Sunday 22 January 2006 at 11:10 pm
Just a couple of quick ones:
1. If you're mentioning my name on your page, please spell it S-T-E-V-E-N not S-T-E-P-H-E-N, thanks :)
2. The heresy quiz wasn't me attempting to announce once and for all who is in and who is out of the kingdom of God, please don't get upset. Everyone's a little bit of a heretic you know, it's just a question of degree :)
And one more thing...
In church today I noticed something in the reading that got my attention:
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea.
(Isaiah 11:9)
Question: what does it mean for the "waters to cover the sea"? Surely, the waters are the sea, in which case how do they cover it? And if the "waters" and the "sea" are different, how do you tell them apart? Hmm.
It's things like that which stop me concentrating through sermons.
Thursday 19 January 2006 at 11:17 pm
"Why, they say, are those miracles, which you affirm were wrought formerly, wrought no longer? I might, indeed, reply that miracles were necessary before the world believed, in order that it might believe. And whoever now-a-days demands to see prodigies that he may believe, is himself a great prodigy, because he does not believe, though the whole world does.
For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ, whether by His sacraments or by the prayers or relics of His saints; but they are not so brilliant and conspicuous as to cause them to be published with such glory as accompanied the former miracles. For the canon of the sacred writings, which behoved to be closed, causes those to be everywhere recited, and to sink into the memory of all the congregations; but these modern miracles are scarcely known even to the whole population in the midst of which they are wrought, and at the best are confined to one spot. For frequently they are known only to a very few persons, while all the rest are ignorant of them, especially if the state is a large one; and when they are reported to other persons in other localities, there is no sufficient authority to give them prompt and unwavering credence, although they are reported to the faithful by the faithful."
City of God Book 22, Chapter 8
Thursday 19 January 2006 at 12:54 am
After 48 hours of trauma and lament, many of my technical woes are at an end. Here's what's what:
1. Comments should now work again. You don't need to log in or register a username, just post away as normal. There is now extra spam protection, so if you try and post a comment and get redirected to an anti-spam site, it's because you've used one of the forbidden words, which are too rude to repeat here.
2. If you can't comment, e-mail me. and let me know what happened. Same applies if you can't trackback, though that should be ok now.
3. The search engine works again, hurrah!
4. If you're a spammer, I will hunt you down and hurt you. A lot.
5. Tomorrow I'm going to fix my graphics card so that my display is not blurry and I'll be able to write properly without ruining my eyes.
Thursday 19 January 2006 at 12:39 am
Over the last few months Reformed blogging heavyweights Adrian Warnock and Phillip Johnson have been slugging it out over the issue of the charismatic gifts and whether or not they are still in operation. On the whole I agree with Adrian - I would affirm the reality and continuation of signs and wonders such as healings and prophecy on both biblical, historical and experiential grounds. That said Phil also raises some good points about the apostolic ministry in New Testament times, though I would disagree with his claim that "It is obvious from the biblical narrative that miracles were declining in frequency even before the apostolic era drew to a close" as the earliest church writings and patristic writings also strongly affirm the reality in the church of what we would now call "the charismatic gifts".
The aim of this post is not to rehearse all the usual arguments that both sides of the debate have already elaborated on at length, but to offer what I believe will be some helpful thoughts and corrections in thinking on the matter.
Gifts and Eschatology
My pet frustration with a lot of discussion on the Holy Spirit is an almost complete failure to connect the work of the Holy Spirit with eschatology. By 'eschatology' I don't mean controversies over the Antichrist, the mark of the beast and the rapture, but rather what the New Testament refers to as the "age to come". The 'miracles' experienced in the Gospels and apostolic period should not technicallty be called miracles. In fact, if we look at the Greek words used to describe these phenomena it would be more accurate to refer to them as 'signs', 'portents' or 'omens'. It may seem a only a subtle or even petty difference in terminology - but it's a crucial one. Healings, exorcisms and prophecies (and so on) are heralds of what is to come, that is the Future which God has promised, where the world will be made anew and sin, sickness and death will be eradicated. One of the tasks of the Holy Spirit in the present is to make this Future known to us, to give us a taste of what God has promised. Of course the greatest sign and promise of all is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, which is itself the "firstfruit" of what is to come (1 Cor 15) and is to be understood in connection with that which it heralds. Briefly, here are two more scriptures for consideration:
" It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,
who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the
powers of the coming age..." (Heb 6:4-6)
and also
"Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory." (Eph 1:13-14)
Note in both scriptures the experience of the Holy Spirit in the present is connected with what is to come in the Future, and at the same time the Spirit makes known to us now what is still to come, and in so doing reshapes our present evil age and ushers in the age to come.
A more helpful framework for discussion
You might wonder why I'm so keen to labour the point about the Holy Spirit being bound up with eschatology, so I'll carry on and try and make myself clear. Many Christians (certainly in the West) over the last millennium or so, and even more so since the Enlightenment, have a worldview which is essentially split into two parts, the 'natural' and 'supernatural', with the natural referring to the world we know and inhabit, and the supernatural referring to that which is above and beyond the natural, and where natural laws and boundaries do not apply. We are 'natural', but God is 'supernatural', and what is more he occasionally demonstrates his supernatural ability by doing something in the "natural" that we consider to be miraculous. For instance if someone is healed, it's proof that there is a "supernatural" after all in a universe which has settled for "natural" reasoning and understanding.
I would argue that much misunderstanding over "miraculous gifts" occurs because we are still operating in a natural-supernatural framework which is at its heart a deistic scheme, and a far cry from the Bible. The proper context for understanding the 'miraculous' is in terms of the conflict between the present evil age and the age to come, which has already begun to break in with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not in terms of an overriding of the natural with the supernatural. When Jesus healed a leper (for example) he is not saying "look, there is a supernatural being after all, and what's more, I am he. Watch me walk on water..." he is overthrowing and removing the reign of sin and evil by forgiving sin and restoring those who are held in their grip, which in turn heralds the day when God will "make all things new." The New Testament is not looking up and beyond, it is looking forward.
If we then come back to original question of charismatic gifts and try and now understand them in the wider context of the eschatological ministry of the Holy Spirit, it becomes more difficult to maintain a staunchly cessationist position. It seems illogical to assume that although we are still largely sat on the "not yet" end of the eschatological see-saw (that's a teeter-totter to you North Americans), God has withdrawn the ministry of signs and wonders that herald and prefigure what he has promised. Adrian and I would both agree that the canon of scripture is closed, but this does not mean it is necessary to then assume that now scripture is available, God no longer gives the world a foretaste of the world to come. If the canon of scripture is the only place where we find attestations to miraculous gifts, then they remain stuck in the first century and have little ability to change and transform the present. Unsurprisingly this has all too often led many to treat biblical accounts of the 'miraculous' as myths and stories, and strong cessationist positions are inadvertently ensuring that the eschatological power of God remains trapped in the prison of first century history.
The continued need for signs in eschatology
I'm not going to offer a series of detailed exegeses of all the pertinent texts that relate to this issue, and I'm not sure that - in the original contexts at any rate - there was even the slightest notion of such a thing as a charismatic v cessationist debate, but it would be useful to briefly discuss one text in closing:
"...where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (1 Cor 13:8-12)
Scarcely has there ever been a more bloody battleground in charismatic v cessationist debates than over this text and what it does (or indeed, does not) say. Attempts have been made to make "when perfection comes" mean "when the canon of scripture has been completed" by some naughty exegetes, but frankly, there is just no way that Paul has this in mind here, if indeed he could have even conceived of such a thing. Paul is trying to build up the Corinthian church in the "most excellent way" of love, and indeed has some strong words for those who think charismatic gifts are the be-all and end-all (see this post for some previous thoughts on this) and the goal of this edification is "perfection" - but this process is clearly still not complete. Paul still seems himself in the present as the "poor reflection in a mirror" and is still awaiting the transition where he will see "face to face" (note again the thinking is in terms of present-future/now-not yet, and not natural-supernatural) and crucially he sees that the need for tongues and prophecy as part of this ongoing process which is pointed forwards. Tongues, prophecy and healing (and so on) are always orientated towards this goal, which is an eschatological goal, and until we reach it we have every need of this ministry of the Spirit as we have done at any time since the New Testament.
Next I want to post more specifically on the issue of prophecy and scripture, which I believe to be essentially a debate about revelation and authority rather than specifically about charismatics and cessationists. It is a debate which in my view is not helped by confusion in evangelicalism over the relationship between Christology and a doctrine of scripture, as often Christ is made subservient to the text of the Bible which then causes all kinds of problems for discussing things like prophetic utterances in the modern church and whether they are authoritative or not. Anything (including scripture) is only authoritative because Christ makes it so, and if we attempt to express the debate in relation to God's self-revelation Christ and not primarily in terms of scripture v experience then things will hopefully be clearer. But more on that next week.
Wednesday 18 January 2006 at 5:56 pm
A fair few people have now taken the Are you are heretic? quiz which seems to have thrown up a few surprises and also a few e-mails. If you've e-mailed me, I have no way of responding to you because QuizFarm doesn't tell me what your e-mail address is, so apologies. Anyhow, in no particular order, here are the various heresies and the questions you had to answer to score on them (all the definitions are copied-and-pasted from here because I've been typing all afternoon and it's just easier.)
1. Docetism
-God is Spirit, not matter, so Jesus' body was spiritual and only seemed like it was physical
-God cannot co-exist with matter, Jesus only appeared to be fully human
-Created matter is fallen and corrupt, so Jesus did not take on full human nature
Docetism was an error with several variations concerning the nature of Christ. Generally, it taught that Jesus only appeared to have a body, that he was not really incarnate, (Greek, "dokeo" = "to seem"). This error developed out of the dualistic philosophy which viewed matter as inherently evil, that God could not be associated with matter, and that God, being perfect and infinite, could not suffer. Therefore, God as the word, could not have become flesh.
2. Apollinarianism
-Jesus' human nature is lesser than his divine nature.
-Jesus' mind was divine, not merely human.
-Jesus' ordinary human soul was overcome by the the divine Logos inside him
Apollinarianism was the heresy taught by Apollinaris the Younger, bishop of Laodicea in Syria about 361. He taught that the Logos of God, which became the divine nature of Christ, took the place of the rational human soul of Jesus and that the body of Christ was a glorified form of human nature. In other words, though Jesus was a man, He did not have a human mind but that the mind of Christ was solely divine. Apollinaris taught that the two natures of Christ could not coexist within one person. His solution was to lessen the human nature of Christ. Apollinarianism was condemned by the Second General Council at Constantinople in 381.
3. Arianism
-Having been the first creation of the Father, the Son then created the Holy Spirit
-The divine Logos replaced Jesus' human nature in the incarnation
-Only God the Father is eternal, and he produced the Son out of nothing
Arius taught that only God the Father was eternal and too pure and infinite to appear on the earth. Therefore, God produced Christ the Son out of nothing as the first and greatest creation. The Son is then the one who created the universe. Because the Son relationship of the Son to the Father is not one of nature, it is, therefore, adoptive. God adopted Christ as the Son. Though Christ was a creation, because of his great position and authority, he was to be worshipped and even looked upon as God. Some Arians even held that the Holy Spirit was the first and greatest creation of the Son.
4. Adoptionism
-Jesus was raised from the dead and united with God as a reward for his obedience
-'Son of God' refers to Jesus' divine nature only. As man he is simply the 'firstborn'.
-Jesus was given supernatural powers and made the Son of God at his baptism
Adoptionism is an error concerning Christ that first appeared in the second century. Those who held it denied the preexistence of Christ and, therefore, His deity. Adoptionists taught that Jesus was tested by God and after passing this test and upon His baptism, He was granted supernatural powers by God and adopted as the Son. As a reward for His great accomplishments and perfect character Jesus was raised from the dead and adopted into the Godhead.
5. Gnosticism
-Jesus was not really God incarnate, because God cannot indwell corrupted matter
-Salvation will ultimately involve an escape from physical reality
-God is Spirit, and so spirit is good. Matter is bad.
The word "gnosticism" comes from the Greek word "gnosis" which means "knowledge." There were many groups that were Gnostic and it isn't possible to easily describe the nuances of each variant of Gnostic doctrines. However, generally speaking, Gnosticism taught that salvation is achieved through special knowledge (gnosis). This knowledge usually dealt with the individual's relationship to the transcendent Being.
A more detailed Gnostic theology is as follows. The unknowable God was far too pure and perfect to have anything to do with the material universe which was considered evil. Therefore, God generated lesser divinities, or emenations. One of these emanations, Wisdom desired to know the unknowable God. Out of this erring desire the demiurge an evil god was formed and it was this evil god that created the universe. He along with archons kept the mortals in bondage in material matter and tried to prevent the pure spirit souls from ascending back to god after the death of the physical bodies. Since, according to the Gnostics, matter is evil, deliverance from material form was attainable only through special knowledge revealed by special Gnostic teachers. Christ was the divine redeemer who descended from the spiritual realm to reveal the knowledge necessary for this redemption. In conclusion, Gnosticism is dualistic. That is, it teaches there is a good and evil, spirit and matter, light and dark, etc. dualism in the universe.
Read more...
Wednesday 18 January 2006 at 1:56 pm
*deep breath*
Right, comments should be working again after a bit of fiddling with my blogging software. The only trouble is that to make comments work I had to disable some of my anti-spam files so if comments suddenly stop working again, it's because I've had to turn the spam prevention up a notch or two.
If anyone reading this uses Pivot weblog software, could you please e-mail me a copy of submit.php that goes with version 1.3 beta 3? Adding the blacklist require_once line to my own submit.php corrupts it, and its the same no matter how many fresh copies of Beta 3 I download. I just need to see a working copy to make sure I'm doing something right. Ta!
Monday 16 January 2006 at 11:58 pm
Job never had a computer or a blog, but if he did, his life would have been somewhat like mine was today. Here's why computers are tools of evil:
1. My wireless internet connection keeps breaking down. I can't surf the web for more than 20 minutes at a time before my connection drops.
2. I got rid of my old monitor last week because the display was blurring (it was 8 years old in all fairness). I have a new monitor that worked fine until today, and now the same problem is back. Turns out the problem is with my graphics card and there's nothing I can do short of forking out £50 for a new one. In the meantime my eyes are being destroyed everytime I look at the monitor.
3. Some spammer found away around my security and has spammed me every two minutes in the last 24 hours with various obscene trackbacks. I've fixed it now, but it took me two hours to delete every last trackback he sent. It made me more angry than I think I've been for years.
4. I upgraded my blogging software to the latest version, and now the comments don't work. They worked fine last night (see the test comment in the post below this one) but now they don't work anymore (as you'll notice if you try and comment on this post). I didn't change anything, yet somehow the problem appeared out of nowhere. Hmm.
5. I cycled 4 miles to a meeting this afternoon and got a puncture.
6. Then one of the bolts holding my back wheel mudguard came off, meaning the back end of my bike is now held on with tape.
7. My printer won't print colour today, it just prints grey lines. It worked fine yesterday.
8. The DVD drive on my PC no longer reads movie DVDs.
9. That's it, but far too many stressful things to happen in one day. Agh.
10. Agh.