Al Iswell is arguing with his girlfriend, Ima Right. At one point, Al says, “That might be true for you, but its not true for me.”
Ima frowns. “huh?”
“Well, you know. What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.”

Confused, Ima says, “But I think that if it’s true, its true for *everyone*.”

Al shakes his head, ready to enlighten her. “That’s true for you…”
“Then its true for everybody” Ima interrupts. “What do you mean?”

“Well, I think that “true statements are true for everybody”. You just said that was a true statement, for me. If its a true statement, then its TRUE that its true for everybody. And if you don’t think it’s true for everybody, then what you’re saying is that I’m wrong. Which means that it’s NOT true for me. You can’t have it both ways. Do you see what I mean?”

“Another way you could put it:
1. Say person A believes “true statements are true for you”
Person B believes “true statements are true for everyone.” (all TS are true for all People)

2. According to Person A, person B’s belief is a true statement. Since “all TS are true for all people”, and since it is a true statement and A is a person, it is true for A. So it is true for A that “TS are true for all people”.

3. But Person A doesn’t like this. They say, person B is wrong. But this means that Person B’s belief is NOT true for them, so Person A doesn’t really believe that ‘if its true for you its true for you’. It just doesn’t work.

wow
God is incredible
the way he is working at college:

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s Islamic Awareness week this week, and apparently next week as well. I passed a stall at uni, and picked up some brochures, found a nice sunny spot and read through a few of them.

Loved it. Definitely going to lead to some interesting conversations next week.

But, one of the brochures used proved God with this sort of argument:

All we perceive depends for its existence on something else, which in turn depends on still another thing, ad infinitum, or else derives its existence from something that exists uncaused. The first alternative is false because it implies what is referred to as an infinite regression, which is impossible.

Which renewed my interest again in this question:
“Could the state of the world as we know it have arisen by an infinite chain of causes?”

Discuss.

I just finished watching Phillip Jensen on Reformed Charismatics. The video is below, and the next four posts will be a discussion of the ideas and arguments raised.

Phillip Jensen and Kel Richards – Reformed charismatics? from Audio Advice on Vimeo.

Reformed Charismatics: Is it possible?

• Part I: Introduction
  
• Part II: Definitions and Emphasis
• Part III: Incompatibilities
• Part IV: We Believe the Bible
• Part V: We Want It All

This post is the third in a series on Reformed Charismatics: Is It Possible? Click here to go to the introduction.

Confused Redefinitions

Jensen’s basic thesis is that you can put any two words together, that’s easy, but the two words reformed charismatic can’t be combined without confusion – the two systems are incompatible – much like Catholic Evangelical.

The only way to combine them, says Jensen, is to redefine them. But is that correct? Well, what is meant by Charismatic? Let’s take Phillip’s own definition – it takes him more than 3 minutes to explain it (start at 10:50), during which time he covers 3 separate ‘waves’, so diverse as to cause the interviewer, Kel Richards, to search for ’something common to put under that label of Charismatic’:

“It’s to do with gifts of the Holy Spirit, signs and wonders… by and large the people who see that as the work that the Holy Spirit does”

Phillip agrees, its the emphasis on the gifts. And that’s their definition.

Already we learn two things. Firstly, we see that the definition of charismatic is broad and difficult to pin down. So, far from having two clearly defined and demarcated nouns, we actually have two, slightly blurry adjectives. Very little, if any, redefining is needed when definitions are so slippery in the first place.

But the second lesson is more important: even as given, the definition is not incompatible with reformed theology.

Emphasis on gifts

Well, it is if such an emphasis is exclusive, taking the Holy Spirit’s role to be exclusively signs and wonders, then of course it is impossible to be both reformed and charismatic. The Bible’s clear and indisputable teaching is that the Holy Spirit’s crucial work is inspiration, illumination, regeneration, and sanctification (to list a few).

Yet is the emphasis exclusive? Not at all! No charismatic denies any one of the above works. I think this is where Phillip goes wrong – he incorrectly assumes that Charismatics limit their understanding of the Spirit’s work to His extraordinary work. It may be that some charismatics err in practice and limit their focus to these, but that is a fault of fact rather than a fault of principle – one can be Charismatic without committing any such error.

Everything reformed theology teaches to be the work of the Spirit, a Charismatic can affirm without becoming one whit less Charismatic, for the emphasis is not exclusive of these teachings.

Moreover, the emphasis need not even steal the limelight from any important doctrine or practice. The emphasis does not challenge a single one of the five solas, nor any of the TULIP.

Christ is supreme, the cross is central, you must be born again by the Spirit, salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as revealed in the Scriptures alone, to the glory of God alone. Humans are totally depraved and elected unconditionally, the atonement is limited, grace is irresistible, the saints perservere. And God gives gifts to His church.

No emphasis on gifts need detract from any of these doctrines. Charismatics restore the gifts from the position of neglect they were given by our functionally-atheist tradtions and rationalisations of the Bible’s harder teachings. They are returned to where they should be, and no higher. That is the emphasis.

Reformed Charismatics: Is it possible?

• Part I: Introduction
• Part II: Definitions and Emphasis
• Part III: Incompatibilities
• Part IV: We Believe the Bible
• Part V: We Want It All

This post is the third in a series on Reformed Charismatics: Is It Possible? Click here to go to the introduction

Are there incompatibilities?

When you really listen hard, what does Phillip Jensen actually offer as incompatibilities?

As hard as I tried, I could only find two: Second Baptism, and the Authority of the Scriptures.

Baptism of the Spirit

On this issue, I’m with D. A. Carson, who says “Although I find no biblical support for a second-blessing theology. I do find support for a second-, third-, fourth-, fifth-blessing theology.” (Also on this team: Stott, Piper, Lloyd-Jones, D. L. Moody, Jonathan Edwards and so on)

Phillip Jensen asserts that there are 7 references to baptism of the Spirit in the Bible and that all refer to regeneration, so any second (third, fourth) blessing theology is fundamentally at odds with reformed views on regeneration.

Here are all 7. I’d argue, actually, that only one refers to regeneration.

Jesus says in Acts 1:5, “for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” What event happened just days after Jesus said this? Pentecost, where the already regenerate disciples (see John 15:3-4) who already had the Spirit (see John 20:21-22), were filled, baptised in the Spirit. And this is something subsequent, quite apart from the work the Holy Spirit has already done in regenerating them.

The first 6 references clearly all refer to that baptism. The 7th, 1 Corinthians 12:13, is not concerned with the Baptism of the Spirit at all, but rather with regeneration. I’ve argued this elsewhere.

So the charismatic position is that the Holy Spirit is essential in regeneration (and is thus compatible with reformed theology) and also that the baptism of the Spirit is subsequent to that regenerating act. There is no incompatibility.

Authority of the Scriptures

This is a tired argument: the work of the Spirit is preaching the gospel, teaching about Jesus through the inspired Word. Any charismatic idea of prophecy being God speaking today tends to push us away from the Scriptures.

Well, that is certainly a temptation… which is why the Bible clearly instructs us to test prophecies and only hold on to what is good (1 Thes 5:19-21). Of course the work of the Spirit is preaching the gospel, teaching about Jesus through the inspired Word. No charismatic gift can replace that; nor is any necessary. And that perfect, inspired Word is precisely the means by which all prophecy is tested.

Yet God still blesses the church with prophets in grace that goes beyond what is merely necessary, whose authority is less than the Bible. And we are told not to despise them (1 Thes 5:20).

What Phillip is identifying here is not a disagreement, but rather a danger. The danger is that we might forget that Scriptures are the highest authority. Yes, it is a danger, but it is not a disagreement.

(Just like non-Charismatics face the same danger from reason and experience.
The topic of prophecy is a good example. Even though Paul talks about prophetic powers of understanding all mysteries (1 Cor 13:2) and lists it with healings, miracles, tongues, and distinguishing Spirits (1 Cor 12:9-10),  Phillip has no experience in such extraordinary prophecies. Therefore, he interprets Scripture under the authority of his experience and so redefines prophecy to mean the preaching of Christ. So we’re all prophets, we all teach about Christ. He justifies this with Revelation 19:10, arguing it equates testimony about Jesus with prophecy. It doesn’t, it merely says that prophecy is to testify to Jesus, and so John is a fool to worship the angel.)

Reformed Charismatics: Is it possible?

• Part I: Introduction
  
• Part II: Definitions and Emphasis
• Part III: Incompatibilities
• Part IV: We Believe the Bible
• Part V: We Want It All

This post is the fourth in a series on Reformed Charismatics: Is It Possible? Click here to go to the introduction.

We Believe the Bible

We’re sick of ‘explaining away’ the Bible’s incredible promises to make a more ‘rational’ faith We’re sick of reading down Scripture to fit our experiences.

Oh yes, I meant that.

Want an example? Watch the video from 5:20. To illustrate the difference between reformed and charismatic theology, Kel Richards and Phillip Jensen discuss John 14:12:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.”

And they say, good grief, look at the things Jesus did! He walked on water and rose the dead! And then Phillip says, “If you’re going to say that you’re going to do greater works than they, well, frankly, no-one is… the cemetaries are full.” Even the apostles did not do greater works. So it must refer to some other kind of work than miracles: preaching the gospel.

Do you see? Jesus says something, and we say “That does not fit my experience, I must be reading it wrong” rather than “That does not fit my experience. Perhaps my experience is wrong.” There are many people today who claim to be healing the sick and raising the dead. Maybe this scripture refers to their experience.

Now, to be fair, they then go on to justify another interpretation from the Scriptures itself. They say, these greater works will be done because Jesus is going to the Father. What can we do now because Jesus went to the Father that he couldn’t do? Preach the gospel of His death and resurrection.

(Well, that’s slightly fallicious – he preached that gospel before he went to the Father. I wonder whether the reason Jesus needed to go to the Father was “for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you” (John 16:7) – the greater works are dependent on the Spirit, who would not come unless Jesus went away. Incidentally, the apostles did do some pretty amazing stuff. Is it significant that the very next verse after that one is “Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”?)

But regardless of which interpretation is correct, the process is flawed. We must not interpret Scripture by our experiences. If the Scriptures say we should desire to prophesy, we will desire to prophesy.

Reformed Charismatics: Is it possible?

• Part I: Introduction
  
• Part II: Definitions and Emphasis
• Part III: Incompatibilities
• Part IV: We Believe the Bible
• Part V: We Want It All

This post is the fifth and last in a series on Reformed Charismatics: Is It Possible? Click here to go to the introduction.

Conclusion
Jensen and Richards conclude their interview by discussing the difference between what God can do, and what God does do. They say He can speak however He wants, but He promises to speak through His word.

I agree whole heartedly with that.

But He also promises to speak through prophecy. “even on my male servants and female servants, in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.” (Acts 2:18)

Therefore, the difference is not between what God can do and what He promises to do. The difference is between what God promises to do usually and what God promises to do occasionally.

Reformed Charismatics are sick of these promises of God being neglected. We don’t want to detract from the five solas and the TULIP. We love them. We love and expect and pray for the usual work of the Holy Spirit in people’s lives as they come to Christ and grow in him. And we also love the extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit as He enables us to love one another and glorify Him.

We Want It All

What is causing young reformed Christians to flock to charismaticism? It is not that it differs theologically from so-called ‘reformed non-cessationists’. The difference is that the theology makes its way into practice. Both believe in the one all-powerful God who promises to give gifts to the church for it’s building up, but only one actively seeks and expects those gifts – so that they might better love one another and glorify Christ. We don’t want to have to choose between these, we want it all.

Reformed Charismatics: Is it possible?

• Part I: Introduction
  
• Part II: Definitions and Emphasis
• Part III: Incompatibilities
• Part IV: We Believe the Bible
• Part V: We Want It All

This book is the ‘conversion story’ of Flew, a man who spent his life leading the philosophical charge against God.

Flew begins with the story of ‘the creation of an atheist’, the success of his papers and the influence of his fresh and stinging critique of theism and theology. Along the way he admits to being wrong in a number of areas – something that struck me as a very humble thing to do. The emerging picture is one of a man who is not prepared to adjust his views when they are shown to be wrong – he identifies with Socrates’ mantra of following the evidence where-ever it leads. (There’s a lesson there for all of us.) And then Flew spends the rest of the book telling of how this mantra took him to the divine.
His ‘discovery’ hinges on four key areas of science: the laws of nature, the fine-tuning of the universe (It’s almost like it knew we were coming), the existence of life, and the existence of the universe. Notably, though, Flew doesn’t rely on any God-of-the-gaps argument (‘Science doesn’t know, so it must be God’.) Instead, he finds these four areas conceptually incompatible with materialism.
For example, he doesn’t say “Science doesn’t know what caused the Big Bang, therefore God did it.” Instead, he shows that conceptually something cannot come from nothing, so you are forced to choose between God and an alternative cause. Whatever the alternative is, it cannot be dependent on a prior cause because an infinite series of dependent causes cannot produce an effect. So you end up believing in an un-caused causer. The question then becomes, why does this thing exist – why is there something rather than nothing? Flew thinks it more likely that a God would exist uncaused than that a universe would exist uncaused.

This is something I particularly enjoyed about the book – the subjects (life, fine-tuning etc) were familiar but the treatment was new. Unfortunately this also meant that the book was deeply philosophical (I’d call it ‘philosophy informed by science’), and I had a hard time keeping up. It’s a worthwhile read even if you (like me) miss the main point a lot of the time – interesting arguments, facts and parables are scattered throughout – but sadly only someone well-read in philosophy would really get the full force of the book, I think.
But if you’re up for a challenge, I recommend it.
One unexpected highlight is Appendix B – a dialogue (to use the term loosely) between Flew and leading New-Testament scholar Bishop N. T. Wright. In it, Wright makes the case for “The Self Revelation of God in Human History”, focussing on Jesus’ deity and resurrection. The case presented, a summary of his very long book “The Resurrection of the Son of God”, was completely new to me, and very powerful. Flew agrees, saying “Bishop Wright presents by far the best case for accepting Christian belief that I have ever seen.” Now I’m keen to read that book!

… from an article on Moral Psychology:

“Giving up on moral realism does not mean giving up on moral values. It is one thing to care about the plight of the poor, and another to think that one’s caring is objectively correct.”

Translation: Care for the poor if you want. It makes no difference either way, though.

“A world full of people who regard their moral convictions as reflections of personal values rather than reflections of ‘the objective moral truth’ might be a happier and more peaceful place than the world we currently inhabit.”

The last 100 years has certainly borne that out, hasn’t it. Give thanks for post-modern permissiveness and the peace tyranny it has brought!

It’s clearly murder. This secular moral relativist has changed his views, and gives some very powerful arguments.

You may not consider a fetus a “human life” in early pregnancy, though it has its own DNA and medical science continues to find ways to keep the fetus viable outside the womb earlier and earlier.

But it’s difficult to understand how those who harp about the importance of “science” in public policy can draw an arbitrary timeline in the pregnancy, defining when human life is worth saving and when it can be terminated.

And

Recently, Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare ruled that women are permitted to abort their children based on the sex of the fetus. In the United States, a woman can have an abortion for nearly any reason she chooses. In fact, a health exemption for the mother allows abortions to be performed virtually on demand.

If you oppose selective abortions, but not abortion overall, I wonder why? How is terminating the fetus because it’s the wrong sex any worse than terminating the fetus for convenience’s sake?