Hi savannah, savannah wrote : /// There obviously is a clear distinction between some of these men. The article I posted, "What Cessationism Is Not" in another thread I thought did very well clarifying these differences and misunderstandings. I would very much so agree with said article. ///I found the artical you posted and reread it, I personally did not find that it addressed the difference of understandings about "Illumination" between that of those, such as Martyn Lloyed Jones, Paul Washer, John Piper etc. vs those such as BB Warfield, John MacArthur, James White etc. As far as I am aware : Martyn Lloyed Jones, Paul Washer, John Piper etc. did not and do not consider themselves Cessationist, and the reason seems to be because of there understanding of what it is to be Baptized or filled with the Spirit vs that of the BB Warfield understanding.If I remember correct Paul Washer seemed to align himself with Len Ravenhill on such experience. David Ravenhill seems to feel personally attacked by the "strange fire conference"
Hi ColinColin writes : ///Am I a part of the Charismatic Movement or the true church?...///From what I have read of your post, I consider you a member of the true church. Brother, I want you to know that I am very repentant of the hostility of some of my post towards you in the past.
PROUD PAPA hi ,,paul washer is a staungth Calvinist ,he does not believe in or practice sign gifts , un like my self ,,his love and respect for john MacArthur ,is very high he wont even call him my first name ,,but sir or mr ,,,,,paul washer is different to piper and loyed jones in that respect regarding gifts of the spirit put wahser does believe in a baptism with the holy spirit as a seconed event ,but not entire sanctification blessings
Hi brothagary brothagary wrote : ///PROUD PAPA hi ,,paul washer is a staungth Calvinist///I am aware that he is calvinist as is also Piper and Jones. That is what I am speaking of, the division of understanding even within the calvinist camp. I personally would not add the word "staunch" since he affirms his acceptance for men like Ravenhill."Calvinism Is Not The Issue!" - Paul Washerhttps://www.sermonindex.net/modules/myvideo/photo.php?lid=210brothagary wrote : ///,he does not believe in or practice sign gifts /// That could be, but this is what I am speaking about :Paul Washer says : (1:26)...but the thing about it is,, someone has to go out their in the wilderness and throw stones at the gates of heaven with boldness untill God comes down upoun his life.,,and how you really want to call that does not make me much difference as long as you keep it confined in the parameters of Scripture,..., I was amazed that I was at the founders conference several years ago,, Ian Murray spoke many many things on this, that I thought would never come out of his mouth,, Martin Lloyed Jones freed him on the Holy Spirit. read him on the Holy Spirit, very ,very benificial. Washer says : (4:50) Maybe I am telling you to much in my humbling myself before you, so that you can see that I am not who you think that I am, the amazing thing is that the Lord in the last days has granted me a new to go out and believe him, I do not care for words, I do not care for only for correct theology,, but it is Power, Power of the Holy Spirit coming down and converting men,, Healing People,, not like this silly television stuff.. But being in a conference with the Indians up in Puru,, reliezing that one of the Godly preachers there wife is in a Pig sty dieing of Cancer,, making it across the mountains avoiding an avalanche,, running there Laying your hands apoun her,, praying for her,, and she lives,, after 12 years and she is still serving the Lord. These are real manifestations of the power of God,..,((You think this has stopped ? it is just that we do not believe and we do not seek)) ,, and we are affraid,, because we think,.., and the Lord has free'd me from this,, we go into places and if I don't dot every I and cross every T Theologicaly they are not going to want me back, I don't care. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-7Z2cQbb3k
Brothers and sisters, As a cessationist (who believes firmly in the need for Christians to be filled and more filled with the Holy Spirit and who believes that God still works miracles and healings) I want to affirm everything Paul Washer said in that youtube clip. I agree entirely. Be sure that you understand cessationism.I fear many are rushing to judgment against MacArthur without actually hearing him out. Check out, for example, the following link:http://www.gty.org/Blog/B131028
Hi Stephen2,Stephen2 wrote ///As a cessationist (who believes firmly in the need for Christians to be filled and more filled with the Holy Spirit and who believes that God still works miracles and healings) I want to affirm everything Paul Washer said in that youtube clip. I agree entirely. Be sure that you understand cessationism.///I think that is the point that savannah, was trying to make, that one can consider himself a cessationist and still believe in being filled with the Holy Spirit and still believe that God still works miracles and healings.The point that I am trying to make is regardless if one wants to call himself cessationist or continuationist, There is a clear difference even in the calvinist camp between what those whom align themselves with Martyn Lloyed Jones vs BB Warfield on this subject.As Washer said : "Ian Murray spoke many many things on this, that I thought would never come out of his mouth," "Martin Lloyed Jones freed him on the Holy Spirit. read him on the Holy Spirit, very ,very benificial"Washer is acknowledging the clear distinction, and that Ian Murray was not freed on the Holy Spirit untill Martin Lloyed Jones freed him on the Holy Spirit.
Hi, proudpapaI love and respect Paul Washer, but I'm not sure that he is right in his assessment of Iain Murray. Iain Murray has himself admitted repeatedly that he believes Martyn Lloyd-Jones was quite wrong aboout the Holy Spirit. See, for example, his biographies on Lloyd-Jones. Iain Murray is solidly reformed in his views and would hold to the position held also by the Puritans and the authors of the Westminster Confession.
Hi Stephen2, Stephen2 wrote : ///I love and respect Paul Washer, but I'm not sure that he is right in his assessment of Iain Murray. Iain Murray has himself admitted repeatedly that he believes Martyn Lloyd-Jones was quite wrong aboout the Holy Spirit. See, for example, his biographies on Lloyd-Jones. Iain Murray is solidly reformed in his views and would hold to the position held also by the Puritans and the authors of the Westminster Confession.///I am not sure of the date of events of everything but remember Washer said : "Ian Murray spoke many many things on this, that I thought would never come out of his mouth,"What Washer heard from Iain, seemed to have even suprised Washer, it was not what Washer had previously thought Iain had believed, Washer said "Martin Lloyed Jones freed him on the Holy Spirit. read him on the Holy Spirit, very ,very benificial" .But regardless, that is not my point, My Point is that there is an understood difference in the understandings and experiences even in the Calvinist camp between those whom align themselves with Martyn Lloyd-Jones vs BB Warfield on being filled.
"Lloyd-Jones has done more than any other man in this century, I think, to restore the historic meaning of the word revival. A revival is a miracle ... something that can only be explained as the direct ... intervention of God ... Men can produce evangelistic campaigns, but they cannot and never have produced a revival (see note 12). But for Lloyd-Jones it was a great tragedy that the whole deeper understanding of revival, as a sovereign outpouring of the Holy Spirit, had been lost by the time he took up the subject in 1959 at the 100th anniversary of the Welsh Revival. "During the last seventy, to eighty years," he said, "this whole notion of a visitation, a baptism of God's Spirit upon the Church, has gone" (see note 13). He gave several reasons why (see note 14). But he says that the most important theological reason for the prevailing indifference to revival was the view that the Holy Spirit was given once for all on the Day of Pentecost, so that He cannot be poured out again, and prayer for revival is therefore wrong and needless (seen note 15). This is where Lloyd-Jones begins to part ways with some standard evangelical interpretations of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He emphatically rejected the common view that equates the spiritual baptism of Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12:13. He describes the view he rejects like this: Yes, [Acts 2] was the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But we all get that now, and it is unconscious, we are not aware of it, it happens to us the moment we believe and we are regenerated. It is just that act of God which incorporates us into the Body of Christ. That is the baptism of the Spirit. So it is no use your praying for for some other baptism of the Spirit, or asking God to pour out His Spirit upon the church ... It is not surprising that, as that kind of preaching has gained currency, people have stopped praying for revival" (see note 16). When a reformed theologian like Klaas Runia opposed Pentecostalism, Lloyd-Jones agreed that the insistence on tongues and the "claiming" of gifts was wrong, but he was just as disturbed by Runia's concept of the baptism of the Spirit. He wrote to him and said, I still feel that you really do not allow for revival. You show this where you say, "Read all the passages that speak of the Holy Spirit and the Church. It is always: Become what you are, ALL of you." If it is simply a question of "Become what you are" and nothing more, then how can one pray for revival, and indeed how does one account for the revivals in the history of the church (see note 17)? Revival is when the Spirit comes down, is poured out. Lloyd-Jones is crystal clear on how he thinks baptism with the Holy Spirit relates to regeneration. Here is the first principle ... I am asserting that you can be a believer, that you can have the Holy Spirit dwelling in you, and still not be baptized with the Holy Spirit ... The baptism of the Holy Spirit is something that is done by the Lord Jesus Christ not by the Holy Spirit ... Our being baptized into the body of Christ is the work of the Spirit [that's the point of 1 Cor. 12:13], as regeneration is his work, but this is something entirely different; this is Christ's baptizing us with the Holy Spirit. And I am suggesting that this is something which is therefore obviously distinct from and separate fro becoming a Christian, being regenerate, having the Holy Spirit dwelling within you (see note 18). He laments that by identifying the baptism of the Holy Spirit with regeneration the whole thing is made non-experimental and unconscious. This is not the way it was experienced in the books of Acts (see note 19). So he spoke with strong words about such a view: Those people who say that [baptism with the Holy Spirit] happens to everybody at regeneration seem to me not only to be denying the New Testament but to be definitely quenching the Spirit" (see note 20)." http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/a-passion-for-christ-exalting-powercompare with What MacArthur teaches on the subject : http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermon-Series/15
Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a staunch Calvinist until one point in his life, and I cannot remember when it was exactly, he changed his views on when the baptism of the Spirit occurs and about tongues. After this, he was considered by his fellow Calvinists as having 'gone off it' though they continued to respect and love him. I attended a church at one time where there were a few people who had known him when he was alive. They were puzzled as to what had happened to him and I guess they just thought that he had met with charismatics and had been swayed by them and 'infected' by their demons. I did read somewhere that he had been fellowshipping with some charismatics but did not go all the way with them. My own impressions were that he was familiar with holiness teachings and the writings on revival, being Welsh but was waylaid by charismatic teachings, which are similar on some points but which also miss the mark by a mile, the mile gap which caused so much dispute between the two camps in the 19th - early 20th century. As far as I know he continued to keep a foot in both camps.