tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post5557908979064953025..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Showing the Spirit by D.A. CarsonPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50559587868435436582014-11-26T07:57:10.380-08:002014-11-26T07:57:10.380-08:00Charlie Solomon (Oct. 05, 2013) wrote: "To b...Charlie Solomon (Oct. 05, 2013) wrote: "To be highly skeptical of anything charismatic seems to me to be a reasonable position. But unless the Bible says they will cease I think that a staunch ceasationist position is as unscriptural as what the radical pentecostals do.... Don't despise prophesy but test everything. That's the command that keeps us from going too extreme in either direction."<br /><br />We are, as earth bound creatures, more, rather than less, susceptible to doubt, misunderstand or outright reject the mysterious wind of the Spirit's operations (whether in the new birth [Jn. 3] or the "manifestation of the Spirit" [1 Cor. 12:7]). <br /><br />I agree with you Charlie, that the biblical "command that keeps us from going too extreme in either direction" is the apostolic command to NOT "despise prophesy but test everything." We are, it seems, more adroit and have a stronger penchant for rejecting Godly things than learning how to test them and holding "fast to that which is good".Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12362057877298371394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1791795167531231872013-10-05T11:49:42.513-07:002013-10-05T11:49:42.513-07:00Sorry, I never caught that article. To be highy sk...Sorry, I never caught that article. To be highy skeptical of anything charismatic seems to me to be a reasonable position. But unless the Bible says they will cease I think that a staunch ceasationist position is as unscriotural as what the radical pentecostals do. And you have to work very hard, and ignore a lot of clear scripture to say they will cease from a purely scriptural point of view. Don't despise prophesy but test everything. Thats the command that keeps us from going too extreme in either direction. Charlie Solomonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07882975710630644226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-34851056845644869882013-10-05T04:35:36.955-07:002013-10-05T04:35:36.955-07:00It's a good thing that we already anticipated ...It's a good thing that <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-no-no-no-youre-arguing-from.html" rel="nofollow">we already anticipated and dealt with</a> the charismatics' sad attempt to turn around the trenchant observation that their movement lives on claims (or promises) of <i>experience</i>, and make it an anti-sufficient-scripture argument.<br /><br />Otherwise, it'd just keep coming up over and over again.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9780630023428871642013-10-03T14:44:32.984-07:002013-10-03T14:44:32.984-07:00Charlie:
I think you need to re-read the review a...Charlie:<br /><br />I think you need to re-read the review and these comments before you dive off that cliff.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9699402865223033562013-09-30T09:56:03.992-07:002013-09-30T09:56:03.992-07:00When I look at arguments against the supernatural ...When I look at arguments against the supernatural gufts I see a lot of points about the abuses that have happened with them (and there are many) but looking from a purely scriptural point of view, I an utterly convinced that there is no way that somebody on a desert island with Bible would ever come to the conclusion that some gifts will cease. With all the talk about these gifts in scripture wouldn't God make tell us more explicitly if he wanted then to stop? But instead he tells us the opposite, don't forbid tonges and don't despise prophecy. I admit I have never spoken in tongues and have not first hand witnessed it in any convincing or edifying way, but having such a strong opinion that they are ceased, when the bible doesn't say it (unless you work hard to make it say it) is simply not being good exegetics. Charlie Solomonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07882975710630644226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78340654300045400272013-08-23T11:12:25.707-07:002013-08-23T11:12:25.707-07:00Trogdor:
Exactly.Trogdor:<br /><br />Exactly.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-64971189599262681972013-08-23T10:42:56.252-07:002013-08-23T10:42:56.252-07:00In sum, Carson argues:
1) Those who insisted da G...In sum, Carson argues:<br /><br />1) Those who insisted da Gifts were necessary were flat-out wrong<br /><br />2) Scripture explicitly denounces the idea that those gifts are a special second blessing for the super-spiritual<br /><br />3) All spiritual gifts are a means of, and subservient to, the Spirit's greater work of turning sinful dead people into the living people of God marked by sanctified overflowing love<br /><br />4) The post-apostolic history of da Gifts is that of small fringe groups riddled with rank heresies and abuses, while true revivals have been marked by love, piety, reverence for scripture, and have been lacking in da Gifts<br /><br />But he thinks tongues may kinda-sorta exist in a form completely different from every Biblical example, requiring a decent imagination to conceive of, lacking any scriptural warrant, and reducing the gift of interpretation to an Ovaltine secret decoder ring.<br /><br />And charismatics cite this book as their support?trogdorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452996348717802065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78270341890816568772013-08-22T15:30:06.854-07:002013-08-22T15:30:06.854-07:00Well, that settles or. Again.Well, that settles or. Again.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19857218674643472522013-08-22T14:14:23.707-07:002013-08-22T14:14:23.707-07:00Samuel Storms actually makes the most forceful arg...Samuel Storms actually makes the most forceful arguments for continualism. <br /><br />I don't agree with him, and it was in 1996 when I read it; but as I recall, his arguments were stronger than Grudem, Carson, Jack Deere and others.<br /><br />And Storms is Reformed in Election and God's Sovereignty and Salvation. <br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44916265312848119052013-08-22T11:10:15.504-07:002013-08-22T11:10:15.504-07:00Thanks Frank,
Another quibble -
Wayne Grudem was...Thanks Frank,<br />Another quibble - <br /><br />Wayne Grudem was the editor of the book, "Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? ( Four Views) <br /><br />There are Four Chapters with responses to each other.<br />Richard Gaffin offers the Cessationist position<br />Robert Saucy gives the "Open but Cautious"<br />Samuel Storms give the "Third Wave" View<br />And<br />Douglas Os gives the Pentecostal/Charismatic View<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46987549786884980802013-08-22T10:30:00.621-07:002013-08-22T10:30:00.621-07:00Ken: According to Amazon.com, it was 1996.
Howev...Ken: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Showing-Spirit-Theological-Exposition-Corinthians/dp/0801025214/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377192459&sr=8-1&keywords=showing+the+spirit" rel="nofollow">According to Amazon.com, it was 1996</a>.<br /><br />However: in the Kindle Edition, the copyright is plainly 1987 -- and that's where I should have looked.<br /><br />Duly noted, and I will correct it immediately.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18236420363042991692013-08-22T10:23:01.963-07:002013-08-22T10:23:01.963-07:00Frank,
You wrote:
So in 1996, Carson also publishe...Frank,<br />You wrote:<br />So in 1996, Carson also published a lengthy treatise on 1 Cor 12-14, entitled Showing the Spirit.<br /><br />Carson's book was published in 1987. <br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-48316560060695897162013-08-22T09:02:52.195-07:002013-08-22T09:02:52.195-07:00“They are accordingly, unlike love, not the appear...“They are accordingly, unlike love, not the appearance of the eternal in time, but the manifesting of the Spirit in a provisional way. Thus these very gifts hold us fast in the ‘not yet.’”<br /><br />I have no idea what Carson meant, but what those words brought to my mind is this.<br /><br />Charismatic worship ( as also with icons, santctimony, extreme religious formality) is surrendering to the ways which were abolished with Christ crucified, an implicit acknowledgment of His absence from us, living in the "not yet" and having to dance the problem steps and recite the proper incantation to "experience" Him.<br /><br />Instead of (while knowing we are in the "not yet") living and worshipping as if He has returned because His certain promise is, well, certainly honored.<br /><br />"experiencing" Him is "Spirit and in Truth" is more real and abiding than the pretend and worked up fervor.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04055198168850407942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78250405381621374232013-08-22T08:26:59.107-07:002013-08-22T08:26:59.107-07:00I'm away at a camp, but I'll raise my head...I'm away at a camp, but I'll raise my head to say this: DA Carson is to evangelical scholarship what Justice John Roberts is to the conservative judiciary. He has a phenomenal reputation which almost instantly tarnishes on close inspection.<br /><br />Hate me all you want in the comment thread. I won't be listening. I'm busy. Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-65700162245583687752013-08-22T04:44:13.058-07:002013-08-22T04:44:13.058-07:00If the distinguishing characteristic is love and t...If the distinguishing characteristic is love and that is how we judge the authenticity of the sign gifts, I think we'd better be good at defining what is loving...and what the ministry of the Spirit involves. It isn't loving for me to pressure myself mentally into speaking in tongues or having a word from God. And it definitely isn't loving for me to stop a sermon in order to exhibit such activity or to impose the thoughts of my mind upon others as a word from God. We have THE Word of God...that is enough, plain and simple. Everybody looking for a sign needs to go see what Jesus said to those demanding a sign.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13987985549747283669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58154201394490749792013-08-21T14:19:26.620-07:002013-08-21T14:19:26.620-07:00The question behind the question is this:
Has the...The question behind the question is this:<br /><br />Has the acceptable use of meat chubs ceased since the death of Bin Laden?APMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09981769512480371230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36443108398260819762013-08-21T14:06:50.862-07:002013-08-21T14:06:50.862-07:00Thank, Frank.
Just as an aside for the Commentari...Thank, Frank.<br /><br />Just as an aside for the Commentariat, I also think it's good for us to keep in view that this post is as much about the people who appeal to Carson's book as it is about the book itself and it's author.Aaron Snellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08551668915973379312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-13700340634463844902013-08-21T13:48:33.475-07:002013-08-21T13:48:33.475-07:00Aaron -- I don't think that's that logic s...Aaron -- I don't think that's that logic stated in this book for not writing off those manifestations. However: I do think that it is simply assumed that these things exist, even if only in very small and remote doses.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68447325226130501452013-08-21T13:34:40.360-07:002013-08-21T13:34:40.360-07:00Frank-
I hear what you're saying, and your co...Frank-<br /><br />I hear what you're saying, and your comments are helpful, but I'm still a bit perplexed on my original question. Maybe rephrasing it will help it come out clearer:<br /><br />Is Carson really saying that the way we know it's wrong for us to write off charismatic examples in church history as "spurious or the fruit of demonic activity or psychological aberration" (even if this is done on the basis of prior doctrinal conviction) is because they actually do appear in church history?<br /><br />I don't know if there was enough in the book for you to be able to answer for him, but that's my question, as well as my big concern if the answer is "yes."<br /><br />Oh, and hi, Ken Rawlins!!!Aaron Snellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08551668915973379312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22793387862675735312013-08-21T13:14:58.191-07:002013-08-21T13:14:58.191-07:00Aaron --
I copied and pasted from the Kindle text...Aaron --<br /><br />I copied and pasted from the Kindle text, so if it's missing, it's a function of the ASCII conversion from source to blogger.<br /><br />To your point about what Carson is endorsing (or not), I think his view is wrapped up in that anecdote and a very healthy gauze of irony. Someone has said it here, but I'll put it in my own words: what's the point of writing a book which doesn't really advance the discussion? I think, at the end of it, Carson is utterly ambivalent toward the whole idea of signs and wonders -- he doesn't really care, but, it seems to me, people (leading up to writing that book) keep asking him questions. And on the one hand, 1Cor 13 stands ups (in his view) the idea that these manifestations won't end until Christ returns; on the other, Paul is clearly concerned that no one somehow mistakenly relegate things like love, mercy and hope to second-class status when they are in fact the hallmark of Christ's presence in the church. So I think what Carson is trying to say is that *if* there are signs and wonders, the dipstick to test them is the hallmark of Love -- and let it go at that.<br /><br />The idea that the signs and wonders may be fraudulent is dealt with by Carson by saying, effectively, mark the love in order to know the meaning of the sign.<br /><br />All that said: Carson simply doesn't have it in him to say that God won't do any of these things -- or even that God mostly is not doing these things -- because, it seems to me, that he was actually writing to people who believe that these things are true. Whether Carson believes them, I think, is inconclusive -- you can't tell. But he's willing to say that if you personally believe them, at least find a place to believe them the way Paul did, which was to make them part of a full array of all the things the Holy Spirit does for us and not some kind of higher ground.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23414530906643670052013-08-21T12:52:31.553-07:002013-08-21T12:52:31.553-07:00I just found this book is available as a resource ...I just found this book is available as a resource in Logos. I'm picking it up and will have a read.jbborenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13917021408343032334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-75622823100363232772013-08-21T11:54:02.022-07:002013-08-21T11:54:02.022-07:00Frank-
Just keeping track of jots and tittles - t...Frank-<br /><br />Just keeping track of jots and tittles - the first χαρίσματα is missing the iota, the second is missing the rho.<br /><br />I'm having trouble meshing the first of his conclusions in his historical critique with the following three - as in, "We can't say all the sporadic examples of charismatic gifts in church history are illegitimate, but most of them have been unhelpful at best and destructive and heretical at worst."<br /><br />I haven't read the book (and I'd caution all of us from writing Carson off on this, as Frank certainly didn't do, without having read it), so correct me Frank if he builds up to his first conclusion differently than I'm assuming, but it seems like he's saying that the brute fact of the existence of charismatic-type gifts in church history MEANS that it is useless for us to dismiss them as illegitimate because of a previous doctrinal conviction. Is this what he's saying? If so, that's actually quite alarming, and wouldn't work for nearly any other question of orthopraxy.Aaron Snellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08551668915973379312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11624563320687290722013-08-21T10:56:49.425-07:002013-08-21T10:56:49.425-07:00Kerry --
To be fair to Carson and the Charismatic...Kerry --<br /><br />To be fair to Carson and the Charismatic who wants to ride Carson's coat-tails, I think Paul's advice to the Corinthians is, in fact, that tongues are not forbidden but are also not necessary. That's what lies under the direction to can the tongues unless there is an interpretation -- they are not necessary and are in fact a distraction (or worse: a way to make much of yourself at the expense of others).<br /><br />What I think Carson's overall analysis here lacks is a serious consideration of what Paul means by "not necessary," and whether that foundational matter has any real teeth as we think about this subject today. In his "pastoral reflections," he definitely walks through what one version of "not necessary" means, but after reading his application I felt like I was missing the last 3 pages where he draws "helpful" conclusions.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7271510314195260692013-08-21T10:06:48.988-07:002013-08-21T10:06:48.988-07:00Carson seems to like this story to settle the matt...Carson seems to like this story to settle the matter:<br /><br />"Some time ago, a pastor in England discussed some of these matters with a well-known charismatic clergyman. The charismatic, doubtless thinking of Paul’s words, “Do not forbid speaking in tongues,” asked my friend what he would do if someone began to speak in tongues at one of the meetings of the church he served.The pastor replied, “I’d allow the tongues-speaker to finish, and if there were an interpretation immediately forthcoming, and no proselytizing in the ensuing weeks, I’d have no objection.” Then he paused, and asked in return, “But what would you do if there were no public tongues-speaking in your church for six months or so?”<br />“Ah,” replied the charismatic, “I’d be devastated.”<br />“There is the difference between us,” the pastor replied; “for you think tongues-speaking is indispensable. I see it as dispensable, but not forbidden.” And that, surely, is Paul’s distinction.<br /><br />Isn't Paul's distinction in 1 Cor 14:28 that if interpretation isn't present beforehand it is forbidden?Kerry James Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06083436735702873300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87154907715625206772013-08-21T09:39:45.674-07:002013-08-21T09:39:45.674-07:00Double dittos on Ken Rawlins comment - i.e. da Gi...Double dittos on Ken Rawlins comment - i.e. da Gifts better line up with scripture.<br /><br />The opening synopsis nailed it for me - "Carson sees the dispute Paul is trying to settle as one between those who think the miraculous are a necessary part of every Christian's life and those who think, frankly, that those things are humbug."<br /><br />I'm not smart - that's why I read Pyromaniacs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com