Tom said:
I have said this before, but I guess I need to say it again.
I am not a Charismatic in any sense of the word. In fact much like Robin, I came out of that movement.
My intention of posting my last post was not to defend people like D.Martyn Lloyd-Jones, but to state things that research shows me to be true of them.
I have two books by D.Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in which he makes himself quite clear that he believes in what is referred to in Charismatic circles, as “the second blessing”.
He goes on to make statements to show that he indeed does have Charismatic leanings. However, I think it is safe to say that he is no radical.
That of course does not prove the matter from a Scriptural position, but it does show what he believes the Bible teaches.
As for John Knox, I don't think I want to get into that discussion again. I have seen evidence presented from both sides and all I can say is, so far the evidence that John Knox was used in the gift of prophecy, is in my opinion stronger than the evidence used against this notion.
That does not necessarily mean they are right, but to me anyway it is how I interpret the evidence I have researched.
As for proving them from the Scriptures, why would I try to do that, since my understanding of the matter is more towards what you believe than Charismatics? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Tom
Tom,
![[Linked Image]](http://www.smileypad.com/v202/Cache/Feelings/Hum.gif)
There is a difference in BEING a mere Charismatic and BEING Reformed and having
some views that differ with the rest of orthodoxy concerning the gifts of the Spirit. YOUR OWN definition of Charismatic is: "When I say "Reformed Charismatic", I am referring to people who embrace the doctrines of grace,
but believe to one degree or another that gifts like tongues etc... are still around today," which NEITHER Knox or MLJ embraced. NEITHER spoke in tongues, which was the crux of YOUR definition. If by definition someone MUST speak in tongues to be called a Charismatic then even Wayne Grudem,
by your definition, is
not a Charismatic—for he teaches that it is
not necessary to speak in tongues to be filled with the Spirit of God.
PS: if you would read MLJ’s books,
Joy Unspeakable and
The Sovereign Spirit according to your own Charismatic John Piper, you would discover that MLJ (and may I add Johnny) condemned
much in the Charismatic movement. According to Piper:
1. He insisted that revival have a sound doctrinal basis. And from what he saw there was a minimization of doctrine almost everywhere that unity and renewal were being claimed (see note 53). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth and revival will be shallow and short-lived without deeper doctrinal roots than the charismatic tree seems to have.
2. Charismatics put too much stress on what they do and not enough emphasis on the freedom and sovereignty of the Spirit, to come and go on his own terms. "Spiritual gifts," he says, "are always controlled by the Holy Spirit. they are given, and one does not know when they are going to be given" (see note 54).
You can pray for the baptism of the Spirit, but that does not guarantee that it happens ... It is in his control. He is the Lord. He is a sovereign Lord and he does it in his own time and in his own way (see note 55).
3. Charismatics sometimes insist on tongues as a sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit which of course he rejects.
It seems to be that the teaching of the Scripture itself, plus the evidence of the history of the church, establishes the fact that the baptism with the Spirit is not always accompanied by particular gifts (see note 56).
4. But even more often most charismatics claim to be able to speak in tongues whenever they want to. This, he argues is clearly against what Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:18, "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all." If he and they could speak in tongues any time they chose, then there would be no point in thanking God that the blessing of tongues is more often given to him than to them (see note 57).
5. Too often, experiences are sought for their own sake rather than for the sake of empowerment for witness and for the glory of Christ (see note 58).
The aim is not to have experiences in themselves but to empower for outreach and making Christ known (see note 59) ...
We must test anything that claims to be a movement of the Spirit in terms of its evangelistic power (see note 60) ...
The supreme test of anything that claims to be the work of the Holy Spirit is John 16:14—"He shall glorify me" (see note 61).
6. Charismatics can easily fall into the mistake of assuming that if a person has powerful gifts that person is thus a good person and is fit to lead and teach. This is not true. Lloyd-Jones is aware that baptism with the Holy Spirit and the possession of gifts does not certify one's moral fitness to minister or speak for God. The spiritual condition at Corinth, in terms of sanctification, was low and yet there was much evidence of divine power.
Baptism with the Holy Spirit is primarily and essentially a baptism with power ... [But] there is no direct connection between the baptism with the Holy Spirit and sanctification (see note 62) ... It is something that can be isolated, whereas sanctification is a continuing and a continuous process (see note 63).
7. Charismatics characteristically tend to be more interested in subjective impressions and unusual giftings than in the exposition of Scripture. Be suspicious, he says, of any claim to a "fresh revelation of truth" (see note 64). (In view of what he said above concerning how the Holy Spirit speaks today in guidance, he cannot mean here that all direct communication from God is ruled out.)
8. Charismatics sometimes encourage people to give up control of their reason and to let themselves go. Lloyd-Jones disagrees. "We must never let ourselves go" (see note 65). A blank mind is not advocated in the Scriptures (see note 66). the glory of Christianity is what we can "at one and the same time ... be gripped and lifted up by the Spirit and still be in control" (see 1 Cor. 14:32) (see note 67). We must always be in a position to test all things, since Satan and hypnotism can imitate the most remarkable things (see note 68).
While Dr. Lloyd-Jones did not believe that sign gifts had necessarily ceased (
The Fight of Faith, Banner of Truth Trust, 1990),
he in no way believed them to be necessary. At the Welsh Minister’s Conference in June 1977 these were his words:
The trouble with the charismatic movement is that there is virtually no talk at all of the Spirit ‘coming down’. It is more something they do or receive: they talk now about ‘renewal’ not revival. The tendency of the modern movement is to lead people to seek experiences. True revivals humble men before God and emphasize the person of Christ. If all the talk is about experiences and gifts it does not conform to the classic instances of revival.
Prove All Things, p. 146, cited in Iain Murray’s The Fight of Faith, Banner of Truth Trust, p. 487
Iain Murray also quotes a conversation he had with MLJ:
I was against Pentecostalism and still am. My doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit is that it gives full assurance. I have never been satisfied with any speaking in tongues that I have heard. (…) It is very unfair to put the label Pentecostal on me. p. 695
Dr. Lloyd-Jones did
not believe in continuing revelation [the TOPIC of this series of posts] or the continuance of apostles and prophets in our time (see,
God’s Way of Reconciliation, Baker Books, pp. 355ff). His own words with regard to becoming personally revived are: “Seek not an experience, but seek Him, seek to know Him, seek to realize His presence, seek to love Him” (
God the Holy Spirit, Crossway Books, p. 253). Apparently MLJ’s definition of “Charismatic/Pentecostal” is different than yours for he was insulted when he was called one! If you would like to read about some of the errors of MLJ''s exegesis maybe you would enjoy the remainder of the article:
Tongues-Nonsense and Martin Lloyd-Jones.
If you are not willing (
or able) to support what you are assuming are historical statements of truth with the Scripture (or even proper historical accounts), then you might think twice about making them!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />