The great man would be a great help to many charismaniacs and quasi- or soft-charismatics.
He say:
“Chrysostom then rightly admonishes us to reject all who under the pretence of the Spirit lead us away from the simple doctrine of the gospel; for the Spirit was promised not to reveal new doctrine, but to impress the truth of the gospel on our minds…. When they boast so extravagantly of the Spirit they inevitably tend to sink and burry the Word of God to make room for their own falsehoods.” (p230)
So, no new revelation? No new or extra or different words from the Lord about what to do. Just live according to his already given sufficient word and God’ll be well pleased. That’s enough to be getting on with without having pictures from the Lord, thank you very much.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I doubt this will make any difference, but with all due respect to Calvin, it seems very odd to me that Paul (and the Holy Spirit) spent an awful lot of time and space on Spiritual gifts if they were to be made redundant within a very short time by the completion of the canon.
Apart from 1 Cor 12-14, we have extensive material in Romans 12, Ephesians 4 and in the Petrine material. In addition, Paul admonishes those who wish to forbid or despise spiritual gifts. On the day of Pentecost, Peter speaks in a way which suggests that these gifts are a sign of the fulfilment of prophecy and as such, are a sign of the new age of the Spirit. It seems odd that Christians want to proclaim the new covenant without recognising that this is, almost by definition, the age of the Spirit. Galatians (and indeed, much of the N.T.) only makes sense in this context.
This is NOT to affirm every tin-pot prophet or prophecy, but to affirm that Scripture gives us a picture of a spiritual reality within which we are meant to live - Scripture provides guidance and correction but was never meant to be a replacement for the reality of life in the Spirit - otherwise Paul's comments about the Spirit versus the letter come to mean very little - are we simply replacing the "letter" of Moses with the "letter" of the N.T.?
I don't have the book title but recent Pentecostal interpretation of Chrysostom suggests that he may not have been as anti-charismatic as cessationists would like and there is evidence that Augustine changed his views after experiencing healing.
pt2 apologies, your site limits characters!
What is interesting is that Calvinists are often unaware of charismatic events occurring in the early days of the Reformed church, e.g.; in Scotland, possibly because Calvinistic publishers edited their sources to hide these embarrassing facts. In the same way, if you were to look at Banner of Truth, you might not know that Martin Lloyd Jones, while certainly not a promoter of glossolalia, etc., was quite open in his preaching about a baptism of the Spirit subsequent to conversion. One has to go to Kingsway to find the relevant material. (This is not to get into debate about whether the good doctor was correct in his views or not, just to point out how his main publishers declined to publish this material because, I think, it did not agree with what they thought he should have said or that Calvinists should believe.)
I trained at Trinity, Bristol and at Oakhill and it was at the former that I discovered there are Calvinistic charismatics - e.g.; Dr Gerry Angel, sometime lecturer at Trinity. Sadly, it was at the latter that I found a hostile and even dismissive attitude that saw charismatics, even the mildest, as something much less than evangelical (and as I was told "if you are not an Evangelical ["Calvinist of a very particular kind" being implied] then you are not a Christian!" This caused a lot of pain at a most difficult time in my life and it took many years to overcome this.) At Oakhill my thesis (as part of the BA) was on the Kingdom of God and in the 34 years since I have only deepened my conviction that the Kingdom is the manifestation of the rule of God in the world by the Spirit - as Jesus makes clear when accused of healing by satanic power.
I have total respect for Scripture, but there was no specific Scripture that told Jesus when to heal or not, nor how to heal - why use mud and spittle on one occasion and not on others? Nor does Scripture give specific guidance in every circumstance nowadays - rather Romans 8 suggests that the children of God "are" guided by the Spirit of God (not "were" once guided) - and if God can speak 'to' an individual he must have the sovereign freedom to speak 'through' an individual to a person or to the whole church. Indeed, if He does not or cannot, then preaching would seem to be ruled out.
I am not defending charismatic abuse, but evangelicals don't suggest getting rid of the Bible or Eucharist or Baptism because they are distorted or abused or misused by some sects, churches or individuals, do they?
Post a Comment