neumatikos

Jollyblogger [David Wayne](http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2005/11/the_church_as_a.html) has an excellent article up on what it means to be the church. He’s arguing against Evangelical pollster George Barma’s understanding in the book Revolution, where Barma promotes the idea that “the church” consists primarily of the universal aggregate of individual Christians. Jollyblogger says no. “Church” is not some specialized term that means all the Christians. It refers specifically to localized, committed communities of Christians.

I’m with the Jolly B. on this one. Continue reading “The Church in Assembly”

Mark Loughridge at [3:17](http://three17.blogspot.com/2005/11/ex-christians-criticising-christianity.html) has an excellent article up on people who grew up in a Christian environment and now “know better.” At the end, he has a set of proper Christian responses, starting with “agree with your accuser quickly.”

His third point kind of amuses me:
> In evangelism we need to aim to break the pride of sinners before applying the grace of the gospel. Law first, then grace. Otherwise we will have intellectual converts who have never humbled themselves before God. And as Christians we need continually to humble ourselves, for pride is the surest route to failure.

“Law then Grace,” as a one-size-fits-all approach, is a pretty standard Lutheran concept. Is Mark a Lutheran? (On the othe hand, does it matter?) My gut reaction is that aiming to break somebody else’s pride is a pretty steep goal. I have the darndest time with my *own* pride. How am I to expect to manage somebody elses? I think I’d want to modify this one to something more like “try to help them recognise their pride.” Still a tall order, but one I’d feel more confident trying to approach.

It’s so nice to have somebody else saying the things that I would say, so I can get back to homework.

[Adrian’s](http://www.adrian.warnock.info/2005/11/lets-get-some-things-straight-in.htm) blogging for me!

I’m currently working on a Church history paper on spiritual gifts in the early church. Most cessationists argue that the spiritual gifts were intended primarily to confirm the biblical canon, or to affirm the apostles, who wrote the scriptures. Therefore, since the canon is closed, the gifts must have ceased. Some even go so far as to argue that you can discern from the biblical witness that the charismata were “fading out” even as the last books of the bible were being written. However, I’ve heard very few arguments (for or against the charismata) from a historical perspective. If the gifts had ceased at a very early period in the church’s growth, surely somebody would have said something about it.

I’ve found some interesting things, which hopefully I’ll put up here once I’m finished writing my paper. But in the meantime, I wanted to treat you to this doozy from Eusebius, the first church historian since Luke. Continue reading “Eusebius on Prophecy”

I said I was going to stay mostly out of this, but then people keep saying things that need responding to.

[Jollyblogger]( http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/), [Adrian Warnock]( http://www.adrian.warnock.info/), and [Pyromaniac]( http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/) are having a discussion about the differences (if any) between God’s providence and the charismata. David (aka Jollyblogger) and Phil (aka Pyromaniac) want to make a careful distinction between God’s directing of history (providence), which they believe He still does, and the “supernatural” gifts (charismata), which they believe He doesn’t. Since they believe in one and not the other, they feel it’s important to make a distinction between them. Adrian, since he believes God still uses both, sees no reason to make any hard distinction. What matter the method God uses to work his will, so long as he does it?

If I’m going to take a position on this one, I’m going to have to split the difference: I’m a charismatic, but I think you *should* make a distinction between providence and the gifts, since throughout scripture, it appears that God uses the supernatural in order to clearly communicate something about himself. For instance, in I Corinthians, Paul makes a distinction between tongues and prophecy on the basis of *who* the sign is for. On the other hand, providence, since it covers pretty much every ebb and flow of history isn’t particularly noticeable, unless it’s connected back somehow with the supernatural. We wouldn’t even be aware of providence particularly if it weren’t for scriptures like, “I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” [(Isaiah 46:10)]( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa%2046:10&version=31)

Either way, what’s got me is [Phil’s argument]( http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2005/11/whole-lotta-shakin.html). He seems to be saying that the important difference between providence and the miraculous is that he’s not a false prophet. Non-sequitur, no? Continue reading “Important News Update: Pyromaniac is not a False Prophet”