Meeting Adrian

Anybody intrested in the cessationist versus continuationist debate might find John Piper’s lecture on Lloyd Jones in his Men Of Whom The World Was Not Worth Of series to be immensly intresting. I feel that he does a great job of articulating the “continuationist” position, along with staking out a number of valid concerns and abuses that I - having grown up in the AG (Assemblies of God) - have both observed and shared concern with. Whereas there are abuses and problems - it does not overshadow the actuality of a spiritual reality which I strongly believe in; that “that which is perfect” is not the Cannon - and the Holy Spirit is still in operation. I have seen people “fake” speaking in tounges - but have witnessed things that are clearly divine opperations; songs sung in other languages, prophecies and healings and many other things. Adamant cessationists - in my opionion - systematically create a theology of three testaments: The Old Testament, The New Testament that applied to the Old, and the New Testament that applies to the Modern Day. I question -as many have - if Scofield really intended the Dispensational Method of understanding scriptual history (as he pioneered in his bible) - to become a Method of understanding not just history, but subsequently then doctrine and later the “relativity of doctrine” doctrine: that whether doctine applies to you or not is based on which parts of the New Testament actually apply to you under this or that “dispensation” - and if this or that idea/doctrine fall within it. I believe that Cessationism is guilty of the same doctrinal error that Calvinism is guilty of: it is a framework expressly created for the understanding of a given truth that in it’s application becomes more important then that which it was supposed to defend and define - It’s truth replaces the truth it was created to defend. Calvinism’s notion of the Soveriengty of God disapears in the shadow of a Cross that is not for all mankind - and the Work of the Holy Spirit is compartmentalized and parts of it disapear into the very history presented before us that was supposed to illuminate the fullness of the Same.

Dear MH,

I don’t want to hijack this thread into an extended conversation regarding calvinism; tim has done a great job creating lots of opportunities for that elsewhere.

It seems that you don’t quite understand systematic theology - that it is systematic in nature and by this very essence contains what can be understood as frameworks. I, for one, share the concern often voiced in this blog that the so called “emergent church” has a blatent disregard for formal structures of theology - which I hold to be of intrinisic and neccessary value to the church. I will counter this emphasis with the assertion that I made prior - that these same systems themselves can become more important then that which they seek/sought to emphasise/protect. The core of calvinism is God’s Soveriengty - any discussion of Calvinism is incomplete without it’s inclusion.

Secondly - you seem to characterize that God would have to be a failure if He just somehow “hoped” that we would respond to Him and his offer of salvation. I will point out that this is a dangerous notion, because what you are essentially provisioning as a potential failure is not man but the work of the Holy Ghost which is - in the theology of my church - integral and essential to both the knowledge and the capacity for response. The subsequent marginalization/non-involvement of the work of the Holy Ghost in a believer comming to Christ is not a consequence of the notion that there is natural response to be made under the influence of an imparted capacity for response but that it (the response) is preordained or preset or as you may deem fit to describe as “irrisistable.” Where you believe in a inescapable forgone descision, we believe in the power of an awesome God working in ways beyond our capacity to comprehend or calculate to bring each mortal to the place wherein they have that choice to reject or accept; one sufficiently advanced in its imparted cognition, within the creatures understanding, that it serves as evidence to eternally damn them in the final judgement. The God of Arminianism is a God of greater complexity and neccessary involvement -whereas that of Calvinism seems more to lend to a scripted model.

The writer A.W. Tozer is often referenced in this side of the Blogoshere tracks - and generally with a sense of reverence. I suggest you grab a copy of his book Knowledge of The Holy and Read what he says about the Soveriengty and awesomeness of God being affirmed by His allowance of choice by the created creature. Any construct of deity that would function according to our own potentially calculateable vulnerabilites could never allow that -but He can and does. I have termed this notion of God being subject to our own percievable vulnerablities as The Anthromorphological Molestation of the Divine - or the notion that things that would offend our sovereignty in like situations would offend His. This is a grave error - God is not a man.

I have written more extensively on this and several other issues and included a link to it previously. I know alot of people came in and read it but few responded to it. I am sure that you will enjoy that opportunity. It is “Calvinian Contestations” under my blog on http://www.myspace.com/winebibber