Comments on: In Other Blogs This Week… http://www.wordandspirit.co.uk/blog/2005/01/25/in-other-blogs-this-week/ pursuing faithfulness to the Word of God and fullness of the Spirit of God Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:08:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Mark Heath http://www.wordandspirit.co.uk/blog/2005/01/25/in-other-blogs-this-week/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Mark Heath Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:27:50 +0000 http://markandsteph.plushost.co.uk/blog/?p=32#comment-5 I'm well aware of the three groups you describe - charismatic, noncharismatic and anticharismatic - as the church I grew up in and attended for 20 years managed a spell of all three (and is now somewhere between non and anti). I am currently in a church that is most definitely charismatic but I still consider myself noncharismatic friendly (after all, most of my favourite authors are noncharismatics and some are anti). The reason I mentioned the "relevance" as well as "availability" of the gifts was supposed to be slightly polemic against the noncharismatic "open but cautious" people who often turn out to be actually "closed and critical" and who secretly thank God that none of those charismatic weirdos have actually tried prophesying or glossolaliasing (sic) in their meetings. And yes, I chickened out on the whole "baptism in the Spirit" issue. I favour a distinct experience from conversion, but am also aware of some strong arguments against this, even from charismatic circles. I also doubt there are any charismatics who would not want to include an "ongoing" aspect to being filled with the Spirit. I’m well aware of the three groups you describe – charismatic, noncharismatic and anticharismatic – as the church I grew up in and attended for 20 years managed a spell of all three (and is now somewhere between non and anti). I am currently in a church that is most definitely charismatic but I still consider myself noncharismatic friendly (after all, most of my favourite authors are noncharismatics and some are anti).

The reason I mentioned the “relevance” as well as “availability” of the gifts was supposed to be slightly polemic against the noncharismatic “open but cautious” people who often turn out to be actually “closed and critical” and who secretly thank God that none of those charismatic weirdos have actually tried prophesying or glossolaliasing (sic) in their meetings.

And yes, I chickened out on the whole “baptism in the Spirit” issue. I favour a distinct experience from conversion, but am also aware of some strong arguments against this, even from charismatic circles. I also doubt there are any charismatics who would not want to include an “ongoing” aspect to being filled with the Spirit.

]]> By: Jeremy Pierce http://www.wordandspirit.co.uk/blog/2005/01/25/in-other-blogs-this-week/comment-page-1/#comment-4 Jeremy Pierce Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:57:25 +0000 http://markandsteph.plushost.co.uk/blog/?p=32#comment-4 Carson's NIGTC on John's letters will be first, so the Galatians, Hebrews, and Revelation commentaries might be a while. O'Brien's Hebrews is in process. Silva is working on whichever of Galatians or Philippians is a revision of his early 90s commentary on the same book, and that one should be out within a few months. The other one may not have been started. I don't rememeber which is which. Carson’s NIGTC on John’s letters will be first, so the Galatians, Hebrews, and Revelation commentaries might be a while. O’Brien’s Hebrews is in process. Silva is working on whichever of Galatians or Philippians is a revision of his early 90s commentary on the same book, and that one should be out within a few months. The other one may not have been started. I don’t rememeber which is which.

]]> By: Jeremy Pierce http://www.wordandspirit.co.uk/blog/2005/01/25/in-other-blogs-this-week/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Jeremy Pierce Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:46:55 +0000 http://markandsteph.plushost.co.uk/blog/?p=32#comment-3 The description you give and call 'charismatic' seems to me to be consistent with D.A. Carson's description of himself, and he considers himself a non-charismatic, though not anti-charismatic. Charismatics emphasize certain gifts like tongues, healings, miracles, and prophecy. Non-charismatics agree that they all continue but might consider them to be emphasized more only in certain contexts and won't consider any gift to be expected by any believer. Anti-charismatics are secessationists about certain gifts. Your description of your own views shows that you're not anti-charismatic, but it doesn't show which of the other two you are. As for being filled with the Holy Spirit, that depends on what you mean. The charismatic view (opposed by a minority of charismatics and Pentecostals, e.g. Wayne Grudem, Gordon Fee) is that there is a one-time filling of the Holy Spirit that every believer should seek to have, and that event brings gifts that Paul says not every believer will have. The non-charismatic and anti-charismatic insist that being filled with the Spirit is an ongoing process of repenting and submission to the will of God. It's strongly emphasized in the writings of Bill Bright, who was no charismatic. So again your description doesn't seem to me to draw the line of demarcation around charismatics as distinct from non-charismatics. It draws it around anti-charismatics and then denies that you're in that group. The description you give and call ‘charismatic’ seems to me to be consistent with D.A. Carson’s description of himself, and he considers himself a non-charismatic, though not anti-charismatic. Charismatics emphasize certain gifts like tongues, healings, miracles, and prophecy. Non-charismatics agree that they all continue but might consider them to be emphasized more only in certain contexts and won’t consider any gift to be expected by any believer. Anti-charismatics are secessationists about certain gifts. Your description of your own views shows that you’re not anti-charismatic, but it doesn’t show which of the other two you are.

As for being filled with the Holy Spirit, that depends on what you mean. The charismatic view (opposed by a minority of charismatics and Pentecostals, e.g. Wayne Grudem, Gordon Fee) is that there is a one-time filling of the Holy Spirit that every believer should seek to have, and that event brings gifts that Paul says not every believer will have. The non-charismatic and anti-charismatic insist that being filled with the Spirit is an ongoing process of repenting and submission to the will of God. It’s strongly emphasized in the writings of Bill Bright, who was no charismatic. So again your description doesn’t seem to me to draw the line of demarcation around charismatics as distinct from non-charismatics. It draws it around anti-charismatics and then denies that you’re in that group.

]]>