|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion What is Cessationism?THE COUNTERFEITING OF REVIVAL WHAT IS CESSATIONISM? JOHN PIPER ON THE CHRISTIAN LIFE Have you ever tried juggling with live grenades? No, neither have I, but in reviewing these three booklets I have begun to enter into the sensation. I find myself agreeing with 95% of what the authors write and warn against, but the remaining 5% where I have serious problems (mostly to do with manner, method and thoroughness) puts me in danger of losing my spiritual arms and legs according to the publishers. Howe and Glover both start their works in the same way, somewhat reminiscent of the British Lions tour to South Africa where they infamously 'got their retaliation in first', by suggesting that for what they write, like Old Testament prophets, they will be ignored or persecuted by 'false teachers'. We will do neither. Rather we must do for them, as they demand we do for others, that is test everything by Scripture. Howe's work seeks to outline the history of the charismatic movement and man-worked revivalism. He traces origins back to Wesleyan Methodism and Arminian theology before leading us on a tour that visits the Holiness movement, Azusa Street Mission, the Latter Rain movement and on to the Toronto Blessing via Gerald Coates, R T Kendall, Promise Keepers and the Alpha Course. For historical detail this is fascinating, not least when he explores the beginnings of the independent charismatic movement in Britain and the rise of the Roman Catholic charismatic movement internationally. But Howe concludes that much blame for today's confusion must lie with Lloyd-Jones and his 'failure to sound a clear evangelical warning during the period 1962-3'. The danger of making such claims in the space of a few pages, especially without adequate consideration of Lloyd-Jones's 'Puritan'-shaped understanding of the Spirit's work gives cause for concern. Though Howe claims to have 'offered a comprehensive theological and biblical matrix by which to test the teachings and practices of the current 'revival'', greater humility in understanding the limitations of his study would not have gone amiss. Glover's work on cessationism is similar in style. He repeats the conservative understanding that the sign gifts were removed with the passing of the apostles and the establishing of the church. And while many (the reviewer included) are in firm agreement with this point, he fails to define his terms adequately, and shows such a predilection for generalisations that many will find themselves unable to give full agreement to his whole thesis. Although sola Scriptura is repeated mantra-like, Glover does not en-gage with the Scriptures to deal with the complexities of 'apostles' and 'prophets', preferring to hide behind generalisations which are not biblically proven. And what suggests that I may have lost the pin to this particular grenade, is Glover's repeated demand that we are either with him or against him: 'mildly cessationist can cut no ice, for there cannot be any middle ground on this issue - we should be wholeheartedly one or the other.' Karlberg, on the other hand, is quite different from the previous writers. His work is scholarly and his tone is gracious. However to summarise his argument about John Piper's view of 'faith alone' in his book Future Grace is not easy. The contention would seem to be that Piper's emphasis upon a 'theology of grace from beginning to end' fails to do justice to the merit of Christ's substitutionary obedience and also blurs the legitimate distinctions between faith and works, thereby denying the reformed understanding of justification by faith alone. A few words cannot do justice to the intricacies of the points being made, except to say that in seeking to reach a biblical synthesis between works and faith, grace and law, the way Piper uses certain terms (particularly 'grace' and 'merit') is misunderstood and at times misrepresented by Karlberg. Furthermore, in order to critique a theologian's position it is essential that his other writings are allowed to interpret and clarify how particular expressions are used and developed. By narrowing his gaze to Future Grace Karlberg does not do justice to what Piper is actually saying. As far as this reviewer can determine, there are no grounds to suggest that Piper is anything other than a biblically-soaked, reformed theologian and pastor. Of far greater concern is the mud-slinging preamble on the back cover of this booklet, where questions are raised and suggestions made that are not dealt with by Karlberg, but instead are allowed to fester undefended. Such practice is most definitely unbiblical and unworthy. Whoops, there goes another grenade. Andrew Paterson© Evangelicals Now - July 2000 |
|
