Saturday, November 03, 2007

adrian warnock to phil johnson

I love Adrian Warnock's reply to Phil Johnson's kind but off-target post on why he thinks Charismatic doctrine is to blame for the overabundance of craziness in the movement. I took a stab at it but Warnock came at it from the Scriptural angle. First he agrees with the caution.

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

Then he nicely reminds Johnson et. al. that their ultimate conclusion is unscriptural.

"Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies," (1 Thessalonians 5:19-20).

As before, I'm amazed that those that seem to have such a high view of Scripture seem to hold the opposite when it comes to these things.

Dan Phillips in the comments to Johnson's post think he played a trump card. He later posts on his own blog (point 3) similar thoughts.
But what fruits have ... distinctively Charismatic notions borne?
I'm amazed. His points one and two demonstrate lack of understanding of Scripture and his point three is based on his experience. What fruits have the Charismatic notion borne? What kind of question is that. Just as with Jesus - the same evidence is either believed or not. The writers of Scripture documented what they saw (as inspired by the Holy Spirit). They did not write to argue with unbelievers. Jesus did sit around and debate the reality of His miracles with those that chose to be angered by the presence of His Kingdom.

Additionally, the question could be asked of any aspect of Christianity or for that matter Christianity as a whole and to an unbeliever, it would be a foolish exercise.

The question itself speaks volumes of the mindset and heart of the inquirer. I impressed by the numbers of people admitting to being caught in that faulty belief system - and proud of it.

Again, as these folks are concerned of the damaged done by the Charismatic doctrine, I am more so of theirs which breeds the belief that God is impotent and not the same as the God we read of in Holy Scripture.

Technorati Tags: , ,


Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

Back from the hospital. I have found the blog banter, especially the discernment blog banter, of little Christian enhancement. So I had to choose to either use it as entertainment or leave it altogether.

Let us be honest, the writers of Pyro and the like provide little more than an atmosphere of pompous elitism for the already entrenched. Even the name gives you a clue as to waht you're in for.

Many charismatics have the correct non-dispensational eccesiastical theology but havd sometimes allowed emotion rather than Scripture to define them.

Jonathan Moorhead said...

"breeds the belief that God is impotent"
Come now, Rick - isn't that a non sequitur? In fact, I would bet that the Pyro boys would even affirm that God could do those things today if He chose to do them. The question is whether or not they are normative.

rick said...

jonathan - two thoughts ...

1) the argument was their's simply reverse. They claim that prophecy today could lead to people being deceived (contrary to the clear Biblical teaching which is that lack of training/testing is what leads to that). I'm just point our the fallacy of the argument by saying that teaching the opposite leads people to think God does nothing ... and there can be found many who think that so it's not absurd.

2) They claim and practice an un-biblical position that God does not and will not do these things today. Relative to the Scriptural record, impotent is fairly accurate. The give a credit to 'the Word' not to the working of the Kingdom.

Jonathan Moorhead said...

(1) Do we not see people in Scripture that are deceived by false prophecies?

(2) I could say the same thing about your position - that it is not biblical. That is not an argument, IMO.

rick said...

Jonathan - I'm not sure where this one is heading ... perhaps another phone call ...

On point one - their point was that the Charismatic doctrine breeds "craziness". My point was that anything can breed craziness. The only thing we can do about that is lean on God, test all things, etc.. My point was to say their point had no substance. I could make the same argument they did about any doctrine they hold to - that doesn't mean the doctrine is wrong.

The second point is more of the same. That is that their argument is simply their opinion. At least Warnock offers a some Scripture with 1 The 5.19-20.

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

Every theological slant has its liabilities. Arminianism can breed watering down messages while Calvinism can breed smug doctrinal idolatry.

Charismatic theology does sometimes morph into craziness, but so does dispensationalism. Unemotional Christianity is just as "crazy" as being over demonstartive. Do not let the non-charismatics define the term.

Jonathan Moorhead said...

Rick, fair enough. I'm not sure what you mean by "another phone call" though.

rick said...

jonathan - my brain is not firing on all cylinders. I had another Jonathan in mind.

Mostly I dislike this form of dialog ... I'm not a good communicator and this back-and-forth gets me confused.


Jonathan Moorhead said...

No worries. You have a great blog me thinks.

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

By "another phone call" Rick refers to the constant ringing in his head.