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit
From a Reader on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit
God's Will and the Fruit of the Spirit
Good News for the Powerless
Grudem on the Charismatic
Grudem on the Charismatic 2
Has the Holy Spirit Rushed on You?
Healing the Charismatic Rift?
Here's Praying that the Charismatic versus Cessationist Debate
Holy Spirit Questions
Jack Deere on Cessationism
Let the Great Charismatic Cessationist Blogger Debate Begin
Lets Get Some Things Straight
Lloyd-Jones on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Lloyd-Jones on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit 2
Lloyd-Jones Changes His Mind
Lloyd-Jones on the Vital Place of Joy
Lloyd-Jones Hearing from God
Lloyd-Jones Sealed with the Spirit
Lloyd-Jones Sealed with the Spirit #2
Lloyd-Jones Sealed with the Spirit #3
Lloyd-Jones Sealing of the Spirit
Lloyd-Jones Were Tongues in Acts and 1 Corinthians Both Unintelligible?
Lloyd-Jones Was the Doctor a Charismatic?
Matthew Henry and the Charismatic Debate
More on the Charismatic Debate
Pentecostal and Charismatic Dialogue
Phil's True Feelings
Piper on Using Charismatic Gifts
Piper on the Baptistm of the Holy Spirit
Piper the Continuationist
Preaching While Open to the Spirit's Guidance
Question from a Reader for Cessationists
Recommending Two Pastor Bloggers who are Reformed Charismatics
Reformed Charismatic
Reformed Charismatic Blogs Aggregator
Round One of the Blogger Debate
Rubber Prophecies Prove Nothing
Secure and Assured Because of the Holy Spirit
So Much for Diversity and Convergence
Sola Scriptura and the Gifts
Speaking in Tongues
Spuregeon: a Forerunner of the Moderate Charismatic?
Sufficient and Efficient Grace
The Baptism with the Holy Spirit
The Challenge Remains Out There
The Charismatic Debate
The Charismatic Debate 2
The Toronto Blessing
Tongues in the Blogosphere
Update on the Charismatic Debate
What is a Charismatic?
What is a Reformed Charismatic?
What Would Spurgeon Have Made of the Charismatics?
While Warnie's Away, the Discussion on Tongues and the Charismatic Gifts Continues
Why not Have a Noisy Time?
Worship God Conference
Worship God Conference 2
Worship God Conference 3
Worship God Conference 4
Worship God Conference 5
You Might be a Charismatic if...

Thanks to Paul for organising these posts.

• LIG DUNCAN ON BEING FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT
• VIDEO PREACHERS
• PARTYING WITH PIPER
• BILLY GRAHAM REGRETS
• PROSPERITY/POVERTY THEOLOGY
• TOM SCHREINER ON PREACHING

Lig Duncan on Ephesians

Lig's current expositional series - updated each week. Complete with mp3s and full sermon transcripts. Lig also shares outlines from time to time on his blog - e.g. Lig Duncan on the Consequences of Being Filled with the Spirit from Ephesians 5 where he answers the question "What happens when you are filled with the Spirit?"- You get to sing, make melody, and become thankful and submissive - that's what!

Tags: spirit sermon mp3 web

---

"Video preachers aren't the ones living, working, and suffering with members of the congregation. A church isn't a gathering of consumers being entertained by the latest video. It's where the saints commune with God and one another. A video can't do that.

Local preaching is where it's at!

Tags: preaching

---

"Deere is effectively showing that his former cessationist position, although on the surface exalting the Bible above fallible human experience, in fact undermines the Bible and robs it of its authority."

Peter Kirk brings more Jack Deere to bear on the great tongues debate.

Tags: charismatic

---

Mark Driscoll Invites You to "Party With Piper"

Mark is clearly excited about this year's Desiring God conference. He links to video and info on all the speakers (himself included).

Tags: DGM

---

The Regrets of Billy Graham

Justin Taylor links to a profile of the evangelical of the century.

Tags: evangelical

---

"In prosperity theology, God loves rich people more than He loves poor people, as evidenced by His blessing. In poverty theology, God loves poor people more than He loves rich people, who are vilified as greedy thieves.

The problem with both these theologies is that they make money the issue. The real issue is not money, but righteousness." Driscoll describes for the Seattle Times the theological implications of the world's two richest people giving their money aw

Tags: money

---

"Our task as preachers is to proclaim the whole counsel of God. We will not fulfill our calling if as preachers we fail to do biblical theology. We may get many compliments from our people for our moral lessons and our illustrations, but we are not faithfully serving our congregations if they do not understand how the whole of Scripture points to Christ, and if they do not gain a better understanding from us of the storyline of the Bible. May God help us to be faithful teachers and preachers, so that every person under our charge will be presented perfect in Christ."

Schreiner on preaching - quoted by Justin Taylor.

Tags: preaching

Well, here I am — just back from holiday — and what do I find? Talk about whilst the cat's away the mice will play?!?

Over at TeamPyro, Dan has a four part response to my set of questions on tongues and gifts which I bashed out quickly before I left. I have read all of Dan’s posts and every one of the comments. Sadly, it seems that there are few, if any, charismatics who read TeamPyro, or if they do, they seem too frit of Dan to respond!

I want to say right at the outset that I respect and admire Dan for taking the time to take me to task so comprehensively. I have never read a better theological discussion on “the other side.” It is my opinion that theology should be written in community, and to be honest, this kind of interaction helps me to understand how and why people whom I respect come to different conclusions than I do. Perhaps blogging may eventually lead to some kind of theological convergence on these and other controversial issues. I love the fact that in Dan I can interact with someone who is no straw man of my creation. Dan does, at times, extend what I said in my post further than I would have wanted to go myself before demolishing the morphed viewpoint, but even in so doing, it is helpful for me to understand how I am perceived by others.

I loved the broadly generous nature of his comments, and the discussion that ensued — for example, the way in which one of his commenters, Centurion, said, “Unfortunately, Adrian is the other side right now." It seems to me that behind that comment is a whole bunch of "other stuff" that could be said, and which would go something like this . . . “Adrian is someone who, most of the time, we're happy to agree with — if only he didn’t have those crazy charismatic ideas!” If I have “interpreted” this comment correctly, well then guys . . . the feeling is mutual!

Elsewhere in the blogosphere, there have been a few other responses; here are the ones I've found — by all means use the comment box on this post to let me know of other posts on blogs you know about — you can use the following code within a comment: <a href=”http://yoururl.com/”>your link text </a>

Other posts on the tongues debate:

• TrueGrit

• Sam Storms

• Dan Phillips' own blog, Biblical Christianity

• Wilderness Voice

• English Muffin (a fair few comments also here)

• Intellectuelle

• Centurion (over at TeamPyro)

• Lig Duncan (perhaps wisely) steers clear of the tongues issue, but has a definition of being filled with the Spirit with which I fully agree.

• Mathew Sims promises to join the fun too. (Incidentally, he is just TOO far ahead in his blogging through the T4G statement series — I will have to get back to that soon myself!)

• Charis doesn’t talk about the tongues issue, but has a great post on harsh words and gentle words which we would all do well to continue to remember as well . . . and as we have done so far in this debate!

I will, of course, have to find the time to answer Dan’s great posts. (As I have said before, I don’t have to agree with the conclusions of a post for me to think it's a great one!). I can't promise when I will get to them, however, as it is my intention (at least for the present) for this to be a relatively light week of blogging — sort of like easing my way back into "normal life" a bit slowly! I am sure that some of you will suspect that I will find the bait of these posts irresistible . . . but I plan to try!

Perhaps you, my readers, can help me resist the temptation — as of yet, the charismatic view does not seem to have been well represented in the discussions in Dan’s comment section or elsewhere in the blogosphere. I fear that many charismatics may have deserted TeamPyro whilst cessationists may have deserted this blog! So, my charismatic friends, now is your chance to show why I do not need to respond to Dan just yet! When I do get round to it, what should I say? How should I reply?

For that matter, any cessationist readers I have left are welcome to discuss any aspect of this matter here where I have none of the foibles of Dan about off-topic comments. Comment away — just keep it civil!

As a further response to the ongoing discussion between Dan Phillips and myself, I received the following article from Sam Storms via email. This will be appearing on his site, Enjoying God Ministries, in a week or so. In the meantime, he has given me permission to post it here.

In recent days two bloggers have taken up the question of the gift of speaking in tongues in the New Testament: see http://www.adrian.warnock.info/ and http://www.teampyro.blogspot.com/. The latter of these two, written by Dan Phillips, argues that "the Bible only knows one kind of tongues . . . . That kind is supernaturally-acquired human languages." The argument of Phillips and other cessationists is that modern manifestations of "tongues" have been shown not to be human languages and therefore are not the same as what we read in the New Testament.

I have a few comments in response (all of which are taken from my book, "The Beginner's Guide to Spiritual Gifts" [Regal]). Acts 2 is the only text in the NT where tongues-speech consists of foreign languages not previously known by the speaker. But there is no reason to think Acts 2, rather than, say, 1 Corinthians 14, is the standard by which all occurrences of tongues-speech must be judged. Other factors suggest that tongues could also be heavenly or angelic speech.

To begin, if tongues-speech is always in a foreign language intended as a sign for unbelievers, why are the tongues in Acts 10 and Acts 19 spoken in the presence of only believers? Note also that Paul describes various "kinds" or "species" (Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 970) of tongues" (gene glosson) in 1 Corinthians 12:10. It is unlikely that he means a variety of different human languages, for whoever would have argued that all tongues were only one human language, such as Greek or Hebrew or German? His words suggest that there are differing categories of tongues-speech, perhaps human languages and heavenly languages.

In 1 Corinthians 14:2, Paul asserts that whoever speaks in a tongue "does not speak to men, but to God." But if tongues are always human languages, Paul is mistaken, for "speaking to men" is precisely what a human language does! If tongues-speech is always a human language, how could Paul say that when one speaks "no one understands" (1 Corinthians 14:2)? If tongues are human languages, many could potentially understand, as they did on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:8-11). This would especially be true in Corinth, a multi-lingual cosmopolitan port city that was frequented by people of numerous dialects. Moreover, if tongues-speech always is in a human language, then the gift of interpretation would be one for which no special work or enablement or manifestation of the Spirit would be required. Anyone who was multi-lingual, such as Paul, could interpret tongues-speech simply by virtue of his educational talent. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 13:2, Paul refers to "the tongues of men and of angels." While he may be using hyperbole, he just as likely may be referring to heavenly or angelic dialects for which the Holy Spirit gives utterance. Gordon Fee cites evidence in certain ancient Jewish sources that the angels were believed to have their own heavenly languages or dialects and that by means of the Spirit one could speak them (Fee, 630-31; see Hays, 223). We should also take note of the Testament of Job 48-50, where Job's three daughters put on heavenly sashes given to them as an inheritance from their father, by which they are transformed and enabled to praise God with hymns in angelic languages. Some have questioned this account, however, pointing out that this section of the Testament may have been the work of a later Christian author. Yet, as Forbes points out, "what the Testament does provide . . . is clear evidence that the concept of angelic languages as a mode of praise to God was an acceptable one within certain circles. As such it is our nearest parallel to glossolalia" (185-86).

The fact that tongues are said to cease at the parousia (1 Corinthians 13:8) leads Anthony Thiselton to conclude that it cannot be angelic speech, for why would a heavenly language terminate in the eschaton (see his First Corinthians, pp. 973, 1061-62)? But it would not be heavenly speech per se that ends, but heavenly speech on the part of humans designed to compensate now for the limitations endemic to our fallen, pre-consummate condition. Some say the reference in 1 Corinthians 14:10-11 to earthly, foreign languages proves that all tongues-speech is also human languages. But the point of the analogy is that tongues function like foreign languages, not that tongues are foreign languages. Paul's point is that the hearer cannot understand uninterpreted tongues any more than he can understand the one speaking a foreign language. If tongues were a foreign language, there would be no need for an analogy. Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 14:18 that he "speaks in tongues more than you all" is evidence that tongues are not foreign languages. As Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, 1072) notes, "If they were known foreign languages that foreigners could understand, as at Pentecost, why would Paul speak more than all the Corinthians in private, where no one would understand, rather than in church where foreign visitors could understand?" Finally, if tongues-speech is always human language, Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 14:23 wouldn't necessarily hold true. Any unbeliever who would know the language being spoken would more likely conclude the person speaking was highly educated rather than "mad."

I'm sure that much more could (and probably will) be said on the subject, but I hope these brief observations will prove helpful in the discussion.

There you go . . .that got your attention, didn’t it! This is a post written in response to two great posts that appeared over at my good friends' blog—the Pyromaniacs. (I don’t have to agree with a post in order to think it's great!)

Earlier in the week my relations with the guys at TeamPyro were at an all time high. They were exhilarated by the receipt of the Warnie Award. I even began to understand their graphical jokes about link trolls, and all-in-all, we were all happy. I even got this email from a reader they sent my way:

"I've just been introduced to your site via the most recent post at Pyromaniacs. As is my custom, I always like to see the background of those who peruse and participate in this and other blogs I happen to [read]. In looking over your site, I could not help but notice the term reformed charismatic. Quite frankly, this term would probably generate a few awkward stares from many of the folks I know . . . . [The writer then explains how most of his reformed friends refuse to believe that reformed charismatics exist.]

Now, as a result of reviewing your site, I come to find out there really is such a thing. And I rejoice to know that . . .

It is indeed nice to know that there are others given over to such doctrines of grace; and that no denomination has such a lock on the truth. And thanks for tearing down yet another stereotype."

In the midst of this sudden détente and the beginning of the summer silly season, suddently two posts over at TeamPyro threaten to throw wide open the charismatic chasm that, despite our bridge-building efforts, still divides us.

Interestingly, the first post was not intended by them to in any way be about the charismatic issue — but open it nonetheless it does!

If I were to re-title their first post, it would be “Grace Fully Sufficient, Spurgeon, and the Toronto Blessing.”

Two things struck me about this post. The first is the wonder of the doctrine contained in the verse Spurgeon exposits. Spurgeon speaks about the extent of God's grace, which we cannot exhaust any more than a single man could breathe all the oxygen in the world! It is essential reading for every Christian wherever you stand on the charismatic issue.

The second thing that struck me was that Spurgeon’s response to the revelation of this doctrine—holy laughter—reminded me of the experiences some of us had on the more rational end of the so-called Toronto Blessing, and which continue in an attenuated form in charismatic circles even today.

Here is the beginning of what the Prince of Preachers had to say, and don't let my stuff about Toronto put you off reading the rest of this fantastic post:

"My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness."

I have often read in Scripture of the holy laughter of Abraham, when he fell upon his face and laughed; but I do not know that I ever experienced that laughter till a few evenings ago, when this text came home to me with such sacred power as literally to cause me to laugh . . . continues over at Pyromaniacs.

This practical belief in the experiential efficient power of the truth of the Gospel is something I fear is lacking in many cessationist, and for that matter many charismatic, circles.

I would love to challenge the TeamPyro guys . . . and the rest of us (including myself) — When was the last time you experienced such an impact of the Word of God brought to life by the Spirit of God?

Have you ever experienced the weight, and at the same time the lightness, of the presence of God when a truth comes to life that you feel you might (or indeed you actually do!) fall down laughing?

This experience of being overwhelmed by the vastness of the grace and love of God is one I believe is right to seek and to cry out to God for. Do you agree with that? Is it unfair of me to make the accusation that far too many of us — including those of us who claim to be charismatics — fail to seek experiences of God with sufficient passion? Could the weakness of our passions explain the weakness of our Christianity?

Certainly Lloyd-Jones seemed to think so. So much so, that some today would — probably incorrectly — identify him as being a charismatic. But charismatic or not, he was certainly not a classical cessationist. He was clear in his call for experiential Christianity, as a series of posts I ran on the Doctor and the Spirit here on the blog would demonstrate. (Another post on the Sealing with the Spirit didn’t end up in that list of posts, and is also worth a look.)

The passion John Piper demonstrated at the Together for the Gospel conference comes from a remarkably similar view of the Spirit to that which Lloyd-Jones held. Piper and Lloyd-Jones would argue for the vital place of a passionate experience like Spurgeon describes. The very description of being so struck by God's truth is intoxicating, is it not?

The second post over at TeamPyro that threatens the new-found pax blogica hit at what is perceived by many cessationists to be the charismatics' weak spot. In my view, the post Red Herrings Tongues of Angels contains a link to some of the most reactionary views on this subject I have ever seen.

Although it is never stated, the clear implication is that if we tear down the tongues issue, the whole charismatic house of cards comes tumbling down. It is almost as if they realised what excesses the post from Spurgeon potentially opens up!

So, now, to respond to the second post . . .

Firstly, I want to reply to the notion that modern tongues are always “gibberish.” There are in fact stories circulating of specific cases where modern tongues were understood by someone in the meeting as literal human languages. I have never witnessed this, but have certainly heard from those who have. If there are any well-documented cases of this phenomena out there, I would be glad to hear of them. Dan makes the bold accusation that there have been no recorded cases of human languages being supernaturally given since the apostolic era — charismatics out there, now is your chance to demonstrate that Dan is wrong in this assertion!

But even if Dan isn’t wrong, it is quite possible that we are in a period of time when only the beginnings of supernatural gifts are currently being given. These things seem, in my experience, to come in waves, and somehow the outpouring of God's Spirit does not seem to be constant. There are “times of refreshing” (Acts 3:20). Couldn’t the tongues we often hear today be almost like precursors to those which are more recognisable linguistically? I have certainly heard some that sound to an English-speaker's ear more like human languages than others.

Remember that the historical facts do not in themselves prove theological arguments one way or the other. When my African friends speak of seeing dramatic miracles, are we to disbelieve them because we haven’t seen them ourselves? Or are we going to be somewhat disingenuous and preach a kind of partial cessationism? Certainly some of that kind of idea is about — John MacArthur, for example, the arch-cessationist, was quite happy to talk approvingly of Huss having prophesied the coming of Luther. For some, cessationism doesn’t apply on the mission field or in the history books, only in the here and now!

I am still waiting for the cessationists to demonstrate from Scripture that all the miraculous gifts (with the exception of authoritative doctrinal revelation) have indeed stopped permanently and forever. I have also not seen them give good explanations regarding the experiences so many of us describe or the benefits that those who speak in tongues receive from them. If the cessationist is correct, then the charismatic is, by definition, either deluded or demonised!.

More importantly, if tongues were never intended biblically to be a prayer language and all the gifts were meant to stop, then I have a number of questions for my cessationist friends about what the Bible says about them:

• Why does Mark 16 (even if it isn’t in the original autographs, but is instead an early addition to the text) say that those who believe will speak in new tongues; why is there no sense in these words that this experience is limited to the disciples?

• Why, in Acts 2 when some heard the first outpouring of tongues did they say, “They are filled with new wine.” What was it about the disciples that made them seem drunk?

• Why does the passage Peter then quotes speak of the Spirit being poured out on "all flesh" in the "last days" if we cannot experience this? Are we now living in the days after the last days? If the gifts were only to authenticate the Apostles, why the wide extent detailed here?

• How do you explain it when Peter says at the end of his speech that the promise “is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” He is clearly referring to the same thing that they had experienced that day? Peter says (to quote the KJV) “this is that,” and yet we are not allowed to experience “that” according to the cessationist and in direct contradiction to Peter’s universal promise.

• What exactly is it about 1 Corinthians 13 that leads some to assume that the cessation of gifts is tied to the completion of Scripture rather than to the return of Christ?

• Why does Paul clearly state in 1 Corinthians 4:5 that he wants them all to speak in tongues? Why, if tongues is only ever intended as a proof to the unbeliever would he want them all to do it? Why would he need them all to do it? At most, one or two would suffice to get the point across, and given the moral state of the church in Corinth, desiring still more people to speak in tongues seems almost irresponsible!

• Why, on the one hand, are we at liberty to ignore Paul's clear commands to the Corinthians to “eagerly desire spiritual gifts” and to "not forbid speaking in tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:39) when, on the other hand, we are expected to accept all of his other commands to local churches as applying to us today? If these two commands do not apply to us, which other of Paul's commands also do not apply? How are we then meant to decide which of Paul's commands we are going to obey and which we are going to ignore?

• If tongues are always human languages and never unintelligible, what function did they serve in the churches and why would God use them to communicate a message to His people in some way? (1 Corinthians 14:5)

• If tongues is not ever a private prayer language, why did Paul say, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.” (1 Corinthians 14:18), and for that matter, why does he say, “The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself” (1 Corinthians 14:4)? What possible good would a tongue—meant solely for an unbeliever whose language is different to that of the speaker—provide for the one speaking in the tongue?

• Why is it assumed when Paul condemns the disorderly speaking in tongues (which sounds like it was a competition for several different people to be heard at the same time) that his instruction prevents the congregation from, in an orderly manner, praying together at once, either in their own language or in tongues? If this is prevented by Paul's instructions about tongues “in the church,” then we should also surely prohibit the whole church raising its voice to pray together, as is described in Acts 4:24 where “they lifted their voices together to God.” If nothing else, if tongues is a prayer language, and lifting your voices together to God is ok, then why not praying in tongues? The commands of Paul do not relate to praying to God, but rather to speaking to the church. In addition, Paul's instructions relate to when unbelievers are present, so surely as a minimum is it not reasonable for the charismatic to apply them to the church's prayer meeting?
  
  


If Romans 8:26 is not referring to praying in tongues, then to what exactly is it referring? "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words."

• What exactly does 1 Corinthians 14:9 mean if it doesn’t mean what it appears to mean — “So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air.” It sure sounds like something unintelligible to me!

• Why does Paul speak specifically about praying in a tongue—“For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.” (1 Corinthians 14:4)—if tongues are only ever human languages for the purpose of unbelievers hearing a message?

• Why does 1 Corinthians 14:26 make clear that tongues are one of the gifts for building up the church if they are only ever real languages for evangelism?

• Why do so many cessationists actually argue for the exact opposite of what Jesus Himself says in Luke 11 (see the whole context). Jesus ends the parable by saying, “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” The cessationist has to deal with the fact that millions of people today have asked God for an experience of the Holy Spirit, and that in direct contrast to what Jesus Himself said, by definition, if cessationism is true, they have not received the Spirit, but rather something else. Where they have asked for the bread of tongues, they have been given the stone of foolish gibberish. Where they have asked for the fish of prophecy, they have been given the serpent of hallucinatory delusions worthy of a madman. This cannot be right, in my humble opinion, as it makes Jesus Himself into a trickster. At the very least, God should have given us clearer directions in the Bible to manage our expectations and help us ALL to realise that cessationism is the biblical teaching. This issue has clear implications for the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture. If Jesus Himself appears to tantalise these people with an offer to give the Spirit to those who ask and really means something very different to the gift of the Spirit we see in Acts, then surely He would have told us!

• Most importantly of all, if the Bible never intended that we get the impression that gifts are for today, why are there not any real “killer verses” to make it clear to us that this is not the case?

Well, that might put the cat among the pidgeons! Please read it in the spirit in which it is intended. I long for a time when the recognition of the need for a real experience of the Spirit drives us away from both sterile formal religion and an excessive emphasis on tongues - which is, after all, only one of the gifts of the Spirit. I am eager to destroy the myth that I am sure some believe - that charismatics do not have any real biblical basis for their positon. I remain open to being convinced I am wrong from the Bible. So, that's all I have to say right now. The ball is firmly in your court!

Well, there are no lengths that some people won't go to in order to honour their heroes. Spurgeon isn't even alive to thank him, but Phil Johnson has stolen the graphic he created for me and has unilaterally decided to award one to The Prince of Preachers.

All I can say is that Spurgeon deserves it. With an output to rival any modern blogger, when Phil isn't creating graphics for the Web, writing MacArthur's books, or refusing to answer questions on cessationism, he is slowly placing all of Spurgeon's works online. I did call Spurgeon an honorary blogger once, I think. Now all the prince needs is his own blog to which he could add this stamp of approval!

Well, Mr Spurgeon, although you can't thank me just yet, that which Phil stole for you, I now formally bestow on you! You deserve to be a Winner just for your book on Soul Winning that Phil quoted from today. Last year, I also wrote a whole series of posts with quotes from the Soul Winner which you might find interesting. But I just have one serious point to make in this tongue-in-cheek post:-

BUY AND READ THE SOUL WINNER NOW AND BE INTRODUCED TO SPURGEON, THE PRINCE OF BLOGGERS!

In last week�s final chapter of the Doctor�s exposition of Ephesians 1:13, I said that I would quote MLJ�s own experience, which occurred in the summer of 1949, and which Iain Murray refers to as �one of the most remarkable [years] in Dr. Lloyd-Jones� life. The following excerpt is from his biography, David Martyn-Lloyd-Jones The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, The University Press, Cambridge, 1990, �Wales and the Summer of 1949, pp. 207-221. Following Murray's quote are some thoughts on whether Lloyd-Jones was or was not a charismatic.

�When another year�s ministry�his eleventh�at Westminster Chapel ended in June 1949, Martyn and Bethan [his wife] went down to Sunnyside, Newcastle Emlyn . . . .

�At this time in Newcastle Emlyn, Dr. Lloyd-Jones was going through a personal struggle of which he very rarely spoke and never in public. He was suffering from depression which he attributed to his low physical condition. With the depression, however, there came a temptation in the form of a �fiery dart� of doubt. The doubt did not concern his faith or his ministry, but it had to do with a person whose regard for him had long been of great support to his whole life. The temptation was to question the reality of this friend�s regard. This suspicion was entirely without foundation and he did not give way to it, yet the power of the temptation put him into an agony of spirit: �There are times,� he would later say, �when the enemy concentrates on individual Christians, on Christian churches . . . when the devil makes a broadside attack upon you and would sweep you off your feet.� This awareness that the onslaught was from the devil did not, however, bring him comfort for the temptation had brought with it a discovery about himself. The attack had come at a point where it could have success: it was an appeal to his pride. �Not my pride in the ministry, but my carnal pride�. More than thirty years later he could only speak of it with pain: �It was a terrible thing, it was the thing that revealed to me ultimately the pride of the human heart. I knew I was a sinner without any hope at all, but I never realised the depth of the pride of the human heart. Eventually I saw it was nothing but pride. Carnal, devilish pride. And I was humbled to the ground.�

�We do not know precisely what stage in the above temptation he had reached when they left Newcastle Emlyn on July 13. Bethan returned to London, while he proceeded to a Nursing Home near Bristol where he had booked a place some weeks earlier for the treatment of his catarrh. This institution was run by Dr. A. B. Todd, a highly individualistic physician of whose judgment he had a high opinion. Here he spent nearly two weeks largely on his own in a private room. For the first few days the inner tempest continued. Besides his usual reading of Scripture, he had with him some of the writings of A. W. Pink which he had often found helpful, but now nothing seemed to give him any spiritual comfort. Then one morning he awoke soon after six a.m. in �a complete agony of soul� and even feeling a sense of evil in the room. He once spoke of the well-known episode in the life of Luther in terms which he could have applied to his own experience at Bristol, �He was deeply conscious of the devil�s presence in his room and he could not get away from him�. Then, as he started dressing, and at the very moment when his eye caught just a word in a sermon of Pink�s which lay open beside his bed�the word �glory��instantly, �like a blaze of light�, he felt the very glory of God surround him. Every doubt and fear was silenced. The love of God was �shed abroad� in his heart. The nearness of heaven and his own title to it because overwhelming certainties, and, at once, he was brought into a state of ecstasy and joy which remained with him for several days.

�Dr. Lloyd-Jones never wrote of this experience, and he was very reticent to speak of it. He believed that the experience was the work of the Holy Spirit testifying to his sonship. (Romans 8:16). In the similar experiences of others (to which he referred on a number of subsequent occasions) it is observable that two features, in particular, paralleled his own. First, there was the sense of light and glory. In the words of William Guthrie: �It is a glorious divine manifestation of God unto the soul . . . It is a thing better felt than spoke of. It is no audible voice, but it is a ray of glory filling the soul with God, as He is life, light, love and liberty, corresponding to that audible voice, �O man, greatly beloved� (Daniel 9:23). Another Puritan, Thomas Goodwin, writes: �There is light that cometh and over-powereth a man�s soul and assureth him that God is his, and he is God�s�. Secondly, there was the suddenness and the unexpectedness with which the assurance came. Speaking of such an occasion, Robert Bruce could say, �I leapt no sooner on my horse but the gates of heaven were cast open to me�, while John Flavel and Christmas Evans were alone in the course of journeys when they similarly met suddenly with God . . . .

�It was on [a] visit to Pant-y-Neuadd that Dr. Lloyd-Jones had a second experience akin to that described above. The Davies� farmhouse was busy with visitors and he had retired early one Saturday evening. Alone in their bedroom, he was reading the Welsh hymns of William Williams in the Calvinistic Methodist hymn book when he was again given such a consciousness of the presence and love of God as seemed to exceed all that he had every known before. It was a foretaste of glory.�

Iain Murray pauses at one point in this chapter to ask what effect the experiences of 1949 had upon Dr. Lloyd-Jones� life and ministry, and it might be interesting to read what Murray says. The following are excerpts from this �aside�.

�In the first place, it is clear that God permitted the sustained demonic assault in order to deepen ML-J�s insight into the wiles of the devil and his knowledge of the only power which can counter such an adversary. In this way his ministry was to be made a greater means of deliverance and help to many other Christians in times of similar darkness . . . No small part of Dr. Lloyd-Jones� ministry in the years ahead was to help Christians to know their enemy and how to resist him. His emphasis in this regard became akin to Martin Luther�s.�

�With regard to his own spiritual life, the experiences of 1949 deepened his own conviction both about his own superficiality, as well as the superficiality of much evangelical religion. All that he allowed himself to say about himself was: �I was brought to the end of myself in a way that had never happened before. I really saw the depths of sin and that man�s ultimate problem is his pride.��

�There was, it must further be said, a degree of change in the content of Dr. Lloyd-Jones� ministry after 1949 in another respect. It was not a change in doctrine, but of emphasis. From this date he was conscious of the addition of a larger measure of the experimental in his preaching, and he came to see that this was the redressing of a balance which he had sometimes been in danger of losing after 1932. [MLJ himself describes it this way:]

�But then �49 I think was a real turning point. That is when I got my true balance. I had been becoming too intellectual, too doctrinal and theological, because when I came to London I suddenly found I was the teacher, the theologian, and it tended to make me lose my balance, although that had started in Sandfields by reading Warfield.��

Murray concludes,

�Dr. Lloyd-Jones came to look back on 1949 as a year when he had been guided by God with unusual clarity . . . But more than . . . this, was the humbling and the strengthening which he received for the long years ahead. He had learned more of what it means to enjoy the love of God. Dr. Lloyd-Jones had not been praying for assurance, or for the Holy Spirit, when he was so unforgettably helped at Bristol and at Bala, but such dealings of God with those called to serve Him are not uncommon. In the words of Isaac Ambrose, three hundred years earlier: �Sometimes when Satan is most busy, the Lord steps in with his own testimony, and stops the lion�s mouth that he can say no more.��

* * * * * * *

For those of you who have been following this series, the question may be left in your mind, �Was the Doctor a charismatic?� In this regard, Murray shows in a chapter in his biography entitled �Crosswinds� how confusion over this question may have evolved. Murray recounts that MLJ began a series on the Gospel of John in 1962 which went on for the next three years. In preaching through the Gospel of John, he indicated to his congregation that what he had in mind was not a verse-by-verse exposition, but rather an application of the teaching that is found in this Gospel to the state and condition of the Christian world. The theme, then, was �the fullness of the Lord Jesus Christ available for His people�. Of these sermons, the 24 sermons preached from November 15, 1964 to June 6, 1965 were published posthumously in two volumes, Joy Unspeakable and Prove All Things. According to Murray, the fact that these became the most controversial of all his published material was �due in considerable measure to ignorance of the context in which they had been preached. Some have spoken as though their contents show at least a measure of support for the burgeoning charismatic movement. Had they been preached ten years later, that supposition might have been understandable, but the fact is that there was no �charismatic movement� in England in 1964. The very term was still unknown.�

In a talk given by John Piper during the Bethlehem Conference for Pastors in 1991, �A Passion for Christ-Exalting Power: Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the Need for Revival and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit,� Piper provides some interesting insights into this question:

�From the beginning to the end, the life of Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a cry for depth in two areas�depth in Biblical doctrine and depth in vital spiritual experience. Light and heat. Logic and fire. Word and Spirit. Again and again he would be fighting on two fronts: on the one hand against dead, institutional intellectualism, and on the other hand against superficial, glib, entertainment-oriented, man-centered emotionalism. He saw the world in a desperate condition without Christ and without hope: and a church with no power to change it. One wing of the church was straining out intellectual gnats and the other was swallowing the camels of evangelical compromise or careless charismatic teaching. For Lloyd-Jones, the only hope was historic, God-centered revival.�

In this biographical sketch, Piper talks about many of the things that have previously been quoted on this blog from the Doctor�s exposition of Ephesians 1:13�in particular MLJ�s emphasis on the �love of God being shed abroad in our hearts� as a result of the sealing (baptism) of the Spirit, and the assurance that accompanies this experience in knowing the reality of our adoption as sons of God.

Piper then points out that Lloyd-Jones was definitely not a Warfieldian cessationist, and in fact, came out very strongly against the Warfield kind of cessationism. However, he then clarifies this:

�Lest you think Lloyd-Jones was a full-blown charismatic incognito, let me mention some things that give him balance and made him disenchanted with Pentecostals and charismatics as he knew them.� Piper lists eight areas in which MLJ had �problems� with charismatics, and I will quote only brief parts of each point. For an in-depth study of what Piper has to say here, the article is, as noted above, available on the Desiring God site.

• He insisted that revival have a sound doctrinal basis.

• Charismatics put too much stress on what they do and not enough emphasis on the freedom and sovereignty of the Spirit.

• Charismatics sometimes insist on tongues as a sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which Lloyd-Jones rejected.

• Charismatics claim to be able to speak in tongues whenever they want to. This, the Doctor argues, is clearly against what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:18.

• Too often, experiences are sought for their own sake rather than for the sake of empowerment for witness and for the glory of Christ.

• Charismatics easily fall into the mistake of assuming that if a person has powerful gifts, that person is thus a good person and fit to lead and teach. This is not true.

• Charismatics characteristically tend to be more interested in subjective impressions and unusual giftings than in the exposition of Scripture.

• Charismatics sometimes encourage people to give up control of their reason and to let themselves go. MLJ disagrees.

Piper then goes on to say:

�But having said all that, by way of warning and balance, Lloyd-Jones comes back to the strong affirmation of openness to the supernatural demonstration of power that the world needs so badly. Of those who sit back and point their finger at the charismatic excesses of good people he says, �God have mercy upon them! God have mercy upon them! It is better to be too credulous than to be carnal and to be smug and dead.�

And finally, Piper adds this:

�So in my mind, there is a real sense of urgency in asking, �What is his counsel to us as we navigate between uncritical and unbiblical gullibility on the one side and Spirit-quenching resistance on the other?

�His basic counsel is this: �You cannot do anything about being baptized with the Spirit except to ask for it. You cannot do anything to produce it.� Nevertheless you should labor in prayer to attain it. We must be patient and not set time limits on the Lord. He cites Dwight L. Moody and R. A. Torrey and A. J. Gordon and A. T. Pierson as ones who sought the baptism of the Spirit, pleading for a long time. In fact, Lloyd-Jones had a special liking for Moody�s repeated prayer: �O God, prepare my heart and baptize me with the Holy Ghost power�.

�But,� says Piper, �it seems that there is more that we can do than only pray. If a prepared heart is important, then there are means of grace besides prayer that cleanse the heart and conform it more and more to Christ. One thinks of meditation on the Scriptures and exhortation from fellow Christians and mortification of sin along the lines of Romans 6 and so on.

�But not only that, Lloyd-Jones teaches that the Spirit can be quenched by certain forms of barren institutionalization. Concerning the deadness of formal churches he says, �It is not that God withdrew, it is that the church in her �wisdom� and cleverness became institutionalized, quenched the Spirit, and made the manifestations of the power of the Spirit well-nigh impossible.�

�Now that,� exclaims Piper, �is a powerful statement from one who believes in the sovereignty of the Spirit�that certain forms of institutionalization can make the manifestations of the Spirit�s power �well-nigh impossible.� If the Spirit in his sovereignty suffers himself to be hindered and quenched, as Lloyd-Jones (and the apostle Paul!) says, then it is not entirely accurate to say that there is nothing we can do to open the way for his coming. It is only that we cannot constrain him to come. Or to put it another way, while it seems we cannot make the Spirit come in power, we can do things that usually keep Him from coming.�

In concluding, Piper says that for Lloyd-Jones �balance and motive� were important in seeking this sealing of the Spirit, and closes his talk with this quote from the Doctor, with which I will also end this series:

�Let us together decide to beseech Him, to plead with Him to do this again. Not that we may have the experience or the excitement, but that His mighty hand may be known and His great name may be glorified and magnified among the people.�

links for 2006-04-16

• Mohler Answers "What is the Gospel?"
  Early on Resurrection Sunday, much earlier than most of us have opened an eye, Al Mohler addresses CJ's question. "What a time to consider the meaning of the Gospel."
  (tags: gospel mohler T4GB)
• Substitution, Representation, Union--How We Benefit from Christ's Death and Resurrection
  In his offering for Spurgeon Monday, Phil Johnson points out that Spurgeon emphatically affirms several aspects of the believer's relationship with Christ. Several dimensions of all of these truths are affirmed and celebrated.
  (tags: atonement christ pyromaniacs)
• Say it Louder
  "I very rarely shout praise to the Lord, even when I'm alone. Am I wrong?" Interesting discussion, especially in the comments section, on the meaning of how to "shout" praises to the Lord, particularly in corporate worship.
  (tags: church joy music worship)
• Cessationist Chaos
  "To recognize the different theological flavours of non-cessationism helps to separate out the charismatic baby from the unbiblical bathwater."
  (tags: cessationist charismatic)

UPDATE
In January 2008, the following post was identified as the 17th all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 18th most-read post was Dr. Kim Riddlebarger's response to John MacArthur's assertion that non-dispensational Calvinists are not "really reformed."

Sam Storms is well-known as a Calvinistic charismatic speaker. He writes popular books which express a very similar theology to that of John Piper in an accessible way. It was good to be able to ask him some questions via e-mail.

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

Adrian
It's a delight to welcome Sam Storms of Enjoying God Ministries to the blog today. Sam, to begin with, would you tell us a little bit about yourself, your family, and your ministry?

Sam
Thanks, Adrian. I'm honored that you would want to interview me. I'm 55 years old and have been married to my incredible wife, Ann, for nearly 34 years. I'm a bit surprised you didn't ask the question that so many others have, so I'll come right to the point: Yes, I did propose to her on our first date! I certainly don't recommend that for anyone else. But after 34 wonderful years of marriage, it worked for us (or maybe it worked in spite of that rather impetuous proposal).

I have two daughters. Melanie is 27 and lives in Kansas City with her husband and two sons. What that means is that, much to my surprise, I'm old enough to be married to a grandmother! My other daughter, Joanna, is 21 and is in her third year at Wheaton College, where I taught Theology from 2000 through 2004.

I left Wheaton in 2004 and established Enjoying God Ministries so that I could have more liberty in what I study, write, and teach. I loved Wheaton. Although Wheaton is mainstream evangelical and not even remotely charismatic, they were incredibly kind and generous to me. I had the opportunity to stay there another two years, but felt the Lord was leading us to leave. I describe in some detail in my book, Convergence, how we were led to Wheaton and again back to Kansas City.

Enjoying God Ministries is primarily designed to be a resource to pastors, Christians, and churches everywhere. I've put virtually everything I've ever written on the website (except for books still in print), free for anyone to download and use as they please. I'm traveling extensively and trying to write as much as I can. Crossway will be publishing my revised and expanded book, Chosen for Life: A Defense of Divine Election, later this year.

So, I'm staying exceedingly busy, to say the least.

Adrian
Can you tell us a bit more about how you came to become a Christian, and how you got into ministry?

Sam
I was raised in a very conservative Southern Baptist home. We lived in Oklahoma and Texas until I moved to Kansas City in 1993. My parents led me to Christ when I was about nine years old. But honestly, I can't recall a time when I didn't know Jesus as my Savior. I know there was a time, but I was immersed in the life and faith of my family and the church from as far back as I can remember.

I had a very distinct and powerful "call" into ministry when I was ten years old. For awhile, in my late teens, I thought I might pursue a career as a professional golfer, but even then I envisioned some form of ministry being tied up in it. My golf career came to a fitting end when I realized that I had too little talent and too much of a bad temper!

Adrian
Who, would you say, has had the biggest influence on you?

Sam
My parents and my sister, first and foremost. I had a wonderful Christian home and family. In terms of spiritual development, two men in particular had a powerful impact on me. Russ McKnight, a lay elder in a church in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, profoundly influenced me beginning in my college years. He was the first person to introduce the Reformed faith to me and put up with my Arminianism very patiently. He, more than anyone else, is the reason I'm a Calvinist. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, who was professor of New Testament, and later Systematic Theology, at both Dallas Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, had the greatest impact on my overall theological development. But more than that, he provided me with a model of godly excellence in all of life.

As for those still living who've influenced me, certainly John Piper would be at the top of the list. John's personal friendship and theological orientation have been an indescribable blessing. In fact, I'm answering this question as I sit in the airport on my way to preach for him at Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis. John and I first met at a Jonathan Edwards conference in Wheaton back in 1984.

Others whom God has used in my life would include Mike Bickle, Jack Deere, and Wayne Grudem, primarily when it comes to my rejection of cessationism and my broader experience of the Holy Spirit.

As for the distant dead, Jonathan Edwards towers above all others. But there have been others. Calvin, Luther, Owen, the 19th century Princeton theologian, Charles Hodge, 19th century theologian, William G. T. Shedd (I consumed his multi-volume, Theology, while in seminary), and B. B. Warfield. More recently I'd have to point to Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

Adrian
You recently wrote a book called Convergence. Can you tell us a bit about how you came to write the book and the hopes you have for it?

Sam
A lot of people who've known my story encouraged me to write it. Up until the late 1980's, there wouldn't have been much to write about. But from 1988 through 1993, my wife and I had some amazing things happen to us that we neither sought nor fully understood. My purpose in the book was really three-fold. First, I wanted to provide a case for the convergence or merger or wedding of spirit and truth, of power and principle, of mind and affection. The divisions in the body of Christ along these "party lines" are rampant and grievous. Second, I thought my story and the path on which God has led me would provide a case study for how it is possible to be Reformed and charismatic without going nuts! Of course, a few who've read my book are convinced that I failed in that regard. They find some of the stories and encounters to be "weird." Well, yes, they are weird. But I tried to be faithful in recording them as they happened. People can draw their own conclusions. Then, third, I used the subject of hearing God's voice in general, and the gift of prophecy in particular, as examples of how one can both affirm the centrality of Scripture and the sovereignty of God on the one hand, and the power of the Spirit and the contemporary revelatory gifts on the other.

As you know, Adrian, the U.K. version of the book is going to be released by Kingsway on June 1st.

Adrian
You speak of wanting to see the best of the Reformed and charismatic "wings" of the Church coming together. Are you hopeful that this is indeed possible? Are you a believer in the notion that the Church will be "restored" before Christ's return?

Sam
I'm hopeful, but not naive about such prospects. It will take a massive dose of humility on everyone's part. Recently a close friend of mine who has been a cessationist said that on reading the book he felt I was asking far more of those on his side of the fence than of those on the continuationist side. I think he's right, if for no other reason than it's more difficult for cessationists to embrace the contemporary validity of spiritual gifts than it is for continuationists to embrace the foundational and central role of Scripture in the Christian life.

I'm not fond of using "restorationist" language. It's a bit idealistic. I would rather talk in terms of renewal and revitalization and maturity. I do believe there is hope for the increasing unity of the Church and the possibility of a global revival and harvest before Jesus returns.

Adrian
What examples of individuals, churches, or movements have you seen today that best exemplify what you are hoping to see?

Sam
There isn't any single denomination or movement that I could point to as doing it perfectly, but one thinks immediately of Terry Virgo and Newfrontiers, as well as C. J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries. In my extensive travels, I come across Southern Baptist churches, Presbyterian churches, Vineyard churches, as well as a lot of independent so-called "Bible" churches and others that are pursuing a convergence with or without the approval of their denomination or movement. There are numerous independent charismatic churches whose pastors are reformed in their soteriology. The "convergence" may not be well-organized or visible to many, but I assure you it's there and it's growing.

Adrian
It is interesting to see that the leaders of many movements in the Church today seem to be forging strong relationships. The Together for the Gospel conference is one example, as is Mark Driscoll inviting Josh Harris to his conference and being invited to John Piper's. Are you encouraged by these developments?

Sam
Yes, of course. I hope everyone would be. I've worked side-by-side in ministry with cessationists and Arminians and have thoroughly enjoyed doing so. I trust that such alliances will continue to flourish without leading to doctrinal compromise.

Adrian
Do you think all this working together can go too far? What if it meant that people felt they had to stop talking about their theological differences in order to not offend each other—would that be a good outcome?

Sam
The only way it would be going too far is if someone began to feel pressure to violate their conscience or convictions in order to preserve some expression of "unity." Unity is never served by the sacrifice of truth. Personally, I love dialoguing with others about our theological differences. I find it stimulating, challenging, and extremely helpful in making it possible for me to see my own theological blind spots. I don't know that I've ever grown much spiritually apart from being challenged to think through issues by people with whom I disagreed. The key here is being able to talk and disagree without being offensive and abrasive and arrogant.

Adrian
Do you feel that there should be any boundaries to all this working together? Are there groups or theological positions from whom we should distance ourselves?

Sam
Of course there are boundaries. I couldn't work with an Arminian who is motivated by a desire to exalt human freedom at the expense of divine sovereignty. But most Arminians I know have no intention of doing so. I couldn't work with a Calvinist who used divine sovereignty as an excuse for justifying passivity or ignoring the lost and dying across the earth. I couldn't work with a charismatic who insisted that only people who speak in tongues are saved, or Spirit-filled, or are useful to the Lord. But these are all examples of extreme expressions of each position. There are certainly others in each group who embrace radical and unbiblical beliefs that might serve to undermine orthodoxy. The bottom line is, I don't embrace "convergence at any cost."

Adrian
This whole notion of how we honor each other while still disagreeing comes up a lot on Christian blogs. I understand that you read at least a few of them—what is your impression overall? Do you think we do a better or worse job at speaking the truth in love than Christians in the "real world"?

Sam
When the blogging phenomenon first started, I spent way too much time reading them. I've narrowed it down now to about a dozen that I regularly check. My concern is that people who need to spend more time reading and studying and praying and serving are overly consumed with seeing their name and ideas on the Net.

Adrian
So which of the blogs that you have read do you feel are particularly helpful for someone who is seeking to live out the message of Convergence?

Sam
Dare I say yours? Yes, by all means! Most of those I read don't focus directly on the issue of convergence. If you visit my website at http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/ and go to the Recommendations section, I list a few.

Adrian
Do you have any plans to start a blog of your own? Do you think that in the future most Christian leaders or ministries will have their own blogs?

Sam
I've been encouraged to do so. Perhaps I should. I suspect the number of blogs will increase greatly in the future. I'm not sure this is a good thing. Can pastors and leaders of ministries really afford to invest so much time and energy in blogging when their people and churches need their personal presence and direct involvement? I would hate to see a time come when pastors and ministers are so busy writing and responding on their blogs that they can't lead, meet with, pray for, counsel, disciple, visit, and minister to their flock. And nothing is worth taking time away from sermon preparation. So, I'm not overly excited about the expansion of the blogosphere.

Adrian
Speaking personally, I have found blogging to be a great aid to my sermon preparation, but I can sure see how it can also be a massive distraction.

We need to draw to a close, soon, so do tell us, how would you sum up your life's message in just a few words?

Sam
My life verse is Psalm 16:11, "You have made known to me the pathway of life. In your presence is fullness of joy, at your right hand are pleasures forevermore." If I had only one opportunity in life it would be to persuade people that this is true. Lives would be forever changed, sin would be dealt a death blow, and God would be exalted through the satisfaction of his people in Him alone.

Adrian
Thank you so much for joining us!

This is the 2000th post on this blog, which means that I have been posting on average just short of two posts a day for almost three years. That�s a whole lot of words�one relatively recent reader has set out on a quest to go back and read 'em all. I am not sure that too many will want to join him!

As I drew near to this post, I wondered how best to use it. I briefly considered a review post like I did at the end of 2005 and 2004. I also thought about doing a post on what blogging has meant to me, but realised that like so many other things, David Wayne had already said it better. I could have written about my mistakes and the lessons I had learnt, but my posts here, here and here have already covered that ground.

So I decided that a tribute post was clearly the answer�returning thanks to others is always a good thing to do at moments like this�so that is what I decided to do.

There are so many people that I want to thank, but I have decided to focus in on one of them. Before I get to that, however, there are a number of people I want to thank briefly. I would like to thank:

• My God for creating me, saving me, empowering me, and sovereignly determining that he would use me the way he does and place me where he has.


• My wife for being such a gracious blog widow�I still can hardly believe that God was so gracious as to give me you who I have done nothing to deserve.


• My family for keeping me sane�you kids are the best gift God has ever given your mum and me!


• My parents for raising me as a Christian.


• My dear friend and Pastor, Tope Koleoso, who incidentally preached his heart out yesterday morning. All too often preaching just explains some facts or doctrines to us and leaves us to figure out for ourselves how to apply it. I was never very good at figuring out how to live in the good of what I had learnt�thank you Tope for preaching in such a way that we are left in no doubt about what we need to do differently on Monday morning as a result of your message. If you have not heard one of Tope's sermons yet, go listen right now to yesterdays message on "Discipline". It is the perfect introduction to his preaching.


• My previous pastors and those men of God who have discipled and mentored me�Colin Potter, Mike Hewitt, Robin Hawkins, David Nunn, Terry Brewer, Eric Hutchinson, David Coak, Henry Tyler, and others.


• My favorite living preachers who have given me so much despite in most cases never having met me.


• Those who, although they are dead, still speak and have inspired me more than they will ever know until I get to heaven and seek them out to thank them for it�these men include of course Spurgeon , Wesley, Whitfield . . .the list goes on and on . . . .


• The bloggers who have inspired me, welcomed me, interacted with me, and linked to me. There are too many to mention everyone but some that stand out in my memory are of course the Warnies, The Reformed Charismatic bloggers, and I ought to thank every blogger in the Blogdom of God as together we make up a formidable group who largely (despite our differences) interact with remarkable grace. But specific thank you�s must go to Josh Claybourn and Hugh Hewitt who were the first "big time" bloggers to link to me, correspond with me . . . so you can blame them for inflicting this blog on such a wide audience. Of course, no list of thank you�s would be complete without a mention of David Wayne who, as I say in my sidebar, taught me everything I know about gracious blogging.

But the person I want to focus on in this post is the one writer I would like you to get to know more than any other�Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Lloyd-Jones combines in one man my passionate desires for increased intimacy with God and for reformed theology. I have already claimed him as a father of the charismatic movement elsewhere. Although he would not have called himself this, he almost single-handedly inspired the breed called Reformed Charismatics. The cries of his entire ministry, and particularly his closing years echo resoundingly today.

I will share some more quotes in this post on his views on the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. You will see from them why I like this man, and want to publicly confess my debt to him and his ministry. I am of course in good company in declaring such a debt. Although he is not spoken about much these days, he is in danger of becoming evangelicalism�s best kept secret�it is time 25 years after the death of the 20th century's finest English-speaking preacher to revive his memory and learn from his wisdom!

He has many books, and a number of them can be bought at Amazon. Of course, many have heard of his series on Romans, but there is much more to the Doctor than that. I recently was directed to an article at Banner of Truth which gives guidance as to where to start with his many books � I would largely concur, but would also emphasise Joy Unspeakable and Prove all Things as being books you simply cannot miss reading.

The best article on Lloyd-Jones on the web comes perhaps unsurprisingly from one of our modern heroes�John Piper. The quotes in the rest of this post all come from that article.
Piper acknowledges his own debt to Lloyd-Jones and credits reading his sermons as setting the course for his own life. Piper remarks in his post on the way that God providentially organises the smallest details of our lives. He is eager to retell the story of how Lloyd-Jones was prevented from taking a role in Wales he had set his heart on. Amazingly, it was a missed train by a supporter which set in motion the events that led to him accepting the call to Westminster:

"His main supporter on the board of the college had missed the train and couldn't support his call to the presidency. And so he accepted Westminster's call and stayed there 29 years until his retirement in 1968.

I can't help but pause and give thanks for the disappointments and reversals and setbacks in our lives that God uses to put us just where he wants us. How different modern Evangelicalism in Britain would have been had Martyn Lloyd-Jones not preached in London for 30 years. How different my own life may have been had I not read his sermons in the summer of 1968! Praise God for missed trains and other so-called accidents!"

Piper goes on to explain what it was about Lloyd-Jones that is so unique and what has clearly inspired him and so many of us so much:

"From the beginning to the end the life of Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a cry for depth in two areas�depth in Biblical doctrine and depth in vital spiritual experience. Light and heat. Logic and fire. Word and Spirit. Again and again he would be fighting on two fronts: on the one hand against dead, formal, institutional intellectualism, and on the other hand against superficial, glib, entertainment-oriented, man-centered emotionalism. He saw the world in a desperate condition without Christ and without hope; and a church with no power to change it. One wing of the church was straining out intellectual gnats and the other was swallowing the camels of evangelical compromise or careless charismatic teaching. For Lloyd-Jones the only hope was historic, God-centered revival . . . .

Lloyd-Jones has done more than any other man in this century, I think, to restore the historic meaning of the word revival.

[Lloyd-Jones said] �A revival is a miracle ... something that can only be explained as the direct ... intervention of God ... Men can produce evangelistic campaigns, but they cannot and never have produced a revival� (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Revival, Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1987, pp. 111-112.)

But for Lloyd-Jones it was a great tragedy that the whole deeper understanding of revival, as a sovereign outpouring of the Holy Spirit, had been lost by the time he took up the subject in 1959 at the 100th anniversary of the Welsh Revival. "During the last seventy, to eighty years," he said, "this whole notion of a visitation, a baptism of God's Spirit upon the Church, has gone." (Iain H. Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 385).

The Doctor clearly linked historical revivalism with the baptism with the Holy Spirit as the following quotes demonstrate:

"The difference between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and a revival is simply one of the number of people affected. I would define a revival as a large number, a group of people, being baptized by the Holy Spirit at the same time; or the Holy Spirit falling upon, coming upon a number of people assembled together. It can happen in a district, it can happen in a country." (Joy Unspeakable, Harold Shaw Publishers, Wheaton, 1984, p. 51.)

"What is needed is some mighty demonstration of the power of God, some enactment of the Almighty, that will compel people to pay attention, and to look, and to listen. And the history of all the revivals of the past indicates so clearly that that is invariably the effect of revival, without any exception at all. That is why I am calling attention to revival. That is why I am urging you to pray for this. When God acts, he can do more in a minute that man with his organizing can do in fifty years " (Revival, pp. 121-122.)

"The purpose, the main function of the baptism with the Holy Spirit, is ... to enable God's people to witness in such a manner that it becomes a phenomenon and people are arrested and are attracted.� (Joy Unspeakable, p. 84.)

Lloyd-Jones was remarkably dismissive of cessationism:

"[Before Pentecost the apostles] were not yet fit to be witnesses ... [They] had been with the Lord during the three years of his ministry. They had heard his sermons, they had seen his miracles, they had seen him crucified on the cross, they had seen him dead and buried, and they had seen him after he had risen literally in the body from the grave. These were men who had been with him in the upper room at Jerusalem after his resurrection and to whom he had expounded the Scriptures, and yet it is to these men he says that they must tarry at Jerusalem until they are endued with power from on high. The special purpose, the specific purpose of the baptism with the Holy Spirit is to enable us to witness, to bear testimony, and one of the ways in which that happens is through the giving of spiritual gifts." (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Sovereign Spirit, Harold Shaw Publishers, Wheaton, 1985, p. 120.)

"If the apostles were incapable of being true witnesses without unusual power, who are we to claim that we can be witnesses without such power?" (The Sovereign Spirit, p. 46.)

"I think it is quite without scriptural warrant to say that all these gifts ended with the apostles or the Apostolic Era. I believe there have been undoubted miracles since then" (Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939-1981, p. 786.)

"The Scriptures never anywhere say that these things were only temporary�never! There is no such statement anywhere." (The Sovereign Spirit, p. 31-32.)

"There is no question but that God's people can look for and expect "leadings", "guidance", indications of what they are meant to do ... Men have been told by the Holy Spirit to do something; they knew it was the Holy Spirit speaking to them; and it transpired that it obviously was his leading. It seems clear to me that if we deny such a possibility we are again guilty of quenching the Spirit.� (The Sovereign Spirit, pp. 89-90.)

Piper explains�He deals with the cessationist arguments and concludes that they are based on conjectures and arguments from silence in order to justify a particular prejudice "To hold such a view," he says, "is simply to quench the Spirit.�

Lloyd-Jones admitted that he did not feel he completely lived in the good of his understanding of the Spirit, but there was no doubt that some remarkable experiences surrounded him as one observer, Stacy Woods, puts it:

"In an extraordinary way, the presence of God was in that Church. I personally felt as if a hand were pushing me through the pew. At the end of the sermon for some reason or the other the organ did not play, the Doctor went off into the vestry and everyone sat completely still without moving. It must have been almost ten minutes before people seemed to find the strength to get up and, without speaking to one another, quietly leave the Church. Never have I witnessed or experienced such preaching with such fantastic reaction on the part of the congregation"

I will leave this 2000th post with some fantastic words from the Doctor himself, which I couldn�t have said better myself:

"Those people who say that [baptism with the Holy Spirit] happens to everybody at regeneration seem to me not only to be denying the New Testament but to be definitely quenching the Spirit" (Joy Unspeakable, p. 141.)

"It is not that God withdrew, it is that the church in her "wisdom" and cleverness became institutionalized, quenched the Spirit, and made the manifestations of the power of the Spirit well-nigh impossible" (The Sovereign Spirit, p. 50.)

There is more information and links on The Doctor at www.misterrichardson.com/mlj.html and his audio sermons can be downloaded at mlj.org.uk

Had an email from a reader today:

"I have only been on your site a few times, but came to it again today through Google after reading something I didn't understand on the 'Together for the Gospel' blog. I'm sure you are aware that this is a site where four well known pastors/theologians discuss thing of interest to each other in a public format (Al Mohler, C. J. Mahaney, Mark Dever and Ligon Duncan).

What I didn't understand was the title of one of the discussions, 'And it's not just Lloyd-Jones.' It briefly described Rick Warren's church's policy to baptize a person living with another person outside of marriage, but not to allow them into membership. Since you're in Britain and, furthermore in London, and since you have a link to Westminster Chapel on your site, I'm wondering if you know why the writer may have said this? The reason I'm asking is because it sets Martyn Lloyd-Jones in a place where it doesn't seem to me he would fit. I'm not super familiar with all he has to say, but I have read the first volume of his biography by Iain Murray, am currently in the midst of the second volume, have read his book 'Assurance of Our Salvation,' and am now wading through the eight-volume commentary on Ephesians. I guess I'm wondering why Mark Dever would use that title, and I think there's probably a good chance you would know.

While I'm not real familiar with you, I 'think' you believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit experientially for today? Is that where John Piper also stands? I'm only in the first chapter of the commentary on Ephesians by Lloyd-Jones, but it almost seems that's where he stands also. This very much interests me as (apart from you) I didn't realize there were any reformed people of stature in this camp.

I'm not looking for any lengthy answer. Just maybe saying yes or no regarding whether I'm hearing this correctly, and some insight into that post on the Together for the Gospel site.

Well there are two separate questions here - firstly the easy one - about an experiential sense of Gods Holy Spirit. It is fair to say that the modern "extreme cessationism" which turns Christianity into a purely intellectual excercise is just that modern and is itself largely a reaction to the extremes of the charismatics. It would be true to say that in the past many of the great "reformers" whilst by no means holding the charismatic belief, and indeed holding a form of cessationism quietly believed both in an experiential relationship with God AND some would even excercise what I would call prophecy or healing.

In fact extreme cessationism is not actually that common even today, and one of the many lessons I have learnt through blogging is that probably the silent majority of cessationists believe in a form of Christianity where God is alive in their experience. For a few quotes that may blow your mind, see my post entitled "assorted thoughts on baptism with the Holy Spirit". So yes, I am a believer in gifts - would even call myself a "Reformed Charismatic" and am actually in the middle of a series on 1 Cor 12 which now I have a few weeks before I preach again I plan to get back into! In the meantime, my posts so far on the gifts can best be found by scrolling through the list of post titles from my Feburary archive page.

As far as what Mark Dever meant by his post "Its not just Lloyd-Jones", well I don't think I need a gift of prophecy to discern that he was almost certainly referring back to his post entitled "membership glorious membership." in which he quotes Lloyd-Jones in support of a firm position on the importance of church membership which is interestingly shared by Warren. Incidenly, Rick Warren seems to have an interesting approach to the difference between baptism and membership which is worthy of further consideration in my humble opinion.....

the blue fish is joining me in blogging through 1 Cor 12. He says it right about v1-3: "Essentially, Paul wants his reader to know that being spiritual is about proclaiming Jesus as Lord. Put another way: Being spiritual, is being gospel. We cannot consider anything about gifts of the Spirit without this as the foundation. No gifts will be genuinely manifest without the Holy Spirit. And the Spirit is only sure to be present when there is genuine confession of Jesus as Lord."

John Stott: in an old sermon about these verses asked "Spiritual gifts - what's the big deal?" He spoke about how baptism in the Holy Spirit is a unifying experience, but somehow the fact that he didnt go on to explain what that meant lead me to think that he doesnt share my view of it. Stott was right to say that the Holy Spirit is the force which as he puts it "illumines" us to see Jesus as Lord.

Stott, asks 3 questions of the gifts - "What are they?" "Where do they come from?" and "What are they meant for?". He is right to emphasise that there are not only nine gifts as there are 5 other lists of spiritual gifts in the New Testament which do not entirely overlap - there are according to Stott at least 21 gifts of the Holy Spirit not all of which are "supernatural".

Stott immediately jumps to the conclusion that some of these gifts are not available today. In case anyone thinks it is a new argument, he builds his cessationism on the alleged absence of Apostles today. (Regular readers will know I do not concede this point, believing that the biblical definition of apostle is different to the popular Christian one)

Stott doesnt really give any solid biblical arguments at least in this sermon for this cessationist view nor his criticism of a charismatic view of Baptism of Holy Spirit. I had hoped to find some biblical exposition that would disagree with my position to intereact with in Stott's sermon, but sadly there wasnt any. If anyone knows of a source for me to find Stotts positon more clearly defined and explained from the bible, I would be greatful to find it. Stott is certainly a man of God who I honour as a great preacher and I would love to listen to or read his views.

Interestingly, towards the end of his message he did admit that further "religious experiences" are possible for Christians but he didnt seem to think that these should be pursued, nor did he explain his understanding of them or how they should look in practice.

The chapter that we have set before us is clear that these gifts are to be "earnestly desired" (v31). I find it strange that there are some today who are not theolocially cessaionist and yet do not actively seek or pursue spiritual gifts.

The passage here goes on to explain why gifts are so important. They are important because they demonstrate the divine plan for us to rely on each other. God has given "diverse gifts" to each of us to ensure that others are built up - gifts serve the "common good".

How can we read these words and not conclude that gifts should be sought after and desired today? I suspect that for some it is a lack of experience of what gifts can look like. I do not think there is any substitute for finding a church where they are practiced according to wise discernment and at least visiting it. It is going to be hard for me to really get accross the experience of gifts in written form, but I will try. In the meantime, I leave you with these words of Paul which should leave you hungry not just to read about gifts but rather to experience them for yourself.

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

PyroManiac: quotes Spurgeon today "Even if you could obtain miraculous gifts, you ought not to be satisfied to speak with tongues, nor to work miracles; but you should press on to know the Spirit with yourself indwelling, communing, quickening you."

In this quote Spurgeon shows himself to be the "experiential cessationist" I know him to be. Many modern or so-called "total cessationists" would not recognize this clear experience that Spurgeon talks of. I wonder if Phil would, or if he would explain it away.

What I want to know about Phil is not whether he speaks in tongues (I expect not!) but rather does he have an intimate, experience of the Spirit as described by Spurgeon and others.

It is vital for us to know a God who is both active and present, rather than some modern concoction of a passive and absent figure who has left us only an intellectual relationship with the bible to be going along with! Such a caricature is I know preached by some cessationists, I wonder if Phil is one of them?

I need a God who both hears my prayers, and lets me know he has done so. If you are open to impressions of Gods Spirit that you don't want to call prophecy, who am I to argue with you?

But if you would lock God up in a cage of your own making that forbids him from pouring out his love experientially into our hearts with no exegetical basis whatsoever, then I will oppose your view of God with every fiber of my being.

If Phil wants the charismatic to admit that things are not quite the same as they were in the apostolic era, I doubt that there are many who would disagree.

If I call on the cessationist to admit that the Holy Spirit is still experientially active in the lives of believers I wonder how many of them would concede that point?

If both points are conceded, then Phil is right about one thing, our discussions become a matter of what are the similarities and what are the differences between our experience and that of the 1st Century Christian. We will still have differences and much to disagree on, but hopefully many of our arguments will turn out to be ones that largely concern definition and degree.

The fly in the ointment of any theological reconciliation of what is actually a relatively recent theological schism (ie that of cessationism vs charismaticism) is of course glossalia or tongues, but that is surely a subject for another post!

links for 2006-01-04

• Interview with Maruice McCracken who heads the UCCF relay worker scheme
  (tags: adrianw interview students atonement charismatic cessationist evangelical mission ministry church)
• Pyromaniac awakens
  Thanks gaddabout for pointing this out, but I think its really mean of Phil - just when I decided to drop the whole subject for a while he goes and raises it again.....
  (tags: cessationist charismatic article theology spirit)
• Carla dips her toe into the cessationism debate
  O boy, this is so not fair. I had so many other things to blog about! To my mind there is nothing incompatible between the solas and a charismatic view, nor a 3rd wave position on the holy spirit (ie that there are experiences of the Spirit's filling to be sought that we shouldnt call baptism with the Holy Spirit)
  (tags: spirit article cessationist charismatic theology)

I just found an interesting article on TheHeresy.com described as being by Jack Deere:

"No one ever just picked up the Bible, started reading, and then came to the conclusion that God was not doing signs and wonders anymore and that the gifts of the Holy Spirit had passed away. The doctrine of cessationism did not originate from a careful study of the Scriptures. The doctrine of cessationism originated in experience.
The failure to see miracles in one's own experience and to locate them in past history required an explanation. How do you explain an absence of miracles in your experience when the New Testament is filled with miracles? There are essentially three possibilities. First, there is something wrong with your experience. Second, God has withdrawn miracles because He only intended them to serve temporary purposes. Third, the answer is locked in divine mystery, like the mystery of election or predestination. The first answer would lead you to expect the miraculous when your experience was corrected. The second answer wouldn't lead you to expect the miraculous at all. The third answer leaves the question open........

Thus the Reformers were confronted with a choice: was their lack of experience of the miraculous due to a defect in their experience or to a divinely planned obsolescence of miracles? They chose to believe the latter. They now had the monumental task before them of explaining why God would be so liberal in giving miracles to the first-century church and so stingy with miracles in the centuries that followed. The trick was to prove that miracles were meant only to serve temporary purposes in the first century. But how could they prove that?.......Yet here they faced not only a formidable obstacle but an insurmountable obstacle, for they could not produce one specific text of Scripture that taught that miracles or the spiritual gifts were confined to the New Testament period. Nor has anyone else since then been able to do that.

Having been deprived of the most powerful weapon in their arsenal, specific statements of Scripture, the Reformers were forced to appeal to theological deductions. But how were they ever going to deduce that miracles were intended to be temporary from a book that begins with miracles, persists in miracles, and ends with miracles?"

And so it goes on, and so I hereby rest my challenge and agree with Deere that there are no specific statements in scripture that tell us that miracles and other gifts of the Holy Spirit were solely for the church age. Now I will accept that it is possible as Deere goes onto elaborate for so-called "theological deductions" to lead to a cessationist position and I am beginning to understand them more. But, I for one am very uncomfortable with any kind of purely rationalistic theological deduction based doctrine that has no statement in scripture which in any way directly or indirectly supports it.

I am sorry if such a statement offends my cessationist brothers but that is where I stand at the moment. Prove me wrong by all means, but in the meantime do understand that I honestly do fully appreciate the genuiness of many who disagree. Just remember not to point the finger too much at the charismatic as basing their theology on experience, when so much of cessationist thought has at its root experience or rather the lack of it.

I think that I may move on to talk about other areas now, as without anything much to engage with from "the other side" my interest in this so called debate has finally waned. It is not an issue that will go away completely, however, I suspect.

Its that time of the year when we look back, get all misty eyed and think about the year that was. This will probably be a long post, in it I will first reflect on the ridiculously flattering but also rather humbling level of readership that has come this way in 2005, then I will review the highlights of the blogging year for me. Its my chance to think about what I have liked about blogging this year- who knows you might find even some interesting posts you would like to go back and read. Flicking through the archives of someones blog can be very interesting, especially if the pages list only the titles (not the full posts) so you can quickly decide which ones if any seem of interest to you.

Running this blog has been an amazing experience for me this year for which I am very very grateful. I remain convinced that there are many Christian blogs you should be reading rather than this one, but a growing and to me ridiculously high number of you keep coming back. Thank you all so much for all your kindness to me.

Unlike Challies, thanks to the merciful kindness of a friend who hosts this site for free I dont have any concerns about the bandwidth implications of all this traffic, but I do have concerns about the implications for me and this blog as it is a fearsome thing to be potentially leading so many of you astray each month! I dont take a single reader for granted, and pray that each of you may be blessed by what you find here (or at least by what I link to!)

So what have the highlights of the year been for me on this blog? I did a similar post towards the middle of December last year, which highlighted some of my Calvinistic posts of 2004 it was entitled "It's all about you Jesus".

January

Who will forget the aftermath of the Tsunami washing around the Blogosphere- I asked "Why did science allow the tsunami?". The Jerry Springer Opera fiasco was the first real forray of blogs into UK political matters - I subesquently claimed that the BBC had been "blogged". I suspect that UK institutions will learn to fear the blog as much as their US counterparts soon and possibly even in 2006.

I was involved in my first major theological skirmish of the year concerning my coining of the term "neo-liberalism" to define those who consciously desire to change the Christian Church and its message to fit in with postmodernism. Meanwhile I did not do my attempt to prove that David Wayne and I were different people by carrying out an entire theological discussion with him in my own post "disagreeing with the Jollyblogger". I also had the pleasure of discovering Nancy Pearcey and it really was a pleasure.


February

Much of this month was spent on the amazing storm that was generated from my wifes "simple gospel" post. It was suddenly obvious to me that many of the "God bloggers" were actually not sharing the same understanding I had of many of the fundementals of the faith, to the point that for some I was not evern sure they were Christians. This made me realise that contending for the faith online even if read largely by people claiming to be Christians was actually a form of evangelism. I should get my darling Andree to blog more often......

March

I think the main lesson I learnt for me was that you simply cannot allow yourself to get fully sucked into every controversy you see online. I only posted a handful of breif posts on the Terry Shiavio situation. Meanwhile, I announced that my church was moving to a cinema, and it was a relatively quiet month.

April
I posted on what I believe true preaching is like, and a helpful discussion ensued between those who believe Sundays should largely be for believers and those who want to see preaching address both unbelievers and believers. This post was for me critical, and is something that helped me crystalise my own thinking on preaching. I loved the critiques and questions that this issue threw up. I also began blogging about the ESV and started to develop a social styles questionnaire.


May

The preaching debate culminated in a link to a blogotional post that detailed the extent of our preaching debate. I marked the 11-year anniversary of the Toronto phenomena by publishing for the first time an old article of mine on my blog that cateloges the history of the movement and precedents in church history.

The first major interview opportunity of the blog- with the ESV translators was also announced in May. For a while I would become a biblioblogger.

I also started what will no doubt be the longest running and most extensive series on this blog for a long time - "Churches that will change the world". I am currently in a haitus on that one, but fully intend to come back to it - if not sooner the next time I get bloggers block! The series flowed out of a sermon which expresses my belief in what church is capable of.

I also did a series of posts on becoming a succesful blogger which was I think something of a turning point for me, as it was the point where I finally started to realise that this blog was actually remarkably more successful than it probably deserved to be, and that I really had to step up my efforts to help other blogs share some of the limelight which has surprisingly come my way.


June

The ESV interview did somewhat dominate this month, but more was forthcoming on social styles and the church and a handful of other posts got thrown in - one of which tackled the New Perspective on Paul.

I was somewhat carried on a wave of the amazing grace of the ESV people and the new readers I gained through that process. That kind of use of a blog for christian promotional activity is actually something I enjoy, provided I remain in the driving seat - so any marketing people out there drop me a line and I will see what we can do to help....


July

I dared to attenpt to engage the pyromaniac in a debate, and discovered what has since been something of a repeating pattern- he was strangely reticent to pick up the challenge. This puzzled me as it seemed somewhat out of character for Phil Johnson. I also had the pleasure of meeting him for the first time after a decade of online correspondence. He was every bit as engaging and fun to be with as I imagined. I spent a few too many hours with a tool that shows how google "sees" the net. Who will forget the 7th July the day the UK was hit with homegrown sucide bombers?


August

Tamasin showed a great way with words which inspired first a blog post then a sermon on "what is love?" I tried guest bloggers whilst I was away on holiday and despite the wonderful efforts of some great bloggers, decided that this was goign to be a strictly Warnock-only zone from now on except for the comments section (at least for now!). And once more, the blogosphere plugged some of the gaps left by the mainstream media as the New Orleans disaster unfolded- what a year we had.


September

I blogged about my growing frustration with the inaccuracy of the mainstream media. I cant help but wonder whether blogs really will start to take their place even in the UK. I was thrilled to be able to report that Terry Virgo had preached at a UCCF conference and hint at all that represented. The God or Not carnival was launched to significantly less enthusiasm than I expected, and world mags theologica was also born.


October

The highlight of the whole month for me was landing an interview with one of my greatest heroes of the faith: CJ Mahaney. Meanwhile I was ganging up with his daughters to stir up a mini blogstorm on courtship (actually they were eager to dissipate said storm as quickly as possible)


November

The month started fittingly enough as it turned out with a slightly provocative little post entitled "Why not have a noisy time?", much of the rest of the year's blogging would revolve around the charismatic debate which this post prefigured. My posts on preaching with passion and continuing my story also skirted around the subject of the role of the Holy Spirit.

But it was two posts, one by Challies which I responded to in "Convergence or divergence over spirtual gifts and cessationism?" and one from pyromaniac to which I replied "Rubber prophecies prove nothing except some peoples gullibility" that rattled my cage and it seems many others to cause the charismatic/cessationist debate to ignite. There are so many posts on that subject you will really have to flick through the archive page to get a flavour of the debate from my side at least.


December

The charismatic debate continued right up to Christmas, but a couple of interludes during the month included a resurgance of the subject of Bible Translation , two interviews and a reposting of links to some old articles on counselling. All in all its been a great fun year!

One of the ongoing highlights of blogging this year has been the opportunity through Tim Challies to review some great Christian books - if anyone is a book marketeer out there and wants to send me a book to consider mentioning on my blog just drop me an email or approach Tim if you want a few of us to all blog a review.

I have also developed something of a taste for the "Blog interview" usually conducted via email so let me know who you think I should interview next!

Thank you once again. I pray that 2006 will be a great year for you my readers and that together we can continue to explore this still largely uncharted land called blogging.

Tags: article adrianw

• adrianw
• article
• review

Challies has published his Dr. Wayne Grudem interview I will just quote one extract for now to encourage you to go read the rest:

I think we have in the twentieth century a historical aberration not essential to Reformed theology that cessationism has become the dominant view.

Many many thanks to Justin Taylor who in a private email pointed me to an article by Vern Sheridan Poythress. Although bizzarely titled "Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology" I found next to nothing in this article that I disagreed with. If this article is cessationism then I am a cessationist. To me though it seems to be firmly on the charismatic side of the fence since the article argued for a continuation of gifts of the Holy Spirit.

There is definitely scope for some convergence between the moderate charismatic and the moderate cessationist who I suspect constantly fall into the danger of talking past each other. The article is well worth reading in its entirety and I will quote extensively form it here:

Now let us look for a moment at a tangled debate. People debate about whether �prophecy� in the New Testament and the early church was divinely inspired and infallible. Did it possess full divine authority? Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., says that it was inspired. Wayne A. Grudem argues that it was not.20 Many people believe that the outcome of this debate is crucial for the future of the charismatic movement. But actually the outcome of the debate makes very little practical difference today.

Suppose Gaffin is right. Then �prophecy� ceased with the completion of the apostolic era and the completion of the canon of Scripture. Modern phenomena are fallible and hence are not identical with New Testament prophecy. But modern nondiscursive processes with teaching content is analogous to prophecy, just as modern preaching is analogous to apostolic preaching. Hence the general principles concerning spiritual gifts, as articulated in 1 Cor 12-14 and elsewhere, are still applicable. What charismatics call �prophecy� is not really the �prophecy� mentioned in the New Testament. Rather, it is a fallible analogue. It is really a spiritual gift for speaking fallibly through nondiscursive processes. It contrasts with preaching, which is a spiritual gift for speaking fallibly through discursive processes.

Modern nondiscursive processes with circumstantial content are in a sense not really analogous to inspired biblical prophecy. But they can function positively in the service of the Spirit, just as does circumstantial content through discursive processes.

On the other hand, suppose that Grudem is right. Then �prophecy� continues. But such �prophecy� is fallible. It is not identical with the inspired prophecy of the Old Testament. It is in fact a spiritual gift for speaking fallibly through nondiscursive processes. If the content is biblical, its authority derives from the Bible. If the content is circumstantial, it is not an addition to the Bible (not divinely authoritative). Hence it is just information and has no special authority. Hence Grudem ends up with substantially the same practical conclusions as does Gaffin.

Hence, there is no need for Gaffin and Grudem to disagree about the modern phenomena. They disagree only about the label given to the phenomena (�not-prophecy� versus �prophecy�), and about whether the New Testament phenomena were identical or merely analogous to the modern phenomena.

Both Gaffin and Grudem already acknowledge the fallibility of the modern phenomena. Gaffin needs only to take the additional step of integrating the modern phenomena into a theology of spiritual gifts. Given this theological integration, we find that there is an analogical justification for the use of these gifts in the church today.

Grudem, on the other hand, needs only to clarify the status of �prophecy.� �Prophecy,� he says, is fallible, but still revelatory. It still derives from God, and still is important for the well-being of the church. Gaffin and many others find this sort of description difficult to grasp or classify. How can something be �revelatory� and still not compete with the sufficiency of Scripture? I explain how partly by distinguishing teaching content from circumstantial content. Teaching content must not add to Scripture, but can only rephrase what is already there in Scripture. Circumstantial content has the same status as information received through a long-distance telephone call�that is, it has no special claim to authority. It is therefore obvious that neither type of content threatens the sufficiency of Scripture.

If charismatics and noncharismatics could agree on these points, I think that the debate on modern spiritual gifts would be largely over. But there are practical adjustments. People who value nondiscursive gifts have tended to migrate into charismatic circles, where nondiscursive gifts are prized. People who value discursive gifts have migrated into noncharismatic circles, where discursive gifts are prized. Each group tends to prize only people of its own kind. We all need to learn again from 1 Corinthians 12 the importance of every gift, including those with which we have yet to become comfortable.

Tim Challies in my comments section was outraged at my claim that cessationism does not rest on a single verse of scripture. I am sorry to be quite so provokative but in however many weeks of asking in public on my blog, not ONE blogger that I am aware of has been able to offer ONE argument that even mentioned a bible verse to support cessationism. Perhaps I have just missed it, but I havent seen any biblical support for such a view. There is nowhere that says gifts will stop before heaven. There is nowhere that says NT prophecy is authoritative and much that implies it isnt, and most of all Peter quotes Joel who says in the last days the Spirit is to be poured out on all flesh. All flesh seems a bit excessive if all that the Spirit was needed for really was to write the bible. We could have got by without the gifts being tantilisingly offered then withdrawn. If the Spirit was for the last days as Joel and Peter say, then what does that make 2005, sometime AFTER the last days?

Acts 2:16ff ".....these men are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: ��And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy...........

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, �Brothers, what shall we do?� And Peter said to them, �Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.�

Peter didnt add at the end of that paragraph "except anyone born after the cannon of scripture is complete"!

One commentator couldnt quite believe that I was both reformed and charismatic and started quoting chapters of the Westminster Confession at me, well let me cite some lines from that confession and state quite clearly that I believe these lines totally:

1. VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

1. IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

1. X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

18. I. Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation (which hope of theirs shall perish): yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.

18.2 II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.

Now it seems patently obvious to me that the Westminster Divines had in mind a conscious, experiential role for the Holy Spirit in the believers life. Tell me, just how does the Holy Spirit inwardly bear witness to Gods work for the extreme cessationist?

Perhaps there are some out there who long for more of the Holy Spirit. Maybe you fear asking and getting the wrong thing. Well I want to close with the very words of Jesus to you. Given that there are many millions of people alive who have asked Jesus for the Holy Spirit and believe they have received him I cannot see any form of true cessationism that can be consistent with these words of Jesus.

If Christ said it, it settles it for me. What cruel words these would be for Jesus to have said if a horrible deception can be visited on a Christian for no other sin than that he dared to take these words literally and asked God for the gift of the Holy Spirit:

Lk 11:13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!�

Challies has brought in the big guns and is interviewing Dr Sam Waldron and Dr Wayne Grudem on the subject of cessationism/charismaticism. Today, Sam Waldron has an interesting argument which is essentially a cascade argument:

The people we read in my doctoral program (and at the same time these people that would assume that cessationism was nonsensical and not even discussable) would in almost the same breath admit or assume that Apostles no longer exist in the church today ("big A" Apostles). And I thought 'that's inconsistent.' And that was really the birth of my desire to prosecute and my understanding of what I call the cascade argument.....

...I argue that if Apostles are no longer in the church that creates a precedent for discussing the issue of whether prophets are in the church. And then I bring, on the basis of the absence of the Apostolic gift, arguments for the absence of the prophetic gift. And then on the basis of those two things I argue that tongues-speaking was a form of prophecy and on the basis of the precedent set by the absence of Apostles and prophets, we may also argue the absence of tongues-speakers. And with those three arguments set and clear I then proceed to say that we can also argue that miracle workers are no longer given to the church. And therefore you have a kind of cascade from Apostles to prophets to tongues-speakers to miracle workers.

The problem is with all this very reasonable sounding argument is that firstly I am not aware of any verse in scripture that contradicts what Paul tells us which is that apostles will be given to us until the church is mature.

Secondly even if there was such a scripture we need more than that to support a flimsy extension of the argument from reason. Where is the exegesis? Where is the theory of not building doctrine on a single verse? This whole cessationist house of cards is worse than that as it stands on not a single verse of scripture!

Apostles are meant to continue, The passage in Ephesians 4 which I will close this post with is clear enough. But my readers will say, what of scripture writing? Well, guess what, scripture writing wasnt the only function of the apostles. If it was then only one of them was very productive in it! Whats more if it was the sole preserve of apostles to write scripture Mark and Luke must have been usurping their role! What were the apostles doing the rest of their lives when they werent writing scripture? Simply doing almost exactly what there modern counterparts from today are doing - planting new churches, training leaders, appointing elders, pastoring the pastors and fixing churches that got in a mess.

To summarise, scripture writing and apostleship are two distinct functions. Of course scripture writing would stop when the bible was complete, as by definition you cant continue to do something that has stopped. But as long as the world needs church leaders it will still need apostles.

The church today NEEDS apostles just as much as it needs the other key gifts to the church listed in Eph 4. A while back I came accross a quote via Terry Virgo's: "a pastor loves people and the teacher loves books'" At the time, I thought it could be helpfully reworded and expanded as follows.

A pastor loves Christians
A teacher loves books
An evangelist loves non-Christians
A prophet loves God
An apostle loves the Church

Clearly we need church leaders who do all these things. Equally clearly, each of our leaders will inevitably focus more on one of these aspects than the others. Without them all (and I definitely include the apostle in that) a church will be lopsided at best, and heretical at worst. This is why churches still today need team leadership rather than the Pastor-is-king mentatlity of some.

A church which only loves the non-Christian will soon become a rather unpleasant place to be, where you are valued only for the number of people you bring there. A church which only loves Christians will be an exclusive club and impossible to join. A church which only loves books will be more like a bible school than a community. A church which only loves God may be of little use on earth, and may at times be offensive for the sake of being offensive. A church which only loves the church itself, whilst ignoring its purpose, may become a beauracracy riven with power struggles and devoid of direction.

Thank God the bible says 'It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.' (Eph 4:11-16, NIV)

In a challenge to us charismatics and pentecostals, Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength asks "Speaking in Tongues: How Widespread is Faking? "

The fact that there are counterfeits around does not negate the true. For me, I received tongues suddenly and without anyone coaching me. I have however heard of people "coaching" at times.

I havent much time to blog right now, but I do just want to point you to two of the veritable gaggle of reformed charismatics we now have forming. It is interesting how the storm that is the whole charismatic debate has had an incredibly positive effect over on this side of the blogosphere divide. Over the centuries heretics served the church well by causing a coming together of Gods people and a formulation of good doctrine. Whilst I wouldn't want to call Phil Johnson a heretic, he and others have played at least a part in prodding some lurking reformed charismatics to band together and post on the subject.

The two that I want to really highlight today are both written by Sovereign Grace pastors.

The first pastor blogger Mark Lauterbach is passionate about the gospel and encourages us in his profile to listen to sermons by reformed pastor Tim Keller claiming no one preaches better gospel saturated sermons than Dr Keller. I love Mark's last seven posts the majority of which all speak in a respectful and biblically informed way about how he came to believe that when it comes to cessationism "there is no exegetical base for this conclusion".

Read them all, you wont regret it:

• Genetic inbreeding
• PS on Reformed Continuationist
• Reformed Continuationist Part 3
• A Favorite Quote
• Reformed Continuationist part 2
• Applying the Gospel to the details
• How did I become a Reformed Continuationist?
  

The second is by Chris Daukas who has an eight part series which lends weighty exegetical support to some of the key reformed charismatic propositions - there is real biblical theology in these posts, and again I would encourage you to read them.

• The Ministry of the Holy Spirit: Part 8
• The Ministry of the Holy Spirit: Part 7
• The Ministry of the Holy Spirit: Part 6
• The Ministry of the Holy Spirit: Part 5
• The Ministry of the Holy Spirit: Part 4
• The Ministry of the Holy Spirit: Part 3
• The Ministry of the Holy Spirit: Part 2
• The Ministry of the Holy Spirit: For Today?
  

This debate really has been very one sided so far. Is there anyone out there prepared to take on such heavyweights as these Godly men?

Many thanks to Jacob Hantla for a link to "Google Fight". Its time to settle a few scores the old fashioned way. Step outside gentleman. Square up. Prepare to fight. Keep it clean boys.......



The fixtures

1. Reformed Charismatic vs Reformed Cessationist
2. Phil Johnson vs Michael Spencer
3. Jollyblogger vs Blogotional
4. Joe Carter vs Hugh Hewitt
5. ESV vs NIV
6. Adrian Warnock vs Tim Challies


Who will be the winners......?

------------------------------------------------------

Stop reading now if you want to avoid the spoilers

------------------------------------------

The post match analysis

1. Reformed Charismatic vs Reformed Cessationist

Total domination by the charismatics - the poor old cessationists didnt stand a chance. Of course in some circles the fact that cessationism seems now to be a minority position at least online actually stands in its favour!

2. Phil Johnson vs Michael Spencer

Two heavyweight bloggers fought so furiously it seemed like one of them would knock the other out. Phil only just scraped through.....

3. Jollyblogger vs blogotional

Blogotional never really stood a chance in this match but he put up a surprisingly good fight

4. Joe Carter vs Hugh Hewitt

Well all I can say is poor Joe never stood a chance......

5. ESV vs NIV

There clearly is life in the old dog yet. I always liked to back the underdog

6. Adrian Warnock vs Tim Challies

Modesty forbids me to gloat or in any way comment on this result.......

Just when I was begining to think convergence was possible on the charismatic debate the southern baptists IMB have taken a renegade step in my view. They have banned all future missionaries from speaking in tongues. In classical Christian hypocrisy they have decided not to make that ruling retrospective. Anyone currently serving as a missionary can still speak in tongues privately. I cannot see the logic of this decision. If tongues is not of God why permit existing missionaries to continue this practice? (HT Paul Schafer)

If we can agree to disagree on prophecy (by essentially recognising we each have different definitions of what prophecy is) I suspect that mentioning tongues will reignite our charismatic/cessationist debate and may be more difficult to come to an agreement on. Having said that I am still convinced of my position on prophecy- as a smart home school mum says "if prophecy is synonymous with scripture, then a problem quickly forms. Should modern day believers aspire to write their own book of the Bible? Obviously not - Paul clearly isn�t asking me (Adrian: or for that matter his first century readers) to write the book of IV Kings"

Paul has a clear command to the readers of his epistles. We ususally take these commands as applying to us today. I hope the Southern Baptist Missionary Agency have some solid exegesis to support not applying this command to today as I certainly havent seen anything that would convince me to disobey this command of Paul:

Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order. 1 Cor 14:36-40

Google Blog search is as always a great way to follow the debate- there are some interesting blog entries to read.

Meanwhile Josh Harris, a Reformed Charismatic pastor has published his most recent sermon on how married people can help singles find a husband or wife (!) I thought that it was really good and would encourage you to listen to it. At the end of the message a prophecy is shared- if you want to find out a bit more what a reformed charismatic church looks like, I would recommend listening to this sermon. I had it in mind to listen to already but thanks goes to Carolyn for letting us know the sermon was up. Incidently, Carolyn's book "Did I kiss marriage goodbye" is worth buying just for the title alone!

Gaddabout also has an interesting post about the differences in approach to healing between charismatics with and without a reformed slant.

With all the recent hullabaloo over things charismatic I honestly thought Id be on a slippery slope towards no longer being seen as a reformed blogger! Imagine my surprise to read this Community Blog emtry: ".....to me, the Calvinist blogosphere is made up of what is endorsed by Tim Challies, Phil Johnson, Modergism.com and Adrian Warnock......"Thats scary stuff! Does that make the four of us some kind of Godfathers or gangsters I ask myself?

I am working on a list of Reformed Charismatic bloggers- if you are one and would like to be included in such a list please let me know. If you arent one and I have included you as one by acccident, please also let me know! I will post more about this probably later on to day, for now its off to work I go!

UPDATE

This seems to be an idea of the moment. God is clearly doing something in gathering us reformed and charismatic bloggers together. I am so excited that requests to join are positively flooding in!

It is a good time for this to happen especially with the Charismatic /cessationist debate continuing to mushroom. (The link takes you to the Google Blog search feed which is probably the best way to keep up to date with it)

To those of you who have asked to join, I will ask one of my helpers Scott or Diane to help in a basic check of the blogs and to add you.

Please can you also promote this on your blogs. A link and/or a blog post would be fantastic right about now. I am sure there are more out there who would love to be in.

As far as definitions, I dont plan on giving people a theology exam (or for that matter ask them to speak in tongues over google talk!) to decide whether to admit someone or not - essentially we will have to rely on folks to be honest about whether they shoud be described as both reformed and charismatic. A good rough guide on the reformed side might be the entry requirements for the league of reformed bloggers, which incidently I would encourage you to join as well!

If you would like to include the complete list of Reformed and Charismatic blogs on your own site please simply include the following code in your template:

<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://rpc.blogrolling.com/display.php?r=3ca91c144e1c15ae28510e69140149f8"></script>

Cerulean Sanctum, Chis Daukas, True Grit and Gaddabout have blogged for the charismatic side. Posts from the other side seem rather sparse- I can only find one from David Wayne, and he doesnt really count as most people think he and I are the same person anyway! Meanwhile Rob continues to tirelessly keep us up to date with all the goings on.

So really, it would be almost unfair of me to wade in with very much today, so I wont.... Its a shame that our cessationist friends seem to tire so easily. Perhaps those long worship services where you jig about in time to drum and bass and then foget to sit down give us charismaniacs more stamina?

UPDATE- the above comment was intended as a JOKE. Unfortunately jokes dont always come accross well on the internet. Someone felt that I sounded cocky. I have cause offense to at least one brother and I am very sorry for that, please take the above in the way in which it was intended.

PyroManiac is a wiley rascal. He is STILL trying to claim that he o so innocently had no thought of cessation in is head when he started his series on modern prophets. But, cessationism is so much part of him that he didnt even need to have the thought in his head for it to come out so clearly to those of us reading his blog! Later on, in his own post the clear truth of his underlying assumptions comes out - he couldnt supress it any more:

So here's my challenge to those continuationists who insist that the problem of bogus prophecies pales in importance compared to the exegetical issues raised by cessationism: Name one faithful modern prophet whose prognostications are both objectively verifiable and always one-hundred percent accurate. Because that is the biblical standard (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).
If you argue (as most do) that the gifts being practiced today are different in quality from the gifts possessed by the apostles themselves, you are actually arguing for a kind of cessationism yourself. If no one can identify a prophet who meets the biblical standard for basic accuracy, the question of cessationism is essentially moot anyway.

And we seem to have hit the heart of the cause of misunderstanding between charismatic and cessationist. You see, the Deuteronomy text is from the Old Testament and when we come to the New we see a totally different view of prophecy and prophets. Prophecy in the new testament IS described as fallible- 1 Cor 13:20 "For we know in part and we prophesy in part", and we are urged to test prophecy and hold on to the good of it.

I have already conceded on behalf of all my charismatic blogging friends: WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN CONTINUATION OF 100% ACCURATE PROPHETIC REVELATION. If Phil is ready to join with jollyblogger in conceding that God DOES speak today through fallible impressions to his followers then we almost dont have an argument to have. This is all about definitions in my view........

If prophecy really was infallible in the New Testament then tell me, how did the Corinthians get into such a mess with it? They really were the first charismaniacs!

Blogging is a format that permits the formation of community that crosses the boundaries we feel in the real world.

The so-called on coming storm of the cessationist vs charismatic debate in some ways proves it. For, whilst I think Rob somewhat overstates his point, he is I hope and pray correct in his prediction. There is a real sense of community and trust among many theobloggers. Such trust leads me to be convinced that seriously and respectfully disagreeing with each other about something so vital and controversial as the Gifts of the Holy Spirit is possible without that sense of community evaporating. Here's what Rob had to say:

....the beauty of this storm, however, and the spectacle it will bring will not be that of damage and death. No, this is a Christian battle, where most of those forming the 'battle lines' are Warnie Award Winners! That means we desperately love each other and are committed to each other to the death, and not primarily to our theological positions. In other words, I'd die for Phil Johnson or David Wayne before I'd die for my charismatic convictions. I love them more than I love my theology, though to be sure, it is entirely my theology that drives me to think and live this way......

Unlike forum arguments who's anonymous nature sometimes seem to breed a hit and run mentality , blogging, at least in the successful God bloggers a gradual moderation in tone over time. I know it has happened with me.

Even the pyromaniac sounded soft today as he promised to fight clean and lined up a couple of supporters on the cessationist front:

Despite all the militant language flying around the blogosphere suggesting you're about to witness a bloody cage match over the issue of cessationism, I personally don't expect anything rancorous..........

While I'm at it, let me say that if all charismatics were of the Mahaney/Piper/Grudem variety, I probably wouldn't pick a fight over our differences on the charismata. That's not to say I approve of any kind of charismatic mysticism, but if no one ever went any further than, say, the typical guy from Sovereign Grace Ministries, I don't think I would spend much energy arguing against them.

I grew up in Tulsa, however, and the true roots of the charismatic movement are there, not in Geneva. Despite what they want you to think, "Reformed" charismatics are a fairly new kind of hybrid, and they do not represent the mainstream of either the Reformed or charismatic movements. I like their zeal. I appreciate (and share) their desire for passionate (rather than cold and dry) orthodoxy. There's a lot about them I esteem highly, and I am certainly not merely looking for another group of people to make angry.

.....I'm willing to argue the point. But not in an acrimonious way, and not until I've finished what I was going to say. So if you're looking for me to verbally bust some charismatic heads this week, you may be bitterly disappointed

Incidently, a commentator on his post asked "What is a cessationist" and other commentators were too mean to answer (although to be fair one seemed keen to get the guy using google or wikkipedia). Just for one more reason why you should read my blog as well as Phil's here's an answer for that questionner:

A cessationist is someone who believes that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in the new testament (eg tongues, prophecy, healing, etc) no longer occur today. Charismatics and pentecostals both believe the Gifts continue.

A Reformed Charismatic is not like a "reformed alcoholic" ie someone who used to be a charismatic then gave it up, rather it is someone who holds to both reformed theology and a charismatic position on the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Meanwhiled Doxoblogy and Chris Hamer come out for a non-cessationist postition and somebody recommended Rodman Williams webpage.

Incidently, if any enterprising blogger wants to put a post together listing resources and/or blogs cited in the comments sections of the various posts on this subject that would be great- thanks everyone for some great suggestions. I guarentee a link from here to any such post. What would be great would be to tabulate a list of books and blogs to read from both sides of the fence.

If I was feeling particularly cheeky, I would encourage someone else to tabulate bible verses used by both camps to support their position. Trouble is, I suspect that finding many bible verses that the cessationists cite might prove difficult.....

Those of you interested in following or contributing to the brewing debate may want to use the following Google Blogsearch feed as a way of keeping track of it.

There has been little action yet but the comments section of my blog suggests that some bloggers are preparing themselves in the wings to join the action. There have been some great book recommendations also in the comments of some of my previous posts.

Let the debate begin! Lets be nice to each other, OK?

Challies nails his colours to the mast on the charisma debate, making it clear where he stands in a review of a book by Sam Storms which advocates a convergence of Reformed people and Charismatics. As one who has already converged I think I would find this book interesting. Here's what Tim said:

"While I admire much of Storms' ministry and have benefited greatly from reading some of his previous writings, and this book was useful in helping me understand how charismatic teachings are blended with Reformed soteriology, it that did little to challenge me or to convince me to set aside my cessationist beliefs. I suppose it is a bit ironic that Storms seems to fall back into the greatest criticism Calvinists have towards charismatic teachings: very few people offer substantial scriptural proof for them and rely instead on experience as the final arbiter of truth. Many arguments in this book seem to boil down to, 'you will just know when you experience it' or 'disbelief is usually the case with such events until they happen to you.' I am thankful to see Calvinists and charismatics who agree on the foundational doctrines of the faith coming 'Together for the Gospel,' but see no biblical foundation to support the type of convergence Storms suggests."

Two thoughts spring to mind. Firstly I had no idea before today that Tim was definitely a cessationist although I supose if I had thought much about it I would have guessed as much. Why is it that whilst blogging some of these issues seem to matter a whole lot less than they do in the real world - at least until a debate is struck.

Secondly, it fascinates me that Tim feels the main argument charismatics use is from experience. Bizarrely I have always felt that experience, or rather the lack of it is the main argument used by cessationists. I still havent seen a single expositonal point that I feel has any real weight from the other side. O, for sure we can all be guilty of using bad experiences or good experiences as the arbiter, but I honestly believe that if I had never experienced any of the so called charismata I would still have been convinced that they were available today from scripture and would have spend my life following Pauls command to earnestly desire them.

It seems that a debate is brewing. Pyromaniac and Challies in one corner, me in the other (maybe someone else will spring to my defence I hope!) . I hope Jollyblogger will act as referee. I hope that Pyro and Challie will be able to get a chance to interact with some of my old material on this subject (from a debate with jollyblogger) which I linked to in my reaction to pyromaniacs charismatic baiting- it could all make for some interesting blogging. I only hope it doesnt lead to a divergence in the Christian Blogosphere!