Two things:
- The "bump" from Challies' ~25 word mention is twice the bump from Justin's kind mention, to my surprise.
- If you want to see classic examples of Charismatics trotting out their traditional ways of downgrading the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the name of exalting it (to say nothing of some very poor reading), check some of the comments there.
Posts
46 comments:
I don't need Mr. Challies to tell me to visit your blog. I already knew you were cool.
"Charismatics trotting out their traditional ways of downplaying the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the name of uplifting it"
I read the comments. Some were exactly like I would have expected, others a bit surprising. But how do they downplay the Holy Spirit's ministry? I'm not sure I understand. Can you explain further for this concrete-head?
"Dan Phillips on Francis Chan"
Uh-oh. Do I really want to read the comments?
Tim Challies is basically a white, male, evangelical Oprah. :)
Racist.
Oh boy, though, now you mention it... I hope he likes my Proverbs book.
Or doesn't read it.
0c8=
Mark — ...how do they downplay the Holy Spirit's ministry? I'm not sure I understand. Can you explain further...?
Thanks for asking, Mark.
I (A) have written quite a bit on it, but (B) in no way expect you (or anyone) to have committed it to memory. Here's a classic, for instance.
But let's make this a Learning Experience. Regular readers, long-timers, whoever — what do you think I mean by it?
BTW Kim — you made my day. Thanks.
(c:
1. The Holy Spirit reveals to us the sufficiency of Scripture.
2. The Holy Spirit downplays the sufficiency of Scripture so He can reveal to you something that is less sufficient and allows for no authority (since Scripture is no longer sufficient) to question the inerrancy of what is revealed to you?
Wow. That's... that's really....
I'll just be over here. You kids don't need me!
Well, what I would have meant by it is this:
The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is one of the most downplayed and neglected, and yet incredulous and important, doctrines of the New Testament. When someone believes that they need the Holy Spirit to "come upon" them to "empower" them they reveal a large downgrading in the significance and ramifications of the indwelling that we all have as Christians. A simple reading of Ephesians 1 should be enough to remedy this, but sadly not. That chapter of Scripture should astound us: the Spirit who raised Christ from the dead empowers us too! But not for dramatic "bells and whistles" kind of stuff, but for sanctification and good works.
I guess what Dan is driving at is that, in a similar way, when we rely on "hearing the voice of the Spirit" we downgrade the significance of revelation in the Spirit that we already have through the Word of God.
Am I close?
This is from the Jennifer Knapp interview in CT:
"I’m not capable of getting into the theological argument as to whether or not we should or shouldn’t allow homosexuals within our church. There’s a spirit that overrides that for me, and what I’ve been gravitating to in Christ and why I became a Christian in the first place"
Somehow I bet that "spirit" is a still-small voice.
So you asked for a nickname for Canadians, and turned it into a pun. Good job!
Every believer has the indwelling Holy Spirit. Every believer brings spiritual gifts to the local church. Our comprehension of Scripture is illuminated by the Spirit. The Holy Spirit moves us in prayer.
To focus not on all that but rather on a few external "signs" is to say that the normal, ordinary work of the Holy Spirit isn't good enough.
I would imagine everyone of those negative commenters would describe themselves as "Christ followers."
"Christ Follower" is the new quasi-spiritual way of saying I live my Christianity by flying through life by the seat of my pants.
Wasn't reading faithfully in Nov. of 2005, so thanks for the link. What a wealth of info. Your blog is a consistent source of edification (and conviction).
JackW, my members probably wish I was as accurate and succinct as that. I'm workin' on it. What a wonderful explanation.
downgrading the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the name of exalting it.
Charismaticism is like introducing somebody as the most important person in your life while dressing said person as a circus clown. The awe inspiring sufficiency and preservation of Holy Scripture is reduced to a mere commentary on feelings that are easily dispelled with two teaspoons of Pepto Bismal.
"Regular readers, long-timers, whoever — what do you think I mean by it?"
That the charismatic concept of fallible prophecy is a downplayed, degraded version of the real prophetic work of the Spirit?
BTW, the comments in TC's blog are hilariously ironic. You have a bunch of Charismatics stating that God speaks to man without it becoming Scripture while using as a prooftext, instances where God spoke to man and it being recorded in Scripture (and hence, is Scripture).
Dan, Thanks for the link to the old post. I remember that one! Does that make me a long time reader?
Congrats!!! Your post on Chan was one of the most appalling things (DLE has) ever read on the Internet.
I suggested he take it up with you at your blog.
Mildly off topic: Dan, do you use Google Analytics or another service to monitor site usage? Curious. Thanks.
Trevor, I don't really "get" Google, so I use Sitemeter, which you should be able to see of in the sidebar.
DJP:
I find your work to be not appalling. In fact, it's most appealing. I appreciate the sound, firm, unwavering language and authoritative messages to be a real lamp that often brings up points that I've never considered.
This in distinct contrast to the usually authoritarian and unfounded miasma of gunk floating around the blogosphere.
A search for "insightful, honest and pertinent (not to mention Biblical)" on Google really ought to have a result with you up near the top.
I'm thankful for the work the Lord does through you.
Anybody else here remember James White calling blog comments "theological ignorance aggregators"?
Dan, I know that you're a fan of Kevin DeYoung's "Just Do Something." I'm wondering what you think of today's post over at his blog. I'm having trouble digesting it. Does it feel to you like a backpedal at all? (I hesitate even to ask that, because I don't want to give the wrong impression.)
I've already written an entry about it for Friday's Hither and Thither.
It's just like the book. He makes a tremendous point, then lets some air out of the tires. "SCRIPTURE says... but there's this thing in A. A. Hodge, and besides, he says it's been the church's experience for years."
Hunh.
How do Charismatics downplay the Holy Spirit's ministry?
Let me count the ways...
1. They generally will point to "cool stuff" happening and call that the Spirit, not noticing that the "cool stuff" generally points to the guy doing it, more than Christ.
2. More importantly, they seem to think that unless the Holy Spirit is doing the flashy stuff they like to see, then He's not doing anything.
Case in point, DLE can't seem to imagine the Holy Spirit providing wisdom without talking in your ear.
Apparently God is unable to get His will done unless He tells us what it is, and then gets us to do it for Him...
Did you like the "Well, how are we supposed to know which ones to evangelize if the Holy Spirit doesn't tell us??" part?
JackW FTW!!
What I love about your blog
(beyond your own great content)is that you regularly have a group of such an amazingly diverse, witty and insightful commenters - JackW today, David Paul Regier practically any day...etc.
and spectactularly not those things-type commenters too.
It's entertaining. And eclectic!
"SCRIPTURE says... but there's this thing in A. A. Hodge, and besides, he says it's been the church's experience for years."
Meaning, Kevin based his view on what he read from Archibald Alexander? Is that how you read the entry?
Note: He didn't quote A.A. Hodge--that's Charles Hodge's son. He quoted A.A. Hodge's namesake.
AA, AA Hodge, same thing. Legalist.
Psh, thanks, I'll correct HT in advance.
I don't know what he based it on, but it's all he gives in the post.
Dan,
Yup, that caught my eye.'
Sounds a bit like this...
A farmer went out to sow his seed, but of all his fields he only felt led to one square inch of dirt, conveniently near his house....
Or something like that.
What's even weirder, is he produces it with this trump-card flourish, as if he expects ALL readers to say, "Oh yeah! Good point!"
Did you read it that way as well?
Did you like the "Well, how are we supposed to know which ones to evangelize if the Holy Spirit doesn't tell us??" part?
Apparently, someone managed to "chalk [all the elect] on the back" after all. Poor Spurgeon -- too bad he didn't live to see it.
Well, I asked because you said, "besides, he says"--as though Kevin had appealed to A.A. as a source. What he said is that he found a quote from A.A. which captured Kevin's own thoughts.
You're right that he doesn't mention his basis for saying that God "has throughout history" used dreams--and that's a factual statement that needs a historical basis. So on that piece, fair enough.
The rest of his comment, though, looks like it's presenting an argument: "These two things aren't inconsistent". His "On the other side" paragraph (the list of "I believe" sentences, and the "I also believe") is intended to draw that out. He thinks he made the logic blatant.
It comes down to the understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture. If I've read you right in the past, you think that if God gives someone a dream telling them, "Send Missionary Joe a plane to pick him up, he's in trouble" (or even "Pray for Missionary Joe, he's in trouble right now"), then this undermines the sufficiency of Scripture. You think it means that Scripture didn't sufficiently equip us.
So when you read Kevin's list, you think it's blatant that the last sentence conflicts with the ones before it. (You probably think it particularly conflicts with "the apostolic deposit is the once-for-all, nonrepeatable, non-improvable foundation of the church.") He thinks that his careful wording showcases that they don't conflict.
If you're right that those kinds of dreams would mean that we weren't sufficiently equipped & Scripture isn't sufficient, then of course you're right. But frankly, I've never been able to spy out your rational basis for making that connection. Perhaps you think it's blatant, perhaps I've just missed where you reason it out. Or perhaps I've totally misunderstood you. You tell me.
At any rate, that's my take on where the disconnect is happening. That's why Kevin thought people should react, "Good point!" He can't see your rationale for making that connection, either.
Being that I get dragged to a charismatic church every week, I guess I have some first hand observations of the downgrading of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the name of exalting it.
See, the Holy Spirit has apparently left off convicting us of our sin and leading us to faith in Christ that we may be made righteous before God.
Nowadays, the Holy Spirit has been exalted into a divine shipping service that delivers the emotional and material cargo that we demand in Jesus' name. This is for the purpose of demonstrating the power of God, somehow.
It demonstrates something, lemme tell ya.
I'll see Kim and raise her:
I subscribe to BibChr & TeamPyro. I don't even read Challies on a regular basis.
But, Dan...you're just so...so...unloving. You and those Pyros. I feel so beat down.
Thanks Barbara.
Jug, "Oh yeah! Good point!" was to Daryl. We were talking about DLE at Challies.
Challies is a mild-mannered Canadian, like me (on a good day). I come here and to Team Pyro for American-style sting and bite, which I need more often than not.
Barbara, I don't read Challies much either. He's not on my Google reader, but Dan is. Both blogs.
I felt the leading to do it that way.
Squirrel
p.s. Absolutely scrumptious grand baby...congrats!
Dan,
Er... Right then... *ahem*
*wanders off whistling*
Tristan724 shared this quote by Jennifer Knapp.
"I’m not capable of getting into the theological argument as to whether or not we should or shouldn’t allow homosexuals within our church. There’s a spirit that overrides that for me, and what I’ve been gravitating to in Christ and why I became a Christian in the first place"
This is a great quote to share Tristan because it provides such a concise look into the way people like this think.
Obviously we could pick it apart bit by bit and that would be very revealing but what I’d like to focus on here is where she says, “There’s a spirit that overrides that for me”. What exactly is that she is listening to? Is “that spirit” a) actually the same spirit that Paul was listening to when he wrote scripture about homosexuals, that Ms. Knapp clearly doesn’t pay any attention to or b) simply her own thoughts that she immaturely credits to the spirit or c) something (someone) much more dangerous
I mean seriously, what’s going on here. For the most part I listen to a lot of what these people say and just smile and shake my head and chalk it up to someone just being an immature Christian, but, when I take the time to REALLY READ comments like the one quoted above, I have to stop and ask, “Who is this woman REALLY listening to?”
Thanks for this great quote Tristan
"Did you read it that way as well?"
To belatedly carry on that conversation...
Yeah, I read it that way.
I guess we'd better pay closer attention, otherwise all those people God wants to save, are done for. And heaven help us if the ones He's not after get evangelized and actually repent.
What if Jesus hasn't prepared a place for THEM?
(Oh yeah, they could have the houses of the ones we forgot to witness too...)
DLE's line of thinking can certainly lead to some entertaining possibilities, can't it?
Post a Comment